Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satirical

So if most myths are rooted in truth somewhere does that mean that L.Ron Hubbard is sometimes right? I was not meaning to offend you which I am sure I did by the cyber tone, and fallacious response, so hey....now harm no foul. By the way, I was truly responding to the concept and not to you so don't go making everything personal (do I do this to you blah). Most bible backers do question everything that you mentioned above, and do not think twice about saying they did not. As for your 25 years of study, some people spend their whole lives doing the same thing and come to different conclusions, what do you say about that? Go ahead and feed that ego, they just missed something that your great big brain caught, right?
(FYI) I am one of those that has spent the majority of my life studying the bible book by book as you so nicely put it. And believe me, you have said nothing that I have not heard before. Too bad it in itself is a myth. Proposition no.1

Oh and one more thing, I think that in you transferred your want for everything to be all or none to me, problem is that it is obvious that this is what you are looking for.

---

For the record, I apologize to you personally, and to anyone else that may have been offended by my post. I try to follow peace with all men (and women). No, I don't have all the answers, I'm no "big brain", I have no "ego" left to bruise. I make myself no more or no less than just human, prone to the same mistakes and fallices of the whole race. I don't call evolution a "myth" or science "of the devil". If I disagree with it, so be it. Everyone should be settled in their own mind. But please allow me the same. If I believe the Bible, so be it. It doesn't harm anyone who wishes to not believe in it. I do not want all or none. If not for science, my life would be unbearable, since the illness I have requires medicine that I must take daily. You might ask "Couldn't God heal you?" Yes. But it is a burden that I carry and if He would heal me right now that would not be my request of Him, for the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the one. I extend a palm leaf in friendship. How will you respond? :)

Please don't make me edit posts to remove the comments in them that are pointedly directed personally at another member. And yes Satirical your post caused me to post this.

Yet the abstraction was not enough. I understand and apologize. Let us have the leaf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

An answer to your last question, Kilted exile: both.

It is a warning from God using geological processes (because that seems to be the only things that gets to man) to warn and punish mankind accordingly. It is also a message from the God of Love for unbelievers to repent and believe.

The disasters can be a punishment. Israel was punished by disasters, so was Egypt, when Pharaoh refused to allow the Hebrew slaves to go free.

---

I smell a threat to believe, a tactic a lot of Christians use to get others to believe. Shame on you. "God will punish you." Those stories are myths and folklore, no one knows if the Medeterranian Sea was really morphed into a sea of blood or Moses' staff transformed into a snake. And if God was one of "Love" would he use threats and his power as a weapon against unbelievers? Job was a devout believer, and look what his God let Satan do to him! It looks like you, Alheid, follow Pat Robertson, using God to predict and provide vengeful explanations for natural occurances. God loves humanity, and I'm the Queen of Britain!

Heres the problem with ID, clearly and nicely stated in Time this week: ID halts the adventure to discover things. They throw their hands in the air and say "I dont know! God did it!" It provides nothing for science. We want to know the natural reasons and causes for our existence, how DNA works and how/why mutations and changes occur. ID will not provide any of that.
In Philosophy we covered the ID argument, and there are countless objections:

1) If God was self-caused, couldnt nature be self-caused also?
2) What caused God?
3) God could have done better (appendixes, pancreas, 2 kidneys, tonsils, we are full of things we really dont need that "God" could have omitted.)

Is God really moral? Oh I wrote a 3-page paper on all of the things His followers did throughout history, and a book on morality called The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer provided most of the paper. Suggested reading if you want to know about how a lot atheists can be more moral than some Christians. Shermer used data from many Christian poll organizations on various topics like being a good samaritan, divorce rates, intolerance, cheating on exams, (these were all completed by self-proclaimed Chistians) and concluded that "Not only does religion not necessarily make on more moral, but it can also lead to greater amounts of racism, sexism, and an erosion of cherished values that are so important to a democratic society" (236).

The thing about this subject is that one part of you can believe in evolution but another have total faith that God is the cause of this and scientists have no idea what they are talking about. Or at least this is the case with me. My mind says its evolution that no other reason is plausible but, my faith and my heart object. I guess we only really find out when we die.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RusSpencer
I am opposed to teaching creationism in public, tax-supported schools. There is no scientific evidence to back it up; whereas evolution has tons of evidence to support it.

