[caladanbrood]

D Man;127467 said:

There are many things that we havent scientifically explained. Theres a big leap from that to can't.

Of course. Produces a slightly cyclical argument though. No one has proved that a god created life, and no one has proved that the creation of life was natural phenomenon.

Therefore there is no possible way of knowing which is true until one or the other is proved anyway.

Awkward, in a debate, isn't it

[Thelomen Toblerone]

As far as i can see, the argument that "something must have caused the big bang, so it must have been God" makes very little sense because if you assume that God just was, existing constantly for infinity, then why could the big bang just not have happened, and sparked itself, from a pre-existing system which just existed "because." I'm not saying that God doesn't exist and didn't have a hand int he big bang or creation in general, although my feeling on the matter are very vague I do believe in God even though I don't believe in religion, it's just that I've heard that argument used by religious people many times.

"Well what made the big bang happen? You don't know, so it must have been God so he must exist" - absolutely nonsensical, no proof is evident in that statement at all.

[Shiara]

The Rope;126541 said:

its my first language - i just never mastered it... funny considering how much i read write and talk...
i reject the idea that evolution replaces a creator. Call it cynicism - if mankind is the highest form of life in the universe... the universe is damned. We need to evolve damn fast before the evolution going on around us destroys us - cause mankind is just getting worse... physically speaking. But thats not scientific, its just viewpoint... for whatever its worth...
saying i have scientifically considered... a statement of ignorance and a fancy way of saying i thought about it alot and proved my own doubts wrong.

Strangely enough, you have a point there The Rope - I don't think humans are evolving along a natural course anymore. We have doctors and hospitals to keep people with genetic defects alive long enough to pass on their genes - the culling of which would eventually remove these defective genes from the population. We are no longer breeding for survival. Our choices of partner are not influenced so much now by speed, physical strength, agility, cunning (as any who were not fit to survive, wouldn't have, therefore limiting our choice), but by social standing, appearance, money, emotions etc.

Whoops, a little off topic there - back to the original point (which I went back and read ) I agree that scientists need to make their research more accessable and transparent, to deliver it to the public in such a way that it clears up any doubts and fills any percieved 'holes' that sceptics can poke at (I love it - 'sceptics' of science :lachen70: ).

Sorry I can't contribute more to this - I have difficulty articulating what I want to say, and I intensely hate making statements that can't be backed up - sadly I have a defective memory, and so can rarely remember where I got my information

But I do remember natural selection! And contrary to the name, optimal traits are not 'selected' by the creature on its evolutionary path - as I said above, those who are not fit to survive, don't. I remember an example from my high school biology class involving the evolution of the giraffe. Say one year (a long time ago) the ancestors of today's zebra (example) had a particularly large number of foals, and the larger than usual population of zebras ate larger than usual quantities of leaves from the lower branches of trees, leaving less for the ancestors of today's giraffe (who were of a similar height to the zebra at the time and shared the same food). Starvation among the giraffe population picked off those not tall enough to reach what leaves were left on the higher branches. Thus, only those tall enough to reach the higher leaves would have survived to procreate and pass on their 'tall genes'. Now, it wouldn't be a sudden change from horse-sized giraffes to the giraffes of today - over centuries the taller giraffes would breed and the shorter giraffes would not live to pass on their genes. Gradually the giraffe has come to fill an evolutionary niche that was previously empty - a tree-top grazer - one that is almost exclusive in their immediate environment, so there is little competition for their food. I'd like to emphasise that the giraffe did not decide to 'grow' taller to reach its food - that is simply ridiculous

[Hume]

Woah there Matey..

I think I see another big Chunk of words that I will ignore.

Little hint dude, Put some spaces between a fair number of those sentence breaks.

A little formatting can go a long way..

[Cause]

dough boy;127678 said:

I have this to say after reading most of the rhetoric for both sides of the evolution debate- whether you want to admit it or not, evolutionists are the ones who go on blind faith more than those who have come to the conclusion that evolution is not supported by fact.

Evolution has supporting evidence
Creationism has supporting faith
By the laws that govern the scientific method evolution wins. But Ill ask you as you seem to have a misconception of the world of science
Have you ever seen an electron? I have not
Have you ever seen an atom? I have not
Have you ever seen that force of gravity? I have not
Have you ever seen a photon, seen it act as particle and wave? I have not
Have you ever questioned these things exist? I have not.
We know of these things not by seeing them, not by touching them but by the secondry effects of their existance and experimental observations. No one has seen gravity. But evryone knows objects of mass atract. I drop something, it will fall. Shine light on a mirror and will reflect off. I can predict th resulting the reaction between AgNO3 and Cl based on scientific theories on atoms alectrons and protons. Its never failed. It seems good evidence that the theories are true.

Quote

It is merely conjecture, and there is so much disunity among evolutionists themselves that I am led to believe that their egos are the most important thing to them. I don't mean this to insult the ppl on the forum, but they believe in this theory b/c they want to. At one time in my life I wanted to believe in evolution, but after truly reviewing all of the evidence, as a truly objective person, could not.

They believe cause evidence supports it. If it did not we would drop it. Science has a track record in clearing house of false theories and beliefs no religeon can compare too. Its based on questioning established fact. Prove soemthing wrong to imporve understanding is considered a good thing.

Quote

Science has given us much as a society, but that does not mean it should be held up on a pedestal and bowed down to. Sometimes science becomes an exercise to promote oneself as superior to others, a brain exercise that ends up with circular reasoning. Empty philosophy leads nowhere.

Thats excactly what it means. A king is given more respect than a peasant. The rest is your opinion on scienctists. It is true in some cases it always is. Theirs millions of scientists your gonna find some pricks in it. Sorta like you find faithfull who kill abortion doctors in the name of life.

Quote

It is clear to me that those in the forum who consider themselves educated miss one vital point about themselves- there is more than one type of education that is necessary for a decent society, and to find the truth of our existence. While they want to lob insults toward those who have not attended these schools of so called higher learning, they need to be honest with themselves. How much have these ones studied the Creation account, as written in the Bible, in its own merit before dismissing it? Do they base their opinions on true evidence, or what someone else has told them it says? I will say that Christendom as a whole has given the creation account a very bad name. Holding up the Catholic church as a standard for what true christianity is, and what the Bible actually states is a very bad mistake. The Catholic church has never taught the truths in the Bible, but that is another topic, so that's all I will say on that. ( I remember a quote by someone that some monk said, many pages ago, but I have run across that sort of thing before, so that is why I address that here.)

More than one type of education? When it comes to science, education in science is all that matters.

