I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.
I don't think that people are trying to claim that they're Creationists who believe in evolution, since they're diametrically opposed. However, I can claim that I'm a Christian who believes (as I said) in evolution as a tool.

Genesis isn't a science book, and never was meant to be. The Hebrew is fluid in its meaning of 'day', for instance--it can mean a literal 24 hour day or it can mean an unspecified long period of time, sort of like when we say "back in my grandfather's day....". That is why I don't find creationism and evolutionism to be at odds with each other.

I agree.

_EW_

That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.
Creation: 1.
Evolution: 0.:xp:



I pray to god (no pun intended) that's a sarcastic post.

EDIT:

Here is a fun video with that video in it.

ztejNZIZdsU

That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.
Creation: 0.
Evolution: 1.:xp:

Well don't thank god; thank the process of evolution.

Mind you that the purpose of fruit is so that animals would take one and spread the seeds. The banana example actually goes to the credit of a species adapting to best spread its seeds and improve its ability to produce offspring. Of course I am referring to the 'tab' and peel aspects of a banana, not the inedible and loaded with seeds aspect. Humans can take credit for that.

Okay, I just saw the video in the last post. I greatly appreciate these kind of debates... if you would call it such.

@DY/Arc--when people speak of Creationism it's mostly in terms of "God created the world 5-10K years ago and weathered it to fool all the atheists and whatnot". You 2 should read more closely rather than resort to knee jerk positions. I did not say take the theory of evolution out of science class. I said Evolution Theory as Fact should not be pushed, w/regard to where man came from. It can still be taught as the best current scientific theory available. Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible. Noone was around when all this glorious stuff came into being and thus is in no position to make an emphatic and rational claim to its origins. And frankly, it's rather silly to get that worked up over something no one has the answer to anyway. Until we find the "missing link/s" that shows man came from amoeba via monkeys, I'm content to consider it (evolution) a possibility. Afterall, give man a billion + years from today and we might come up with nifty junk too. ;)


As to science and belief in the classroom, agreed, The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable. Present that side of evolution as a possibility (strong or otherwise), not an irrefutable fact. I'm not against theories put forth as theories which are constantly being tested for veracity (afterall, many of the claims of religions are often untestable/unrepeatable and therefore don't belong in a science class).

@DY/Arc--when people speak of Creationism it's mostly in terms of "God created the world 5-10K years ago and weathered it to fool all the atheists and whatnot"

Okay, why did God do this? What reason would he want to fool atheists?

You 2 should read more closely rather than resort to knee jerk positions. I did not say take the theory of evolution out of science class. I said Evolution Theory as Fact should not be pushed, w/regard to where man came from.

Well you speak of creation(ism) - Whatever term you want to plug in this time) as though it is also a theory that can stand beside evolution; it's not.

Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible

Define 'Creation' and then define 'Creationism' and explain how your term fits and the other does not. I know exactly what I said. If you're going to make a fuss because I put forth something that hurts your side of the matter... please don't. I'm not going to change my argument simply to fit your sense of logic.

No one was around when all this glorious stuff came into being and thus is in no position to make an emphatic and rational claim to its origins. And frankly, it's rather silly to get that worked up over something no one has the answer to anyway.

No, but you can evaluate evidence and come to a logical conclusion as to what happened. The problem is that evidence often gets destroyed or lost with time. That makes it more difficult to answer such questions as to where we came from, but history has shown that the more we evaluate available evidence and the more we find, the more reliable our final answer will be. And quite frankly, it's horrid to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

If God wanted such evidence from being discovered by humans, he would have done so... or did he make a mistake? A perfect circular argument, I must say so myself.

Until we find the "missing link/s" that shows man came from amoeba via monkeys, I'm content to consider it (evolution) a possibility. Afterall, give man a billion + years from today and we might come up with nifty junk too. ;)

I would properly say that evolution is still only a theory, but it is a theory that is supported by much much more evidence than anything an alternate theory has yielded. Unless that changes, I would not have anything riddled with as many holes as Creation(ism) daring to be called a theory.

Read Genesis.
All of creation was originally meant to be vegetarians. That includes all animals.

You only have oh, 90% of Christians disagreeing with you on that point. And before you know "well how many Christians do you know?" A lot. I was one of like 10 Atheists in my conservative christian town. Also in before: "they're wrong." When the majority of a religion disagrees with what a single member says, the religion is not wrong.

Okay, why did God do this? What reason would he want to fool atheists?

You so clueless you don't recognize a little levity? :rolleyes:


Well you speak of creation(ism) - Whatever term you want to plug in this time) as though it is also a theory that can stand beside evolution; it's not.

Frankly, I make no claims of anything. The point is you mix up creationism (the fundamentalist biblical version) with the concept of a creator. That's all that's been pointed out to you from the beginning. If a God/god exists, who are you to define the method by which they would make or develop anything.
I don't state that God created the universe, merely consider that it's a possibility. Given that we don't know where all the matter and energy in the universe comes from in the first place it would be extremely arrogant to think we can eliminate any possibilities that science can't disprove (For instance, we know that Superman is a modern human creation and therefore science knows---and can disprove--he created the universe....if anyone were willing to assert such a notion).


I know exactly what I said. If you're going to make a fuss because I put forth something that hurts your side of the matter... please don't. I'm not going to change my argument simply to fit your sense of logic.

:lol: No offense, but that sounds extremely pretentious.



No, but we can evaluate evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion of what happened. If evidence is destroyed or lost, then it becomes more difficult and the number of possible answers could rival the number of theories that exist. The more we evaluate the evidence, the more reliable our final answer would be. And quite frankly, it's rather sad to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

I'm afraid you have a reading comprehension problem if you're continuing to assert that I am anti-evolution. I've already stated that that is one method for explaining the diversty of how life around us has developed. Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.


If God wanted to hide the evidence, he would have... or did he make a mistake? A solid circular argument, I must say so myself.

