FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: Willie353 on January 31, 2011, 03:23:51 am
-
I personally believe in creation by a supreme God. I dont believe man evolved from the sea what do you think? also do you believe in reincarnation? :dontknow:
-
Well ... I think it is pretty obvious that evolution does exist, I mean there are fields of science dedicated to it. Who is to say that God did not use evolution in the creation? He would be the ultimate scientist.
I believe that true science and true religion will never contradict each other. The Lord works by the laws he established; by the laws of science, but we obviously don't know science like he does.
Miracles seems like miracles because scientific advancement is still so elementary compared to the laws by which God operates. If you went back in time a thousand years and turned on a lightbulb at night, the people then would think you were using magic or that is was a miracle.
-
evolution is much more evident and practical. it makes sense to me that over thousands and millions of years, that we've developed into supreme beings. the question is why does DNA do this.. and what's our purpose
-
I personally believe in creation by a supreme God. I dont believe man evolved from the sea what do you think? also do you believe in reincarnation? :dontknow:
I believe in God :) I don't believe in Evolution but I do respect the beliefs of others :)
-
As a Biology major, of course I would believe in evolution. There is proof that evolution exists; after all, humans have successfully bred domestic animals (look at all the different breeds of domestic animals), selecting favorable traits over others to create unique breeds.
But creationism does not have to be literal, and creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If the biblical God exists, whose to say that the seven days of creation didn't actually span billions of years?
-
I believe in creation by God, but I think He used and is still using evolution as the world ages. I do not think it has to be one or the other. Evolution is always occurring, and I believe God made it this way. As mstachitus said, we don't know science like He does.
-
I DO NOT believe that God's children decended from Apes or Monkeys. It is a scientific fact that this earth has been in existence longer thant the six thousand plus years that are doccumented in the Bible since the creation of Adam and Eve.
There was a previous earth age ( Genesis chapter one.) where the dinasours romed the earth. This explains the find of dinasour bones and other things. There is also humans that are not God's children,known as the Kinnites, who are children of the Serpant.
-
I DO NOT believe that God's children decended from Apes or Monkeys. It is a scientific fact that this earth has been in existence longer thant the six thousand plus years that are doccumented in the Bible since the creation of Adam and Eve.
There was a previous earth age ( Genesis chapter one.) where the dinasours romed the earth. This explains the find of dinasour bones and other things. There is also humans that are not God's children,known as the Kinnites, who are children of the Serpant.
Freepcmoney, even in evolutionary theory, humans did not descend from apes or monkeys. Apes are merely the group of organisms with which we share our most common ancestor (and even then there's a genetic/time divergence of thousands and thousands of years). We all diverge from a common, shall we say "mold", that was neither ape or monkey, nor was it a man.
The best explanation of an evolution/religion interpretation came from one of my favorite Professors, who is also a Baptist Minister: God used evolution as the tool to shape all organisms from the dirt (many of the most basic components for life (example: some amino acids) have been found only in rocks and dirt from meteors that struck the Earth, but not anywhere else on the planet) over a period of time that someone decided to interpret as seven days.
-
evolution is much more evident and practical. it makes sense to me that over thousands and millions of years, that we've developed into supreme beings. the question is why does DNA do this.. and what's our purpose
Very well spoken here. Imo, our ultimate purpose depends on each individual to create their own.
But creationism does not have to be literal, and creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If the biblical God exists, whose to say that the seven days of creation didn't actually span billions of years?
Because it says 7 days and not billions of years. Even if it were billions, that still is far off from the correct estimate. Whenever science tends to bump into and show obvious fallacies within religious texts, the religious followers will always scramble to find a work-around for it so they can claim their foundation remains unbroken. Creationist viewpoints and evolutionary viewpoints are extremely different in that manner-- one involves confirmable evidence that can be seen, has been discovered, and can be manipulated. The other extends into the realms of ancient mythology which cannot really be backed up because it's dealing with supernatural elements. I like to use the example of
'god is to science as astrology is to astronomy' for these types of claims.
I believe in God I don't believe in Evolution but I do respect the beliefs of others
That's coo. Check it out though. It's pretty neat.
I DO NOT believe that God's children decended from Apes or Monkeys. It is a scientific fact that this earth has been in existence longer thant the six thousand plus years that are doccumented in the Bible since the creation of Adam and Eve.
Okay, everyone. FYI- Evolution does not state we came from apes or monkeys.
-
But creationism does not have to be literal, and creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If the biblical God exists, whose to say that the seven days of creation didn't actually span billions of years?
Because it says 7 days and not billions of years. Even if it were billions, that still is far off from the correct estimate. Whenever science tends to bump into and show obvious fallacies within religious texts, the religious followers will always scramble to find a work-around for it so they can claim their foundation remains unbroken. Creationist viewpoints and evolutionary viewpoints are extremely different in that manner-- one involves confirmable evidence that can be seen, has been discovered, and can be manipulated. The other extends into the realms of ancient mythology which cannot really be backed up because it's dealing with supernatural elements. I like to use the example of
'god is to science as astrology is to astronomy' for these types of claims.
I agree with you: a literal interpretation of creationism is impossible. But I threw my statement out there as a sort of middle ground; I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any deity(s), so I must allow for that possibility. And the definition of creationism I am using is this one: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. I am not using the Creation Science/Intelligent Design definition. (If you thought so, sorry for the confusion.)
-
I believe in elements of both. :thumbsup:
-
Falconor said "Okay, everyone. FYI- Evolution does not state we came from apes or monkeys."
Is it just me or does the public school system lie to students? All the textbooks pictures pretty much looked like apes.
-
I agree with you: a literal interpretation of creationism is impossible. But I threw my statement out there as a sort of middle ground; I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any deity(s), so I must allow for that possibility. And the definition of creationism I am using is this one: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. I am not using the Creation Science/Intelligent Design definition. (If you thought so, sorry for the confusion.)