How much of the bible account of creation have I studied? Im jewish and went to a jewish school and have twelve years of jewish studies under my belt. I can tell you that jews think believing in jesus as divine is heresy. Christians think jews are going to hell. Islam thinks were both wrong. Now these three religeons all have the same creation myth but I mention it to point out how even in the worship of the same god their are disagreements. You say yourself cathlics are wrong. I wonder what they say of your christian denomination? The greeks said the sky gave birth to the earth which than mated toghether to create titans which gave birth to gods which made man. I like this story better, its more exciting. What do the hindus say, the budhists, the american indus. I can tell you that some african tribes worship the moon as a divine creator. The moon? Evryone knows is just a worthless rock right? Lets not even mention the beliefs of scientologists.

So as I commented earlier. First prove your religeon is th correct one before we can even discuss the merits or lack of of your creation stories.

Quote

To the person who said that scientists all believe in evolution, tsk, tsk, tsk. You obviously have lived in a cocoon. If you would like, if you truly want the truth, I can list the names and quotes of many respected scientists who have come to the conclusion that evolution is a fallacy. From Astronomers, to Physicists, to Biologists, the evidence is overwhelming.

Science is not democracy. It does not take a vote of opinions. Evedince proves or disproves theories. When darwins idea first came out a very religous conservative science based rejected it. But it never made it wrong.

Quote

Please tell me where the Bible contradicts Science. Science has not proved the Bible, or the creation account wrong.
And please, tell me how the belief in evolution and the idoliziation of Science has benefitted the social problems of mankind? Has it taught ppl to be kind, respectful, loving, not greedy? (If anything, it has done a poor job of treating ppl with respect) Has it solved world hunger? Has it ended war? How bleak our future is if evolution were true! What about the fact that man is the only creature who has a spiritual need- shall we just dismiss or ignore that?

QUESTION? Answer from religion/Answer from science
Has it taught ppl to be kind, respectful, loving, not greedy? NO/No =Tie
Has it solved world hunger? No/Without science the world would be even hungrier =Science wins
Has it ended war? No but it started a few/ No but its caused none ither. =Science wins

Quote

The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of finches on the different island, which, he deduced, must all have descended from just one ancestral species. Partly b/c of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of higher creatures from the lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds, reptiles, and so forth.
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands is not out of harmony with the Creation account, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring form a common ancestral species. But...they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles, for instance. (Please, let's not spiral into a debate of micro/macro evolution)

Finch is a term it means nothing. A finch A that cant mate with Finch B, That has a diffrent type of beak for diffrent food, diffrent enzymes to digest that food, or can fly or maybe cant is as diffrent from Finch A as an eagle is.

Also it sems odd that god would have Adams sons have sex with his daughters when incestous is a crime punishable by death. Besides no mention is even made of children beyond cain and able who are both men.

Quote

Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that ALL living things have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory's problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. Some scientists, despite seeing evidence that Creation is support by evidence, are afraid to assert this to their colleagues for fear of career suicide.

Creation is supported by evidence? Where? Can you send me the science papers

Quote

I am struck by a recurrent theme that the proponents of evolutionists have: The fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable. Comparing God to Santa Claus or fairies, or whatever, shows that certain ones have not given a fair, equal study to the Creation account, as they have to their cherished ideals that life is a product of evolution. It indicates that the motive for belief, or debate, over such a subject, is not to find truth.
Go ahead and take excerpts from my message to debate, but for those truly looking for truth, I can mail you information to consider that may cause you to look at this issue in a totally differnt light. But you have to be humble, hungry, and honest enough to do that.
Notice that I did not need to call anyone a moron to present my evidence on this matter. Shame on you- as an educated person, you'd think you'd be more civilized than that. You know who you are.

Your beliefs in creation are based partially in your faith in a creator. No matter how much evidence you find you will always stumble on the block of prooving god exists.

I am so expecting rep for this post

[Dolorous Menhir]

Shiara;127627 said:

Whoops, a little off topic there - back to the original point (which I went back and read ) I agree that scientists need to make their research more accessable and transparent, to deliver it to the public in such a way that it clears up any doubts and fills any percieved 'holes' that sceptics can poke at (I love it - 'sceptics' of science :lachen70:)

Why do you think it's so funny, the idea of "skeptics" of science? That's what scientists are. Skeptics, each and everyone of them. It's all but the definition of a scientist.

Dough boy, wow. I read your post, despite the poor formatting, and I'm just going to say one thing. You berate people for discarding the creationist account without investigating it sufficiently. Yet you clearly do the same with evolution and science in general. I could list a lot of popular misconceptions and outright untruths from your post. In fact, I will.

(Oh, and Cause, I can't get give you any more rep either at the moment, sorry)

[Cause]

Its okat. Ill take it on credit.

[Valgard]

Sorry for the very long post but there was a lot to reply to

I haven’t responded in this thread before due to lack of time and the fact that I often find it hard to get across what I mean whilst I write, but this last post by dough boy has galvanised me to try to answer some of the problems in his argument. I am not religious I will state now but I do believe in some god, flying spaghetti monster etc. it makes life easier to imagine something out there greater than ourselves.

Quote

evolutionists are the ones who go on blind faith more than those who have come to the conclusion that evolution is not supported by fact

I would disagree with this statement, as there is a substantial body of proof to support evolution, whilst it does not cover every eventuality and I will fully admit there is still a lot more work to do. The evidence for alternate theories I will approach later on. Examples that support evolution speaking from my own work on bacteria, Acinetobacter baumannii 20 years ago was an organisms only isolated from soils, which would very rarely cause minor infections in already very ill people (immunocompromised patients), but it was easily treated with antibiotics. About 10 years ago the first epidemics occurred in Taiwan in several of the hospitals there. Again it mainly infected immunocompromised patients but now it was resistant to most commonly used antibiotics. Now Acinetobacter baumannii is resistant to nearly all known antibiotics and is found in hospitals around the world where it causes very severe illness in many patients, from very immunocompromised patients to day patients. This is in my mind in definite evidence for evolution, as the bacteria changed from harmless soil bacteria in only 20 years, to being a deadly killer in hospitals. The full mechanisms for this change isn’t fully understood yet as it is still being studied in many labs around the world. Initial evidence though seems to support the excessive use of antibiotics in the western world selecting for resistant strains of the bacteria. The antibiotics kill off the organisms that are not resistant to them, so only those that have to ability to resist the antibiotics will survive to reproduce and so the species changes as the ones that prosper in this environment thrive until they are the predominant example of the species in existence. This to me supports evolution fully.

Quote

but after truly reviewing all of the evidence,

I would just like to ask if you could give an example of what you mean by all the evidence as I have studied biology for 6 years of university now and I definitely would not say that I have reviewed all the evidence in existence for evolution.

Quote

How much have these ones studied the Creation account, as written in the Bible, in its own merit before dismissing it?

Here I will say that I haven’t read the bible much recently but I was raised a catholic and attended religious classes at my school for approximately 12 years so I consider I have a reasonable understanding of the bible, not of course as great an understanding as say a bible scholar or a divinity student of course, but I do have a grasp of the basics.