Good thing you're the one making it then, huh? :D


I would properly say that evolution is still only a theory, but it is a theory that is supported by much much more evidence than anything an alternate theory has yielded. Unless that changes, I would not have anything riddled with as many holes as Creation(ism) daring to be called a theory.

And as I don't hold to the "theory of Creationism", we don't seem to have a real problem. As long as you recognize that Evolution theory is a WIP, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. :raise:

Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.


I thought someone already mentioned abiogenesis in this thread, somewhere... The theory of evolution does not try to explain the initial origin(s) of life. The origin of life is left in the realm of the ideas posed by abiogenesis.

Frankly, that's my point. Evolution as a theory dosen't remove the possibility of a creator from the equation. Even abiogenesis doesn't answer where all the life and matter/energy in the universe comes from. It too is a process that attempts to explain how living things came into being from inanimate matter, but fails to say where all the stuff came from in the first place. We may never (very likely in our lifetimes) have the answer to that question.

Frankly, that's my point. Evolution as a theory dosen't remove the possibility of a creator from the equation.
It does not. People who say it does do not understand it. Which is why Evolution vs Creation arguments boil down to nonsense. Because we end up arguing apples and oranges.

Even abiogenesis doesn't answer where all the life and matter/energy in the universe comes from. It too is a process that attempts to explain how living things came into being from inanimate matter, but fails to say where all the stuff came from in the first place.
Which, like evolution, isn't it's point. Abiogenesis states in a nutshell, that life has the ability to simply "poof" into existence. It assumes that it just forms out of existing matter. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter simply because that's not what it's supposed to do.

And quite frankly, it's horrid to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

It's called 'faith' for a reason. Why should it bother you if people choose to believe something different?

It's called 'faith' for a reason. Why should it bother you if people choose to believe something different?

It doesn't bother me unless it hurts another person.

Which is what organized religion does.

It doesn't bother me unless it hurts another person.

Which is what organized religion does.

Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.
We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.

Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.
We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.

One does not need to be psychotic or an extremist to harm others. Harm does not only come in the form of physical violence. Take for example, Catholics on aid missions in Africa. As much as they want to stop the spread of AIDS, many are forbidden by their religion from giving out condoms. A simple and effective way to generally stop the spread of AIDS during intercourse.

These are generous, kind and overall, loving people, who are on the whole, blinded by their religion and not realizing the harm they're doing.

I thought someone already mentioned abiogenesis in this thread, somewhere... The theory of evolution does not try to explain the initial origin(s) of life. The origin of life is left in the realm of the ideas posed by abiogenesis.



Abiogenesis states in a nutshell, that life has the ability to simply "poof" into existence. It assumes that it just forms out of existing matter. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter simply because that's not what it's supposed to do.


Which was essentially my point to Arc. Both theories only relate to the rise of living matter. In the end we're only left with two likely possibilities: matter and energy have always existed or God/gods.

You so clueless you don't recognize a little levity? :rolleyes:

I asked a serious question: why? From what I've gathered, saying he 'weathered the Earth' is nothing more than a cheap way of explaining away all the evidence of its true age without any logic whatsoever as to why god did it.


And as I don't hold to the "theory of Creationism", we don't seem to have a real problem. As long as you recognize that Evolution theory is a WIP, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. :raise:

If you believe that god created the Earth and humans 10,000 years ago, then yes you do. You see this is why religion is so difficult; there's so much disarray that you can't determine if the other side knows what you're talking about, or if even they understand their own logic.

As I explained before, CREATIONISM relates to the origins of the universe or humans as being the result of divine creation RATHER THAN by natural processes. That is why you cannot have Creationism AND Evolution both exist simultaneously, because one directly counters the other. Get it right!

If in the event you simply are saying that 'Creation' as you call it is a possibility, I would rather say it's 'not an impossibility.' No matter how small it may be, it is not impossible that God exists. I admit that. Happy?

The problem with this argument is that some people are taking a lack of proof as cause to say 'disproven' and a WIP theory as grounds for not dispensing with something that is becoming increasingly unlikely. The more we know about the universe, the less likely it is that a supernatural being is responsible for everything.

Frankly, I make no claims of anything. The point is you mix up creationism (the fundamentalist biblical version) with the concept of a creator. That's all that's been pointed out to you from the beginning. If a God/god exists, who are you to define the method by which they would make or develop anything.
I don't state that God created the universe, merely consider that it's a possibility.

The whole God 'weathering the Earth to hide its age' is nothing beyond a circular argument. God can do anything so it doesn't matter that we can come to an alternate and natural conclusion that doesn't involve him at all.

Is it a possibility that he did create the universe? Yes, but given the lack of proof that he exists and the ever-growing wealth of knowledge that show that the Earth and humans came about naturally... it is becoming an increasingly unlikely outcome.

Given that we don't know where all the matter and energy in the universe comes from in the first place it would be extremely arrogant to think we can eliminate any possibilities that science can't disprove (For instance, we know that Superman is a modern human creation and therefore science knows---and can disprove--he created the universe....if anyone were willing to assert such a notion).

It'd be easier; Superman's origins are explained.

Then that brings up the next logical question: how did God come to exist? Now on top of figuring out where all the matter and energy originated, you now have to answer where God came from as well.

I'm afraid you have a reading comprehension problem if you're continuing to assert that I am anti-evolution. I've already stated that that is one method for explaining the diversty of how life around us has developed. Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.

No, but you keep supporting an argument that's full of holes. And guess what, your argument has that very same weakness as evolution and is sorely lacking proof of any kind. If you're going to judge evolution so harshly, it's very hypocritical of you to not to judge your own argument by the same standards.

The idea that someone snapped their fingers and *poof* created humans and the Earth doesn't answer our origins, nor is it a theory. In order for that to work, you must first present something that proves it's possible. And according to the law of conservation of matter and energy, that cannot be done. No, we don't know where it all originally came from, but that is not the point of this thread.