---

I don't see a problem in teaching creationism in public schools. However, I don't think it should be taught in biology class. Many of the proposals for introducing creationism into public schools call for it to be taught in science classes right along side evolutionism, and as an alternative to it. Therein lies the problem: there is no scientific evidence, to back up 'intelligent design' theories. Creationism does not belong in a science class, but in a philosophy class. It is not based in science; rather, it is based in faith. Creationism would be just as much out of place in a biology class as it would be in an algebra or geometry class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiSaNtHrOpE

Is God really moral? Oh I wrote a 3-page paper on all of the things His followers did throughout history, and a book on morality called The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer provided most of the paper. Suggested reading if you want to know about how a lot atheists can be more moral than some Christians. Shermer used data from many Christian poll organizations on various topics like being a good samaritan, divorce rates, intolerance, cheating on exams, (these were all completed by self-proclaimed Chistians) and concluded that "Not only does religion not necessarily make on more moral, but it can also lead to greater amounts of racism, sexism, and an erosion of cherished values that are so important to a democratic society" (236).

---

A question, please. You and I have spoken before, so you know I do NOT condone evil done in the name of Christianity or in the name of God, whatever religion people may follow. But does teaching evolution do anything to stem the tide of this same flow of evil? And if there have been people through out history, (and there have) who have used the name of God and religion for hypocritical purposes, does that mean everyone is to be tarred with the same brush? It is like finding a counterfeit $20. You don't then throw out every one you have, but you do examine them closely. Why do people make counterfeits? Because there is something real out there that people may mistake it for to give it value. It's just something to think about. Not everyone who holds a Bible and talks the talk actually walks the walk unfortunately, and it makes it hard for anyone to trust someone who talks about the Bible. Olive branch?

clandestine is right. teaching creationism in biology would be as bad as teaching the ten commandments in ethics class -- or something. actually, no, it would be quite worse, because ethics is a branch of philosophy, whereas, science is supposed to be empirical. If creationism must be included, and i don't see why it should in any class but a religion course, it should be taught in a philosophy of biology class, or even just plain philosophy. (but in a class in just plain philosophy I'm sure there is no time to cover such a trifle)

"But does teaching evolution do anything to stem the tide of this same flow of evil?" This "flow of evil" is not associated with science or secularism, I can assure you. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...8944-2,00.html The study that the article refers to is here: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

From Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer, Creationism/ID "'would be like the Flat Earth Society insisting their theory be taught in the public schools'" (166).

There are a lot of weird theories about the world and people. Why arent scientologists rallying for public acceptance of their theories as well (that we were created by aliens)?

We recently tackled the teleological argument (the ID/Creationism argument for Gods existence) in Philosophy, and despite popular opinion in the class (that "Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church" [Tina Fey, Weekend Update on SNL]), the idea fell flat on its face. You cant teach something in science class that cant even hold its own in Philosophy. In fact, none of the proofs of the existence of God held up. It's all about legitimizing bad science, and scientists wont have it. Science is the search for applicable and objective truths. You can believe that Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church all you want, but science will continue as science.

It is actually high time that Christians embrace evolution. Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. Genesis can certainly be read, and quite reasonably, as a metaphor for what science supports as the actual history of our universe/world. Furthermore, God having caused evolution to occur, could have still sent a son to sacrifice to the sinners of the world. (Do note, in case you are unfamiliar with my frequent posts concerning christianity, I am not a christian.)
Shunning evolution, and clinging to the asinine belief that the world is no more than 10,000 years old, only causes the learned community to disregard Christian beliefs as unfounded and outrageous, and Christianity as no more than a highly successful cult.
Science is not a collection of "flaming darts" shot from the sling of the "evil one." It is science. It is mathematical. Christ or no Christ, God gave man a rational mind, and may in fact be quite offended if we were to shun the use thereof.