Quote

To the person who said that scientists all believe in evolution, tsk, tsk, tsk. You obviously have lived in a cocoon. If you would like, if you truly want the truth, I can list the names and quotes of many respected scientists who have come to the conclusion that evolution is a fallacy. From Astronomers, to Physicists, to Biologists, the evidence is overwhelming.

I would ask you to please list the names and quotes of these scientists along with numbers of them. One quote from the discovery institute (the main organisation that supports intelligent design in the US) said that they had signed petition with 350 people with science degrees that supported intelligent design over evolution. The East coast scientific board responded with a petition signed by 630 scientists called either Stephen or Stephanie. (I saw this on a horizon show a year or two ago so I can’t give a link to support this). So claiming that there are huge divisions in the scientific community over evolution is to my knowledge false. I can state that out of the 2000 odd graduate biologists alone from Edinburgh University I know of none that support creationism or intelligent design. There seems to be a fairly universal acceptance of the theory of evolution amongst the majority of the scientific community, as any review of any scientific journal will support.

Quote

And please, tell me how the belief in evolution and the idolization of Science has benefited the social problems of mankind? Has it taught ppl to be kind, respectful, loving, not greedy?

Of course science has not managed these things, but I ask you in return has religion? Christianity has been around for much longer than science as it is viewed in modern time approximately an extra say 1400 years longer approximately. These ideas are beyond the purview of science. Science attempts to make the world a better place materially and this it had succeeded admirably. The advent of antibiotics has single handily increased the life expectancy in the western world by 20 years. Life is easier than it ever has been before on the planet people live longer lives, with a much higher standard of living across the majority of the globe.

Quote

Has it solved world hunger? Has it ended war?

It has not ended war but then neither has religion in fact religion has had much longer to do so and has never succeeded and in fact has very often been known to lead to violence whilst I can’t think of a single instance of war caused by science as yet. Unless you want to count the Iraq war as such but I don’t think that it is. As to the hunger issue, science has cured hunger pretty much entirely in Europe and North America and in the next 50 years I can easily see it curing the problems of world hunger. Religion has again never succeeded either in curing world hunger so it is unfair to level these criticisms against science whilst the institution you wish to emphasise has not succeeded either.

Quote

What about the fact that man is the only creature who has a spiritual need- shall we just dismiss or ignore that?

Is this a fact? Can you produce any evidence to support this if you can’t then this is just a statement without any worth. I personally agree with you and don’t think we should dismiss it, but it is not a fact it is what you believe.

Quote

Centuries before man discovered the earth was not flat, the Bible states that it was a sphere "hanging upon nothing." How could these simple men, not scientists, who never knew each other, never knew what the other had written, know these remarkable details about our world?

Well the ancient Greeks knew the world was round and in fact calculated its circumference to an incredible degree of accuracy and if I am not very much mistaken the ancient Greeks were not Christian or jewish and in fact discovered this using scientific method in approximately 300 Bc (I do apologise but the name and exact dates escape me at the moment). So it would be perfectly normal for the Old Testament to be written with this in mind, since they had a lot of interaction with the other civilisations around that area of the Mediterranean. Also the Indians and Chinese discovered that the world was round at least a thousand years before Galileo and most likely 2000 + years before Galileo they new these facts. It did not require divine revelation as such just to be clever and understand the laws of circles.

Quote

The details of the water cycle, Health and Sanitation, our common ancestors, traits of animals and explanation of natural forces, when other nations at the time believed in superstitious explanations, are incredibly accurate and ahead of their time.

Please support these statements with examples, which nations and what did they believe. As I have already said ancient Greece was incredibly advanced mathematically they in fact had an early theory of evolution and also the theory of the atom was thought up by a greek philosopher long before approx 300- 200Bc it became common elsewhere on the earth so saying that other nations believed in superstitious explanation when the belief in a creator is just such a thing, a superstitious explanation.

As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands is not out of harmony with the Creation account, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring form a common ancestral species. But...they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles, for instance. (Please, let's not spiral into a debate of micro/macro evolution)

Quote

Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory's problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. Some scientists, despite seeing evidence that Creation is support by evidence, are afraid to assert this to their colleagues for fear of career suicide.

Whilst I am sure some scientists do indeed feel this way. The vast, vast majority do not and in fact support Evolution as the best explanation for what we observe around us. It is not that it is just popular it is also the best explained and supported theory out there.

I would also like to see some evidence from outside scripture that creationism is correct so far nothing I have seen supports this. If you can give me some papers to read I will happily do so and report back on what I have understood from them. Until then I will have to disagree with your assertion that there is evidence for creationism, because as far as I know there isn’t.

Quote

Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that ALL living things have a common ancestor.

Darwin may not have uncovered any evidence proving all living things have a common ancestor, but since the discovery of DNA and through Biochemical studies there is an incredible body of work that supports the common ancestor theory. The fact that all basic biochemical functions are the same, from prokaryotes (bacteria and archea) to eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi etc.) all life on earth uses the same mechanisms to create proteins, lipids, carbohydrates. A bacterium shares 60% of its DNA sequence with a human being. This is strong evidence to support a common ancestor why else would everything be so closely related.

Quote

As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands is not out of harmony with the Creation account, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring form a common ancestral species. But...they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles, for instance. (Please, let's not spiral into a debate of micro/macro evolution)

Well they would not evolve into hawks or eagle that is just a foolish thing to say (I do apologise, I have no wish to insult you in anyway but in this you obviously haven’t grasped the concept of evolution if you are making statement like that.). Evolution doesn’t work like that. Over night a new species doesn’t appear or in your example change from one species into another. If it did there would indeed be evidence for a creator, in fact it would disprove evolution completely. Also finches could, given time and the correct environmental stimuli e.g. a disappearance of the nuts from the islands, change from herbivores to carnivores eating small mammals such as a hawk or eagle might do. They would not be a hawk or an eagle though they would be a finch that has changed into a carnivorous bird. This would take a few thousand years though. Even the fastest of the “jerk� evolutionary supporters still say it take 2000 years at least for new niches to be occupied. I hope this has cleared up some of the confusion apparent in the above quote form your text.

Quote

The major problem with evolution is the Origin of Life in the first place. In spite of all the ideas and new thoughts on that, an answer still eludes supporters of this theory. The French chemist Louis Pasteur demonstrated that life can only come from preexisting life. The World Book Encyclopedia explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different".

Can you please include a reference as to when the World book encyclopedia was printed and what references back it up. Also I would like to point out that Louis Pasteur whilst one of the brightest men to live on this planet and one of the founders of my discipline, microbiology, he lived over a hundred years ago and just because he couldn’t succeed at creating life does not mean that it cannot be done. In fact earlier on in this thread I believe someone referenced a group that had managed to recreate the basic complex molecules necessary for life. From hear it isn’t too hard to imagine that this could have happened the world. Also it is now common held to be that life evolved about 200 000 000 years ago not billions. Indeed it is quite correct the world was very different then no oxygen in the atmosphere at the time that was created later by bacteria, so it is definitely not beyond the realms of belief as you seem to be saying that life could start without intervention.