Ah I see. Cool-- thanks for going in depth. I'm almost parallel with you there. Usually when I hear 'creationist', I think of 6-10,000 yr old earth, the devil planting dinosaur bones to confuse us, etc.
Is it just me or does the public school system lie to students? All the textbooks pictures pretty much looked like apes.
They're not lying. We evolved from a common ancestor. Do some research!!!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html
-
Falconor said "Okay, everyone. FYI- Evolution does not state we came from apes or monkeys."
Is it just me or does the public school system lie to students? All the textbooks pictures pretty much looked like apes.
Sounds like there is some serious issues with the public schools you've attended, teflonfanatic, since they've told you that humans descended from monkeys and that the sun is the most powerful star in the sky.
-
Well ... I think it is pretty obvious that evolution does exist, I mean there are fields of science dedicated to it. Who is to say that God did not use evolution in the creation? He would be the ultimate scientist.
I believe that true science and true religion will never contradict each other. The Lord works by the laws he established; by the laws of science, but we obviously don't know science like he does.
Miracles seems like miracles because scientific advancement is still so elementary compared to the laws by which God operates. If you went back in time a thousand years and turned on a lightbulb at night, the people then would think you were using magic or that is was a miracle.
I like what you have to say here.
-
evolution is much more evident and practical. it makes sense to me that over thousands and millions of years, that we've developed into supreme beings. the question is why does DNA do this.. and what's our purpose
Very well spoken here. Imo, our ultimate purpose depends on each individual to create their own.
But creationism does not have to be literal, and creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If the biblical God exists, whose to say that the seven days of creation didn't actually span billions of years?
Because it says 7 days and not billions of years. Even if it were billions, that still is far off from the correct estimate. Whenever science tends to bump into and show obvious fallacies within religious texts, the religious followers will always scramble to find a work-around for it so they can claim their foundation remains unbroken. Creationist viewpoints and evolutionary viewpoints are extremely different in that manner-- one involves confirmable evidence that can be seen, has been discovered, and can be manipulated. The other extends into the realms of ancient mythology which cannot really be backed up because it's dealing with supernatural elements. I like to use the example of
'god is to science as astrology is to astronomy' for these types of claims.
I believe in God I don't believe in Evolution but I do respect the beliefs of others
That's coo. Check it out though. It's pretty neat.
I DO NOT believe that God's children descended from Apes or Monkeys. It is a scientific fact that this earth has been in existence longer than the six thousand plus years that are documented in the Bible since the creation of Adam and Eve.
Okay, everyone. FYI- Evolution does not state we came from apes or monkeys.
Well in the Bible it states that 1 day to God is like 1,000 years for us. Therefore, the creation could have taken 6,000 years instead of 6 days (God rested for the last day, so he wasn't doing any creation). Now if he were to start completely from scratch, it would still be hard to imagine him creating things using evolution in only 6,000 years, but who said he started from scratch. God obviously has experience with creating planets and solar systems and even life.
Of course this still falls under your scrutiny as something that cannot be proved, or manipulated, and has no confirm-able evidence. But, on the other hand, God would not give us too much evidence if he wanted us to walk by faith, rather than by sight. This life would not be much of a testing ground for his children if it was easy to prove his existence. We would all believe in him because it would be fact. This way, it weeds out those who have no faith or belief.
-
Ok so I do believe in God however I have my questions. What about the dinosaurs that lived here before any of us. In the bible it say's that God created the univers and the earth. But it does not say anything about the dinosuars being created be fore us????????
-
Ok so I do believe in God however I have my questions. What about the dinosaurs that lived here before any of us. In the bible it say's that God created the univers and the earth. But it does not say anything about the dinosuars being created be fore us????????
It also doesn't say that Lamas were created, but we have those right?
There does seem to be an inconsistency with time, however. The materials of this earth are millions of years old (or billions, whatever). The story of the Bible back to Adam only accounts for 6,000 years so far, right? It is obvious that the Universe is also Billions of years old. If God created all things, than he created the entire universe as well. Perhaps his creation if this earth was more of an organizing of matter, rather than a *poof* stuff out of nowhere type of creation. Dinosaur bones could have been part of that organization. God could have taken materials from dead planets, and the bones were with it. Who knows? :dontknow:
We don't know everything, so all we can do is speculate.
-
This isn't about belief. It's about an ever-increasing amount of evidence that proves Darwin was right. There's far more proof now than there was when Darwin wrote his books. People are free to believe anything they want. That doesn't make it true.
-
there is so much evidence & proof that darwin was in the know. the bible was written by several people during a time of lots & lots of wine!! sometimes the "stories" out of the bible are so hard to believe, but darwin's theories are vastly proven time & again.
-
I believe in creation
-
Well in the Bible it states that 1 day to God is like 1,000 years for us. Therefore, the creation could have taken 6,000 years instead of 6 days (God rested for the last day, so he wasn't doing any creation). Now if he were to start completely from scratch, it would still be hard to imagine him creating things using evolution in only 6,000 years, but who said he started from scratch. God obviously has experience with creating planets and solar systems and even life.
There is no proof for this. Infact the evidence points away from everything stated here. Like I stated earlier, creationism cannot break free from this type of thinking because if it does, the whole foundation crumbles. That's why there's all these faulty interpretations left and right.
Of course this still falls under your scrutiny as something that cannot be proved, or manipulated, and has no confirm-able evidence. But, on the other hand, God would not give us too much evidence if he wanted us to walk by faith, rather than by sight.
"You don't need to see it. You just need to have faith."
Look at it from the opposite end for a moment. Don't you think this is just a convenient way to get out of explaining this god's existence?
http://philstilwell.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/leprechaun-in-a-box/
God could have taken materials from dead planets, and the bones were with it. Who knows?