You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism. Philosophy doesn't really deal with absolutes, but with gray areas. Still many philosophers and many scientists do believe in a devine being. And they have no real problem with that being starting the whole thing off, as it were. The problem seems to lie with the Bible itself, they have trouble accepting anything written therein as devinely inspired, or anything but retold myths. If that be their stand, then OK, let them act as they see fit, I believe in freedom and the first admendment. But I will expect the same from them in return, my freedom to believe as I will. And even if we disagree, I still would defend their right to have no religion or any that they choose as strongly as I defend my own! And you can go to the bank with that!

[QUOTE=Pendragon]You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Would you kindly clarify?

Pendragon, do you know what philosophy is?

Philo - Love
Sophia - of knowledge

While philosophers do deal predominantly with grey areas, it does hold that the Scientific Method of Belief is the best method of belief. They seek to find out what things are defended best, to believe whatever has the most evidence to support it. Philosophy could, in my opinion, be called an "intellectual science."

Of course some scientists believe in a divine being, but that doesnt lead to a strict, rigid adherence to some ancient book. The Founding Fathers believed in a Creator, but had no respect for the Bible.

With that being said, lets look at Evolution and Creationism:

Creationism: A 10,000 year old book of ancient laws and myths, a few billion followers (which doesnt count as "evidence")

Evolution: Fossil records, physical data, DNA, geneology, behavioral similarities between species which one can observe and many have written about, real species variation (Flu variants, adaptation to insecticides, etc).

Which do you think the philosopher will be more likely to believe?

The problem with Evolution is that Evolution is more than a theory based upon science. "Science," by definition is what we can study and observe.

What can we study and observe.
First, in order for our observable, tangible Universe- (by the way Universe in Latin means single spoken sentence) -three things need to come into existence simultaneously.
1. Time 2. Space 3. Matter

The Evolution Theory does not account for the true start, the absolute beginning of the Universe, because Evolution fails to solve how time and space came into existence.
The theory of evolution only accounts for matter, and at that Evolution claims that all the matter of the Universe was once rolled up into a dot no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence (Paraphrased from Stephen Goul). This Big Bang Theory also claims that this really heavy dot (In the Greek that is an "Infinitesimal Region), this dot that contained all the matter necessary to make me and you, evolved from literally nothing. Not only is the Big Bang Theory fanciful, it is flatly contradicted by Modern Science. "Matter can not arise from non-matter." Something can't come from nothing.
Even if it was "Billions and Billions of years ago."

The only way the known Universe could have come into existence was if Time, Space, and Matter we brought into being simultaneously.

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Beginning- time Heavens- space Earth- matter

As for the young Earth, take a couple quick examples:

The Earth’s core is cooling down, if the Earth was a billion years old, the Earth’s core would be cold, done, no magnetic fields. In fact all the stars are cooling down and they could not be millions of years old.

The moon is getting farther and farther away from the Earth, which means at one time it was closer. If the Earth was millions of years old the moon would have been so close that the tides would have continually flooded the earth.

The Earth’s rotation is slowing down, which means it was spinning faster before, of the Earth was millions of years old, the Coriolis Effect would have been out of control, the wind would have over 500 miles an hour.

If people had been around for 3 million years there would be ten—thousand people per square inch of the planet, the current Population curves down close to zero 0 around 4,400 years ago (roughly the time of the Biblical Flood).

The oldest Tree isn’t older than 4,000 years old; the biggest desert isn’t older than 4,400 years old.

The Evolutionist believes, in the beginning was DIRT, but they can’t explain how it got there.
The Bible teaches that God created the heavens and earth in seven days, and I can’t tell how God got there, but God’s very character is eternal.

Evolution is a crumbling theory (2nd law of Thermodynamics, everything goes from order to chaos), take Evolution out of Science classes and put it in the world religions or philosophy class.

For more and more precise facts, check out drdino.com

There are flaws with what you say. It doesnt matter how "big" something is, its how much matter (atoms) are contained in it. It didnt contain the material to make "me and you," that came much later, when atoms bonded together, as the first step, to form DNA, then came single-celled organisms, which asexually reproduced, etc.

Your theory with population is incorrect because you are not accounting for diease, climate change, or natural disasters or interspecies competition. There are many factors that contribute to population size, and no population steadily increases from start to extinction.

The biggest tree is 4,000 years old. So? Disease, natural disasters, etc. It also depends on the species of tree and its life span. As long as trees live, they dont live forever.