Quote

Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book: 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis', says: "Between a living cell and the most highly ordered nonbiological system, such as a crystal. or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive". The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. Talk about the need for blind faith! The Creation account, as recorded in the Bible, in whatever translation you choose, that life came from life, in that life was CREATED BY GOD, is convincingly in harmony with the FACTS.

Here is a critique of the book you have used to back up your argument (not had time to read it all but it seems to be fairly coherent) http://www.talkorigi...aqs/denton.html
The argument you quote is not in anyway backed up by any evidence it is solely a statement of fact without any rationalisation behind it. Saying that this is not possible does not make it so. Also the book was written in 1985 since then there has been much more research into the field of evolution using much more powerful and complex methods of molecular biology. These support evolution not creationism. And the final statement of the above excerpt has to take as read that god exists and did these things this is as great a leap of faith if not much larger than that for evolutionists as there is at least some evidence for it. Also can I ask is it not possible that some other religion could be correct, such as Hinduism or Bhuddism are those systems of belief also in correct. Because by your earlier argument Hinduism is in fact more in line with the way the world is to our perception than the bible portrays as the Indians had a much greater understanding of the natural world and natural laws than is shown to us through the bible.

Quote

I am struck by a recurrent theme that the proponents of evolutionists have: The fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable. Comparing God to Santa Claus or fairies, or whatever, shows that certain ones have not given a fair, equal study to the Creation account, as they have to their cherished ideals that life is a product of evolution. It indicates that the motive for belief, or debate, over such a subject, is not to find truth.

Why is god the creator why not one of the Hindu deities or possibly Egyptian maybe even Norse, those religions are as internally consistent as Christianity why must it be God the creator there are so many out there. I personally like the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an explanation for a creator largely because they promise a beer fountain. It is the same for Christians as well though they do not like to have their cherished beliefs challenged otherwise why have all these problems with creationism and Intelligent Design. It is human nature to defend what you hold dear.

To conclude I personally believe that evolution is correct due to the incredible amounts of evidence that support it.

[caladanbrood]

Thelomen Toblerone;127600 said:

As far as i can see, the argument that "something must have caused the big bang, so it must have been God" makes very little sense

"Well what made the big bang happen? You don't know, so it must have been God so he must exist" - absolutely nonsensical, no proof is evident in that statement at all.

No no no no no no no!

I am not saying that at all. I'm saying that because we have no way whatsoever of knowing what caused the big bang, it could just as easily be a natural or supernatural event. And I doubt we ever will know which, to be honest.

It's a hypothetical theory, and because there is no solid evidence for any theories behind the big bang, none of them hold any more or less likelyhood than any of the others.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Warning, insanely long post that no-one will want to read. But I'm writing it anyway because dough boy made such liberal use of poor arguments and misconceptions. Plus, I promise to use paragraphs.

[quote name='dough boy;127678]I have this to say after reading most of the rhetoric for both sides of the evolution debate- whether you want to admit it or not' date=' evolutionists are the ones who go on blind faith more than those who have come to the conclusion that evolution is not supported by fact.[/Quote']

This is your assertion. It may surprise you to learn that the majority of the scientific community has actually arrived at their pro-evolution views by reviweing facts and arguments objectively. That's something we like to call "the scientific method" and we're quite proud of it.

And there are many facts that support the process of evolution. No doubt you've heard of the fossil record, genetic mutation, observations of bacteria, the DNA links between species indicating mutual heritage, etcetera.

[Quote]It is merely conjecture, and there is so much disunity among evolutionists themselves that I am led to believe that their egos are the most important thing to them.[/Quote]

Again, another assertion that evolution is a "conjecture". Not true.

Also, I don't know how you go from "evolution-supporting scientists disagree about things" to "they are all wrong". Is the Christian world a model of unity and togetherness?

The fact I have to ask which Church you are a member of is a clear indicator of "so much disunity among Christians themselves" that I am led to believe they are wrong. If religious people can't agree on things, like those poor evolutionists, then why should I believe them?

[Quote]I don't mean this to insult the ppl on the forum, but they believe in this theory b/c they want to. At one time in my life I wanted to believe in evolution, but after truly reviewing all of the evidence, as a truly objective person, could not.[/Quote]

Another bald assertion. I could claim in turn that you only believe in the Christian Creation because you want to, but I don't know that. I think it would be very condescending actually.

[Quote]Science has given us much as a society, but that does not mean it should be held up on a pedestal and bowed down to. Sometimes science becomes an exercise to promote oneself as superior to others, a brain exercise that ends up with circular reasoning. Empty philosophy leads nowhere.[/Quote]

Religion has given us much as a society, but that does not mean it should be held up on a pedestal and bowed down to. Sometimes religion becomes an exercise to promote oneself as superior to others, a brain exercise that ends up with circular reasoning. Empty philosophy leads nowhere.

I don't really have anything to add here, except to note that so far you've just launched vague attacks on evolution and science without saying anything of substance.

[Quote]It is clear to me that those in the forum who consider themselves educated miss one vital point about themselves- there is more than one type of education that is necessary for a decent society, and to find the truth of our existence.[/Quote]

Only one kind of education is necessary to understand scientific matters. It's not the kind you get at church.

[Quote]While they want to lob insults toward those who have not attended these schools of so called higher learning, they need to be honest with themselves.[/Quote]

Uh-oh, it's intellectual-bashing time.

[Quote]How much have these ones studied the Creation account, as written in the Bible, in its own merit before dismissing it?[/Quote]

I've never read the Bible (have you?). I haven't read the Koran or the Torah either. I feel quite secure in dismissing the two-thousand year old teachings of a desert civilisation when I'm considering scientific matters. The Bible is a historical document, not a scientific one.

[Quote]Do they base their opinions on true evidence, or what someone else has told them it says?[/Quote]

I'm guessing your definition of "true evidence" is "what the Bible says".

[Quote]I will say that Christendom as a whole has given the creation account a very bad name. Holding up the Catholic church as a standard for what true christianity is, and what the Bible actually states is a very bad mistake.[/Quote]

That's very reasonable of you. But I am somewhat concerned that even the whole segment of society that believes in the Creation doesn't actually understand it. How am I supposed to be convinced by them if - according to you - they are all wrong.

[Quote]The Catholic church has never taught the truths in the Bible, but that is another topic, so that's all I will say on that. ( I remember a quote by someone that some monk said, many pages ago, but I have run across that sort of thing before, so that is why I address that here.)[/Quote]

Thanks for the update. I'd better stop basing my scientific opinions on what the Pope says.

