Melding Evolution and Creationism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote] Vegita wrote:
I can see where you are coming from. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. Neither can be proven except in the deepest medetations of our inner self. You believe in a god that has a purpose of testing beings he created. I am still unsure of WHY you think he did this. But nonetheless in your view only those of us who prove to be worthy will be rewarded. (wich is a selfish idea in and of itself) (i.e. I am doing this so I get something out of it) In my views I can actually have a clear consious about choosing a helping loving path because I do not believe my actions will detirmine where I go when I die. Therefore I have free will and you do not. You make your choices based on the fear of not wanting to go to hell for eternity, I make my choices because I feel good about them. And if I am wrong… You ARE right… I’m sure there is room in your heaven for me, and if not, it is no place I want to be anyways.
[/quote]

Well I think you might not quite understand the Christian faith. It is not by works that we are justified. It is, and always will be the cross that makes us redeemed. We are free to choose to still do wrong, and not face Hell. So I can be the worst person in the world, or I can be the best. My outcome would still be the same. Christ paid my penalty.

Now I am sure at this point you are saying well then it should work for everyone, so no one should go to Hell!

Well that goes back to did you accept the invitation? It is described as a free gift. If you turn you nose up at it how can you ever use it?

well once again the true Christian belief is only one thing you do determines your outcome. Everything past that is your choice. I agree those people are nuts, and I don’t support them. The idea that God would need us to burn or destroy to advocate His justice is insane. It also goes against the very teachings of Christ. Some people thing God only operates if they move His hand. That is not a Christian principle

[quote]
I know there are some problems with some of the things I have just said… and I could probably write half of your response, but i’m too tired to go back and change anything now. :)[/quote]

well I understand. I don’t hold anything against your belief. I am glad that you can see where I am coming from, and I hope you have gained some understanding about what we really believe. I think in some ways you might of assumed something about us that is not really what we believe. If you have anymore questions please let me know.

Happy Holidays.

282

I have a pretty good understanding of the christian faith. I am a confirmed roman catholic. When I made my confirmation My parents turned the responsibility of my faith over to me as the church viewed me as an adult at that time. it was at that time when I turned away from the christian path, away from any organized religion in fact. it’s just not for me. There are many great parts of christianity, but unfortunately the faith does not let us pick and choose our compliance. It is all or nothing in the eyes of the church. Sure you can be a bad christian and get into heaven. To me if god is really that simple as to make one choice of accepting an invitation above all other cohoices one can make and have that be the determining factor of who gets eternal happiness. I don’t want anything to do with that god. To me That is a flaw, it is a superficial requirement that our own modern society is able to look past. Surely the most supreme benevolent being is not so twisted as to apply this to us. Again, if he is, I ask is he really the supreme being? Sure maybe there is a place called Heaven and hell, and maybe there is some being who is above us who can send us to either based on if we say I accept christ or I do not accept christ as my savior. It isn’t god in my eyes. Maybe some supernatural being posing as a god with powers the likes of which we can’t comprehend? sure. Maybe this being is capable of making a universe and controlling that universe as his own. That being still has a maker. and that maker is neither good nor evil. That maker is all things. As my spirit, my soul, my essence evolves… gains experiences, it draws closer to unifying with that ultimate destination… or being GOD. here is the other funny part. Time by our standards does not exist for god, so one could say I already am god. I just don’t remember that I am or what I am capable of.

Ha this is starting to be really fun.

I do still celebrate Christmass by the way… it’s just too much fun!

Happy holidays

283

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I have a pretty good understanding of the christian faith. I am a confirmed roman catholic. When I made my confirmation My parents turned the responsibility of my faith over to me as the church viewed me as an adult at that time. it was at that time when I turned away from the christian path, away from any organized religion in fact. it’s just not for me. There are many great parts of christianity, but unfortunately the faith does not let us pick and choose our compliance. It is all or nothing in the eyes of the church.
[/quote]
Well now you are talking about Denominational believes, and that is different from Gospel. Just because you were Catholic does not mean you have fully heard Biblical theology, and reasoning. It is a very complex topic one that could take a whole life time to fully understand. As far as organized religion not being for you great. I don’t like it either. Religion is a set of rules. I would have what is called faith. Faith is a set of believes that one trusts.

Well it is much more complex than just the accept me or else concept. I was merely laying the paraphrased idea out there. The truth is it is a justice thing. That requires payment for our short comings. Also if one did accept Christ they would become a new person. Who is suppossed to turn away from the old. They may still go back to doing some bad things, but the goal is to become more Christ like. The idea of atonement is much more complex than I believe, so now I have a get out of hell free card.