Dirt: Lava to molten rock which erodes by the sea always putting steady pressure on it (seven wonders are bizarre rock formations due to water), rock degrades to sand, and dirt is sand mixed with other elements.

If you can't determine what Time is, how are you supposed to define "Eternal?"

Do you have any hard facts to support that?

Besides, if the 2nd law of thermodynamics directly applied to biology* how could the universe have lasted even eight thousand years?

*Law 2 of thermodynamics (Entropy) doesn't directly apply to the field of biology or to the Earth, the Earth is not a closed system of matter or energy, and biological systems behave in distinctly anti-thermodynamic behaviors. The formation of gastrula from ovum, and that gastrula's eventual development into a human being is proof of this. Hell, there are even examples of counter-entropy in theoretically entropic systems, namely the formation of crystalline structures. Osmosis and leveling aren't constants, merely common. To confuse the two elements, or to over-broadly attempt to implicate information's probative value, is one mistake science itself seeks to correct.

If anything, the real flaw with Darwinian evolution is its racism. Darwin himself was highly racist, and a supporter of fellow racist biologists. That was why a primarily Christian intelligentsia bought into it. They were also hard-core bigots. The term 'unapologetically racist' is typically reserved for that movie (I know the name of the damn movie, but I don't want to drop it needlessly, and potentially derail the thread) by DW Griffith, the writings of FW Nietszche, and the 'typical' attitude in 'white' America. However, all those pale in comparison to people who frothed at multiple orifaces to justify their self-serving notions of ethnic superiority, which they as court historians to powerful kings did sell for centuries.

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

You need to read up on your history, you seem to be pulling from Anglo-Saxon resources only. There are at least two continents with differing opinions.

The Earth’s core is cooling down, if the Earth was a billion years old, the Earth’s core would be cold, done, no magnetic fields. In fact all the stars are cooling down and they could not be millions of years old.

Understanding what I do of physics, this is nothing to even look at. It takes millions of years for the combination to run its course. For the stars we must also take into account that our closest star is 4.4 light-years away from us, which means we have a later look on things, so come on, what is time in that sense. You are going to have to bring some hard credibility to pull this one off.

The moon is getting farther and farther away from the Earth, which means at one time it was closer. If the Earth was millions of years old the moon would have been so close that the tides would have continually flooded the earth.

I am almost sick of Kepler by now. The moon comes and goes, that is known. Elliptical!

If people had been around for 3 million years there would be ten—thousand people per square inch of the planet, the current Population curves down close to zero 0 around 4,400 years ago (roughly the time of the Biblical Flood).

Cite your facts, and good facts not some creationist website, this is just wrong on so many levels. BYW evolution from common descent.lol


The Evolutionist believes, in the beginning was DIRT, but they can’t explain how it got there.

Neither can you. Does that make evolution wrong? Ad hominum TO ad absurdum.


Evolution is a crumbling theory (2nd law of Thermodynamics, everything goes from order to chaos), take Evolution out of Science classes and put it in the world religions or philosophy class.

Superfluous if you were right. He said and she said does not hold up, but I am not Aristotle.

I do not mean to step on toes, but not anyone here is a scientist on the topics and all I seem to be reading is speculation. This is the reason that people that come to the internet looking for information are so confused, "there are as many opinions as there are people"(Cicero) When will we learn that misinformation is not the solution, it just hides the problem with a veil of arrogance. Take the works of your favorite author and gather their opinion on the world, but don't espouse it as the end-all of history, are you Lucretuis? are you Saul? were they right? are they not authors themselves? and, saying that, are we not merely readers?

Even if someone knew what happened in the beginning of the universe, there would still be people who would doubt. There is no such thing as truth. <---Get this into your head. If enough people believe in something does it make it true? No. If you can logically explain why this or that point of view is true does it make it true? No. We live in a world where it is possible to doubt the very existence of yourself. Truth is a point of view. Scientific facts have done as much for society as any religion's point of view on creation.

[QUOTE=ThatIndividual]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Would you kindly clarify?