[Quote]To the person who said that scientists all believe in evolution, tsk, tsk, tsk.[/Quote]

This is true. Not all scientists believe in evolution. Please point out which person said they all did. But most do. And often, those who don't have an agenda outside of their scientific pursuits. Note also that often the most prominent anti-evolution scientists are committed Christians or experts in unrelated fields who are lending their credibility to a field not their own.


[Quote]You obviously have lived in a cocoon. If you would like, if you truly want the truth, I can list the names and quotes of many respected scientists who have come to the conclusion that evolution is a fallacy.[/Quote]

I would like. Please show us this list.

[Quote]From Astronomers, to Physicists, to Biologists, the evidence is overwhelming.[/Quote]

Note for the reader: no actual evidence has been provided yet in this post.

[Quote]Please tell me where the Bible contradicts Science. Science has not proved the Bible, or the creation account wrong.[/Quote]

The Bible gives the wrong age of the Universe. (Working through the chronology of the Bible gives a start-date a few thousand years ago. The universe is billions of years old)

The Bible supports the idea that the Earth is the centre of the Universe.

The Bible speaks about "days" before the creation of the Sun & the Earth.

[quote name='Leviticus 11:21-23]"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four' date=' which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."[/Quote']

Insects don't have four feet.

The Bible gives the value of "pi" as 3.

The authorship of the Bible is uncertain. It is a compendium of over sixty individual works written in different periods. It has been translated many times. Thus its provenance is in doubt, and the extraordinary claims it makes are not backed by extraordinary proof.

The Bible has many internal contradictions. For example (taken from [url="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/internal.html"]http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/internal.html[/url] )

Created Before the Plants:

[quote name='Genesis 2:4-7]In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens' date=' when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.[/Quote']

Created before the animals:

[Quote=Genesis 2:18-19]
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.[/Quote]

So which came first?

The genealogy of Joseph, husband of Mary, is in doubt.

[Quote=Matthew 1:16]
and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.[/Quote]

[Quote=Luke 3:23]
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli[/Quote]

So, was Joseph the son of Heli or Jacob?

Many passages imply a belief in the flatness of the Earth.

Do I need to list any more?


[Quote]And please, tell me how the belief in evolution and the idoliziation of Science has benefitted the social problems of mankind? Has it taught ppl to be kind, respectful, loving, not greedy? (If anything, it has done a poor job of treating ppl with respect)[/Quote]

Is that the job of science? Your parents are supposed to teach you to be kind and respectful, not evolutionary biologists! Do you have any more outrageous non-sequiturs for us?

[Quote]Has it solved world hunger?[/Quote]

Um, do you think the world would be able to support this many people at all without modern agricultural techniques, which are derived from scientific techniques?

People have been praying to a Christian God for two thousand years, the world is still hungry.

So I ask you, has Creationism solved world hunger?

No, you say? It must be wrong then.

[Quote]Has it ended war?[/Quote]

Well, why would you expect it to? I'm totally lost here. Do you think war happens because people believe in evolution? Are you seriously saying that?

[Quote]How bleak our future is if evolution were true![/Quote]

Explanation please.

[Quote]What about the fact that man is the only creature who has a spiritual need- shall we just dismiss or ignore that?[/Quote]

"Mankind possesses a spiritual need" is not proof of creationism. It should have no bearing on the truth of evolution. Thus far your reasoning has been extremely muddled.

[Quote]How God, the greatest Scientist, must feel, to hear his creation, who was made in his image, (so yes, we are superior to animals and other created things,) debate his power, and yes, his very existence![/Quote]

I don't know what the response to this should be. Except to note that you are not very convincing.

[Quote]As he said to Job: "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?" Read, please, the book of Psalms and Job, and Ecclesiastes, where, in poetic language, God speaks of his creative works.[/Quote]

Well, Job didn't exist when God created the Earth, because he didn't make humanity for another three days. Surprised he didn't know that. I'll pass on the books though, thanks.

[Quote]The harmony with actual Science is astounding, considering that it was written many years before Galileo was chastised by the Catholic church for his scientific observations.[/Quote]

Astoundingly bad, maybe. I'm at a loss as to why you mention Galileo here.

[Quote]Centuries before man discovered the earth was not flat, the Bible states that it was a sphere "hanging upon nothing." How could these simple men, not scientists, who never knew each other, never knew what the other had written, know these remarkable details about our world? Because they wrote under inspiration- inspired by the very one who created it all![/Quote]

Let me quote from a website I just found addressing this quote.

[Quote=http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/astronomy.html] A verse normally paraded by fundamentalist as proving that the Bible had scientific foreknowledge is this one from the book of Job:

Job 26:1,7
Then Job answered: "...He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth upon nothing..."

But remember it was Job, not God, who was saying this in Job 26:7. This is how God replied to Job's "scientific foreknowledge":

Job 38:1-4
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?...Where were you [d] when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

In effect, after the long speeches by Job (and those his friends), Yahweh declared Job to be "without knowledge" and affirmed that the earth had foundations![/Quote]

So, in answer to "How could these simple men, not scientists, who never knew each other, never knew what the other had written, know these remarkable details about our world?" - they didn't.

[Quote]The details of the water cycle, Health and Sanitation, our common ancestors, traits of animals and explanation of natural forces, when other nations at the time believed in superstitious explanations, are incredibly accurate and ahead of their time.[/Quote]

Again, I must point out that you are not providing any actual evidence to back up your claims, as above. It's just (mistaken) assertion after (erroneous) assertion.

[Quote]There are no mistakes in regards to Science anywhere in the Creation Account in the Bible. Remarkable.[/Quote]

Remarkable. And false.

[Quote]Don't you think that merits a second look?[/Quote]

Certainly. You do need to take a second look.

[Quote]The theory of evolution was popularized (correction: originated by) during the last century (correction: the 19th Century) by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of finches on the different island, which, he deduced, must all have descended from just one ancestral species. Partly b/c of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form (correction: gross simplification). The driving force behind the evolution of higher creatures from the lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds, reptiles, and so forth.[/Quote]

You clearly don't understand evolution very well (note the corrections made above). Creatures don't evolve from "low" to "high", that's a misconception borne of the conceit that humanity is the pinnacle of evolution.

[Quote]As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands is not out of harmony with the Creation account, which allows for variation within a major living kind.[/Quote]

Does it?

[Quote]All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair.[/Quote]

And you know that...because the Bible said so? So did Adam & Eve's children have sex with their parents or their siblings when they had to create the next generation? Is the entire human race borne of incest? Doesn't the Bible say that is wrong? And how did the human race, with less than ten members, escape the catastrophic inbreeding problems that blight isolated human groupings? Were the grandchildren of Adam and Eve infertile and mentally handicapped?

No, because the Adam and Eve story is mythology, not literal truth. I'm surprised you didn't notice this as a "truly objective person" who reviewed all the evidence.

