Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Another thing, if God made humans, where did God come from?

---

If primordial soup made humans, where did primordial soup come from?

Oh that's right, when nothing exploded and made the universe.

Course it was BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO so that must be observable and studiable... I call it a fairytale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChuckBukowski

A far leap in faith!?!? Are you kidding me? Believing in the Bible and that God created the earth in a seven day period after which he created Adam and all the animals, then used one of Adams ribs to make him a girlfriend but later sentenced them to eternal damnation fro eating an apple that was offered to them by a talking snake is the ultimate definition of "a far leap in faith". The only thing that creationists can offer as proof to their argument is "faith". Evolution is supported by facts. If you could show me just one talking snake I would at the very least describe the "evolution vs creation" argument as a "debate", but as far as I'm concerned it's like trying to describe what a sunset looks like to Helen Keller, no matter what you say, she's just never gonna really get it because she's too freegin blind.

---

Hellen Keller? Was she an evolutionist?

Facts... like the fact that our observable universe blew up from nothing?

Or that life arose from non-life?

How bout benificial mutations.

Or that animals suddenly evovled over a in one generation? Like a snake hatching a baby bird?

Wait never seen any of those.

How bout finches off the coast of south America, or central or wherever adapting to the enviroment?
Yah that one's scientific.

Cosmic, stellar, chemical, life from no life, changing from species to another? Those aren't observable.

Adaptation is observable, course all the information's pre-packaged.

Evoulionists need faith to believe in....
. 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.

The only factual one is this...
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.


Ummm.. if you are an evolutionist and don't believe in the first five, where's your faith man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starrwriter

As Chuck indicated in his frenzy, there is no faith involved in evolution. It's based on the scientific method which uses observable data and logic to test the validity of a theory. This (not faith) is the best way ever invented to separate true facts from illusions.

---

The best way ever?

Are you defending the theory that nothing exploded billions of years ago?

Or just the theory that you descended from cooling lava?

Or the theory that "everthing in time and space is related"-Charles Darwin

Are you using a thought through, fact based arguement to say everything came from chance?
Well then, your chance made brain is probably spewing accidents, not arguements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imaditzyreader

HMPH. i just wrote an essay about this in school today. I firmly belive in evolution, but i belive that God could have had a hand in it (intellegent design), but i think that it is hard to not look at all of the evidence that is put out there by the evolutionists. A book that i liked on this topic was "Confessing a Murder" Nicholas Drayson. iIt opened my eyes to how the world worked. i thought it pressed some very valid points. I also really like the view expressed by Henry Drummond in "Inherit the Wind" (a play about the scopes-monkey trial, whos author i cannot find at the moment). He said that as there was no sun or moon the first day(s?) of the world, how could we be sure that it was a 24 hour day. why couldnt it have been 25 hours, two weeks, ten years, or a few million years?? and in this time it could have been enough for evolution, so in essence both could be correct.

Think about it

---

what facts to support evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<Evolution could have given us four arms by now, if it really worked on "see a need, fill it.">

Having four arms would make us clumsy and inefficient.

<God was always there, and is there, and always will be there. He existed, exists, and will exist. He is Omnipresence, Omniscience.>

Your language makes no sense. How can you use 'was','is' and 'always' when god is supposedly outside time? How can you say god was here or there, when god is supposedly non-corporeal? Omnipresence leaves no room for other presence - can two things occupy the exact same space? And how can god be present anywhere without having a body? To be present, is to physically occupy a spatial area, is it not? Is god present in my blood? in my urine? in my faeces? Was god present in Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot?

---

God is evrywhere, look up the word transcendent, it should help.

"To be present, is to physically occupy a spatial area, is it not?"

Come on, try air, space, wind, shadow, light, darkness, ideas, promises, memories... other stuff.

Does something have to have a body to exist?


When nothing exploded and made the universe, did that nothing have a body?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Having four arms would make us clumsy and inefficient.

---

Really? Think about it the next time you have your hands full and have to do anything from answering a phone to holding a flashlight to see the insides of a computer while you delicately solder wires that you also could use another hand to hold, but the solder gun's in one, one wire's in the other and the flashlight is in your mouth and you are proping the other wire up with a popcicle stick. Sounds real efficient and deft to me. But now a monkey, who doesn't have to do this type of task, would have extra hands AND a prehensile tail! Maybe I could get him to help me with my tasks, he's got more hands than I do! :lol: :lol: :lol:

<People are to blame for "ugly" people. Eating the forbidden fruit brought sin, death, and disease into our world.>

Creating the forbidden fruit when the omniscient god knew it would be eaten was even uglier.

