Evolution vs. Creation

[Adudaewen]

So, what do you creationists have to say about fossils? Especially fossils of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthals.

In all seriousness, what if these particular individuals are simply unattractive people? I have an uncle that when he dies, I want to have sole access to his skull so I can boil it and I bet he'd probably look a little bit like a neanderthal. I also have an old high school teacher that we used to jokingly call "The Missing Link" because she has a very ape like face, reminiscent of a gorilla. What if these fossils they are finding are just unfortuante looking humans? I'm not saying this merely to be glib, but it is a possibility. As a person who believes in Creation, I believe in fossils. These creatures did exist, but for whatever reason, be it changes in the atmosphere, hunting or something else I cannot devine, they are now extinct. I don't really know how else to answer such a broad question. Is there something specific about fossils? Just to say "what about fossils" is a really broad question that I'm not sure I can answer simply for the reason that I'm not sure what you are looking for.

in response to your examples about einstein and such, why would they need faith? they put the ideas out there, and if they were wrong, big deal. the said what the math and expirement stold them and if they got it wrong, well, science doesnt claim to know everything.

I'm not talking about faith simply from a religious standpoint. Faith can mean faith in God, or faith in an idea. Do you really think that early scientists didn't need faith to get their ideas off the ground? A person has to have faith in an idea to spend as much time and effort to prove it as these men did. You say that if "they were wrong, big deal". What if the evolutionists were one day proven wrong? Would that not shake the very foundation you base your ideas on? Wouldn't that shake every idea to its very core? If someone would with out a doubt prove that Creation was false, that would change everything for me. If science doesn't claim to know everything, why then is it so impossible for scientists to entertain the idea of Creation? It does take faith, either way. But don't think of faith simply as a Christian attribute. All people have faith, just in different things.

Hi there Adu,
If you were an ignorant hick you wouldn't be here. All of your postings that I have read have been well written and loaded with compassion for everyone's points of view.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Do you consider evolutionary and creationist theories to be counter arguments to each other? I'm not sure that I do. It seems like evolution (on earth and elsewhere) could be an absolutely amazing idea of a universal, omnipotent creator. Now if we limit ourselves the a Christian creator, where earth-bound humans are the center of its (his) creation, then I can see how there may be room for disagreement.

I do consider them to be counter arguments. Creation is based on Devine Inspiration and Intellignet Design while evolution is based on an amazing set of coincidences that jumpstarted the origins of the earth. One has God, one doesn't. So yes, I do consider them to be mutually exclusive.

(which Adudaewen's post nicely pointed out w/ the example of the Nebraska Man - well done Adudaewen! ).

Thanx Red!

No. Science has nothing to do with faith i'm afraid. Science has to do with indications. A scientist has a powerfull instrument in his hands which is called "experiment" with which one can ascertain if the indication one has are leading to a certain conclusion.
And talking about faith, one can't worship science. I really can't imagine myself worshipping concrete and steel (being a civil engineer).

Worship: noun
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
The problem is too many people misunderstand the words faith and worship. All people have faith and do worship. I know many people who regard science with the same reverance and faith as I do God. So yes, one could potentially worship steel and concrete. Just perhaps not yourself. I should have been more clear on my word usage, I see.

I can't understand how can one partly accept the evolution proccess. Either you accept it either you don't. Either it is there either not. I have read your post several times in order to understand what you mean. If i have misunderstood please do enlighten me.

I see them as seperate because one is a change(evolution) from one species to another, and one is an adaptation within the same species. I hope that clarifies my answer a little. I have seen micro evolution. It is tangible and concrete. Macro evolution, on the other hand is something that no person has ever seen evidence of in the living world.(outside of the fossil record that is)

I have been a silent viewer for a long time in this thread. Your post being decent, civil and well written tempted me to post my opinion in juxtaposition to yours. I hope you don't mind my doing that. As you can see i don't reject God. I just have my doubts in many things- not only concerning God of course. I hope you are in no way offended by what i write. If you are, i feel sorry in advance.

I am certainly not offended and I appreciate your respect and tact in your post. I believe that one thing that makes human beings so strong is our ability to disagree. It forces us to take a good look at our beliefs and defend them. If you can't defend it, you can't truly believe in it. So I thank you for your candor and I hope I was able to answer some of your questions.

[Redzeppelin]

I think we want some elaboration. You didn't answer the question. I'd love to hear the Creationist view on this; I did mention this before and I didn't get a response from anyone.

You're right. I didn't answer the question. I don't have an answer. I teach English for a living and I'm not a biblical scholar. Yes, I could go search the web for a Christian response as to the existence of fossils (and I do recall an explanation) and then post it here, but then what? The evolutionists would scoff at the explanation, dismiss it and then we're right back where we started. This argument cannot and will not be "won" and certainly not by "evidence." Both belief systems involve uncertainties and faith - but because the evolutionist believes he has more "evidence" (as if what you can see is the measure of reality) that his position is the stronger one and ours is plain silly.