Well that is your opinion, and you are more than welcome to it. I am not God so how you spend your after life, and what you think about God is between you and Him. As I said I am not trying to convert you.

Well that would be the definition of what we would relate God to being.

Well this is circular reasoning. If that is the case then who made the being that being that I am relating to God? You agree that God whatever form it is was not created but always existed, but you deny my idea of God as always existing and never having a maker? You also are making wild speculation that if my God is true, then He is still not supreme. So in essence your statment is even if I am right you still are too.

Being Spiritual is not the same as being connected to God. Lets apply your idea that there is no right and wrong they are just inventions of man. Well maybe you are not as close to this entity as you think you are you are just fooling your self with deep philosphical thought? If right and wrong are creations then maybe your experience is made up too?

I agree that God would operate outside the realm of time. I disagree that I or you are God or have ever been God. The created is never part of the creator. Saying I am or could of been God is like me saying I am saying I am the omellette that I made this morning.

I will take that in a good way.

[quote]
I do still celebrate Christmass by the way… it’s just too much fun!

Happy holidays[/quote]

I never thought you didn’t I don’t really see Christmas as a Christian Holiday anymore. More of a free for all that I reflect on for spiritual reasons

284

Hey guys! Just got back from Ohio – I had to drive through that record snowfall they had on the 23rd. I hate driving through snow. 4 hours to get through Cincinnati. It sucked. Anyway, after seeing where this thread went in my absence, I just had to chime in again.

[quote]neilbudge wrote:
Lothario,
You said, “I do not degrade the bible. I degrade those who think it is absolute truth. Because it isn’t.”

I do not degrade evolution, I question those who think it is absolute truth. Because it isn’t.
[/quote]
Now you’re getting it. It ISN’T absolute truth. There’s no way for us to know absolute truth about this issue right now, and we probably never will. That’s what I’ve been saying the whole friggin’ time! The evolution theory based on the origin of species is the best that we can do right now. That is, if we discount the presence of an all-mighty superhero floating around in space and judging us, etc.

[quote]
There is no need to degrade anyone.[/quote]
Hey! Don’t forget who the asshole of this thread is. After all, I’m the guy saying that there’s not REALLY any flying reindeer, and Santa doesn’t drop down everybody’s chimney. There’s also not a magical bunny who hops around and farts out brightly colored chocolate eggs at Easter. Sorry.

So, in summation, I’ll heckle whoever I damn well please, thank you very much.

285

P.S. haney:

You do worship a pantheon. I hate to point this out, but the father, son and the holy ghost make up three deities. And don’t give me that three is one trinity crap, either.

Father + Son + Holy Ghost = 3

That’s not monotheism, buddy. I know what a pantheon is – so there.

286

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
P.S. haney:

You do worship a pantheon. I hate to point this out, but the father, son and the holy ghost make up three deities. And don’t give me that three is one trinity crap, either.

Father + Son + Holy Ghost = 3

That’s not monotheism, buddy. I know what a pantheon is – so there.[/quote]

You don’t even belive in God and you are going to tell me I can’t use three in one?

Who are you to tell me what I believe?
You don’t have to put stock in the Trinity, but that doesn’t mean you are even close to right on this. You are grasping at straws to tell me I can’t believe in three in one, or use it as my basis just to prove you are not ignorant of what the word means. Here is an example of something that has three parts, and we say it is one.

An egg has a shell, a yoke, and a white. Is that three in one? Wow! Please don’t try and talk doctrine with me. You have no clue what you are even talking about!

The fact that I believe it is three in one still would be monotheism. It would be one God. If Jesus is not God. I would still believe in one, and believe Jesus is still the chosen method of God’s redemption. So I would still be monotheist. The only thing that would be wrong would be my doctrinal view.

Also not all protestants believe in the Trinity. So you can’t just lump it together like that. That is like saying all protestants believe in the pope.

287

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Hey guys! Just got back from Ohio – I had to drive through that record snowfall they had on the 23rd. I hate driving through snow. 4 hours to get through Cincinnati. It sucked. Anyway, after seeing where this thread went in my absence, I just had to chime in again.

neilbudge wrote:
Lothario,
You said, “I do not degrade the bible. I degrade those who think it is absolute truth. Because it isn’t.”

I do not degrade evolution, I question those who think it is absolute truth. Because it isn’t.