<God is evrywhere, look up the word transcendent, it should help>

I've looked up the word transcendent. It would only help someone like you. Read Wittgenstein. It should help.

<Come on, try air, space, wind, shadow, light, darkness, ideas, promises, memories... other stuff.>

I think you need to look up the term present. If something is present, it is present somewhere. If something is present somewhere, then only that something is present precisely there. Do you think you can occupy exactly the same space that someone else does?

How can space occupy space? What on earth are you talking about? Light and darkness are not occupational presences. Where do ideas have a presence? Ideas are states. Does sadness have a presence? It makes no sense to talk of states of being as presences. And as for promises??? They occupy space???

You rant on about observation as evidence: what observational evidence do you have for god?

<Come on, try air, space, wind, shadow, light, darkness, ideas, promises, memories... other stuff.>

Do you think that air is not physical? Do you think that all of the above can exist without physicality? Ever seen an idea promise or memory that never had a relation to something physical? light and darkness are physical. Shadows are dependent upon light and bodies. Wind is a physical manifestation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<People are to blame for "ugly" people. Eating the forbidden fruit brought sin, death, and disease into our world.>

Creating the forbidden fruit when the omniscient god knew it would be eaten was even uglier.

---

This omnscient God, gave man his/her own freewill, freedom to choose.


"...but that the will
And high permission of all-ruling Heaven
Left him at large to his own dark designs,
That with reiterated crimes he might
Heap on himself damnation, while he sought
Evil to others, and enraged might see
How all his malice served but to bring forth
Infinite goodness, grace, and mercy, shewn
On Man by him seduced, but on himself
Treble confusion, wrath, and vengeance poured."

-Milton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<God is evrywhere, look up the word transcendent, it should help>

I've looked up the word transcendent. It would only help someone like you. Read Wittgenstein. It should help.

<Come on, try air, space, wind, shadow, light, darkness, ideas, promises, memories... other stuff.>

I think you need to look up the term present. If something is present, it is present somewhere. If something is present somewhere, then only that something is present precisely there. Do you think you can occupy exactly the same space that someone else does?

How can space occupy space? What on earth are you talking about? Light and darkness are not occupational presences. Where do ideas have a presence? Ideas are states. Does sadness have a presence? It makes no sense to talk of states of being as presences. And as for promises??? They occupy space???

You rant on about observation as evidence: what observational evidence do you have for god?

---

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you, when you said, "And how can god be present anywhere without having a body?"
I listed off present things w/out a body.

I did not mean that God was present physically like the wind or light.
Rather that God made wind and light, that God transcends (To exist above and independent of material experience or the universe) his own creation, and that God is indeed Spirit.


When You said, "And how can god be present anywhere without having a body? To be present, is to physically occupy a spatial area, is it not? Is god present in my blood? in my urine? in my faeces? Was god present in Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot?"

I did not reply that God was physically present, only that there are physical manifestations which do not have a body, and do indeed exsist. Simply stated, matter does not need a body (much less a human body) to exist.

"...how can god be present anywhere without having a body?"
I wasn't saying that God has a body, but that physical manifestations do not need a body to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I've looked up the word transcendent. It would only help someone like you.

---

By the way when you said "someone like you", what did you mean?

African American, Norwegian, Palestinian, Iraqi, a Jew? Democrat, bald, handicapped, eplipetic, dislexic. Single, blind, male? Religous thinker, someone who believes in a god? A Shiite, a Sunni, a Hindu, a Catholic, a Protestant a Greek Orthodox, Angelican?

Did you mean one of the 2.1 billion Christian followers?
Or one of the 1.3 billion Muslim followers?
One of the 1.1 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheists?
One of the 900 mollion Hindus?

Or are you just making a stereotye of people like me.

If your just calling me a jerk that's fine, but don't make discminate "people like me" based on pre-concived notions. An intellectual debate is not the place for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenburke

I'm assuming by someone like me you meant someone who believes in God, or a higher being. If so, you are dangerously stereotyping people like me. If your just calling me a jerk, that's OK.

---

I think it's an accurate description and not a stereotype. The world can be fairly divided into religious believers and non-believers.

If I were you, I wouldn't pre-emptively call myself a jerk. atiguhya padma never used that word and it doesn't help you explain your position on this topic.

I apologize for pre-emptively call myself a jerk.

Still, the phrase "people like you" is a vague, often derogatory lumping of individuals.

A last-ditch character attack when facts are sparse. Used by people like you.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenburke

I apologize for pre-emptively call myself a jerk. Still, the phrase "people like you" is a vague, often derogatory lumping of individuals. A last-ditch character attack when facts are sparse. Used by people like you....

---

The facts are on atiguhya padma's side. You merely have faith.