That's...quite a stretch! lol
This isn't about belief. It's about an ever-increasing amount of evidence that proves Darwin was right. There's far more proof now than there was when Darwin wrote his books. People are free to believe anything they want. That doesn't make it true.
there is so much evidence & proof that darwin was in the know. the bible was written by several people during a time of lots & lots of wine!! sometimes the "stories" out of the bible are so hard to believe, but darwin's theories are vastly proven time & again.
Well said.
-
I believe in biblical creation, and I don't believe in reincarnation even though its a cool idea.
-
Well in the Bible it states that 1 day to God is like 1,000 years for us. Therefore, the creation could have taken 6,000 years instead of 6 days (God rested for the last day, so he wasn't doing any creation). Now if he were to start completely from scratch, it would still be hard to imagine him creating things using evolution in only 6,000 years, but who said he started from scratch. God obviously has experience with creating planets and solar systems and even life.
There is no proof for this. Infact the evidence points away from everything stated here. Like I stated earlier, creationism cannot break free from this type of thinking because if it does, the whole foundation crumbles. That's why there's all these faulty interpretations left and right.
Of course this still falls under your scrutiny as something that cannot be proved, or manipulated, and has no confirm-able evidence. But, on the other hand, God would not give us too much evidence if he wanted us to walk by faith, rather than by sight.
"You don't need to see it. You just need to have faith."
Look at it from the opposite end for a moment. Don't you think this is just a convenient way to get out of explaining this god's existence?
http://philstilwell.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/leprechaun-in-a-box/
God could have taken materials from dead planets, and the bones were with it. Who knows?
That's...quite a stretch! lol
This isn't about belief. It's about an ever-increasing amount of evidence that proves Darwin was right. There's far more proof now than there was when Darwin wrote his books. People are free to believe anything they want. That doesn't make it true.
there is so much evidence & proof that darwin was in the know. the bible was written by several people during a time of lots & lots of wine!! sometimes the "stories" out of the bible are so hard to believe, but darwin's theories are vastly proven time & again.
Well said.
Well hey, I'm just throwing out ideas. I never claimed to have any sort of proof for you. I was portraying my ideas for the benefit of others, hoping they would think outside the box.
Atheists claim that Creationists are extremely short sighted, and I actually agree that most are, but on the other hand, atheists are usually just as short sighted as creationists. Both sides are guilty.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ. I also believe in Creationism.
-
Well hey, I'm just throwing out ideas. I never claimed to have any sort of proof for you. I was portraying my ideas for the benefit of others, hoping they would think outside the box.
That's cool. I'm just saying that most creationist explanations don't make a lot of sense-- Ideas are cool, but for the most part, creationist ideas aren't based on solid grounds. They use faith instead of logic as a basis, which does not work while trying to explain rational things. That was just part of what I was trying to build on.
Atheists claim that Creationists are extremely short sighted, and I actually agree that most are, but on the other hand, atheists are usually just as short sighted as creationists. Both sides are guilty.
Well you would be completely right about most C's being short-sighted...ohhh do I have stories! lol but explain the short sightedness of atheism. For the record I'm not atheist-- I'm agnostic (though both of these usually run parallel). I'd like to hear.
-
If you want an example, just look at some of the replies that alleged Atheists post. They are usually very bitterly apposing any religious views. As for agnostics, I feel they are not usually as short sighted as atheists, or even as creationists, but the fact that they choose not to make up their mind can be a little vexing.
Of course, I am speaking in generalities, so bringing specifics into the scheme wouldn't make much sense, because there are always examples on both sides of an argument.
I personally try to make sense of both sides. That's why I believe in science, as far as it is correct, and religion as far as it is true religion. As I said previously, true science and true religion will never contradict each other. I believe God is the ultimate scientist, who works by every law of science that he has established. Every miracle was a direct result of higher science that man does not comprehend yet, and since we are making more scientific discoveries almost daily, it is easy to comprehend that there are many things we do not understand yet.
-
For Falconer and mstachitus:
This article is perhaps one of the best I've read about the differences between Christians and Atheists. I came across it because Cracked is one of my favorite websites, but as I read it, I found it is one of my favorite things I've read online. Reader, beware... this is a cracked article, so it may have some offensive language, but the article is well worth reading.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html
-
Evolution and science, because you dont just assume its there, you can see it in action.......in the real world!
-
For Falconer and mstachitus:
This article is perhaps one of the best I've read about the differences between Christians and Atheists. I came across it because Cracked is one of my favorite websites, but as I read it, I found it is one of my favorite things I've read online. Reader, beware... this is a cracked article, so it may have some offensive language, but the article is well worth reading.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html
Lol, that's a good article. I couldn't agree more.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ. God the father almighty. Maker of Heaven and earth. I believe in the holy spirit. The holy christian church. The communion of saints. The forgiveness of sins. The ressurection of the body. and the life in heaven everlasting. Amen.
-
This article is perhaps one of the best I've read about the differences between Christians and Atheists.
That was REALLY good! Bookmarked. Excellent find. Thanks!
-
This article is perhaps one of the best I've read about the differences between Christians and Atheists.
That was REALLY good! Bookmarked. Excellent find. Thanks!
I guess we found something to agree on :)
-
This article is perhaps one of the best I've read about the differences between Christians and Atheists.
That was REALLY good! Bookmarked. Excellent find. Thanks!
I guess we found something to agree on :)
Aha! The article works! LOL
-
Aha! The article works! LOL
Lol, luckily I don't think we were going at it too bad. It was more of a discussion than anything else, but thanks for the article. I ust hope other people read it as well, on both sides of he argument, because really there is a lot of intolerance on this issue.
-
Reincarnation? I wanna come back as an Italian. I love Italian Food. Is it possible? Sure hope so.
Now on to the bigger question. I privately wrestle with the question of Creation vs Evolution. As a Christian, I'm inclined to side with Creation. But I have my scientific doubts. Here's some of the reasons why.