---

I simply meant that philosophy doen't negate creationism in and of itself. That philosophy will argue more with the Bible than with whether or not a creator was involved in the begining of things. It's the Biblical record that people question most of all. Using philospophy, you may prove to everyone's satisfaction that everything is just an illusion and nothing really exists. However, others do not appear to agree. I am content to leave it lay and believe as I choose and allow them to do the same. This bickering gives me a headache. :wave:

Even if you could prove Evolution wrong, that in no way makes creationism right (Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer).

If evolution is wrong, biologists will pick up the adventure again. Dont ever think scientists will resort to mysticism to explain the origins of life.

Pendragon, I see what you are saying about philosophy, but the thing is that that is the point!

Evolution doesn't dispute that there is a creator, it disputes the literal interpretation of Genesis. It doesn't even dispute Christianity. It disputes beliefs such as the one that states that the world is not more than 10,000 years old.

I believe in God AND evolution. Natural selection, by the way, is more than provable. No one who has ever studied science with an open mind would dispute this 'theory.' It's to be seen. Only look, and you will see.

On Truth-
The men and women with the greatest breadth of mental capacity are those who recognize and willingly accept truth when they see it, and are willing to identify underlying principles and trace from cause and effect. –Vance Ferrell

One man says, “There is no truth! Ahah! I have found… truth.”
To say that there is no truth does sound very philosophically relevant and post-modern, unless you look at the definition of truth.
I typed in truth at dictionary.com and I was given the following definition

truth –
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate
When I typed in truth the definition was not “No such queries found, no available matches” or “does not presently exist” or “none.”
So when you say there is no truth, you have a different definition of truth than stated by the common dictionary.
To sate that man’s doubt alone dictates truth is shallow and irrelevant. Doubt does exist, it is observable, but doubt itself does not determine if there are facts, facts determine if there should be doubt, indecision, and skepticism. And if you show me that there is no truth by trying to verify it you are digging yourself into a bigger hole that you started with. When one states “there is no truth” and one sincerely believe the integrity of the statement, one conforms to the facts, the reality, the truth their statement, than they are caught by their own statement. One cannot logically travel outside this statement. If there is no truth (validity), then there is no space to argue against truth, without conformity to your own “truth” (although a gross misnomer) that there is no truth.

“You need to read up on your history, you seem to be pulling from Anglo-Saxon resources only. There are at least two continents with differing opinions.”

On Anglo-Saxon resources-

1. The Bible was written by Jewish authors.

2. The Bible is just as much an Anglo-Saxon resource as the Koran, the sayings of Confucius or Karma-Sutra, just because they are popular among Anglo-Saxons does not make the text Anglo-Saxon.

3. Anglo-Saxon’s have shown a history of despising Jews, the main cast of the Bible, Anglo-Saxons have shown a history of not reading the Bible and making mystic creeds and un-Biblical doctrines (prayer to Mary, assigning who became a saint).
Adam was not an Anglo-Saxon, neither the prophet Isaiah, Jesus is not an Anglo-Saxon. Anglo-Saxon’s became distinguished after the Bible was written.

5. Russia and its Orthodox Church follow the Bible, they are not Anglo-Saxon.
Many Africans haves followed the Bible ever since Phillip preached to that eunuch in the book of Acts.
And more importantly than just following the Bible they found salvation from the word’s of Christ, from His death and Resurrection.
In the case of the Biblical worldwide flood, it is found in the folklore of 120 tribes worldwide.

“Besides, if the 2nd law of thermodynamics directly applied to biology* how could the universe have lasted even eight thousand years?”

“[B]iological systems behave in distinctly anti-thermodynamic behaviors.”

On the Second law of Thermodynamics-
“All systems will tend to the most mathematically probable state, and will eventually become totally random and disorganized.” –Ferrell

Energy + Time does not = Bigger and Better and more complex.

Energy is destructive when it is without purpose.

The suns rays are destructive to everything on Earth. The sun will peel the paint of your designed car, the sun’s energy will wreck the roof of your designed house, crumble the grand designs of the Pantheon (Ancient Ruins need energy and time to crumble). Except one tiny molecule chlorophyll, that helps plants grow, but even plants whither.

Bigger is not always better, smaller is more complex. There is a picture of an Ant holding a microchip in it’s mouth, the complexities of a microscopic amoeba are astounding. Man is smaller than any dinosaur. The earth is smaller than the sun.