[Stanislaw]

Well hmmmm...god is imaginary...there is no proof of his existence...you follow a bible that was edited and filtered by the government. You have ZERO evidence proving that adam and eve is a real story.

Read this: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zi...damandeve.html
...and then we'll continue the conversation. Debunk the archaeological evidence presented in that article.

and nothing presented in a newspaper, journal or book is edited...
and just because you say there is zero, does not make it so... I can say you have zero evidence, but it wont change the facts.

See, lily, they can't answer the question because it goes against their "beliefs". They dismiss and avoid posts presenting evidence. All in all, it's beating around the bush.

no I guess your right...let me domonstrate:
www.hatetheatheist.com - guess the athiests are wrong!

how do you counteract hard earned internet proof!!!
you have zero evidence
teh monkeys own you

how can a debate go on, if one side refuses to acknowledge the othersides proofs, and instead plays ostritch and calls ZERO?

[Matrim Cuathon]

youve finally figured it out stanislaw. you can never have a real debate about this. i cant aknowledge the chrisitans "proof" becuase i dont consider it proof.
debates are logical entities. like in a courtroom. religion is not a logical function. you cannot prove that god does not exist because thats not how the religion works. you can show loads of logical examples, but religious people have faith.

we cant really effectively debate this anyway, becuase we are not phyicists or bible scholars. an amateur debate about religion will never have a satisfactory conclusion, even if there is one to be had.

[Stanislaw]

youve finally figured it out stanislaw. you can never have a real debate about this. i cant aknowledge the chrisitans "proof" becuase i dont consider it proof.
debates are logical entities. like in a courtroom. religion is not a logical function. you cannot prove that god does not exist because thats not how the religion works. you can show loads of logical examples, but religious people have faith.

we cant really effectively debate this anyway, becuase we are not phyicists or bible scholars. an amateur debate about religion will never have a satisfactory conclusion, even if there is one to be had.

well, we could drink beer and call it a conversation.

and science is rooted in logic aswell, governed by different method theoretical and physical. but the debate lies in the philisophical, philosophy offers an effective bridge between the two, between humanities and sciences.

[Matrim Cuathon]

you cant debate religion, its fun, but you will never have a satisfactory answer.
you cant argue away faith. someone has to have doubts on their own. they have to have a chink in their religious armor. the whole point is that we cant understand God. you cant use science or even fact to debate that. in the end people want it to be real and they can simply say that God is above science.
faith is not rational.

[Adudaewen]

faith is not rational.

Faith is not rational to you, you mean. To a person who has faith, it is rational/logical.

ra·tion·al
adj.
1.Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2.Of sound mind; sane.
3.Consistent with or based on reason; logical:

There's a difference between (reasoned) faith, and blind faith.

[Matrim Cuathon]

no, i mean faith is not rational. i know the definition of the word perfectly well.
to an insane person their actions are raitonal and logical. this means nothing, proves nothing. maybe the "insane" person has it right. but wait there is only one, they must be crazy. many christians call cults crazy for some of the things they do. the only difference betweena cult and a religion is that one has more people.

[Redzeppelin]

no, i mean faith is not rational. i know the definition of the word perfectly well.
to an insane person their actions are raitonal and logical. this means nothing, proves nothing. maybe the "insane" person has it right. but wait there is only one, they must be crazy. many christians call cults crazy for some of the things they do. the only difference betweena cult and a religion is that one has more people.

"Rationality" is a term that deals with what you're using as a basis for "normal" or "reality." To the Christian, God is ultimate reality and this world a deceptive "illusion" of sorts. So, from where we're standing, a rejection of God is a rejection of ultimate reality - and is, therefore, irrational behavior. You won't agree, because you base your idea of "normal" or "reality" on what you can see - the observable world; as such, our focus on the unseen world appears "irrational" to you. Don't you get it? There is no total escape from the limits of subjectivity. As far as Christians are concerned, you are the one who is being fooled - but you're being fooled by what you can see.

[Matrim Cuathon]

i know what you think. i bring forth the example of an insane person. the points of veiw are so out of phase you cant really argue whether god is real.

i just like to pick apart arguements or have others pick apart mine.

[hyperborean]

i know what you think. i bring forth the example of an insane person. the points of veiw are so out of phase you cant really argue whether god is real.

i just like to pick apart arguements or have others pick apart mine.

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.

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".

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.

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.

[ennison]

If there were awards for grace and persistence under pressure I'd nominate you Red.

[Adudaewen]

If there were awards for grace and persistence under pressure I'd nominate you Red.

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

[Redzeppelin]

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!)

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.

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 - ).

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.

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.

[hyperborean]

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?

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.