[Quote]So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring form a common ancestral species. But...they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles, for instance. (Please, let's not spiral into a debate of micro/macro evolution)[/Quote]

Ok, so you don't think one species doesn't evolve into another. This does not constitute proof that it does not happen.

[Quote]Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that ALL living things have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact.[/Quote]

It is a widely supported and accepted theory that underpins all biology and agrees with all evidence. This does not make it fact. You are putting up a strawman (scientists claim evolution is fact) so you can knock it down more easily.


[Quote]Others, while recognizing the theory's problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so.[/Quote]

The theory has problems. It is not complete. People do not admit this because it is "popular," they acknowledge it because it is scientifically accurate to do so. Evolution is a work in progress.

[Quote]Some scientists, despite seeing evidence that Creation is support by evidence, are afraid to assert this to their colleagues for fear of career suicide.[/Quote]

Uh huh.

[Quote]The major problem with evolution is the Origin of Life in the first place. In spite of all the ideas and new thoughts on that, an answer still eludes supporters of this theory.[/Quote]

An unsolved problem, true. Not fatal to evolution. Just not yet explained.

[Quote]The French chemist Louis Pasteur demonstrated that life can only come from preexisting life.[/Quote]

Did he. Source.

[Quote]The World Book Encyclopedia explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different".
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book: 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis', says: "Between a living cell and the most highly ordered nonbiological system, such as a crystal. or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive".[/Quote]

Argument from ignorance.

"I don't understand it, so it must be false!"
"It's inconceivable! And therefore false!"

[Quote]The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible.[/Quote]

Not a disproof.

[Quote]Talk about the need for blind faith! The Creation account, as recorded in the Bible, in whatever translation you choose, that life came from life, in that life was CREATED BY GOD, is convincingly in harmony with the FACTS.[/Quote]

So you claim. An alternative claim is that life was created by some other means. Despite your assertions this remains unproven either way.

[Quote]I am struck by a recurrent theme that the proponents of evolutionists have: The fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable.[/Quote]

What evidence is there for a Creator?

[Quote]Comparing God to Santa Claus or fairies, or whatever, shows that certain ones have not given a fair, equal study to the Creation account, as they have to their cherished ideals that life is a product of evolution. It indicates that the motive for belief, or debate, over such a subject, is not to find truth.[/Quote]

Yes, ok, are you finished maligning the motives of scientists yet?

[Quote]Go ahead and take excerpts from my message to debate, but for those truly looking for truth, I can mail you information to consider that may cause you to look at this issue in a totally differnt light.[/Quote]

No thanks. I'm guessing you'll just send me more in the same vein as this post. I've got better things to waste my time on.

[Quote]But you have to be humble, hungry, and honest enough to do that.[/Quote]

Translation: you must already believe in God and the Creation.

[Quote]Notice that I did not need to call anyone a moron to present my evidence on this matter.[/Quote]

I'll give you that, you were polite.

[Quote]Shame on you- as an educated person, you'd think you'd be more civilized than that. You know who you are.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if you are referring to me here, but what does it really matter? This is an internet forum, I would hope anyone who posts here can withstand a little criticism. And if I am too forceful in refuting what you and others say, it's because I'm genuinely perplexed to see people argue so poorly.

[D Man]

Thanks to valgard and DM for taking the time to address much of this. Apologoes if I restate any of your points (but maybe it'll emphasise them better at least!)

I’d like to add a couple of things, partially along the lines of refuting points logically and partly in the vein of looking at the way that dhough boy is thinking and arguing, in keeping with the true nature of the creation evolution conflict (which is not, as has been clearly stated by several people in this thread, a conflict within the realms of science, since creationism isn’t science).

dough boy;127678 said:

I have this to say after reading most of the rhetoric for both sides of the evolution debate- whether you want to admit it or not, evolutionists are the ones who go on blind faith more than those who have come to the conclusion that evolution is not supported by fact. It is merely conjecture, and there is so much disunity among evolutionists themselves that I am led to believe that their egos are the most important thing to them. I don't mean this to insult the ppl on the forum, but they believe in this theory b/c they want to. At one time in my life I wanted to believe in evolution, but after truly reviewing all of the evidence, as a truly objective person, could not.

“rhetoric”
“Blind faith”
“Conjecture”
“Disunity”
“Egos”

All derogatory terms (given the context) used to frame the position of evolution in this post.

A

“truly objective person”

wouldn’t do that. Further, a person that’s claims to have reviewed

“All the evidence”

Is simply wrong. You’ve read all the hundreds of thousands of papers and books on the subject? Impossible, quite simply.

dough boy;127678 said:

Science has given us much as a society, but that does not mean it should be held up on a pedestal and bowed down to. Sometimes science becomes an exercise to promote oneself as superior to others, a brain exercise that ends up with circular reasoning. Empty philosophy leads nowhere.

This is a red herring. Nothing about this has anything to do with veneration of science. If you have a hang up about that, please wait for the opportunity to use it in a debate in which it is pertinent.

However, it’s a cold hard fact that if you haven’t had a scientific education (formal or informal: learning is learning), you don’t have a valid stance in scientific debate. Opinion is as irrelevant in science as it is in an operating theatre. You don’t walk in on open heart surgery and try to tell the doctors what you think about it, do you?

dough boy;127678 said:

It is clear to me that those in the forum who consider themselves educated miss one vital point about themselves- there is more than one type of education that is necessary for a decent society, and to find the truth of our existence. While they want to lob insults toward those who have not attended these schools of so called higher learning, they need to be honest with themselves.

I for one don’t ‘consider’ myself educated. I am. And I haven’t seen any insults in this thread (its been quite civil, as is the way with this forum), and the structure of society is not the issue here. More red herrings.

dough boy;127678 said:

How much have these ones studied the Creation account, as written in the Bible, in its own merit before dismissing it? Do they base their opinions on true evidence, or what someone else has told them it says? I will say that Christendom as a whole has given the creation account a very bad name. Holding up the Catholic church as a standard for what true christianity is, and what the Bible actually states is a very bad mistake. The Catholic church has never taught the truths in the Bible, but that is another topic, so that's all I will say on that. ( I remember a quote by someone that some monk said, many pages ago, but I have run across that sort of thing before, so that is why I address that here.)

I spent a few years, partially in A-level philosophy, lapping up as much creationism as I could get my hands on. I’ve read at least as much creationism as evolution, including genesis 1 to 11 many times.

dough boy;127678 said:

To the person who said that scientists all believe in evolution, tsk, tsk, tsk. You obviously have lived in a cocoon. If you would like, if you truly want the truth, I can list the names and quotes of many respected scientists who have come to the conclusion that evolution is a fallacy. From Astronomers, to Physicists, to Biologists, the evidence is overwhelming.

I said that, for one. And I didn’t live in a cocoon. I lived in Manchester, and studied at a university dedicated entirely to science (UMIST) surrounded by scientists. I don’t know any, NOT ONE that believes the literal creation and only the ones that were already Christians thought that god had a hand in anything at all. What cocoon have you been living in?

