Evolution vs. Creation

[JGL57]

I think you know too much of religion and very little about science

It would help if you identified the poster to whom you are addressing your comments - other than just using the generic "you". Some of us here may be paranoids and you don't want to feed into that.

[Lily Adams]

But there is no excuse, therefore, for getting carried away and defining mythic narrative as historical events. In the final analysis, there IS a difference between fact on the one hand and and fiction (expressive metaphor and allegory) on the other. Read some Joseph Campbell. It might clear a few things up for you.

Thank you. I'm sure there was a man named Jesus Christ, but I doubt he did all the powerful things that the Bible says he did.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but why don't things of Biblical proportion happen today? Like the flood and everything. (Okay, I know God made a promise to never do that again, according to the Bible, but it's just an example.) We haven't seen one in a very very long time. By bibleical proportion I mean something that sounds like magic. It does to me, at least I've never seen a man live 6,000 years old. I've never seen an Angel of Death come by and wipe out all the first born sons.

And, another thing, for ANY religion. What makes you so sure that you're right? I mean, there are plenty other religions around. And the members of those other religions think they're right, too. I personally find it very arrogant.

It kind of ties in with the "God made us in His image" thing when it's the other way around. We're not the center of the universe.

[MysticalWriter]

Hm, I am not going to read 129 pages worth of posts, but- I will say I believe in Creation.

Is there anytime in the Bible that contains a flaw of some sort? Can any scientist, geologist, doctor of any sort, etc, etc, prve that the Bible is wrong. There is much eveidenc ethat it "could" be true.

Is there anytime, in the Theory of Evolution that can/has been proven wrong? Yes! So why believe in something that can be proven wrong?

[Lily Adams]

Is there anytime in the Bible that contains a flaw of some sort? Can any scientist, geologist, doctor of any sort, etc, etc, prve that the Bible is wrong. There is much eveidenc ethat it "could" be true.

Yes.

Here (It's a re-post, you guys.) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI

Is there anytime, in the Theory of Evolution that can/has been proven wrong? Yes! So why believe in something that can be proven wrong?

And where is your argument against Evolution? I want to know the proof that it's wrong that you speak of.

[weepingforloman]

If you believe that the laws of nature are set in stone, then I can't see how you can also believe in the resurrection; the virgin birth; miracles; the transubstantiation etc. If you believe that god set the ball rolling, and designed the universe in such a way that he could not tinker with it, then god just becomes a weak and useless attempt at explaining the origins of the universe (if you cannot explain the origins of god - other than to say that god is eternal: we might as well save time and energy and say the universe is eternal - then your explanation for the origin of the universe is useless).

I never said I believe they are set in stone.
I don't believe in transsubstantiation (I'm not Catholic, as I've said elsewhere).
Miracles, by definition, ARE interference with the normal workings of nature.

Yes.

Here (It's a re-post, you guys.) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI



And where is your argument against Evolution? I want to know the proof that it's wrong that you speak of.

I would caution you against attempting to disprove biblical statements: if you start by believing God is nonexistent, well then, you will merely say something like "the sun cannot be stopped in the sky"; if you start by believing God is real, you can say "nothing is impossible with God." It just depends on your initial belief.

[Redzeppelin]

Thank you. I'm sure there was a man named Jesus Christ, but I doubt he did all the powerful things that the Bible says he did.

The real question is whether Christ was who He claimed to be; if He was, then the miracles were no big deal; if He wasn't, then there is no need to believe anything He said because anybody who claimed to be God who wasn't is certifiably insane.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but why don't things of Biblical proportion happen today? Like the flood and everything. (Okay, I know God made a promise to never do that again, according to the Bible, but it's just an example.) We haven't seen one in a very very long time. By bibleical proportion I mean something that sounds like magic. It does to me, at least I've never seen a man live 6,000 years old. I've never seen an Angel of Death come by and wipe out all the first born sons.

"Magic"? What does that have to do with the Bible or God? Miraculous events are not "magic" - they are an intervention in the natural world by the hand of God. Example: if a vase falls off a table, the laws of nature indicate that - barring some intervention, like me reaching over and catching the vase - it will hit the floor. God is the intervening hand that alters what normally occurs in nature. No "magic" involved.