I'm seeing a pattern, here. People keep telling you that their idea of Creation doesn't fit into the dogmatic, literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet, you keep ignoring them and continue to spam the same extremely narrow-minded and completely incorrect assumption over and over. :roleyess:
I say teach the controversy
You say that? Really?

Are you sure that you're not merely repeating it, because I find it hauntingly familiar. I swear that I've seen those exact three words somewhere around here... :snear:

@DY--I see no real point in continuing this discussion w/you b/c it's obvious that your inability to be able to disagree with others w/o taking it personally is clearly getting in the way. You demonstrated in various threads, including this one, that you don't bother to read carefully what you're responding to and proceed to set up a bunch of strawmen that, frankly, it doesn't matter whether you knock 'em down or not. Shadowboxing is about all it amounts to in the end. If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you go back and read carefully and rethink your arguments. Otherwise, continue with the diatribes and scratch your head wondering wtf nobody "gets" you. Till then....

Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.
We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

~ Mohandas Gandhi

"It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong. The serious opponent of the Latin Church in history, even in the act of showing that it produced great infamies, must know that it produced great saints. It is the hard-headed stockbroker, who knows no history and believes no religion, who is, nevertheless, perfectly convinced that all these priests are knaves." - G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, Concluding Remarks, 1905.

@DY--I see no real point in continuing this discussion w/you b/c it's obvious that your inability to be able to disagree with others w/o taking it personally is clearly getting in the way.

Oh please, this is an online forum! People aren't going to change what they believe based on what they read off of a thread from people they've never met. I knew from the start that no one was going to sway their opinion about this subject, one way or another. If you or anyone else changed what we believed based on what I or anyone else presented, then it must not have been a highly-valued belief.

Shadowboxing is about all it amounts to in the end.

Very perceptive. That's about all that an online argument ever amounts to. I actually kept myself open to this topic, even though I didn't agree with it because I wanted to understand WHY others came to a different conclusion, but I just don't have the... faith to understand the other side in this case.

I actually asked you to clarify what I was getting wrong about creationism, but you did not give me a proper answer. You condemned me for something that went beyond the scope of the topic presented.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you go back and read carefully and rethink your arguments. Otherwise, continue with the diatribes and scratch your head wondering wtf nobody "gets" you. Till then....

For the sake of it... I did that. I went back and evaluated what has already been stated.

I admit that I did not properly distinguish 'Creation' from 'Creationism' the first time I used either term. I have since the subject was brought up. I have since used Creationism in its proper context... despite what may be claimed. I can't address Totenkopf's issues because he has sought not to clarify what he wants... other than changing my argument to fit his sense of logic.

[/QUOTE]"It MUST be one or the other because creationism directly opposes anything that might be explained naturally."[/QUOTE] This is correct.

"Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible." ~ This is also correct, but only because the term AND the outcome were altered.

And I am getting frustrated with the whole/creationism always being altered to another term that no one has bothered to properly define. I know the term I use, so don't proclaim I don't again.

People aren't going to change what they believe based on what they read off of a thread from people they've never met. . Darth_Yuthura – Why not use something like ~ Most people aren’t going to change what they believe based on what they read…” It paints you less in a corner and it gives people less opportunity to prove you wrong, because guess what? I’ve changed my mind based on what I read in this very forum. ET Warrior and Achilles proved me wrong and then got me to reexamine the facts and I change my perspective.

And I am getting frustrated with the whole/creationism always being altered to another term that no one has bothered to properly define. I know the term I use, so don't proclaim I don't again.
I'm sorry, but could you please state the law that dictates that my beliefs or anyone else's must conform to your strict definition? :dozey:

I must have missed it somewhere.

Why not use something like ~ Most people aren’t going to change what they believe based on what they read…”

Thank-you... 'avoid using absolute statements whenever possible.'

I just wanted to emphasize that I don't expect for something like one's implicit beliefs to easily change under conditions like these. At best, maybe get people thinking; but I did not seek, nor expect to convince many to see things my way if they do not already do.

All I can do is give my input and try not to be hostile, otherwise I shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

I'm sorry, but could you please state the law that dictates that my beliefs or anyone else's must conform to your strict definition?

I'm not. Someone assumes I don't know what I'm talking about, but when I try to understand his perception of logic, he doesn't help much by saying I don't know wtf I'm talking about. Maybe he could instead explain why he thinks I'm wrong. I already know that he does, so saying the same thing again doesn't exactly clarify it any more than the first time.

I do recognize that he sought to not have evolution coined as fact and for 'creation' to be regarded as possible. I admitted that already. Now as for what I sought... which theory is backed by the most evidence. I've been burned for having 'flaws' in my debates, and now I want to address the flaws I see with the 'creation' theory.

Nobody's has said (at least not me) you should change your opinion or ideas b/c of something you've read online. Another example of a wtf statement on your part. Part of your problem is that you're ascribing beliefs to me that I haven't claimed. I've merely pointed out the difference and your error in language in assessing the subject, as well as pointing out your arrogant presumption on the subject about what is and what isn't possible. Also, you're equally wrong about the "scope issue". The OP asked what peoples' opinions about Tof E was and then proceeded to state he was a creationist. That leaves a lot of room for the discussion to to bounce around. You knee-jerked assumed I was a "creationist" of the fundamentalist type and proceeded to go on one of your rants.

