Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adudaewen

I second that. You and I seem cut from the same cloth, though you are infinitly more eloquent. ;)

---

ennison and Adudaewen - you are too kind. Thank you for the encouragement. (I need it!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

No matter what you say, Christians will find a way to loop things around and pick apart at your argument. When people believe in something so strongly, they will do anything to defend it; it's as if they are crusades. .

---

A criticism equally valid for the evolutionist. Both sides of the debate function on predisposed ideas about reality. The evolutionist just fancies that he's more "objective" but that is not so. Facts, "evidence" and the like do not always speak for themselves, and scientists of both sides (evolution and ID) proceed from their separate foundations to argue different conclusions from the same evidence. Evolutionists are equally dogmatic in their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I agree that there are angry atheists out there that do the same, but it doesn't compare to how Christians straw man the theory of evolution, as if it was made up by some crazy scientist. And, I don't want to hear the "well you guys keep trying to ridicule our faith, so we are going to defend ourselves and try to say that evolution is based on faith too".

---

It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing - which is what evolution (sans God) must finally assert. Matter cannot come from nothing. Pursued to its logical conclusion, evolution must explain the existence of matter. To say that it has "always existed" is to give an answer that really answers nothing because it asserts a reality that cannot be explained, nor can it be proven (kind of like God -:) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Why not be a Christian who believes in evolution? If God created the beginning then why couldn't have created the big bang? If we have archaeological evidence proving that we evolved from a prehistorical primate species then why continue to believe in the parable we call "adam and eve"? Yes, the parable man made up before science could explain things.

---

A Christian can believe in the two if he wishes (Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project does) - but to do so requires a rejection of what the Bible says - and that position does risk undermining the authority of the scriptures because I believe that the Bible is a unified whole; once you dismiss part of is, the integrity of the rest is now in question. As I said above - some "evidence" is subject to interpretation - which is a subjective tool applied within the context of a particular bias. Example: as a literary critic and a Christian, I am not predisposed to accept Queer Theory interpretations of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets; I've read the arguments, and they're well-articulated - but I do not buy them because the Queer Threory critics applied a critical tool of analysis which involves a foundation which I find to be invalid - a foundation based on the critic's bais towards homosexuality. Ditto for interpreting fossils and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Ok, so let's just call the guys with PhDs studying this everyday, "madmen". Let's call the history and discovery channel crazy for putting them on television. Can you people put the bible down for one second and open your eyes? God gave you "freewill" didn't he? Well, use it and discover the truths about the universe for yourself, instead of worshiping a book written by hundreds of powerful, corrupt men.

---

I wouldn't call them "madmen" but I would call them human - in that they have their prejudices as do I. Please don't cite TV as an authority on anything. Finally, please stop the worn-out and exceedingly tired cliche that Christians are "blind" and that those of you who reject Christianity are somehow more blessed with enlightenment, or "open eyes" or a more "rational, critical" view of the world. Why is it that our position is due to blindness of some sort and yours isn't? We have freewill; that's why we freely have chosen to believe as we do. Do not commit the immature stereotype that the Christian is a blind drone who only believes what s/he's been taught. Our minds work fine - they just disagree with your conclusions - but what a clever argumentative fallacy to identify us as being inferior thinkers because we don't accept your position. Very clever, but not good debate technique.

We don't "worship" the Bible - we worship its Writer. You have no proof of your assertions about that book, and scholarship has asserted that its reliability is higher than many other texts from the same time period of which the authority of which is unquestioned. Better do some research instead of tossing out generalizations that really don't hold water. The accuracy of the Biblical texts has been analyzed and verified by scholars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

We don't "worship" the Bible - we worship its Writer.

---

I hope you are referring to men. It's editor...well the government. There's nothing to refute here. God gave man freewill, so what makes you think man can't use his freewill to distort the bible as he pleases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The accuracy of the Biblical texts has been analyzed and verified by scholars.

---

Yes, scholars who have a biased opinion on the subject. Asking a "god believing" scholar to verify the bible is like asking a government to verify its war.