Next: God chooses not to reveal Himself in the same ways He did in the New Testament; His primary mode of revelation is personal in nature - something that the New Testament makes quite clear. There will come a time when miraculous things occur, but by that point, nobody's mind will be changed from where it's at.

And, another thing, for ANY religion. What makes you so sure that you're right? I mean, there are plenty other religions around. And the members of those other religions think they're right, too. I personally find it very arrogant.

Find what "arrogant"? That religions are exclusive in nature? The only ways they could all agree would be to either all have the same ideas as to who God is or to have no beliefs whatsoever about Him. All "roads to God" cannot be right; either one is right, or all are wrong.

It kind of ties in with the "God made us in His image" thing when it's the other way around. We're not the center of the universe

No, you would be wrong. Created in God's image doesn't suggest our importance; it suggests a fundamental characteristic of our make-up.

[JGL57]

...if you start by believing God is nonexistent, well then, you will merely say something like "the sun cannot be stopped in the sky"; if you start by believing God is real, you can say "nothing is impossible with God." It just depends on your initial belief.

Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?

[Redzeppelin]

Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?

The same proof that life is the result of a random mixture of chemicals in the primordial oceans.

[weepingforloman]

Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?

Perhaps the best evidence is the extraordinary number of people who have and do believe in God/gods. Looking around at the world, I find it hard to believe that someone merely "manufactured" God-- I think the evidence of nature points more to atheism than theism... So I think supernatural intervention must be necessary for anyone to believe in God.

[Ylana]

I don't believe that it is one or the either (creation vs. evolution). The duality here exists because it is easier to choose between two "opposing" things than to actively search for the truth and to accept the possibility that we may never know what the answer is. in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.

[weepingforloman]

There IS right and wrong... There has to be, logically. Is it necessary that either evolution or creation are the source of life? No. But something must be.

[JGL57]

Perhaps the best evidence is the extraordinary number of people who have and do believe in God/gods...

This is a time-honoired logical fallacy quaintly known as “the bandwagon appeal”.

Looking around at the world, I find it hard to believe that someone merely "manufactured" God-- I think the evidence of nature points more to atheism than theism….

.

Putting aside your Freudian slip of saying “the evidence of nature points more to atheism than to theism” – assuming you meant the reverse, that is the logical fallacy known as “argument from incredulity (or incomprehensibility).

So I think supernatural intervention must be necessary for anyone to believe in God ….

Assuming normal and agreed upon definitions of "god" and "supernatural intervention", at some point that would follow - of course – so your statement is a mere redundancy, i.e., no new information is being proffered.

I don't believe that it is one or the either (creation vs. evolution). The duality here exists because it is easier to choose between two "opposing" things than to actively search for the truth and to accept the possibility that we may never know what the answer is. in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.

Per the particular issue of evolution vs. creationism – your pronouncement of 95 per cent of people having “no mind of their own” smacks of ad hominem. The overall thrust of your post seems to be an argument from radical skepticism or radical relativism or radical agnosticism (i.e., since we can know nothing for certain, we can know nothing). I think that is a bad thing, as I see it as equivalent to taking out one’s brain, making into jelly, and serving it up for lunch. I think you’ll have a hell of a time selling that to anyone, theist or non-theist.

There IS right and wrong... There has to be, logically. Is it necessary that either evolution or creation are the source of life? No. But something must be.

Of course. There had to be straight line creation by an invisible sentient being (god), theistic evolution, non-theistic evolution, or some four concept could be the “truth” that is beyond our capacity at this time to even conceive of. As mentioned above, radical skepticism does not help in the attempt to understand reality.

[weepingforloman]

Putting aside your Freudian slip of saying “the evidence of nature points more to atheism than to theism” – assuming you meant the reverse, that is the logical fallacy known as “argument from incredulity (or incomprehensibility).

I meant what I said. Given that nature would seem to point to a godless world, why do so many believe in a God?

[Redzeppelin]

in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.

This statement is absurd. Right and wrong absolutely exist because the minute you express some sort of evaluation about behavior that repulses you, you have indicated a moral standard of some sort. If right and wrong do not exist, then no behavior can be evaluated in terms of negative or positive - it just "is." This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).

[billyjack]

This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).

we've refused to accept moral attrocities for centuries, yet they still exist. perhaps its in accepting immoralities that will lead to their inexistence. after all, the first step to recovery of an addict is to accept his/her status as an addict.