When I was going to school as a kid, I was taught that ever so slowly, the earth gets closer to the sun. So fractional is this change, that it's almost insignificant, but none the less, I was taught that it happens. Okay, if we take this as factual, wouldn't that mean that at some point in time the earth was farther from the sun? And if this is true, wouldn't that mean that the orbit to get around the sun would take longer? And if that's true, wouldn't that mean the whole concept of a day equaling 24 hours is now thrown out the window? And if that's true, then for me at least, I can no longer believe that Creation is literally done in six, 24-hour days.
Next, I wrestle with this thought. It's my understanding that we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible. We have copies upon copies upon copies. Translations from one language to the next, and so on. Is it possible that the word DAY in Genesis could have meant PERIODS or AGES, or whatever word could be used to represent such-and-such was created/evolved first over millions/billions of years? And then the next things were done, and then the next, and so on. To me, this is more plausible.
Next, I wrestle with the thought that the Bible doesn't tell us everything. If you think about it, you realize that what the bible tells us is specific to the human race. It tells us of the Fall of Adam/Eve, and how we go from separation from God, to returning to His fellowship through salvation. It talks about the end of the world, etc. What's left out, to me, is what ever happened PRIOR to our existence. If God is eternal, than what happened before He had the notion to create/evolve Earth? Obviously there was activity, because we're told in scripture that Lucifer fell from God's grace. What led him to do that? I don't know that we're ever told this. And I'm not opening a can of worms here, I'm just grabbing a limited example to illustrate that the Bible doesn't tell us everything.
Could life have existed, or currently does exist, on other planets. Planets we have yet to discover. What about life in other galaxies. If it exists, what would God's plan be for it? Do they have a different version of "the Bible" that relates only to them? Don't know, don't think I'm ever meant to know, until death occurs.
But accepting that the Bible is deprived of this kind of information, makes me wonder if in fact there was a previous age of dinosaurs that existed before we ever did. Why not? Is it impossible that God would, and could, create such beings? Genesis' account of creation says that animals were created of all kinds, before we ever graced the planet. And if you question the word "DAY" as being Periods or Ages, then the timing for animals to roam the earth could be far greater than 24 hours.
Bottom Line (for me). I believe in both Creation and Evolution. I believe God created everything. But I do not believe in a 24 hour, six day event. I also believe, as scripture points out, that God is NOT the author of confusion. Evolution makes sense - though we're discovering more and more all the time. Creation takes a leap of faith to believe it. But then again, religion is all about faith, isn't it?
Finally, I believe that we will NEVER know for sure, and that to wonder of such things is really a waste of time. The fact remains, we're here. Who cares where we came from, or how we got here - though I do believe God is responsible. I believe in Satan too. And perhaps this whole battle of Creation vs Evolution is a means for Satan to distract from the real reason we exist, which is to regain fellowship with God. And at this point, I'll jump off my pedestal, because that's an argument not related to the questions being asked in this thread.
-
I personally believe in creation by a supreme God. I dont believe man evolved from the sea what do you think? also do you believe in reincarnation? :dontknow:
I agree there is but ONE GOD WHO sent HIS ONLY PERFECT SON - WHO came to earth to teach us how to walk, but also to take our sin on HIMSELF as a LAMB. HE carried it to the Cross and left it in hell and rose from the dead. Seen by many, and they watched as HE asended into Heaven
into Heaven to set at GOD's right Hand as our attorney. But HE lives in HIS WORD and can be found there by all.
So all we need do is come to HIM and give HIM our sin, be covered by HIS Blood and we can be washed whiter than snow.
I grieve for those who do not know HIM for they have no hope.
-
I prefer Darwins theory.
-
And if that's true, then for me at least, I can no longer believe that Creation is literally done in six, 24-hour days.
Where does the Bible state that the earth was created in such a specific spectrum. It mentions days, but not any other time increment.
Next, I wrestle with this thought. It's my understanding that we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible. We have copies upon copies upon copies. Translations from one language to the next, and so on. Is it possible that the word DAY in Genesis could have meant PERIODS or AGES, or whatever word could be used to represent such-and-such was created/evolved first over millions/billions of years? And then the next things were done, and then the next, and so on. To me, this is more plausible.
It's possible, I'm sure. The Bible also states that one day to the Lord is like 1,000 years for us.
we're told in scripture that Lucifer fell from God's grace. What led him to do that? I don't know that we're ever told this.
There are multiple references to this topic in the Bible:
Isaiah 14:12-15 - Talks about Lucifer falling from heaven; that he was a "son of the morning".
Luke 10:17-18 - Reference made to Satan falling from heaven as lightning.
2 Peter 2:4 - Refers to other "Angels that sinned", who were cast out of heaven. Apparently, Lucifer was not alone.
Jude 1:6 - "Angels who kept not their first estate". The first estate is the preexistence of man as spirits. Lucifer and his followers rebelled and fell from heaven.
Revelation 12:7-12 - The most comprehensive section of scripture on the topic. I'll quote it directly:
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him ... woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
A belief of the expulsion from heaven of Satan and his followers reaches far back into human history. Outside of the Bible, it is probably best preserved in the religious literature of Babylonia. Centuries before Christ's birth, Zoaster there taught his disciples about a pre-mortal separation between a certain good spirit, called Ahura Mazda, and a certain wicked spirit, called Angra Mainyu. The rest of the spirits chose which of these two chief spirits they would follow, after which the evil spirits, called Daeva, were expelled.
Lucifer, the previous name of Satan, or the Devil, literally means "Bringing Light", and has reference to Venus, the "Morning Star". This shows that Lucifer held great status in heaven before his alleged fall with his angels.
Bottom Line (for me). I believe in both Creation and Evolution.
Seems like a logical conclusion. I also believe in elements of both.