Now you’re getting it. It ISN’T absolute truth. There’s no way for us to know absolute truth about this issue right now, and we probably never will. That’s what I’ve been saying the whole friggin’ time! The evolution theory based on the origin of species is the best that we can do right now. That is, if we discount the presence of an all-mighty superhero floating around in space and judging us, etc.

There is no need to degrade anyone.
Hey! Don’t forget who the asshole of this thread is. After all, I’m the guy saying that there’s not REALLY any flying reindeer, and Santa doesn’t drop down everybody’s chimney. There’s also not a magical bunny who hops around and farts out brightly colored chocolate eggs at Easter. Sorry.

So, in summation, I’ll heckle whoever I damn well please, thank you very much.
[/quote]

Merry Christmans Lothario! Jesus loves you despite yourself

288

[quote]haney wrote:
Merry Christmans Lothario! Jesus loves you despite yourself
[/quote]
No he doesn’t. But merry Christmas right back at ya!

P.S. About the pantheon thing:

You’re right. I assumed that all christians put their faith in the holiness of the father, son, and holy spirit. My bad.

Oh, and I like the egg analogy. But when you pray to the yolk to grow into a nice chicken, and then beseech the egg white to provide a bounty of nutrients for the developing chicken fetus, and then give thanks to the eggshell for watching over and protecting the developing chicken, well… isn’t that kinda like recognizing those three parts as separate entities? Maybe I’m not the best person to argue spirituality, seeing as how I am devoid of it, but this just seems like common sense to me.

Anyway, happy holidays to you. I’m at fucking work, as usual.

289

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
haney wrote:
Merry Christmans Lothario! Jesus loves you despite yourself

No he doesn’t. But merry Christmas right back at ya!

P.S. About the pantheon thing:

You’re right. I assumed that all christians put their faith in the holiness of the father, son, and holy spirit. My bad.

Oh, and I like the egg analogy. But when you pray to the yolk to grow into a nice chicken, and then beseech the egg white to provide a bounty of nutrients for the developing chicken fetus, and then give thanks to the eggshell for watching over and protecting the developing chicken, well… isn’t that kinda like recognizing those three parts as separate entities? Maybe I’m not the best person to argue spirituality, seeing as how I am devoid of it, but this just seems like common sense to me.

Anyway, happy holidays to you. I’m at fucking work, as usual.[/quote]

Sorry about the work thing.

As far as the God stuff goes. We will both have to wait until we get to the other side to know for sure.

You think there is enough evidence to say there is not one. I think there is enough to say there is one.

As I said I am not trying to convert anyone. Just share what I know, and what I believe to be true. Everything else is between you and God(or no God).

Either way merry Christmas

290

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
haney wrote:
Merry Christmans Lothario! Jesus loves you despite yourself

No he doesn’t. But merry Christmas right back at ya!

P.S. About the pantheon thing:

You’re right. I assumed that all christians put their faith in the holiness of the father, son, and holy spirit. My bad.

Oh, and I like the egg analogy. But when you pray to the yolk to grow into a nice chicken, and then beseech the egg white to provide a bounty of nutrients for the developing chicken fetus, and then give thanks to the eggshell for watching over and protecting the developing chicken, well… isn’t that kinda like recognizing those three parts as separate entities? Maybe I’m not the best person to argue spirituality, seeing as how I am devoid of it, but this just seems like common sense to me.

Anyway, happy holidays to you. I’m at fucking work, as usual.[/quote]

Oh and I don’t pray to The entities as seperate. The only people I know that do that are spirit filled churches.

I see them as the same. They are just different manifestations of the same diety.

I would talk to you about it more but you probably don’t really care, so I will leave it there.

291

Sorry, despite what Prof. Colling and BostonBarrister and others may say, macro-evolution (a life form that evolves from one “kind” to another) cannot be proven to have occurred. It is sheer speculation based on a theory. It is not observable therefore it is not scientific fact. If one wishes to point to specimens such as Archaeopteryx, a fossil of dubious origins, as proof of macro-evolution, then he is on very shaky ground. Despite what has been trumpeted for well over one hundred years, THE SO-CALLED EVIDENCE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. It’s not even close. It is very, very skimpy at best. Yes, Dr. Colling and his followers, before you condescendingly “see red” because of conservatives’ refusal to accept evolution (macro-evolution, that is) as fact, you should reconsider and see red for attempting to perpetuate Darwin’s myth. It is an outrageous joke that so much psuedo-science is based on such flimsy, unreliable and at times, outright fraudulent “evidence” and shoved down peoples’ throats. Even well-known and respected evolutionists have recognized and acknowledged the fact that the “facts” of evolution don’t exist. Isn’t it ironic that the truly religious evolutionists - meaning those who, based on faith, accept those defective “facts” - preach their “theory” most fervently?

Micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is an altogether different and observable, proveable concept.

There is a difference.

292

Okay throttle, I’m hearing you.

Have you ever read any Sherlock Holmes story? I’m sure you’re acquainted with the “once you rule out all possibilities, what remains, however dubious, must be the truth” concept, right? Well, that’s what we in the scientific field are trying to do. We do experiments, study fossil records, dig deeper and deeper for answers… all in the attempt to disprove our hypotheses.

Think for a second:
IF species did not arise from each other, THEN that means that all species existed at the same time (a la creationism), and the reason that all species are not around today is due to extinction. This is very easy to disprove. All you have to do is show that there was a time when all species did not co-exist, and then you have it. If you do not give credence to the astronomically large pile of evidence to show, for example (beating a dead horse here), that dinosaurs and man did not co-exist, then I can see your point.

So you see, it is not the so-called “flimsy evidence” for back-solving micro vs. macro evolution that we rely on so much for the origin of species as it is the fact that there’s nothing better to explain it. And really, the evidence is not all that “flimsy” anyway. Common sense will tell you that the similarities among the primates are remarkable, to say the least. And a quick look at, say, the fossil record for the modern horse going back to its pre-ice age ancestor will show what striking changes can occur within a species, and what striking similarities there are among different species. If you have some better reason for the origin of species that we didn’t think of yet, by all means please share it.

293

Stop the presses, guys! I just figured it all out. There is another possibility that hasn’t been mentioned here yet, and I want to share it with y’all.

I’d like to start out with just noting that in the fossil record there are several periods of mass extinctions which demarcate certain eras, i.e., paleozoic, mesozoic, etc. And in these eras, we see different kinds of species flourishing and then dying out at the advent of the next era. The scientific community by and large explains this away by meteor strikes or other such catastrophes, but I thought of something better.

Premise #1: The tendency for all species is towards extinction… not survival.

Premise #2: Life on earth was fabricated by aliens from Planet Marklar.

So, a bunch of animals were sent through time and space in a gigantic spaceship to populate the earth. These were the first complex animals who dwelled in the sea. When these died out, the pissed off Marklars sent another gigantic spaceship with different kinds of more sophisticated lifeforms, in the attempt to do a better job.

Embarrassingly enough, these died off as well. One Marklar got the bright idea to make some creatures who lived on the land AND the sea, and so the amphibians were born. Some other, more die-hard traditional Marklars wanted to stick with the ocean animals, while more “hip” Marklars said it would be cool to have animals that lived on the land, so they made a whole bunch of new creatures and sent them through a black hole or whatever to land and try this “life on Earth” thing again. Again, the Marklars were frustrated as another set of perfectly good animals kicked the bucket.

Now the Marklars were pissed. The hipster Marklars, in a daring act of defiance, created the largest and most monstrous land creatures which we call the dinosaurs, and sent them to Earth… where they died off too. Now everybody on Marklar was upset, and they shot each other with laser guns and shit until they finally took a deep, collective breath, and made some sentient lifeforms. The Marklars figured: what the hell?

So a Marklar named Moses took a bunch of freshly-minted humans in his spaceship and crash-landed in the desert, where the wreckage lit a bush on fire. Moses pronounced “Well, we’re Marklared (fucked). We might as well Marklar (hang out) Marklar (here).” And so Israel was born.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

294

From another thread (cross-post!):

I’ll continue with another quote:

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former”
– Albert Einstein

Fine. I’ll agree: there are holes in the evolution theory. And dating methods [sic] are not 100% reliable. And there are severely incompetent scientists out there.

Heck, even Einstein was wrong in many occasions. The Universe is NOT infinite, we know that now. But he was humble enough to doubt himself when he couldn’t prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does that automatically mean there is a God? No.

There are holes in the creationist theory too. There is stupid and incompetent people everywhere, of every faith. Einstein didn’t say that only atheists were infinitely stupid. And, by the way, different faiths differ wildly between their theories about creationism. So even if there was a God and creationism is in fact a more “accurate” theory, which one would you pick?