“There is a natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation-the law of increasing entropy.”-R.R. Kinsday, “Physics to What extent is It Deterministic,” in American Science 56 (1968)

There should have been a lot of evolution going on in the stars, because they are best open systems. This open system argument effectively negates the 2nd law anywhere in the universe, except the cold reaches of outer space, and cold planets distant from stars.

The Earth’s moon receives as much energy from the sun as Earth does, but it just turn to dust. If sunlight disclaimed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, physicists and scientists like Einstein would have discarded it.

Energy by itself increases entropy, so random heat or energy will increase entropy.

But, energy that is brought into a system from the outside, and which is intelligently controlled and directed can temporarily interfere with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It can for a time apparently stop entropy. Still, deliberate ongoing effort has to be expended to accomplish this feat.

Ordered systems such as maintaining the human body, are working within the Second law, not outside it.

“Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.” –John Ross, Chemical Engineering news, July 7, 1980, p.4 [Harvard University reasearcher].

The Bible is just as much an Anglo-Saxon resource as the Koran, the sayings of Confucius or Karma-Sutra, just because they are popular among Anglo-Saxons does not make the text Anglo-Saxon.

Most of everything else you have written were off base, but this is unacceptable! What are you saying here. Ethnocentrisim is rampant.

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

There are several other places where this can be explained in several other countries in several other continents. This was not the only place that this could and has been explained, that is what I meant by Anglo-Saxon resources. In fact, if I recall correctly the universe was created prior to the writing of the Old testemant, which is, for me, another way of saying that it had been written about previously.

BTW, do you know what I mean when I say Anglo-Saxon? I think you are confused.

By the by Satirical
Your complete Anglo Saxon point is utterly Ad Hominem,
and your ethnocentric arguement is a complete fallacy.

Even if the Bible and me were catagorized as "Anglo-Saxon,"
that does not mean my argument does not hold water, simply on that.

"Most of everything else you have written were off base" -Satirical

"...you seem to be pulling from Anglo-Saxon resources only. There are at least two continents with differing opinions." -Satirical

If I was pulling only from Anglo-Saxon sources (which I'm not),
that does not discredit my arguemnt, please check your fallacies.
I don't need to contend with it, beacuase it's irrelevant.

Of course their are differing opinions of Creation and Evolution on other continents, even on this same continent, that does not discredit my argument, you discredit your self by making the claim.

Using the Bible does make my arguement any less strong, although unpopular.
Can you show eqaully strong, supportive facts, for evolution?
Without jabbing at irrelevancies? I made a claim, now support yours own.

"It takes millions of years for the combination to run its course" -Satirical

Can you make back-up your claim? Can you even logically show that the earth is more than 10,000 years old without calling names?

As for the rest of you- I beg for facts, not just disagreements.

"It doesnt matter how "big" something is, its how much matter (atoms) are contained in it." -misanthrope

Evolution is completely concerned with how "big" something is, to the evolutionsist, things get bigger and better, it's you who have to prove how all the matter in the Universe, obviously the more matter there is the more space it takes up. Atoms or otherwise.

It's up to you to prove how more matter magically grew from less matter, and less complex matter without design, try to adequetly show and convince me with reason, and disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics, "matter does not arise from not matter." Somply stated you can't get more from less. Atoms, Matter, Hamburgers, light bulbs, you can't get more from less.
You have to work with what you already have.

I did account for all that, you assume too much. I am stating that Creationism is right,
I never stood on the foundation that if evolution was wrong Creation suddenly becomes right.
You are the one who said, "if you could prove Evolution wrong, that in no way makes creationism right" -Misanthrope.

You haven't made any clear argument against Creation, you simply used the old fashion ad hominem fallacy,
by calling creation mysticism, and claiming scientists as authorities without giving any sound reason for why they are authorities, and why what they say should be the benchmark. Give me facts, not the old "evolution is science" (even though you don't know why), no evolution is religion, it takes faith to believe , and at many points does not rely on science.