Finally, I believe that we will NEVER know for sure, and that to wonder of such things is really a waste of time. The fact remains, we're here. Who cares where we came from, or how we got here - though I do believe God is responsible. I believe in Satan too. And perhaps this whole battle of Creation vs Evolution is a means for Satan to distract from the real reason we exist, which is to regain fellowship with God. And at this point, I'll jump off my pedestal, because that's an argument not related to the questions being asked in this thread.
I think it is perfectly fine to speculate about these types of things. It is our existence, after all. What could be more important for us to speculate about? I'm sure Satan does use this topic to distract us from our real goal here on earth, as you say, but only if we let that happen.
-
Let me say thanks for taking time to read my former lengthy reply. :)
Where does the Bible state that the earth was created in such a specific spectrum. It mentions days, but not any other time increment: Don't know. But you talk to any Fundamentalist Baptist Preacher, and he's gonna tell ya that their belief in creation is six 24-hour days. No if, ands, or buts about it. What they base that on, I have no idea. But that's where I derived my thought from.
we're told in scripture that Lucifer fell from God's grace. What led him to do that? I don't know that we're ever told this: Great references provided here. Still, they just present the "tip of the iceberg", for me at least. Eternity is a long time, and I bet books upon books upon books could be written, not by man - but by God himself, about what happened prior to creation/evolution ever happening about "The Life Of God & Satan", hehe. And I'm also confident we'll never know the whole story until we die.
Here's a looming question in my own mind. If God formulated a plan to redeem man, why didn't he choose to formulate a plan for Satan, and the angels that fell with him? If Satan miraculously confessed of his evil ways, would he then be allowed salvation? I know scripture depicts the end of Satan and hell, and from that information there's no way this could happen. But it begs the question: "What if....?" Oh, here I go...exactly where this thread didn't intend for us to boldly go, hehe.
-
Where does the Bible state that the earth was created in such a specific spectrum. It mentions days, but not any other time increment: Don't know. But you talk to any Fundamentalist Baptist Preacher, and he's gonna tell ya that their belief in creation is six 24-hour days. No if, ands, or buts about it. What they base that on, I have no idea. But that's where I derived my thought from.
Al scripture is laced incessantly with metaphor upon metaphor. Christ himself taught metaphorically in what we call "Parables". If we think of the audience that Moses was writing to when he wrote the original 5 books in our Old Testament, we think of the ancient Israelites. They were "stiff-necked", and "slow to remember the Lord their God". They were a real handful for Moses to deal with at times. They preferred mystery and darkness to light and truth, hence the Law of Moses. The Old Law was so ridden with metaphors, mystery, and types of things to come hidden in daily, arduous tasks; that much of our scriptures are extremely difficult to interpret correctly, much less take 100% literally.
That in mind, if God so shrouded Israels law in metaphor, reason would tell us that much of our story of the creation, of Adam and Eve, etc., is also metaphoric. Was there a literal forbidden fruit? Was Satan literally a serpent in disguise? Was the earth literally created in 6 short days (24 hour days)?
In short, I don't know. But reason tells me that there is a good chance that much of this is not to be taken literally.
we're told in scripture that Lucifer fell from God's grace. What led him to do that? I don't know that we're ever told this: Great references provided here. Still, they just present the "tip of the iceberg", for me at least. Eternity is a long time, and I bet books upon books upon books could be written, not by man - but by God himself, about what happened prior to creation/evolution ever happening about "The Life Of God & Satan", hehe. And I'm also confident we'll never know the whole story until we die.
Well, I could tell you more on the subject, particularly what my church teaches about it, but much of it is not found in the Bible, therefore I hesitate to post other sources for fear of harassment ;) People are pretty attached to the Bible, and are not generally inclined to accept outside sources.
True, though, that we can never know everything in this lifetime. Truth, as it were, is eternal. Therefore, the doctrines of salvation are never ending, and cannot be contained in 1 book. It was said of Christ that the entire world could not contain the books if we were to write of all his dealings from his mortal ministry among men.
Here's a looming question in my own mind. If God formulated a plan to redeem man, why didn't he choose to formulate a plan for Satan, and the angels that fell with him? If Satan miraculously confessed of his evil ways, would he then be allowed salvation? I know scripture depicts the end of Satan and hell, and from that information there's no way this could happen. But it begs the question: "What if....?" Oh, here I go...exactly where this thread didn't intend for us to boldly go, hehe.
Lucifer was incorporated in God's plan of salvation. He was the "Son of the Morning", the "Bringer of Light". He was a noble and great spirit, a son of God in every sense that you and I am. He rebelled, and fell from heaven. He sought power and authority, and deceived a great host of spirits who became his angels. He knew full well what he was doing, and so did his followers. We don't know exactly what happen, but a there was a "war in heaven", as the scriptures state. I don't think there is much repentance in his heart. He is still fighting, and we ask why. Why would he continue if his own future is so bleak? It's because he wants to make all men miserable like unto himself. Every time we choose to follow him, he wins a small battle. He's going down, but he'll take every soul he can with him.
-
Check this out. I think many of you would find it interesting.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)
-
Check this out. I think many of you would find it interesting.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)
Thanks for that.
Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - It's funny if you think of 'lame' in its modern day connotation, rather than its original one. But that is exactly what I believe. Thanks Einstein!
-
Check this out. I think many of you would find it interesting.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)
Thanks for that.
Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - It's funny if you think of 'lame' in its modern day connotation, rather than its original one. But that is exactly what I believe. Thanks Einstein!
I have seen this quote used so many times in such a way as to imply Einstein was religious and it is always taken out of context. To know what he was actually saying, you need to read more about it. Here is something on the letter from which the quote was taken. If you read it, I think you will see it is NOT really 'fuel' for making the argument most people put it across as. *The portions underlined were done so by me because they are things that support why I said what I did. Below is from Softpedia, but the same thing can be found in MANY other places:
This is what Albert Einstein wrote in his letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, in response to his receiving the book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". The letter was written on January 3, 1954, in German, and explains Einstein's personal beliefs regarding religion and the Jewish people; it was put on sale one year later and remained into a personal collection ever since. Now the letter is again on auction in London and has a starting price of 8,000 sterling pounds.