Now, I’ll readily admit that creationism is actually easier to fathom and less complex than evolution. For example, it’s much easier to attribute to God’s existence the fact that there’s a bunch of matter in the Universe that we cannot account for (“Of course, that’s Heaven and Hell, we cannot see them but they are there!”). Or that there’s more matter than anti-matter (“Because God made it that way”!). See, it’s easy to believe in Creationism. And a lot of scientists who hold the Occam’s razor principle to heart will tell you that means it’s probably the “real” one.

It’s actually ironic that the same principle that challenged the Catholic Church so many times (the “theory” that the Earth was not the center of the Universe came about on the wings of Occam’s Razor) is now being used by Creationists.

Problem is that I don’t buy it: simply because I attribute the perceived complexity of the Universe not to the fact that a God created it but because we haven’t figured it out yet. Assuming we ever will. Because we’re stupid, really, we are.

And why do I believe that, since I myself just said that Creationism is actually easier to swallow?

Because I chose to. And I’m so certain of my beliefs that I do not need to seek approval and hence do not need to justify them. Neither does any true Christian. Or Muslim, or Hindu, or…

I respect your faith - because if that makes you a stronger person, believing in God will only do you good - and will not try to convert you to being an atheist. And I expect you to return the favor.

295

[quote]hspder wrote:
From another thread (cross-post!):

The evidence for evolution is not strong and is in fact flawed. How do you explain that when Mt. St. Helen’s erupted there were rock structures formed that were described as millions of years old by scientists who did not know where they came from, and who had no explaination when confronted with the truth of their origin.

I’ll continue with another quote:

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former”
– Albert Einstein

Fine. I’ll agree: there are holes in the evolution theory. And dating methods [sic] are not 100% reliable. And there are severely incompetent scientists out there.

Heck, even Einstein was wrong in many occasions. The Universe is NOT infinite, we know that now. But he was humble enough to doubt himself when he couldn’t prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does that automatically mean there is a God? No.

There are holes in the creationist theory too. There is stupid and incompetent people everywhere, of every faith. Einstein didn’t say that only atheists were infinitely stupid. And, by the way, different faiths differ wildly between their theories about creationism. So even if there was a God and creationism is in fact a more “accurate” theory, which one would you pick?

Now, I’ll readily admit that creationism is actually easier to fathom and less complex than evolution. For example, it’s much easier to attribute to God’s existence the fact that there’s a bunch of matter in the Universe that we cannot account for (“Of course, that’s Heaven and Hell, we cannot see them but they are there!”). Or that there’s more matter than anti-matter (“Because God made it that way”!). See, it’s easy to believe in Creationism. And a lot of scientists who hold the Occam’s razor principle to heart will tell you that means it’s probably the “real” one.

It’s actually ironic that the same principle that challenged the Catholic Church so many times (the “theory” that the Earth was not the center of the Universe came about on the wings of Occam’s Razor) is now being used by Creationists.

Problem is that I don’t buy it: simply because I attribute the perceived complexity of the Universe not to the fact that a God created it but because we haven’t figured it out yet. Assuming we ever will. Because we’re stupid, really, we are.

And why do I believe that, since I myself just said that Creationism is actually easier to swallow?

Because I chose to. And I’m so certain of my beliefs that I do not need to seek approval and hence do not need to justify them. Neither does any true Christian. Or Muslim, or Hindu, or…

I respect your faith - because if that makes you a stronger person, believing in God will only do you good - and will not try to convert you to being an atheist. And I expect you to return the favor.[/quote]

Thank you! You are a reasonable skeptic. I respect your decision, and am glad you respect mine.

296

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[/quote]

Hmmm…the ways of Professor X are mysterious indeed!

297

Why’d this thread get bumped?

298

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Why’d this thread get bumped?[/quote]

I was bored and remembered that there actually used to be interesting discussions in this forum.

I can bump more if you like.

2003 or 2004?

299

Alright. BB Warfield made this point 100 years ago.

300

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That makes Prof. Colling see red. “When Christians insert God into the gaps that science cannot explain – in this case how wondrous structures and forms of life came to be – they set themselves up for failure and even ridicule,” he told me. “Soon – and it’s already happening with the flagellum – science is going to come along and explain” how a seemingly miraculous bit of biological engineering in fact could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. And that will leave intelligent design backed into an ever-shrinking corner.

Alright. BB Warfield made this point 100 years ago. [/quote]

I disagree with this point. I am pretty much an agnostic but if God exists he set up the rules of the universe and thereby the mechanism for evolution. Just because we discover how a certain animal evolved it does not minimize God or intelligent design. It just means we learned something.