P.S. The list is called ‘project steve’. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...e_2_16_2003.asp

dough boy;127678 said:

Please tell me where the Bible contradicts Science. Science has not proved the Bible, or the creation account wrong.
And please, tell me how the belief in evolution and the idoliziation of Science has benefitted the social problems of mankind? Has it taught ppl to be kind, respectful, loving, not greedy? (If anything, it has done a poor job of treating ppl with respect) Has it solved world hunger? Has it ended war? How bleak our future is if evolution were true! What about the fact that man is the only creature who has a spiritual need- shall we just dismiss or ignore that?

The list is too long to go into. How about we kick off at the start: there were days and light before the sun existed.

More red herring about how useless science is and how it clearly doesn’t help us at all. Nothing like attacking the entire field to try and undermine one corner of it, eh?

dough boy;127678 said:

How God, the greatest Scientist, must feel, to hear his creation, who was made in his image, (so yes, we are superior to animals and other created things,) debate his power, and yes, his very existence! As he said to Job: "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?" Read, please, the book of Psalms and Job, and Ecclesiastes, where, in poetic language, God speaks of his creative works. The harmony with actual Science is astounding, considering that it was written many years before Galileo was chastised by the Catholic church for his scientific observations. Centuries before man discovered the earth was not flat, the Bible states that it was a sphere "hanging upon nothing." How could these simple men, not scientists, who never knew each other, never knew what the other had written, know these remarkable details about our world? Because they wrote under inspiration- inspired by the very one who created it all! The details of the water cycle, Health and Sanitation, our common ancestors, traits of animals and explanation of natural forces, when other nations at the time believed in superstitious explanations, are incredibly accurate and ahead of their time. There are no mistakes in regards to Science anywhere in the Creation Account in the Bible. Remarkable. Don't you think that merits a second look?

“God…Greatest”
“His power”
“astounding”
”remarkable”
“Inspiration”
“Incredibly”

I think you language in the earlier paragraph merits a second look. For a truly objective person, you certainly use a lot of colourful adjectives to frame a point.

And as far as the “Details” and “incredible accuracy” goes, for a start I’d be far more impressed if it said “Hanging upon gravitons”. God, the great scientist, must know that gravity is not nothing. He made it. So why would he lie?

dough boy;127678 said:

The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of finches on the different island, which, he deduced, must all have descended from just one ancestral species. Partly b/c of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of higher creatures from the lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds, reptiles, and so forth.
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands is not out of harmony with the Creation account, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring form a common ancestral species. But...they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles, for instance. (Please, let's not spiral into a debate of micro/macro evolution).

Yes, please lets not, because we’ve already been through it and know that there’s no difference between the two, one just takes longer.

dough boy;127678 said:

Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that ALL living things have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory's problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. Some scientists, despite seeing evidence that Creation is support by evidence, are afraid to assert this to their colleagues for fear of career suicide.

And 200 years ago when Darwin wrote origin of species he was mocked and rejected by the vast majority of science. Funny thing is, because science demands evidence, and evolution has it, evolution became established and accepted. To go back from it now would be mocked, and is, because its very much like trying to return to medicine based on the balance of the four humours.

There are a lot of people out there trying to get a foot in in the science community with creationism. They fail quite simply because they aren’t even doing any science.

dough boy;127678 said:

The major problem with evolution is the Origin of Life in the first place. In spite of all the ideas and new thoughts on that, an answer still eludes supporters of this theory. The French chemist Louis Pasteur demonstrated that life can only come from preexisting life. The World Book Encyclopedia explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different".

So lets all listen to Pasteur. Hes clearly the authority on the subject. I microscoper and chemist that never even know what a protein was for his entire life. We’ve moved on since then. Look up abiogenesis, self replicating proteins and protocellls

dough boy;127678 said:

Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book: 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis', says: "Between a living cell and the most highly ordered nonbiological system, such as a crystal. or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive". The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. Talk about the need for blind faith! The Creation account, as recorded in the Bible, in whatever translation you choose, that life came from life, in that life was CREATED BY GOD, is convincingly in harmony with the FACTS.

“More words to frame evolution in a nice objective negative light”

This entire paragraph is baseless. Before you can make assertions like that you have to define what life is. Go on then…define it.

dough boy;127678 said:

I am struck by a recurrent theme that the proponents of evolutionists have: The fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable. Comparing God to Santa Claus or fairies, or whatever, shows that certain ones have not given a fair, equal study to the Creation account, as they have to their cherished ideals that life is a product of evolution. It indicates that the motive for belief, or debate, over such a subject, is not to find truth.

Strawman argument. The problem that scientists have with creation is its various mechanisms and timescales have been disproved and are absurd. The involvement of a creator is a philosophical division between faith and science that is irreconcilable.

dough boy;127678 said:

Go ahead and take excerpts from my message to debate, but for those truly looking for truth, I can mail you information to consider that may cause you to look at this issue in a totally differnt light. But you have to be humble, hungry, and honest enough to do that.

You also have to be honest, diligent and dedicated to learn the science you obviously haven’t.

dough boy;127678 said:

Notice that I did not need to call anyone a moron to present my evidence on this matter. Shame on you- as an educated person, you'd think you'd be more civilized than that. You know who you are.

You didnt present any evidence. Not. One. Bit. Just an opinion that you have because of a long standing belief and some heavily value-statement loaded paragraphs full of red herrings and strawmen.

[Cause]

dough boy;127992 said:

I will say that I am going to focus on Valgard's responses because he was the most reasonable and respectful. That indicates to me a person who I would rather converse with. I am not, however, ignoring the challenges brought up to me about the Bible's statements on Creation. Perhaps, if there is a truly sincere interest in clearing up those apparent contradictions, etc. about the Bible, it should be done on a thread about the Bible. Let me know if any of you are truly interested in seeing the evidence. I look forward to your replies.

Creationism is depedant on a creator. If you have chosen the bible as your champion of the creators existance any proof you have of it belongs in this thread.

Quote

To start out with, Religion has very little to do with what the Bible actually says. Religion has misapplied and added much to the Bible, so to me, a study in religion is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches. I am familiar with what the Jews believe, I have attended a Bible training course, and I have 30 years of credentials. I don't say this to impress anyone, which I doubt you folks would be anyhow. I want to let you know that I have studied all kinds of religions in much detail, from Judaism, to Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Catholicism, Mythology, Islam and Modern Disbelief. I am familiar with what all kinds of Religions teach, and I have discovered that very few teach what the Bible says. So, please don't throw up what other religions teach, I am well familiar with their doctrines and they don't teach what the Bible says. I was under the impression that the debate was over Evolution vs Creation, not Evolution vs Religion. There is a difference, and my mention of the Catholic Church's lack of truth in all matters was to bring home that point. Just b/c a religion has taught a doctrine, and they say it's in the Bible, doesn't make it true.

