Creationism vs Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…and yet, creationists do little to futher scientific progress in that area, beside attributing the wonders of the universe to god, because they don’t follow the correct scientific procedures [see the cartoon earlier in this thread]…

…your one possible answer is negated because it’s make-belief, fairy tales, bronze age myth and scientific unsound reasoning. It is far from intellectually dishonest to ignore something that has nothing to do with the field of science. That is calling a brainsurgeon intellectually dishonest when he ignores the art of cheese making in regards to his profession. It’s just utter nonsense…

…no matter how you try to spin this, whatever science does, it should have no influence on your beliefs. Science and religious beliefs are divided by a casm of immense proportions, and it should stay that way. Or perhaps you’re just afraid science is going to prove you wrong…
[/quote]

You love helping me out - thanks.

OK, scientists who were Christians and still added amazing scientific knowledge to the world - Roger Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Johannes Baptista van Helmont, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euhler, Jaohn Dalton, Michael Faraday, John Frederick William Herschel, Matthew Fontaine Maury, James Prescott Joule, Gregor Mendel, Lord William Thompson Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, George Washington Carver, Arthur Stanley Eddington - to name a few, have hundreds more if you want them all - so your grossly exaggerated comment that creationists are not able to follow scientific procedure is a bit . . .STUPID! In point of fact, you will find that the vaunted scientific method was developed by religious men (both Muslim and Christian) Oh but wait - you had a cartoon . . . .

Acknowledging that the possibility exists that all things have a cause external to their existence is not make-belief, it’s rational thought.

It would make no sense to believe what you commented . . . if there is a God who created all things (whether by evolution, creation or morphism) why should I leave Him out of my search for understanding and truth - it would seem logical to include understanding the designer as you seek to understand the design.

My faith and my reason cannot be separated . . . I cannot believe something I cannot understand, and I must understand what I believe - it’s no wonder you mock people of faith, if you insist on such a retarded separation.

But, to be perfectly honest, even you do not separate your beliefs from your science - you believe there is no God and you build that into your scientific reasoning . . .

202

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Who’s is more intellectually dishonest- the mind open to any and all possibilities or the one closed to all but their narrowed view?

Are you implying that your mind is open to the possibility that the origin of the universe, the earth, and humanity might have been something other than the sequence of events described in Genesis 1?[/quote]

Yes, when I stopped to examine all belief and suspended all presuppositions in order to begin my reasoned search for the truth, I was entirely open to the possibility that the universe came into existence by any number of methods - and am so to this day.

Even as a reasoned believer in scripture, however, I find nothing in it that prevents consideration of any proposed concepts . . . I live by the mantra “Truth never fears a challenge” - but I do hold people to a high level of proof if they wish to change my views.

204

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

Even as a reasoned believer in scripture, however, I find nothing in it that prevents consideration of any proposed concepts . . . I live by the mantra “Truth never fears a challenge” - but I do hold people to a high level of proof if they wish to change my views.[/quote]

Fair enough.

I like this version of that mantra: “a searcher of truth doesn’t fear the results of his search.”

208

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…and yet, creationists do little to futher scientific progress in that area, beside attributing the wonders of the universe to god, because they don’t follow the correct scientific procedures [see the cartoon earlier in this thread]…

…your one possible answer is negated because it’s make-belief, fairy tales, bronze age myth and scientific unsound reasoning. It is far from intellectually dishonest to ignore something that has nothing to do with the field of science. That is calling a brainsurgeon intellectually dishonest when he ignores the art of cheese making in regards to his profession. It’s just utter nonsense…

…no matter how you try to spin this, whatever science does, it should have no influence on your beliefs. Science and religious beliefs are divided by a casm of immense proportions, and it should stay that way. Or perhaps you’re just afraid science is going to prove you wrong…

You love helping me out - thanks.

OK, scientists who were Christians and still added amazing scientific knowledge to the world - Roger Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Johannes Baptista van Helmont, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euhler, Jaohn Dalton, Michael Faraday, John Frederick William Herschel, Matthew Fontaine Maury, James Prescott Joule, Gregor Mendel, Lord William Thompson Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, George Washington Carver, Arthur Stanley Eddington - to name a few, have hundreds more if you want them all - so your grossly exaggerated comment that creationists are not able to follow scientific procedure is a bit . . .STUPID!

In point of fact, you will find that the vaunted scientific method was developed by religious men (both Muslim and Christian) Oh but wait - you had a cartoon . . . .

Acknowledging that the possibility exists that all things have a cause external to their existence is not make-belief, it’s rational thought.

It would make no sense to believe what you commented . . . if there is a God who created all things (whether by evolution, creation or morphism) why should I leave Him out of my search for understanding and truth - it would seem logical to include understanding the designer as you seek to understand the design.

My faith and my reason cannot be separated . . . I cannot believe something I cannot understand, and I must understand what I believe - it’s no wonder you mock people of faith, if you insist on such a retarded separation.

But, to be perfectly honest, even you do not separate your beliefs from your science - you believe there is no God and you build that into your scientific reasoning . . .