I've read so much about scholars who are finding out that the books in the bible were actually written by many men and not the original writers. Yet, every time I mention this you guys comeback with the same comment..."god inspired the men to do it". If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.

I believe in both evolution and creation, as it it dumb to believe God couldn't know what things would and could have evolved into when he is Omnipotent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I hope you are referring to men. It's editor...well the government. There's nothing to refute here. God gave man freewill, so what makes you think man can't use his freewill to distort the bible as he pleases?

---

God is the "author" - everything in there was inspired by Him. Because God is all-powerful, there's a slight chance that He has the ability to inspire good men to guard the integrity of His revelation of His identity. Easy for a Guy who created the world in six days, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Yes, scholars who have a biased opinion on the subject. Asking a "god believing" scholar to verify the bible is like asking a government to verify its war.

---

1) This argument also works against any conclusions you draw from scientists who assert the truth of evolution - they're biased too.
2) Biblical scholars use tools that are acknowledged in the secular community as well. Here:

Homer's Illiad is considered to have the greatest manuscript authority next to the New Testament; Homer wrote the Illiad around 900 BC and the oldest copy is from 400 BC - a 500 year span. The total number of manuscripts is 643 and the readings agree 95% of the time.

In contrast, there are approximately 5300 original language manuscripts of New Testament writings spanning 50 years - AD 70 to AD 120. These documents agree with each other 99.5% of the time in terms of language and content. It requires no bias to come to this kind of linguistic conclusion - you simply compare what all the manuscripts say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I've read so much about scholars who are finding out that the books in the bible were actually written by many men and not the original writers. Yet, every time I mention this you guys comeback with the same comment..."god inspired the men to do it". If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.

---

God didn't "make" people write the Bible - He inspired willing believers to put down what He wanted put down. "Influence" is not "coerce." These writers wanted to be servants - "tools" if you will - of God; allowing Him to pass His thoughts through us is an honor - not a violation of our freedom. Your understanding of freewill in this situation is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.

---

Does a secretary lose her/his free will when (s)he dictates a letter for her/his boss? Inspiration and slavery aren't the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing - which is what evolution (sans God) must finally assert. Matter cannot come from nothing. Pursued to its logical conclusion, evolution must explain the existence of matter. To say that it has "always existed" is to give an answer that really answers nothing because it asserts a reality that cannot be explained, nor can it be proven (kind of like God -:) ).

---

actually physics does not assert this. science does not know where it matter came from. but there are some theories you can check out. some of the stuff is really bizarre.

<It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing>

And yet, it doesn't seem crazy to assert that something, a causeless something, was always there?

From what I remember of reading books on the big bang, I always thought that the claim was that time began with the big bang, and that the question of what happened before is therefore a meaningless question. To say that it is claimed that nothing preceded the big bang is incorrect, afaik, as it is said that a field of potential preceded the big bang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adudaewen

Does a secretary lose her/his free will when (s)he dictates a letter for her/his boss? Inspiration and slavery aren't the same thing.

---

But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.

---

Yes they did: to willingly chose to follow another's request is a voluntary placing of one's own will under the authority of another - as such, it is FREELY chosen; for every man/woman who chose to serve God, I suggest that many others declined the invitation. God generally doesn't ask for unwilling servants. (The story of Johah is a bit troubling, but I think there's a reason for that too.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

actually physics does not assert this. science does not know where it matter came from. but there are some theories you can check out. some of the stuff is really bizarre.

---

But science must assert this in order for its God-less view of evolution to work. Matter exists, and it cannot be conveniently explained away (at least by rational people).

it doesnt have to. science does not claim to have all the answers. it might decide on a theory or it might not. evolution isnt bothered with matter anyway. it describes how life evolves and grows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Yes they did: to willingly chose to follow another's request is a voluntary placing of one's own will under the authority of another - as such, it is FREELY chosen;

---

No, I'm talking about the people that filtered, edited, and changed the bible according to their liking; the politicians in ancient times (like Constantine) who changed the bible into what it is today. You claimed earlier that God inspired those men. I don't remember guys like Constantine having actual conversations with God about writing the bible. You did say they were "inspired to write and edit", and all this talk of alterations is "silly" because mr. ruler of the universe has everything planned out. Well if most of the guys that wrote the bible never had conversations with God (like moses did) then it's not freewill to abide by God's wishes (because God never actually said anything to them).

