Evolution vs. Creation

[Scheherazade]

Perhaps. But do you think it really took 2000 years to come up with the Genesis narrative? One of the primary reasons it seems that atheists reject the creation story is that it sounds too much like an unbelievable fairy tale - I don't think fairy tales take 2000 years to compose. (Besides, it's only fairy-tale-ish if one assumes that nothing beyond humanity and nature exists.)

I did not say that they took 2000 years to compose their theory. I said they had 2000 years to make their point.

And yes, Evolutions are still 'composing' their theories and facts but as a teacher which one would you find more worthwhile? A work which is done in a very short time through some inspiration or a work which is based on long research and keeps improving with new facts?

[cuppajoe_9]

The only way you can "prove" evolution is to find the "transitional forms" that theorists theorize occurred to bring us where we are.

There are quite a few discovered transitional forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils.

And, from what I've heard, even Darwin admitted that evolution worked at a "micro" level, but not a "marcro" level.

I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's absolutely not true. On the Origin of Species is almost entirely devoted to evidence for marcro level evolution.

[Redzeppelin]

I did not say that they took 2000 years to compose their theory. I said they had 2000 years to make their point.

Fair enough - I didn't read your post as carefully as I should.

And yes, Evolutions are still 'composing' their theories and facts but as a teacher which one would you find more worthwhile? A work which is done in a very short time through some inspiration or a work which is based on long research and keeps improving with new facts?

But the choices you provided are two books that may have been written for very different purposes, very different audiences. I don't want my science books written by "inspiration" and I don't want my literature based on "research and facts" (which is not an invitation to go "Oh, so the Bible's just literature then, eh?") The Bible was never meant to do what a science book does - just as The Old Man and the Sea isn't meant to be a fishing manual. When evolutionists pit their "evidence" against the Genesis narrative they tend to go "See? How ridiculous is that?" - but the comparison is not completely fair because God did not intend for the Bible to be a science book. If God decided to write a science book, I'm certain it would make our own scientific masterpieces look silly and simplistic by comparison. But God's not interested in that. Evidence that points towards something is not necessarily evidence that connects to something.

There are quite a few discovered transitional forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils.I.

I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's absolutely not true. On the Origin of Species is almost entirely devoted to evidence for marcro level evolution.

OK - slam-dunk. You'd been quiet lately, so I thought I could get away with some fast-and-loose comments. My info is probably outdated hearsay - which I'll only partly apologize for because I'm not in the habit of doing research to post in these threads. I'm certainly no expert on this stuff - but I've read articles that suggest that the accurate commentary Darwin makes on micro-evolution was extrapolated into macro-evolution, and that the extrapolation is not valid: just because something happens at the micro level does not inevitably suggest that that same process goes "macro" in the same (or even comprable) way.

As I've said before: you have loads of evidence - I can't compete with it, primarily because God did not leave us "evidence" with which to debate non-believers with. He never intended us to convince non-believers of anything - except, perhaps, that living the Christian life was something of value.

[Pendragon]

OK - slam-dunk. You'd been quiet lately, so I thought I could get away with some fast-and-loose comments. My info is probably outdated hearsay - which I'll only partly apologize for because I'm not in the habit of doing research to post in these threads. I'm certainly no expert on this stuff - but I've read articles that suggest that the accurate commentary Darwin makes on micro-evolution was extrapolated into macro-evolution, and that the extrapolation is not valid: just because something happens at the micro level does not inevitably suggest that that same process goes "macro" in the same (or even comprable) way.

Alas, Red, mon ami, when it comes to a debate you have to be prepared to present your side and expect that it will be micro-examined by the other. You must also be prepared to cross-examine the other, which you will never be able to do without research. Have you never heard the old proverb, "know thine enemy?" If you don't know what they will most likely say in return to your statement or how to try to counter, you are defeated before you start. And on a subject like this "fast-and-loose comments" will be picked up by the opposing side and tossed back to you. Think before you post, and then think some more.

[Whifflingpin]

"Think before you post"

That's cheating, and takes all the fun out.

[Redzeppelin]

Alas, Red, mon ami, when it comes to a debate you have to be prepared to present your side and expect that it will be micro-examined by the other. You must also be prepared to cross-examine the other, which you will never be able to do without research. Have you never heard the old proverb, "know thine enemy?" If you don't know what they will most likely say in return to your statement or how to try to counter, you are defeated before you start. And on a subject like this "fast-and-loose comments" will be picked up by the opposing side and tossed back to you. Think before you post, and then think some more.

Thank you, Pen - I don't have a problem getting nailed like that. I admitted that I asked for it, and I knew my comment was on shaky ground. That's OK with me. I'm quite prepared to be micro-analyzed and to admit when my point is less (sometimes far less) than valid. I'm not convinced, however, that every poster here has gone out and "done the research" - whether that means reading scientific journals or the Bible. If this were a formal debate, then yeah, I'd have done some reading - but I do this for relaxation and fun. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt to "bone up" on some of the endless info cuppajoe seems to have access to.