The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.
Einstein was Jewish, which is why the people of Israel asked him once to become Israel's second president. Also, Einstein felt uncomfortable with the idea that the Jews are God's favored People.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise, I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them", said Einstein.
Although, neither Einstein nor his parents were religious people, he did in fact attend the Catholic primary school. But at the age of 12 he was already questioning the truth of the stories written in the Bible. "The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression", Einstein wrote.
Einstein may have not believed in God, but he felt that faith was a must. This is probably why he never gave a second thought to studying the quantum theory and its random nature. He once said that "God does not throw dice", meaning that quantum theory randomness is out of the question for him. This belief in faith is probably also why his position towards religion was often misinterpreted.
"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.
Einstein was often associated with atheism because of his views on conventional religion, but he never liked being called an atheist.
I am not trying to argue or burst anyone's 'belief bubble', simply clarifying something that is far too often used when discussions of science and religion come up. I have had plenty of believers use 'Einstein's religion' on me and I tell them they need to look a little further in order to know what he really believed. ;)
-
I believe both, I believe God included evolution in his creations for reasons we already know...to adapt, change and survive.
-
I just found out how the universe was created!!! You will be so surprised!!
(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7971/00agodcreates.gif)
No need to thank me for figuring it out for everyone.. Just seeing those big eyes brighten up and those big smiles on your faces will be reward enough. ;D
-
I believe in biblical creation. Darwin's theory is just what it says it is, a theory; not fact. I'd rather stake my belief in the God of the Bible.
-
I believe in biblical creation. Darwin's theory is just what it says it is, a theory; not fact. I'd rather stake my belief in the God of the Bible.
Again, people, evolution is both fact and theory. It can be proven, it has been seen in the here-and-now, and there's physical evidence of prior extinct species that confirm it. You can really tell off-the-bat how little someone is educated on the subject when they have naive stances like this. If you're going to not believe evolution to be true, you might as well say you don't believe in gravity either. Because after all, gravity is just a theory.
I just found out how the universe was created!!! You will be so surprised!!
I remember seeing that episode and cracking up over that. Good gif find.
-
I believe in biblical creation. Darwin's theory is just what it says it is, a theory; not fact. I'd rather stake my belief in the God of the Bible.
Same here, healthfreedom!
-
I believe in biblical creation. Darwin's theory is just what it says it is, a theory; not fact. I'd rather stake my belief in the God of the Bible.
Again, people, evolution is both fact and theory. It can be proven, it has been seen in the here-and-now, and there's physical evidence of prior extinct species that confirm it. You can really tell off-the-bat how little someone is educated on the subject when they have naive stances like this. If you're going to not believe evolution to be true, you might as well say you don't believe in gravity either. Because after all, gravity is just a theory.
I just found out how the universe was created!!! You will be so surprised!!
I remember seeing that episode and cracking up over that. Good gif find.
Well said. I don't understand how people can misuse the word "theory" so much. Common use of the word theory implies an untested speculation. However the scientific use of theory, as in Evolutionary Theory, has an entirely different meaning. A scientific theory is always supported by a large body of evidence that has been constantly challenged and retested. To be a theory, it must stand up to rigorous testing; any result that disproves any part of that theory will completely nullify it as a theory.
...and Sflynt, you win the internet for that.
-
Well said. I don't understand how people can misuse the word "theory" so much. Common use of the word theory implies an untested speculation. However the scientific use of theory, as in Evolutionary Theory, has an entirely different meaning. A scientific theory is always supported by a large body of evidence that has been constantly challenged and retested. To be a theory, it must stand up to rigorous testing; any result that disproves any part of that theory will completely nullify it as a theory.
Exactly. I don't understand why people don't learn about what they oppose before they say stuff like I quoted in my previous post. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
-
I believe that God created mankind.
-
I remember seeing that episode and cracking up over that. Good gif find.
Lol. Me too!!
...and Sflynt, you win the internet for that.
;D lol
I couldn't resist…
-
I think some of you all know where I stand on the issue ;)
-
I think some of you all know where I stand on the issue ;)
Aww! I've missed you, Sherene!
-
I think some of you all know where I stand on the issue ;)
Aww! I've missed you, Sherene!
Thanks girl! :heart:
-
Who says I can't believe in both? The Biblical account of creation was never meant to be looked at as a factual alternative to scientific creation. Rather, it was intended to describe the relationship between human and God, and between humans and the world we live in. I don't see that the two necessarily have to be at odds with each other.
-
I had an interesting thought cross my mind just yesterday. Kind of goes with some of my thoughts already posted in this thread. And if someone wants a homework assignment, here's one for ya.
The word "day" in Genesis is the focus of my thoughts. WHERE did it get it's meaning of the Earth traveling around the sun - one complete orbit makes a "day"? Was this particular concept of the earth around the sun decided on by GOD, or by MAN? If by God, so be it. If by Man, how do we know that what man decided was equivalent to a day, was in parallel to what God meant as a day?
As someone already pointed out, a single day to us is as a 1000 days to God. Okay, could this indicate to us that what we perceive as a 24 hour day, one trip around the sun, is not exactly what God had in mind for His definition as a Day?
Hmm, I don't have any answers to my own questions here, but it did give me pause. So, I figured I'd throw it all to you to ponder as well.
Mike
-
I had an interesting thought cross my mind just yesterday. Kind of goes with some of my thoughts already posted in this thread. And if someone wants a homework assignment, here's one for ya.
The word "day" in Genesis is the focus of my thoughts. WHERE did it get it's meaning of the Earth traveling around the sun - one complete orbit makes a "day"? Was this particular concept of the earth around the sun decided on by GOD, or by MAN? If by God, so be it. If by Man, how do we know that what man decided was equivalent to a day, was in parallel to what God meant as a day?