For firsts, welcome to the forum, greenburke. :D

For seconds...I suppose if you've grown up with Christianity all this God business is hard to avoid believing. I guess it's also easy to believe that a scientific theory with a solid record of fossils, DNA proof (btw did you know that we share 99.4 % of the DNA with chimpanzees? Physiologically, we are a member of the Great Apes, African ones at that), adaptation, and so much more is no more supported by facts than a rather old piece of literature that states the world is flat, pi=3, snakes talk, etc.

Earlier on, you stated that evolution is a flawed theory due to the fact that

Quote:

---

The Evolution Theory does not account for the true start, the absolute beginning of the Universe, because Evolution fails to solve how time and space came into existence.

---

No offence, but evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of the universe! Evolution is merely a theory describing life and how it evolves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

Evolution: The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

---

The beginning of the universe - the beginning of spacetime (time is the fourth dimension of space, there is no such thing as "absolute" time...time is elastic and can be warped by gravity) is described by the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory and Theory of Evolution are two very different things.

It is useless to ask what happened "before" the Big Bang because there was, in effect, no before - the Big Bang was the beginning of time and space, there was nothing, no time and no space, before this.

Quote:

---

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

---

I'm curious, where did this God of yours come from?

I know that real science is a bit difficult to swallow after reading a lot of sweet-tasting creationist hogwash, but as a rational human being surely you must question the validity of the "science" of creationism? (If you're interested in one of the many reasons I'm not being really polite about this so-called science then I'd recommend you to read "Telling Lies for God" by Ian Plimer.)

If you'd like to be exposed to some real science then I'd recommend Richard Dawkins' A Devil's Chaplain (a collection of essays) or River Out of Eden, which are most applicable to the subjects being discussed. If you're interested in a more general background on science, then I'd recommend Paul Davies or Stephen Hawking. My personal favourites. :)

Just an interesting off-side, did you know that according to new neurology research, our brains are still evolving?

Loki

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThatIndividual

Pendragon, I see what you are saying about philosophy, but the thing is that that is the point!

Evolution doesn't dispute that there is a creator, it disputes the literal interpretation of Genesis. It doesn't even dispute Christianity. It disputes beliefs such as the one that states that the world is not more than 10,000 years old.

I believe in God AND evolution. Natural selection, by the way, is more than provable. No one who has ever studied science with an open mind would dispute this 'theory.' It's to be seen. Only look, and you will see.

---

Let's go all the way back here:

Quote:

---

#651
Pendragon
You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism. Philosophy doesn't really deal with absolutes, but with gray areas. Still many philosophers and many scientists do believe in a devine being. And they have no real problem with that being starting the whole thing off, as it were. The problem seems to lie with the Bible itself, they have trouble accepting anything written therein as devinely inspired, or anything but retold myths. If that be their stand, then OK, let them act as they see fit, I believe in freedom and the first admendment. But I will expect the same from them in return, my freedom to believe as I will. And even if we disagree, I still would defend their right to have no religion or any that they choose as strongly as I defend my own! And you can go to the bank with that!

---

Is it possible that you failed to catch the part where I said that the problem seems to lie with the fact that philosophers and scientists can't accept the Biblical records as written? And if we go even further back you will find that I believe in Evolution, the type known as adaptation of species to environment, which causes changes. But my faith in God as the Creator remains unshaken. I will admit that the age of the Earth and the animals remains a mystery, and that since time itself means nothing to God, the time measurements in Genesis are arbitrary. One thing that struck me recently though, was the National Geographic Special on the chimpanze that had always walked upright like a man. His head was also shaped differently. Science began to wonder if he were perhaps a crossbreed. DNA proved he was a chimp, but had an extra chromozone. His face and head reminded me a lot of the "Lucy" being. He was that one in a million chance that is possible, but not probable. Still, he existed, and they have pictures, film footage, his DNA, and his skeleton for proof. But it makes me wonder about some fossil evidence where they only have 1 skull or so. Do they really have a complete species, or is it that same one in a million chance repeated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No offence, but evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of the universe! Evolution is merely a theory describing life and how it evolves.



The beginning of the universe - the beginning of spacetime (time is the fourth dimension of space, there is no such thing as "absolute" time...time is elastic and can be warped by gravity) is described by the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory and Theory of Evolution are two very different things.

Loki

---

1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.