[Scheherazade]

but the comparison is not completely fair because God did not intend for the Bible to be a science book. If God decided to write a science book, I'm certain it would make our own scientific masterpieces look silly and simplistic by comparison. But God's not interested in that. Evidence that points towards something is not necessarily evidence that connects to something.

Then, people should not bringing up the Creationist theory as a scientific fact and say 'God did it!' when we are talking about our material existence and physical origins in this world. We should be able to make the distinction between physical and spiritual existence.

Oh, looking forward to the day when God finally decides to present us with such a book as you mentioned. Would have saved lots of trouble on earth, don't you think?

[The Jackle]

Well, when christ comes back upon this earth in the second comming ill ask him to write one. Anyway the creation theroy will always be in stalemate with the evolution theroy.There is an theroy that God started it all off in eden but when man was expelled for sins against god that God enabled animals and plants to change in order for them to populate the earth.That theroy is in my opinion most senceable, however the everlotion vs creation is currently more of an Atheiest Vs Belivers argument hence the stalement will continue.

[cuppajoe_9]

...however the everlotion vs creation is currently more of an Atheiest Vs Belivers argument hence the stalement will continue.

It's not at all a God vs. No-God debate. Plenty of theists support biological evolution. The Vatican endorses Darwin nowadays (though they've never been big literalists) and Ken Miller, one of the most respeced cell-biologists in the field, is a practicing Roman Catholic.

[Redzeppelin]

Then, people should not bringing up the Creationist theory as a scientific fact and say 'God did it!' when we are talking about our material existence and physical origins in this world. We should be able to make the distinction between physical and spiritual existence.

Who here is doing that? I don't think I've ever claimed it was a "scientific fact" - I'm pretty sure I've just been saying that I believe the Genesis account is a factual account. I've never asked anybody to accept it as "scientific fact" because the Bible does not present it as such. But - if I see correctly, this thread is titled "Evolution vs Creation." That tells me that two distinct views are being contrasted - one a view based on the claims of human observation, the other on divine revelation. As such, I'm not really bothered that I can't counter modern science's claims with science of my own - if I could, well, then why bother with God at all? I don't ask anybody here to believe what I believe, or to accept my position as fact. I do not believe that it is possible to offer the atheist anything even remotely as "convincing" evidence-wise as can be pointed my way by the evolutionist. So? Does that disqualify me from claiming that I believe my view to be factual?

Oh, looking forward to the day when God finally decides to present us with such a book as you mentioned. Would have saved lots of trouble on earth, don't you think?

Do I detect some sarcasm here? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this particular publication to be issued - if you've read the Bible, you might have noticed that God has more pressing issues than providing science books for those who are skeptical. Saved what trouble? That there might be people who wouldn't believe Him without "scientific proof"? I don't see the trouble. There's plenty of reality that believers and nonbelievers alike accept without "factual" proof.

Here's an idea: why don't you share what exactly it would take for you to believe in God? What would He have to do to convince you He's "real"?

[Pendragon]

You know, I have been with this thread or following its progress for a long time. It is going nowhere. The people who believe Creationism still aren’t going to budge. The people who believe in the Big Bang and Evolution only, (no Intelligent Design), aren’t going to change either. And the ones who can see both sides and meet somewhere between—God as Creator and Evolution as things adapt to an ever-changing world—we aren’t going to move from that point as well. Stick a fork in this thread, I think we’re done!

[lumiere08]

As a newcomer to this forum, I confess being stunned at the results of the poll I saw, having then quickly scanned this discussion.

What is the foundation for adhering to creationism? Surely, it cannot be simply "belief." Belief itself has to be founded on some principle. If we accept that belief is founded on the superiority of the position which can most consistently account for the widest range of observations, surely this case has been won hands down by evolution!

Let me ask for a more specific explanation. How does the creationist view account, for example, for species extinction, of which there is unrefuted evidence? On a personal level, I have been to several places in the world (e.g. Madagascar) where discovery of species and its recorded extinction has occured in our lifetimes. I am at a loss to see how creationism consistently accounts for these and other similar episodes of change in the biosphere.

I can anticipate the counter-arguments, but would be curious to see the creationist argument come out of the closet clearly and transparently.

[Lily Adams]

You know, I have been with this thread or following its progress for a long time. It is going nowhere. The people who believe Creationism still aren’t going to budge. The people who believe in the Big Bang and Evolution only, (no Intelligent Design), aren’t going to change either. And the ones who can see both sides and meet somewhere between—God as Creator and Evolution as things adapt to an ever-changing world—we aren’t going to move from that point as well. Stick a fork in this thread, I think we’re done!