I suspect your presumption about what is proper and not has deepened your confusion. All the more so since I clearly indicated to you that I don't hold myself bound to YEC. I further stipulated that I had no problem with the Theory of Evolution being taught in class......so long as it was made clear that it was a theory. I further said that Creationism had no place in the science classroom. So, I'm naturally baffled by your vehement disagreement and attempt to shoehorn me into something I'm not. If you are confused by the term creationism (which you apparently still seem to think amounts to "poof"), google it. YEC is incompatible with what we understand about evolution, OEC sidesteps that problem by incorporating it into its paradigm. You have failed (don't feel too bad, so has science in general) to prove that a concept of divine creation is inherently impossible, even incompatible, with T of E. You merely assert, by fiat apparently, that it's impossible. In a nutshell you offer the false dichotomy: God or evolution. Seems to me that if God does exist, then by definition such an entity could in fact use evolution as a tool for devloping His/It's creations. Like you, I don't know where it all comes from. Unlike you, apprently, I can admit it.

Frankly, that's my point. Evolution as a theory dosen't remove the possibility of a creator from the equation. Even abiogenesis doesn't answer where all the life and matter/energy in the universe comes from. It too is a process that attempts to explain how living things came into being from inanimate matter, but fails to say where all the stuff came from in the first place. We may never (very likely in our lifetimes) have the answer to that question.

I suppose that, ultimately, it doesn't. But the thing is that the equation is already complete and functioning, and doesn't need anything else added into it for it to work. Abiogenesis is pure chemical reactions forming organic molecules. I'll say this next set of sentences hypothetically, since abiogenesis is just a bunch of ideas not irrefutably confirmed. Basically you have the basic compounds for life, starting out in one or several different hypothesized ideal environments suggested as possible starting points for abiogenesis. As anyone would well know, chemistry includes chain reactions among various elements and environmental stimuli. So you start out with the base elements of this planet's lifeforms - carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, etc, etc; as well as the conditions of pre-life Earth.

Considering this, these elements and compounds undergo chain reactions, and you get the first organic molecules. Eventually, if these molecules came into contact with each other, more chain reactiosn would occur. The hardest part in this is for the molecules to form in the first cells. I don't know much about that. But before evolution can begin, these cells have to become complex enough from chemical reactions in order to undergo the simplist possible processes of evolution. Again, not much is known at this point, and it's all hypothetical. But the matter of the fact is that it is possible for this to happen. This experiment is the most well known example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment)

There's also the Strecker synthesis and Butlerov's reaction to note.

Edit: My understanding of the formation of the first cells was incorrect/incomplete, considering this: http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html)

Which was essentially my point to Arc. Both theories only relate to the rise of living matter. In the end we're only left with two likely possibilities: matter and energy have always existed or God/gods.

Yes, but who knows? In the future, there may be a third or more possibilities besides these two. The problem is that a diety is a non-quantifiable equation, but we can quantify matter and energy and put them into equations that make sense and can consistently be tested and observed.

Edit: Still, I agree that the idea of a diety being part of the equation should be considered, for the sake or argument. However, not much will be gained by doing so, because the diety(s) that may or may not exist cannot be scientifically observed.

I will not say that it's impossible for a diety to be part of the equations here, but I am saying that it seems like a waste of time to put them into the equations because it won't contribute anything research-wise. All it would do is over-complicate everything. It's like trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed.



You say that? Really?

Are you sure that you're not merely repeating it, because I find it hauntingly familiar. I swear that I've seen those exact three words somewhere around here... :snear:

Yes, I'm repeating it. I can understand what you mean here though. I'm not meaning to plagerize whomever first said it. But I suppose I may unintentionally have done so. The phrase 'teach the controversy' just seemed to fit well to say what I wanted to say in my post. Ironically, after looking it up, I've found that the phrase actually originated as the name of a Discovery Institute campaign to promote intelligent design and discredit evolution.

The controversy I meant to refer to was weather or not to teach about the theorized evolution of humans in the classroom.

I'll have to try to be more careful with what phrases I use, lest I encounter an irony like this again.

"It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong. The serious opponent of the Latin Church in history, even in the act of showing that it produced great infamies, must know that it produced great saints. It is the hard-headed stockbroker, who knows no history and believes no religion, who is, nevertheless, perfectly convinced that all these priests are knaves." - G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, Concluding Remarks, 1905.

Yes, I agree that people have done great things because of their religious beleifs. Which is why I haven't debated religion itself in this thread. I don't want to accidentally generalize and commit the logical fallacy of 'guilty by association'.

Yes, but who knows? In the future, there may be a third or more possibilities besides these two. The problem is that a diety is a non-quantifiable equation, but we can quantify matter and energy and put them into equations that make sense and can consistently be tested and observed.
Yes, I'm repeating it. I can understand what you mean here though. I'm not meaning to plagerize whomever first said it. But I suppose I may unintentionally have done so. The phrase 'teach the controversy' just seemed to fit well to say what I wanted to say in my post. Ironically, after looking it up, I've found that the phrase actually originated as the name of a Discovery Institute campaign to promote intelligent design and discredit evolution.
The controversy I meant to refer to was weather or not to teach about the theorized evolution of humans in the classroom.
I'll have to try to more careful with what phrases I use, lest I encounter an irony like this again.

Well, I suspect that everything will ultimatley boil down to either of those 2 in the end. As to the "teach the controversy" bit, I wasn't saying don't teach the "controversy", I said don't teach it as fact. It's a fine theory as things go, and may ultimately prove to be a fact....just not quite yet.

You merely assert, by fiat apparently, that it's impossible. In a nutshell you offer the false dichotomy: God or evolution. Seems to me that if God does exist, then by definition such an entity could in fact use evolution as a tool for devloping His/It's creations.

In regards to that last statement... that's not creationism. No, I'm not going even further in that direction. In that being stated, I would not have ranted about you being for creationism because that assumes that evolution took place. When you started injecting about god starting evolution on its course, then humans are not his creations. They are merely secondary products of evolution... of which we do not know where it all began.

Another example of a wtf statement on your part. Part of your problem is that you're ascribing beliefs to me that I haven't claimed. I've merely pointed out the difference and your error in language in assessing the subject, as well as pointing out your arrogant presumption on the subject about what is and what isn't possible.