2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.

5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.

6. Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Matter created life by itself.

Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Loki,

Nowhere in the Bible is written that the earth is flat.

Chaotic stasis!(calling out across the universe's) 'somebody find us and help us PLEASE!!!!!!!!'.(TeArS)

Most proof for and against the existence of God /creationism is a fallacy:
ad ignorantium, the appeal to ignorance:
God/creationism exists because you can't prove he doesn't and vice versa, God/creationism doesn't exist because you can't prove he does.

think about it when forming a post.

[QUOTE=God/creationism exists because you can't prove he doesn't and vice versa, God/creationism doesn't exist because you can't prove he does.

think about it when forming a post[/QUOTE]


This topic is about facts supporting or denying, Creationism and Evolution.
This argument isn't about the existence of God, specifically, although implied.

You presented the existence of God, which is off topic.
You presented that fallacy, nobody on this thread has argued that way.
You negate your own post, but not the rest of ours.

Simply stated your argument and fallacy aren't relevant, it is almost narrow minded, and dismissive.

Greenburke, you say that when you use the term 'evolution' you are referring to the theory that those 5 phenomena take place "without God" however, those theories don't say anything about taking place "without God." They just propose natural explanations for natural phenomena, but they never say that God didn't set it in motion.

My question for you is, don't you believe that God and evolution could quite possibly co-exist?

Pendragon, I have a feeling that you and I are in total agreement of God and evolution -- now I see what it is you're saying.

I'm also a creationist. However, I'm a creative-evolutionist. (I just coined that term. Nice, huh?)

I know that evolution occurs. I'm quite certain that the world is more than 10,000 years old. I am also quite certain that God exists and created all of this.

There are no contradictions or inconsistancies here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThatIndividual

Pendragon, I have a feeling that you and I are in total agreement of God and evolution -- now I see what it is you're saying.

I'm also a creationist. However, I'm a creative-evolutionist. (I just coined that term. Nice, huh?)

I know that evolution occurs. I'm quite certain that the world is more than 10,000 years old. I am also quite certain that God exists and created all of this.

There are no contradictions or inconsistancies here.

---

Thank you. It just occured to me, that if you can conceive a being of such power as to create all of this around us, that trying to put said being into time such as we know it is ridiculious. To such a being, time is nothing, so we have no way of saying how long this or that took. Genesis speaks of days, which we are later told are as a thousand years to God. But to the writer, a thousand years was probably unimaginable. The truth is God doesn't fit into human time. So how long did it take? I'll let the scientists try to figure that out. I still wonder about some fossil evidence, as I said, given the things that seem to never evolve, that crazy fish they thought was extinct, aligators and crocidiles, etc. And then there's that weird chimp... it's food for thought anyway. :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

Nowhere in the Bible is written that the earth is flat.

---

Just for clarity, Adelheid :) Loki may have :D been referring to

Quote:

---

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.

---

Well, nothing round has corners, does it?

Quote:

---

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:

---

Perhaps this is only metaphorical??

But how about this:

Quote:

---

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Commentary: Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

---

Therefore the Christian Bible implies the earth is flat.
Well it's not really surprising, seeing as the Bible was written such a long time ago; this was the school of thought they had back then, and thus we have it preserved.

Quote:

---

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)

---

The famous line (or one of them) that got poor old Galileo into trouble. The Catholic Church only formally forgave him in 1992.

Just my little bit of silver.

;)

Darcy

Quote:
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)
Flat earth? Just beacuase it's set on foundations? Just beacause it can never be moved from these foundations?

I've heard the expression for corners, that never made me think the earth was flat. Although it is a powerful expression, a daunting image. Ends of the earth, powerful expression as well. Moving along...


I like Psalms.

Quote:
Psalms 103 vs.11 and 12

"11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him;

12 as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us."

"As far as the east is from the west," pretty far, immposibly far if the earth is round, beacause east and west don't meet up. South and north meet, but not east and west.

I like the Book of Job too.

Quote:
Job 26 vs.6 and 7

"6 Death is naked before God;
Destruction lies uncovered.

7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing."

Wait, so the earth has foundations and it suspends over nothing!
East and West don't meet?
Sounds like a globe to me.