God and religeon are linked beyond all possibilities to seperate. Especially if you choose to facter in th bible whic is basically a manual on how to practice the religion. If you wish to take it to the bible thread Im happy to continue their. Your christian right and I presume you believe your denomination practices the bibles true teachings? So would that be the new bible you follow? If god is omnipotent and does not make mistakes why did he change his mind?

But here are some of the thing the old testement says Im intrested in your replies
Claiming to be of god is heresy-Jesus did this
God is one-The trinity weakens this Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one."
The idea of original sin and salvation through jesus is a new thing
To gain acceptance in heaven for non jew all that is required is 7 noahide laws

Quote

I'm not talking about just beliefs. I am talking about proveable truth. But, there are different avenues of proof. If you feel that the only proof you will consider is other statements, papers, publications and experiments that other people have made in regards to, in a broad sense, science, and evolution, then I suppose there is nothing further for me to say. Truth is not blind, and although some have taken exception to my statement that I have examined all the evidence, all the evidence that I have examined has not convinced me of evolution. Please don't get bogged down by semantics.

Proof is proof. The bible is not proof. Personal conviction is not proof. Give us your proof and we will gladly judge it.

Quote

Have you heard of Michael J. Behe, a Biochemist who is a professor at the Lehigh University in the U.S. ? He wrote a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box- The Biochemical change to evolution". In the decade since his book was published, evolutionary scientists have scrambled to counter the arguments he raised. Talk about red herrings- Critics accused him of allowing his religious convictions to cloud his scientific judgement. Read it for yourself. You may reach the same conclusions. He still is a professor, though. He is still a respected scientist.

Irreducible complexity is disproven and argues from ignorance. We dont know how a mechanism of 40 proteins is usefull with only 39. Irreducibly complex evolution is a lie. Well I speak of course of a flagella motor one of the champions of this argument and that use was found. Its simply a question of finding out the rest as well. Im not familiar with the rest Ill let others handle it

Quote

Paula Kincheloe from Atlanta, Georgia is involved in molecular biology and microbiology. She felt that DNA and RNA proteins and metabolic pathways showed evidence of design.

Its like looking at an inkblot and seeing a butterfly yet we all know the thing was made by spalshing ink on a page. Just because you can see a pattern does not mean it was created. See mathematics for choas theory

Quote

Genetic mutation does not support evolution. I can talk about that more later.

Please do so

Quote

Adaptations do not prove evolution. It proves that life on this planet can sustain itself, and change is necessary for that. Do you think a Creator might be aware of that, and has allowed for it? I am talking in a broad sense, b/c I don't want to get bogged down with details that I have to unpack from my attic.

Well micro evolution is well micro evolutioN. I should not as a rule use a word in its definition but it works here

Quote

I have heard the argument that information presented from scientists throughout history are too old to be relevant. Have you stopped to think that maybe the information we consider today will someday also be irrelevant? That leads me to wonder how much trust can we put in what man "discovers" or comes up with.

Not irrelevant. Neccessary steps. But yes those steps that got us onto the first floow look very ignorant when we look down fron the hundreth. Have you stopped to consider that just as zues gave way to judaism and judaism has given way to christianty that christianity might give way to spaggeti monsterism?

Quote

True, I will agree with those that state that Religion has done much damage to the earth and mankind. We should be better for Religion, if it is true. But it is not the Bible that encourages people to kill, in fact Ghandi stated that if leaders of nations could get together and apply the principles found in Jesus' sermon on the mount, the world will have solved its social problems. Again, the problem is not in the Bible, it's in the misapplication of its truths. By the way, starvation is caused, not by the earth's inability to produce, but by greedy men and governments who oppress people. Some sicknesses are brought about by people's refusal to apply Bible principles, something medicine wouldn't have to address in the first place if we didn't smoke, overdrink, or overeat. (Yes, there are priniciples in the Bible that can be applied to smoking)

Yes a religeon that says evryone who does not believe in jesus will go to hell will solve world problems.

Worl hunger is brought about by over population and disease is caused by pathogens.

Quote

My purpose in joining this is because I can impart a hope for the future based on what the Bible holds out. I never said anywhere in my first posting that evolutionists will go to hell. That is a teaching from False Religion. That's not taught in the Bible, along with a host of other doctrines that are not from the Bible, but have their roots in False Religion dating back centuries ago. But, in order for that hope to be achieved, the obstacle of a belief in evolution has to be addressed. How can one get to know the Creator if he can't believe he exists?

As I have time, I will check to see if anyone is curious about these things about the Bible on another thread. I am a teacher and a parent, so I have a busy schedule. Don't be offended if I don't post every day. If you want to dismiss it, that is your choice.

I am intrested post away as much as you please. And please I am indeed intrested to the questions on christianity I asked above.

[MrXIII]

I think that it's important to realise how small a percentage of the words attributed to Christ actually make up the Bible.

Without going to the arguments on the OT, in the NT you have Paul making a mockery of alot of the good values imparted int he sermon on the mount. I wont argue that, what he says is a nice set of ideas.

However I don't think we need the Bible for a good future, we can do that on our own, it's something inherent in us, possibly as a by-product of evolutionary needs.

[Shiara]

Dolorous Menhir;127828 said:

Why do you think it's so funny, the idea of "skeptics" of science? That's what scientists are. Skeptics, each and everyone of them. It's all but the definition of a scientist.

That's exactly why I found it funny

It is a scientist's job to be skeptical - they are more about disproving things than proving things (in the words of Arthur Conan Doyle "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth") - that's just how it works.

But the fact that science is subject to skepticism from creationists - well, that just strikes me as amusing.

By all means, believe what you want - just don't call it science when it is most definitely nothing of the sort.

I'd just like to point out that I didn't mean anything offensive by my last post (the one that was deleted with no explanaition) - I tend to express my point of view with a certain levity that may border on innapropriate (or step over, as seems to have been the case). It was a quote that I found funny, and could have applied to either side of the debate - though, of course, coming from me it was most definitely biased

My apologies to all (but if you're going to delete my post, the least you could do is pm me with a reason, even if you may think it obvious ).

[EDIT]

Quote

Originally posted by dough boy:
I am familiar with what the Jews believe, I have attended a Bible training course, and I have 30 years of credentials. I don't say this to impress anyone, which I doubt you folks would be anyhow. I want to let you know that I have studied all kinds of religions in much detail, from Judaism, to Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Catholicism, Mythology, Islam and Modern Disbelief. I am familiar with what all kinds of Religions teach, and I have discovered that very few teach what the Bible says. So, please don't throw up what other religions teach, I am well familiar with their doctrines and they don't teach what the Bible says.

May I ask - if it's not prying - whether you studied these religions from a Christian viewpoint, at a Christian institution? Or objectively, through a secular university or college?