Well I defined creationism and made it clear that it either is that or evolution. You said I was mistaken... I wasn't. I did not say that evolution means there is no god; I said that with evolution disproves creationism.

-If evolution began naturally (or because of god doesn't matter) so long as it is assumed we evolved over millions of years.

-It's only when people assume God created Earth 10,000 years ago... evolution did not take place and it that is creationism.

I think you didn't articulate what was saying, assuming I got something wrong, that you stepped in and made 'corrections,' not knowing that it disrupted the point I was trying to make.

Evolution vs. Creationism = Only one can be correct
Evolution being the result of a creation of god ≠ Creationism

Does this clarify things?

You have failed (don't feel too bad, so has science in general) to prove that a concept of divine creation is inherently impossible, even incompatible, with T of E. You merely assert, by fiat apparently, that it's impossible.

Well it's not as though religion has done any better and has in fact slowed down our search for the truth in the past. No, science can't disprove divine creation; but it also can't disprove that I'm a god in human form who took corporeal form to communicate with humans.

Sounds ridiculous, as intended, but that could be just as difficult to disprove as a religion that millions believe in. So a lack of evidence is not really grounds for anything beyond the scale of one's imagination.

Keep it civil, folks. There's no need to make personal attacks or snarky statements, and the staff has noticed an increase in both in this thread. This is one subject that can get really heated, and I would urge all of you to take the time to make your responses as respectful as possible so that your points are communicated without the distraction of flaming of trolling. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Here's the issue: There are different philosophies of creation, just like there are different philosophies within evolution, so you can't put this into either 'young-earth creationism', which I think Darth_Yuthura is thinking here, or 'strict' evolution.
There is strict non-deistic macroevolution, non-deistic microevolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism (similar to theistic evolution but without transitional species, since there are no fossil records of transitional species), literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

All of these will always be theories. Why? We can't go back in time to see how it really happened to prove which theory is correct. Anyone who says any of these theories is 'fact' would be incorrect.

Here's the issue: There are different philosophies of creation, just like there are different philosophies within evolution, so you can't put this into either 'young-earth creationism', which I think Darth_Yuthura is thinking here, or 'strict' evolution.
There is strict non-deistic macroevolution, non-deistic microevolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism (similar to theistic evolution but without transitional species, since there are no fossil records of transitional species), literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

All of these will always be theories. Why? We can't go back in time to see how it really happened to prove which theory is correct. Anyone who says any of these theories is 'fact' would be incorrect.

Very well said. There are many different interpretations, viewpoints, and opinions on all sides of this debate. What I don't understand is how some people aren't capable of realizing there is a difference between believing in creationism of some kind and being a Christian (for the record, not that it should matter to this debate but yet somehow it does, I'm....going to let you come to your own conclusions on what I hold to be true). Christianity is hardly the only religion that has a creation myth or story. Hell, they're hardly the only group! Native Americans have a creation story, Christianity has one, the Mayans and Aztecs have/had one, Hindus have one, and though I haven't heard one, I'm sure the eastern religions do. The only difference though, is that the other creation myths aren't foisted on society as literal truth like the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim one is. Just because most people believe it doesn't make it right...and that applies to science as well as matters of faith.

Since there are many interpretations and theories behind Evolution, and literally thousands of creation myths, who is to say which is right among any of them? Is some arrogant blowhard like Richard Dawkins more correct than someone like James Dobson since he worships at the altar of Science instead of the altar of Jesus? Um...no. Neither, honestly, are credible, and are really just a waste of space, text, and air. That may have been a bit harsh, but the extremes on both sides could learn a lot from one another, and would do well to tone down their obscenely self-serving and hypocritical rhetoric.

"It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong. The serious opponent of the Latin Church in history, even in the act of showing that it produced great infamies, must know that it produced great saints. It is the hard-headed stockbroker, who knows no history and believes no religion, who is, nevertheless, perfectly convinced that all these priests are knaves." - G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, Concluding Remarks, 1905.

Very good quote. I find too many people nowadays have no grounding in history, which seriously weakens any argument they try to make. Understanding history reveals insight into why things are the way they are, what happened back when, the formative moments behind X, and how especially mythology, religions, language, science, and math (among others, naturally) have changed and shifted and morphed through the decades. It really troubles me how few people have any notion of history.


As for evolution vs creationism, as I've said previously, I have no problem with people believing what they want. I may not agree, but that's my and your right. What I don't agree with is 'teaching the controversy' side by side in a science classroom. From a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy, so myths and religion should be taught in their respective classroom. Also, if one truly is to teach creation, it should compromise all the different myths from different cultures fairly and neutrally, not just the Christian/Jewish/Muslim one.

literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

All of these will always be theories.

Sorry, but those are not theories. What you speak of have never gone beyond hypothesis. The Theory of evolution is such because there is evidence to support it. That evidence doesn't prove it to be fact, but it shows there's more to it than just a guess.

As for virtually all the religious creation scenarios, none can go beyond 'hypothesis' without evidence. And there often is a substancial amount of counter evidence that maybe doesn't exactly disprove anything, but certainly doesn't support the supernatural.

It does not. People who say it does do not understand it. Which is why Evolution vs Creation arguments boil down to nonsense. Because we end up arguing apples and oranges.

This is very true. Probably is reason for why people are finding crosses between the two instead of opposition as previously accepted by both sides.

Which, like evolution, isn't it's point. Abiogenesis states in a nutshell, that life has the ability to simply "poof" into existence. It assumes that it just forms out of existing matter. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter simply because that's not what it's supposed to do.
It takes for granted what is happening has always happened, and always will.
This is an opening door (one of probably several I don't know of yet) for the philosophy of existentialism. Existentialism to the best I can tell is the belief that what is happening has always happened and will always happen. Just simply is, no why or how. Which is fine until under sway of this theory, one begins to preach questioning, objectivity, and skepticism.