As someone already pointed out, a single day to us is as a 1000 days to God. Okay, could this indicate to us that what we perceive as a 24 hour day, one trip around the sun, is not exactly what God had in mind for His definition as a Day?
Hmm, I don't have any answers to my own questions here, but it did give me pause. So, I figured I'd throw it all to you to ponder as well.
Mike
You have a point Mike. Actually the orignial Hebrew in Genesis for the word "day" yom has three literal meaning, a 12 hour day, a 24 hour day, and an indefinate period of time. There are some who are adamant about creation being 7 24 hour days but it actually is completely false. Also when God said "Let there be light" completely coincides with the Big Bang. Here is a good article about the day in Genesis http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html
Where it gets sticky is when you get into biological origins. There is no good evidence from science that can unequivocally prove common ancestry and there is evidence FOR Intelligent Design.
I may get blasted from some certain atheists here because I have said this stuff before and of course it is disagreed with by those who don't believe in God. But if you do believe in God there is no need to believe in evolution when it comes to origins. Evolution is scientific fact when you talk about variations within a species such as Darwin's observation of finch beaks. But when you talk about how finches came to exist in the first place. Evolution is not fact because it has not been proven.
-
Sherene, There has been another thread going on - I was trying to show evidence for God, from the very beginning, and that there was a cause for the Creation happening in the first place. I really tried zeroing in on the ID, but as usual, I was disagreed with profusely. But, I was trying to the best of my ability and from research to accurately show that there was ID with Creation and that ID'er was and is God.
-
Sherene, There has been another thread going on - I was trying to show evidence for God, from the very beginning, and that there was a cause for the Creation happening in the first place. I really tried zeroing in on the ID, but as usual, I was disagreed with profusely. But, I was trying to the best of my ability and from research to accurately show that there was ID with Creation and that ID'er was and is God.
Oh I don't doubt it jcribb. That argument will never cease. We won't be convinced otherwise and neither will opposition and that's okay. BUT, just as before, all we can do is put the info out there and pray that honest truth seekers will weigh the evidence from both sides and come to an honest conclusion.
-
There has been another thread going on - I was trying to show evidence for God, from the very beginning, and that there was a cause for the Creation happening in the first place. I really tried zeroing in on the ID, but as usual, I was disagreed with profusely. But, I was trying to the best of my ability and from research to accurately show that there was ID with Creation and that ID'er was and is God.
Recap-
All that you did was post a dozen watchmaker analogies with a few vague/technical examples that I doubt you really understood (considering myself and others posted the reality of the subject you would bring up). That's not zeroing in or accurate since you failed to realize and discuss the obvious faults with your 'the world is pretty much perfectly created for us!' argument. I gave you plenty of facts about the enormous faults, but you simply relied on your personal preference in the end rather than showing any evidence for ID.
all we can do is put the info out there and pray that honest truth seekers will weigh the evidence from both sides and come to an honest conclusion.
A good idea.
-
Sherene: Here's the thread. I wasn't going to include it in this thread until Falconer came in here and responded.
Re: I don't believe in the Devil or Hell (starts on p. 12)
-
Falconer, I don't want to bring the arguments from that thread in here, but I am going to say that contrary to what you say, I did show evidence for ID. You don't want to agree, fine. But, if you wish to continue with this, please go to the original thread and respond in there. Thanks.
-
That thread is pretty lengthy and to be honest I read from page 12 to maybe 15 or 16. Those arguments, jcribb, are ones I myself have had with our friends Falconer and queen, among others. I see the same patterns and debate tactics from when I was posting a few months ago. I started getting a headache so I didn't read all the way to the end of the thread. Also my head is fuzzy from being sick.
I see where you were going and I appreciate all your effort in your research, good job :thumbsup:
But reading it was like I never left :-
So basically, my advice is to make the presumption ahead of time that you will not convince anyone of what you are saying, all your sources will be regarded as psuedoscience and untrustworthy and if you copy and paste you will be called out..... but as long as you attempt to make yourself understood in an intelligent, mature, and comprehensible way then...that's all that matters. And quite frankly, there are several things said there from the opposing side that I have addressed as being incorrect, so apparently you must also assume that your opponent isn't really paying full attention either. So, with that in mind, if you still wish to debate those issues then it might not be as frustrating.
:)
-
Falconer, I don't want to bring the arguments from that thread in here, but I am going to say that contrary to what you say, I did show evidence for ID.
No. You didn't. Reread it. It goes from a decent argument, to you and Annella E-hugging, to fighting with queen, to me again as we argue prophecy-legitimacy, and then back to...ugh...faith healing :angry7:
So basically, my advice is to make the presumption ahead of time that you will not convince anyone of what you are saying, all your sources will be regarded as psuedoscience and untrustworthy and if you copy and paste you will be called out..... but as long as you attempt to make yourself understood in an intelligent, mature, and comprehensible way then...that's all that matters. And quite frankly, there are several things said there from the opposing side that I have addressed as being incorrect, so apparently you must also assume that your opponent isn't really paying full attention either. So, with that in mind, if you still wish to debate those issues then it might not be as frustrating.
You can't trust sources that say or assume the wrong things from the get-go (example being Jc posting a link that led to a creationist-science site that said evolution means we came from monkeys.). And, for the sake of internet debates, all religious/political/sexual-preference threads I've ever seen usually look like the ones here on FC. It's just this forum is usually full of women, so it's different. I'm used to a mixed crowd, so this is a bit unique.
Also my head is fuzzy from being sick.
You too? Yeah, same here. Buhhhhh....
Feel better!
-
i believe what most of you are referring to as evolution is actually adaptation, and obviously that happens. but evolution in the full sense of the word denies any and all intelligent involvement by a creator, so yes, evolution and creation are definitely mutually exclusive. as for me, i definitely believe in an intelligent creator--God. and evolution has not been proven. again adaptation, yes, but not evolution as the origin or all species. there are vast gaps in the fossil record. and did ya know that Darwin himself questioned his theory before he died.