The impression you gave off was that even if the writers weren't told to write the bible by God, they were spiritually inspired to do so without knowing they were spiritually inspired. That wouldn't be freewill, now would it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

No, I'm talking about the people that filtered, edited, and changed the bible according to their liking; the politicians in ancient times (like Constantine) who changed the bible into what it is today. You claimed earlier that God inspired those men. I don't remember guys like Constantine having actual conversations with God about writing the bible. You did say they were "inspired to write and edit", and all this talk of alterations is "silly" because mr. ruler of the universe has everything planned out. Well if most of the guys that wrote the bible never had conversations with God (like moses did) then it's not freewill to abide by God's wishes (because God never actually said anything to them).

The impression you gave off was that even if the writers weren't told to write the bible by God, they were spiritually inspired to do so without knowing so. That wouldn't be freewill.

---

God has always had loyal servants - and He has entrusted them to guard His Word. Any being capable of creating the universe could assure that His Holy Word made it through various translators and editors intact. In general, people who translated/copied the scriptures did so out of a sense of service to the Lord: people hostile to the scriptures were not interested in working with them. You ignored my posting with the percentages of reliabilty attributed to the New Testament (I can provide similar figures for the Old Testament). Based on the tools used to assess the reliabilty of ancient writings, the New Testament has the highest reliability in terms of the texts agreeing with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

it doesnt have to. science does not claim to have all the answers. it might decide on a theory or it might not. evolution isnt bothered with matter anyway. it describes how life evolves and grows.

---

It has to bother with matter because the elimination of God from the explanation of the universe necessitates an explanation as to where matter came from. And science will probably have to resort to an explanation as silly and inconceivable to the Christian as the idea of a Supreme Being must be to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You ignored my posting with the percentages of reliabilty attributed to the New Testament (I can provide similar figures for the Old Testament). Based on the tools used to assess the reliabilty of ancient writings, the New Testament has the highest reliability in terms of the texts agreeing with each other.

---

You laugh when evolutionists bring up statistics, yet you post statistics on the validity of the bible. I've read and seen too much to believe that the bible is as valid as you claim.

At this point of the argument it's pretty pointless to continue. No matter what direction you go in, a Christian will use his faith to tackle a debate. It goes like this:

evolutionist: scientific fact
creationist: science can't be trusted

evolutionist: yes it can
creationist: straw man

evolutionist: attack on christianity
creationist: faith, God is almighty, I win.

:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

You laugh when evolutionists bring up statistics, yet you post statistics on the validity of the bible. I've read and seen too much to believe that the bible is as valid as you claim.

At this point of the argument it's pretty pointless to continue. No matter what direction you go in, a Christian will use his faith to tackle a debate. It goes like this:

evolutionist: scientific fact
creationist: science can't be trusted

evolutionist: yes it can
creationist: straw man

evolutionist: attack on christianity
creationist: faith, God is almighty, I win.

:p

---

Nobody has quoted scientific statistics for me that I can recall. Why don't you hunt down all the times someone (you maybe?) has tried to offer statistics and I've "laughed" at them, OK?

Second - you ignored my information. You and the other evolutionists manage to scoff away at "faith" saying that we have no empirical evidence, and then when I offer you something you won't deal with it. Nice. Deal with my postings. Those numbers aren't my claims - they are from studies done on textual reliability.

Third: how many times are you going to claim that the argument is pointless to continue in and then keep right on posting away? If you're done, fine: be done and let someone else take your place who will do more than argue in a circle without dealing with the argument at hand.

Interesting poll.

I'm guessing by the almost 50% seeing creation that most posters are from USA? Amazing how many people have trouble separating fact (evolution) from fantasy (creation).

As an atheist, I have no problem with religion - live and let live is my motto - but creationism flies in the face of too many facts to be treated seriously.