What I find ironic, is that many (young) investigative and questioning minds subscribe to it. At least I notice this in universities and community colleges. This is the one thing they won't question and just accept like a postulate. Then again, I keep hearing that scientific minds ask how but are unconcerned with why.


One does not need to be psychotic or an extremist to harm others.

Actually, isn't there some kind of saying that the only thing needed for evil men to succeed, is for good men men to do nothing?

For those who do not believe in good and evil replace:
evil men with men of folly
good men with men of merit
etc.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

~ Mohandas Gandhi

Actually, that is a good point. Part of what makes christianity so unbelieveable is the unbelievability of it when people claim to it in the home and yet willfully tosses aside the virtues of it in the way they live outside home or church. I realize not everyone is perfect, though. Still imperfection is not an excuse to not strive.

Sorry, but those are not theories. What you speak of have never gone beyond hypothesis. The Theory of evolution is such because there is evidence to support it. That evidence doesn't prove it to be fact, but it shows there's more to it than just a guess.

As for virtually all the religious creation scenarios, none can go beyond 'hypothesis' without evidence. And there often is a substancial amount of counter evidence that maybe doesn't exactly disprove anything, but certainly doesn't support the supernatural.

So then, what, DY? Are you insinuating it is absolutely false or at least of lesser credibility? (You wouldn't say this in opposition to merely point this out.)

In regards to that last statement... that's not creationism. No, I'm not going even further in that direction. In that being stated, I would not have ranted about you being for creationism because that assumes that evolution took place. When you started injecting about god starting evolution on its course, then humans are not his creations. They are merely secondary products of evolution... of which we do not know where it all began.

Hmm...I think the emboldened section below is where your wires are getting crossed.


I don't wish to insult someone for believing a god, but I just cannot comprehend how people who've accepted evolution could still believe in creation. I could believe someone who brings up something very peculiar that isn't explained by evolution, such as a fossil that doesn't conform to any organisms that existed at the time period it was found. Sentience is even something that I could believe went beyond evolution.




Well I defined creationism and made it clear that it either is that or evolution. You said I was mistaken... I wasn't. I did not say that evolution means there is no god; I said that with evolution disproves creationism.
-If evolution began naturally (or because of god doesn't matter) so long as it is assumed we evolved over millions of years.
-It's only when people assume God created Earth 10,000 years ago... evolution did not take place and it that is creationism.
I think you didn't articulate what was saying, assuming I got something wrong, that you stepped in and made 'corrections,' not knowing that it disrupted the point I was trying to make.
Evolution vs. Creationism = Only one can be correct
Evolution being the result of a creation of god ≠ Creationism
Does this clarify things?


You reference both creation and Creationism throughout and reject both. I granted early on that "Creationism" was incompatible with what we know and believe about T of E. Also stated that I didn't hold to Creationism. It is your apparent unintentional conflation of the two concepts that has led us to this point. I said you were mistaken in your absolute assertion that T of E was in effect indisputable fact and that there were effectively no alternatives. I never said, as you contend, that Creationism (ie YEC) was compatible with T of E.

Also, at the risk of upsetting you here, you're incorrect in asserting that if God did set evolution into play that man would not be a creation of his. If God did use evolution to unfold life as we know it, then all things natural are his creation.


Well it's not as though religion has done any better and has in fact slowed down our search for the truth in the past. No, science can't disprove divine creation; but it also can't disprove that I'm a god in human form who took corporeal form to communicate with humans.
Sounds ridiculous, as intended, but that could be just as difficult to disprove as a religion that millions believe in. So a lack of evidence is not really grounds for anything beyond the scale of one's imagination.

Not sure what your point here is as I wasn't defending religion.:raise:

Also, at the risk of upsetting you here, you're incorrect in asserting that if God did set evolution into play that man would not be a creation of his. If God did use evolution to unfold life as we know it, then all things natural are his creation.

No.

It would be like giving your grandfather credit for what your father/mother did in raising you. The grandfather could take credit for raising their son/daughter properly, but anything the son/daughter did on their own goes to their actions. You cannot say that God created humans if he actually didn't. You can proclaim that through evolution, creation(s) of god culminated to what are now humans. If he didn't create humans if evolution was the cause for our existence.


Not sure what your point here is as I wasn't defending religion.

Right, then what were you doing? It wasn't limited solely to declaring evolution wasn't fact; I can say that much.

The church and science are highly biassed towards one another; that I would agree on. The difference between the two is that science is an intellectual process where as religion is fictional/historical and not bound by any rules or regulations. You can't mix the two, so it's best not to even try.

It is your apparent unintentional conflation of the two concepts that has led us to this point. I said you were mistaken in your absolute assertion that T of E was in effect indisputable fact and that there were effectively no alternatives.


No that isn't so, but I see no point in debating *this* now. You're going to say I hadn't the vaguest idea what I meant. I'm going to keep saying you assumed something and altered exactly what I intended to what you wanted instead.

It would be like giving your grandfather credit for what your father/mother did in raising you. The grandfather could take credit for raising their son/daughter properly, but anything the son/daughter did on their own goes to their actions. You cannot say that God created humans if he actually didn't. You can proclaim that through evolution, creation(s) of god culminated to what are now humans. If he didn't create humans if evolution was the cause for our existence.

Nice try, but wrong. More akin to me creating automated machinery to mass produce robots and then turning on a switch. I created the robots as well as the machinery.



Right, then what were you doing? It wasn't limited solely to declaring evolution wasn't fact; I can say that much.

Sticking a pin in your pretensions, perhaps. :xp: You were pontificating about what is/is not possible. You clearly don't have sufficient authority to rule anything out as you're merely human like the rest of us. As you acknowledged to mimartin, perhaps steering clear of absolute statements will cause you less headaches.