When you understand that people like Eph and Jab are every bit as faithful, dogmatic, and zealous as any religious person ever was, it all falls into place. They detest “faith” and smother it with derogatory terms like “magic” but they are indeed the priests of their very own church. I honestly believe some of them would, if they could, burn heretics at the stake for disputing the creed of the Church of the Hallowed Darwin. [/quote]

And when you realize that they are probably not, but that some people need to think that they are, yet another truth reveals itself.

210

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Think about it for a little bit, objectively, and get back to me. I’m serious. Think about it for a little while.
[/quote]

I have. A supernatural being with superpowers we have absolutely no physical evidence is still more complicated than a process we have observed happening over billions of years. Sorry.

Look, I have a passing belief in God. I’m undecided, as far the higher power thing goes.

But Evolution is a damn good theory, and it is the ONLY theory we have. It also explains pretty much every major discovery in Biology. It has been adapting and changing since its inception. This is totally unlike creationism, which is rigid, unchanging, and to be perfectly honest, just plain silly.

If you want to argue that God facilitated the genetic mutation and variation that resulted in natural selection and therefore evolution, go right ahead. I might even be inclined to believe with you. This, all of this, is far too amazing to me, in my opinion, to be entirely an accident.

But if you’re going to sit here and seriously argue you think a supernatural, omnipotent being used magic to blink the physical universe into existence instantaneously with every being currently known already in it… well I’m gonna laugh.

212

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Who’s is more intellectually dishonest- the mind open to any and all possibilities or the one closed to all but their narrowed view?

Are you implying that your mind is open to the possibility that the origin of the universe, the earth, and humanity might have been something other than the sequence of events described in Genesis 1?

Would you dare imply that your mind might be open to the possibility that the origin of the universe, the earth, and humanity might have been exactly according the sequence of events described in Genesis 1? Or does your superbly refined intellect dismiss it without much thought and thereby implicate you with the very close-mindedness that you seem to abhor in others?[/quote]

I assure you I haven’t dismissed any possibility, even after much thought.

I just lean more strongly toward possibilities that seem more plausible to me.

Tell you what: I will concede the possibility that the origin of the universe, earth and humanity might have occurred exactly as written in Genesis 1, if you will concede the possibility that Genesis 1 might actually be describing, in simplified terms, the divinely ordered Big Bang and proliferation of life through macroevolution.

We’ll see whose mind is more open.

215

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Think about it for a little bit, objectively, and get back to me. I’m serious. Think about it for a little while.

I have. A supernatural being with superpowers we have absolutely no physical evidence is still more complicated than a process we have observed happening over billions of years. Sorry.

Look, I have a passing belief in God. I’m undecided, as far the higher power thing goes.

But Evolution is a damn good theory, and it is the ONLY theory we have. It also explains pretty much every major discovery in Biology. It has been adapting and changing since its inception. This is totally unlike creationism, which is rigid, unchanging, and to be perfectly honest, just plain silly.

If you want to argue that God facilitated the genetic mutation and variation that resulted in natural selection and therefore evolution, go right ahead. I might even be inclined to believe with you. This, all of this, is far too amazing to me, in my opinion, to be entirely an accident. But if you’re going to sit here and seriously argue you think a supernatural, omnipotent being used magic to blink the physical universe into existence instantaneously with every being currently known already in it… well I’m gonna laugh.

You thought of it for all of 15 minutes, huh? That’s how long it’s been since I posted that. 15 minutes of introspection and you have it all figured out? Son, you can take longer than that to reflect on something of this sort.

And no, don’t tell me you did all the thinking beforehand. What you have done is let your college professors do all the thinking for you. You’ve let them convince you it’s cool to laugh at creationists. They asked for recruits in the war and you signed up.[/quote]

I’ve yet to take a college biology class… so no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve done my own research. Evolutionary science is, well, science. Creationism is not science. End of story.

If you find another viable scientific theory that can be proven wrong and hasn’t yet been, that explains the same phenomena that evolution does, I’ll gladly take it into consideration. Right now, however, there is only one viable theory on how the diversification of life came to be, and that is evolution.

217

I concede the possibility. Sure. I just think evolution and specification due to natural selection are far, far more likely, and the only current scientific explanation.

That doesn’t mean I think Genesis is IMPOSSIBLE. Just highly, highly unlikely and totally unscientific.

If the evidence greatly supports evolution, and hardly supports creationism, why can’t you have the thought that perhaps evolution was pushed along by God?

Why can’t God be the why instead of the how?

219

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I concede the possibility. Sure. I just think evolution and specification due to natural selection are far, far more likely, and the only current scientific explanation.

That doesn’t mean I think Genesis is IMPOSSIBLE. Just highly, highly unlikely and totally unscientific.

If the evidence greatly supports evolution, and hardly supports creationism, why can’t you have the thought that perhaps evolution was pushed along by God?

Why can’t God be the why instead of the how?

Take me up on my offer? The book offer. Dare ya.[/quote]

I can’t find it. Quote?