Cereally. But this topic was really fun and interesting to read for the past half an hour for me...quit it, everyone, your'e distracting me from my homework! I kid, I kid! What a great topic!

[Redzeppelin]

What is the foundation for adhering to creationism? Surely, it cannot be simply "belief." Belief itself has to be founded on some principle. If we accept that belief is founded on the superiority of the position which can most consistently account for the widest range of observations, surely this case has been won hands down by evolution!

Only if you wish to treat Creationism as a "theory," subject to laws of human logic and reason. The idea of a Divine Being like God contradicts what human reason would reasonably speculate in terms of existence. In other words, since our "reason" is based on what we observe as "reality," then it makes sense that the idea of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being is nothing less than absurd. So, your parameters for ascertaining the strongest position is flawed from the beginning. Evolution only wins "hands down" if one is a naturalist and views the universe as composed of nothing but matter.

Your premise that belief is founded on principle is certainly not a given. There's plenty of things people believe without having some "principle" standing as its foundation.

Let me ask for a more specific explanation. How does the creationist view account, for example, for species extinction, of which there is unrefuted evidence? On a personal level, I have been to several places in the world (e.g. Madagascar) where discovery of species and its recorded extinction has occured in our lifetimes. I am at a loss to see how creationism consistently accounts for these and other similar episodes of change in the biosphere.

Evolutionists' demand that Creationism account for all of science's discoveries, hypotheses and conclusions is their attempt to make us fight on their territory - the field of observable science. While I think Intelligent Design is making some headway in that direction, I still challenge this mindset that we have to provide answers for everything that contradicts the Bible. Only God knows those answers because He created everything. The idea that something is only "real" if it's irrefutably proven is fascinating - do you have empirical proof that your parents really loved you? Do you have empirical proof that we went to the moon? Do you have empirical proof that your mind is composed of a "conscious" and "unconscious"? Even if you dismiss these question, the point persists: there is plenty of reality that we accept without absolute "proof." Even evolution's arguments are still inductive in nature.

I can anticipate the counter-arguments, but would be curious to see the creationist argument come out of the closet clearly and transparently.

Then perhaps you should go back and read through this thread - I'm pretty sure we've laid out our position quite clearly.

[lumiere08]

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;316224]Only if you wish to treat Creationism as a "theory," subject to laws of human logic and reason. The idea of a Divine Being like God contradicts what human reason would reasonably speculate in terms of existence. In other words, since our "reason" is based on what we observe as "reality," then it makes sense that the idea of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being is nothing less than absurd. So, your parameters for ascertaining the strongest position is flawed from the beginning. Evolution only wins "hands down" if one is a naturalist and views the universe as composed of nothing but matter.

Your premise that belief is founded on principle is certainly not a given. There's plenty of things people believe without having some "principle" standing as its foundation. [QUOTE]

OK, if a Divine being exists and is responsible for all creation, why did this Divine being create human reason? I never understood how Creationists deal with this one.

I find it astounding that an one can say that belief does not have to based on principle. If this is a serious claim, I wonder whether the implication is that Creationists are renouncing human reason as a faculty for understanding the world.

Evolutionists' demand that Creationism account for all of science's discoveries, hypotheses and conclusions is their attempt to make us fight on their territory - the field of observable science. While I think Intelligent Design is making some headway in that direction, I still challenge this mindset that we have to provide answers for everything that contradicts the Bible. Only God knows those answers because He created everything. The idea that something is only "real" if it's irrefutably proven is fascinating - do you have empirical proof that your parents really loved you? Do you have empirical proof that we went to the moon? Do you have empirical proof that your mind is composed of a "conscious" and "unconscious"? Even if you dismiss these question, the point persists: there is plenty of reality that we accept without absolute "proof." Even evolution's arguments are still inductive in nature.

Thank you for you comment. It is unfortunate, in my view, for Creationists to become defensive towards demands to explaining how potent their views are in terms of explanatory capacity, to the point of rejecting any standard of proof. To renounce any standard of "proof" is simply an abdication of willingness to engage in an open debate. Certainly, there are reasonable standards of proof which can respond affirmatively to questions such as whether your parents loved you or we went to the moon (these questions are different questions of whether consciousness" and "uncosnciousness" exists). I also see no problem with so-called inductive proof. Are you implying that Creationsts have deductive proof? Or perhaps that proof is an irrelevant standard for the Creationist argument?

I still find no response to the problem of species extinction and how Creationism account for this.

Then perhaps you should go back and read through this thread - I'm pretty sure we've laid out our position quite clearly.

Actually, I did. Unfortunately, I did not find it illuminating in terms of argument. Sorry. It may be that there cannot be a debate on this because there is simply a lack of willingness to agree on standards for a debate.