The church and science are highly biassed towards one another; that I would agree on. The difference between the two is that science is an intellectual process where as religion is fictional/historical and not bound by any rules or regulations. You can't mix the two, so it's best not to even try.

Relevancy?


No that isn't so, but I see no point in debating *this* now. You're going to say I hadn't the vaguest idea what I meant. I'm going to keep saying you assumed something and altered exactly what I intended to what you wanted instead.

Unfortunately for you it is the case and has been illustrated w/your own words. But perhaps we can just drop this and agree to disagree about where each of us think the other erred. Consider your own words before bothering to address this particular point again. Lest we engage in a "circular argument" of our own. ;)

Nice try, but wrong. More akin to me creating automated machinery to mass produce robots and then turning on a switch. I created the robots as well as the machinery.

I don't see the metaphor. The universe isn't the same from one moment to the next. It is very dynamic and not a self-perpetuated and predictable machine producing exactly what you want, as you are suggesting. If I decided to go out and commit mass murder just to prove my point, I control my own actions... not god. That being so, I and everyone else fall outside the realm of what God is responsible for.

If God's responsibility ended with human actions...

If an animal changed its behavior because of human activity, then you should take that into account as to how our actions... assuming God wanted us to be more than drones... will affect the rest of nature as god didn't intend. That goes to show that we have free will and that humans can and do impact the galaxy in a way that god did not intend.

Unless god stepped in to facilitate the process of evolution, I really don't see how humans could be considered his creation. I still believe they are a creation of nature, as god didn't create us as he did in the bible. I can't explain the origins of life or the universe, but I hope we eventually find the answers to those questions.


Sticking a pin in your pretensions, perhaps. :xp: You were pontificating about what is/is not possible. You clearly don't have sufficient authority to rule anything out as you're merely human like the rest of us. As you acknowledged to mimartin, perhaps steering clear of absolute statements will cause you less headaches.

Go back and REREAD what I said. I used that absolute statement properly. I said Evolution and Creationism cannot both be right because one directly defeats the other. I did not (in fact I left open the possibility that God was involved) say that the acceptance of evolution meant that god didn't exist.

Would you say this is inaccurate?

Sure, the theories do defeat one another, largely. I wouldn't say absolutely, though. I think most people who accept evolution as a tool for creationism are of the mind that creation fills in the blanks of evolutionary theory. Least that's what I got from people who can make sense out of both.

I'm just stating generally what I see. However, don't anyone let me speak for you: if you have it different, certainly say something.

It's largely a "Chicken or Egg;Which came first?" argument for what was the beginning if there was one (Existentialists don't believe there ever was). Creating beings that will evolve? Well, I'd say evolution is an extension of creation in that case, no? I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my brain around how the 2 are absolutely exclusive of each another...

I just don't see them as incompatible--the Bible says in the beginning God created light (Big Bang), along the way God created the sun, moon, earth (other stars, planets, etc., not inconsistent with our knowledge of cosmology), separated the land from the sea (development of our planet), made vegetation, animals, fish, and other living things (but doesn't describe HOW it's done--evolution could easily fit in here), and then made humans (not inconsistent with evolution--we're one of the latest to be made in the food chain).

What parts specifically are incompatible, keeping in mind that Genesis is not a science book, but rather an account of how God's developed His relationship with humans?

The Catholic church, which has the largest number of Christians in the world, has acknowledged evolution is not incompatible and has even apologized for its treatment of Galileo. If you're seeing evolution as incompatible with YEC, I'll agree with you on that, but otherwise I'm missing the incompatibilities you're describing.

It's largely a "Chicken or Egg;Which came first?" argument for what was the beginning if there was one (Existentialists don't believe there ever was). Creating beings that will evolve? Well, I'd say evolution is an extension of creation in that case, no? I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my brain around how the 2 are absolutely exclusive of each another...

Well if you really want a logical answer to that, it was the egg. Of course it wasn't literally as such, because proto-organisms lacked many of the qualities of organisms we know today. It was a very gradual transition which likely yielded things that couldn't reproduce, but that they formed from primordial reactions of chemicals and eventually there came a point when single celled organisms could sustain themselves and reproduce on their own... in theory. Not fact.

Sure, the theories do defeat one another, largely. I wouldn't say absolutely, though. I think most people who accept evolution as a tool for creationism are of the mind that creation fills in the blanks of evolutionary theory. Least that's what I got from people who can make sense out of both.

I can understand people using religion to fill the holes of what they don't know, but what you use to fill those holes shouldn't be treated the same as theories such as evolution. You can say there's a god if that's what you want to believe, but people should recognize that what you use to fill those holes may not be the same from one person to the next. You can show fossils and geographic records as evidence which others can't dispute. They can dispute the theories about how they came to be, but can't deny that the fossils exist.

I just don't see them as incompatible--the Bible says in the beginning God created light (Big Bang), along the way God created the sun, moon, earth (other stars, planets, etc., not inconsistent with our knowledge of cosmology), separated the land from the sea (development of our planet), made vegetation, animals, fish, and other living things (but doesn't describe HOW it's done--evolution could easily fit in here), and then made humans (not inconsistent with evolution--we're one of the latest to be made in the food chain).

What parts specifically are incompatible, keeping in mind that Genesis is not a science book, but rather an account of how God's developed His relationship with humans?

The Catholic church, which has the largest number of Christians in the world, has acknowledged evolution is not incompatible and has even apologized for its treatment of Galileo. If you're seeing evolution as incompatible with YEC, I'll agree with you on that, but otherwise I'm missing the incompatibilities you're describing.

Those are my feelings on evolution/creation. I mean, I believe in evolution, but creationism had to come in somewhere, otherwise it probably wouldn't be written down as such.

Those are my feelings on evolution/creation. I mean, I believe in evolution, but creationism had to come in somewhere, otherwise it probably wouldn't be written down as such.

'Creationism' is not properly used here. It is a belief, not an act. That belief revolves around the universe having been created by act of divine creation (I know it sounds identical, but it's not) rather than through nature or evolution. What you probably mean is that evolution took place following an act taken by God started it all in motion.

What you speak of is not creationism. Is it that you believe in god, but that his divine creations were our genetic ancestors and not humans?

The term creationism is not limited in its use to those who believe that God created humans "ready-made." Broadly it denotes anyone who believes that the universe was the creative act of a God, regardless of any particular mode of creation. Anyone who believes this, theistic evolutionists included, are creationists, although they are not necessarily "young earth creationists."

'Creationism' is not properly used here. It is a belief, not an act. That belief revolves around the universe having been created by act of divine creation (I know it sounds identical, but it's not) rather than through nature or evolution. What you probably mean is that evolution took place following an act taken by God started it all in motion.

What you speak of is not creationism. Is it that you believe in god, but that his divine creations were our genetic ancestors and not humans?You're thinking deistic evolution here--God set the clock in motion and let it go. Progressive creationism theorizes that God created each species separately in a guided process, albeit over a long period of time and in a pattern that we see in the fossil record. The distinction is subtle.

The term creationism is not limited in its use to those who believe that God created humans "ready-made." Broadly it denotes anyone who believes that the universe was the creative act of a God, regardless of any particular mode of creation. Anyone who believes this, theistic evolutionists included, are creationists, although they are not necessarily "young earth creationists."

If that's so, then what's the point of this thread? You might as well have just called it "Does god exist or not?" If he did, then it really doesn't matter... an omnipotent being could just as easily have created the universe as it was 10 billion years ago, or as it is now. The 'young earth creationism' is just as plausible as any other hypothesis that he initiated the big bang.

You're thinking deistic evolution here--God set the clock in motion and let it go. Progressive creationism theorizes that God created each species separately in a guided process, albeit over a long period of time and in a pattern that we see in the fossil record. The distinction is subtle.

That doesn't make sense. If he just wanted to create humans in his own form, then why did he create so much else on top of it all? It wouldn't have made much difference to us if the billions of other stars in the universe never existed. He'd just have to throw in a few bits of heavier elements from now-dead stars into the solar system for the same results.

It's obvious where I stand in this, but I really dislike how evidence can be dismissed or integrated as desired with virtually any hypothesis. Evolution... god projected it would amount to humans. Young earth... God had the means to make the world look much older than it actually is. 'Let there be light'... could be the big bang. Any indiscrepancies in the bible is explained by humans misinterpreting god's words.

I am biased towards religion, yes; but it's because these are simple answers that have no proof. All of which depend upon whether God is omnipotent or if there is a natural explanation for it all. Just because we don't know the answers yet doesn't exactly mean we should assume it's supernatural until the scientific method disproves it. Something that is unknown should be regarded as unknown until proven otherwise. Science should be setting out to find out what remains unknown; not having to disprove something like religion as well. Although POSSIBLE, the supernatural is as yet only a human-generated concept.

The point of this thread from the OP's point of view was to discuss who believed what and why. ;)

If that's so, then what's the point of this thread? You might as well have just called it "Does god exist or not?" If he did, then it really doesn't matter... an omnipotent being could just as easily have created the universe as it was 10 billion years ago, or as it is now. The 'young earth creationism' is just as plausible as any other hypothesis that he initiated the big bang.If by, "just as plausible" you mean, "have no differentiable physical evidence for either idea" then yes, that's quite true. You'll remember that neither idea is scientific theory but religious mythology. But the debate in theological circles seems to be whether one idea or another is compatible in with God's nature, and there is room for discussion there.

An example of an argument on this is just that creating everything ex nihilo five minutes ago, even people's memories, is incompatible with the idea that God cannot deceive. Additionally, the idea that God created people with the capacity for reasoning implies that he would not purposefully steer our reasoning wrongly by presenting a situation in which we could not possibly utilize it, etc. So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

Correction: It is within God's means, assuming he's omnipotent, to reasonably assume he either used creationism or evolution to produce humans.

An example of an argument on this is just that creating everything ex nihilo five minutes ago, even people's memories, is incompatible with the idea that God cannot deceive. Additionally, the idea that God created people with the capacity for reasoning implies that he would not purposefully steer our reasoning wrongly by presenting a situation in which we could not possibly utilize it, etc. So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

If God cannot deceive, then he is not God. If God simply chooses not to deceive, then we have no assurance that he will never deceive. And if He did, He's God, so it really doesn't matter because He probably did it well enough so that we'd all buy it.

A lower probability does not make it safe to assume the situation did not happen. Just because I have a 1 in a billion chance to be struck by a meteor, does not mean that it can't happen.

He can deceive, alright.

He wasn't being honest with Abraham when he told him to sacrifice Isaac to him.

If God cannot deceive, then he is not God. If God simply chooses not to deceive, then we have no assurance that he will never deceive. And if He did, He's God, so it really doesn't matter because He probably did it well enough so that we'd all buy it.There may exist some conception of God such that he can lie in that way. Typically, however, I think of God's abilities as rather Catholic in character, hence my examples. Given that it'd be a fallacy to swap ideas of God mid-argument, it's possible to argue a point one way or another for a particular concept of God.

A lower probability does not make it safe to assume the situation did not happen. Just because I have a 1 in a billion chance to be struck by a meteor, does not mean that it can't happen.Indeed. Which is why more formal arguments generally depend on logical necessity; e.g., God could not lie, etc., could not act evilly, could not "decide on" moral law. Such arguments are possible only because the issue is conceptual and not empirical. As I said to Darth Yuthura, it's a discussion on religious mythology, not empirical facts.

Correction: It is within God's means, assuming he's omnipotent, to reasonably assume he either used creationism or evolution to produce humans.I thought I had just explained that, under some concepts of God, the two options as you have given them do not exist.