-
and evolution has not been proven.
Yes. It has. Do your hw, friend.
and did ya know that Darwin himself questioned his theory before he died.
All scientists question well-known theories every day. It's how we discover and test new things. If a scientist still questions their theory on their deathbed, that is a noble thing.
-
Quote from jcribb:
Falconer, I don't want to bring the arguments from that thread in here, but I am going to say that contrary to what you say, I did show evidence for ID.
Quote from Falconer:
No. You didn't. Reread it. It goes from a decent argument, to you and Annella E-hugging, to fighting with queen, to me again as we argue prophecy-legitimacy, and then back to...ugh...faith healing :angry7:
Yes. I did. "sigh" :BangHead: You need to reread it yourself. :BangHead: "sigh"
Sherene: Thanks for the advice reminder: I just can't seem to help myself. :dontknow: But I'm working on it. :-X
-
You showed off things that had completely natural explanations to them. Unless I'm mistaken and I skipped your evidence of ID w/o the watchmaker analogies you kept presenting.
-
You can't trust sources that say or assume the wrong things from the get-go (example being Jc posting a link that led to a creationist-science site that said evolution means we came from monkeys.). And, for the sake of internet debates, all religious/political/sexual-preference threads I've ever seen usually look like the ones here on FC. It's just this forum is usually full of women, so it's different. I'm used to a mixed crowd, so this is a bit unique.
What you consider a wrong assumption is going to be on every (pro ID or creationism sight) and that is the assumption obviously that there is an intelligence behind the design and though ID cannot say by 100% falsifiability that it is the christian God, they both have that conclusion. No matter what legitimate science they bring to the table.....you and others disregard it because of their God agenda. Therefore NO site presented from an ID or creationist POV is going to be accepted by you. That's fine it just means as I told jcribb, that if she already assumes ahead of time that her sources will not be considered as legit then she may not get as frustrated when they are called out as pseudoscience.
And thanks, I'm doped up on nyquil so hopefully I made sense just now. :)
-
Thank you, Sherene. Nicely said! Hoping you are feeling better today.
-
I believe the biblical account of creation. Darwinism is only a "man-made" thery; no real facts or scientific evident. The bible declares that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
-
No matter what legitimate science they bring to the table.....you and others disregard it because of their God agenda.
There within lies the problem- foundation of reasoning.
I believe the biblical account of creation. Darwinism is only a "man-made" thery; no real facts or scientific evident. The bible declares that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
I'm not even going to bother responding to this since you seem to be a few bricks shy of a load pertaining to everything I've seen you post here this morning. C'mon now! Open a book!
-
;D Everyone has an opinion about this particuliar topic. I must say that I am on-board with the belief that God is the Creator of this vast and beautiful world that we live on. I get alot of comfort in my daily walk through life believing that there is a far greater power. I would rather believe NOW and find out later that I am wrong; rather than NOT believe now and find a more harsh reality waiting for me later. It is just an idea that I would like to share with you. Alot of people have a hard time believing in something that cannot be seem to the naked eye but Faith is alot like Love it is felt in your heart. :wave:
-
There within lies the problem- foundation of reasoning.
I can say the same for scientific research with a materialistic agenda. If the foundation of the research has an a priori commitment to materialistic views only then the result is not an honest result. The results are predetermined based on the researchers world view. So your reason for dismissing any source from pro ID and creation sites can be our reason to dismiss any sources you provide. Only thing is, I haven't seen anyone do that, and I know I haven't. So your foundation for reasoning is to automatically dismiss what you have already determined is false, no matter what legitimate science is brought to the table to show otherwise. That sounds intellectually dishonest to me.
You might be a fundamentalist atheist if......
When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd
http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html
-
Materialistic agenda? I'm confused. Do you mean explaining things in a rational perspective with empirical data to back it up?
So your foundation for reasoning is to automatically dismiss what you have already determined is false, no matter what legitimate science is brought to the table to show otherwise. That sounds intellectually dishonest to me.
That's a major cop-out though and is grounds for the letting loose of any irrational crackpot idea. There's nothing wrong with that just as long as it can be worked with someway somehow. There is no science that has brought anything metaphysical to the table though, and that's why ID will never be accepted into the scientific community-- there's nothing to work with. That's really all there is to this argument.
But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd
A key word here is evidence. Scientific concepts and models have the freedom to collapse and change depending on what is discovered. Creationist science is bound by a one-way street incapable of change. It can only 'change' through interpretation to meet the specifications of new-found evidence which, imo, is intellectually dishonest.
-
Do you mean explaining things in a rational perspective with empirical data to back it up
Clear example, what you perceive as rational automatically excludes anything supernatural. Your starting point in your reasoning makes an automatic assumption despite the fact that no scientific data exists to disprove God's existence. Therein lies the problem .....foundational reasoning.
There is no science that has brought anything metaphysical to the table though, and that's why ID will never be accepted into the scientific community-- there's nothing to work with
As I have said before ID is falsifiable and therefore should be considered on it's merits. It is falsifiable because if a mechanism of evolution can be found to have the ability to create information then ID is without a leg to stand on. That has not happened. The reality of what we see is that everything containing information was designed by an intelligent agent. What is not falsifiable is specifying the Designer. However, assuming that a designer does not exist simply because you have no way of identifying said designer is bad science.
A key word here is evidence. Scientific concepts and models can change. Creationist science is bound by a one-way street incapable of change. It can only 'change' through interpretation to meet the specifications of new-found evidence.
Creation science is just as bound as any other science. If a scientist starts out with the prior notion that NOTHING Divine is allowed in science......he will come to a conclusion without any Divine notions. If a creationist scientist starts out assuming it HAS to be Divine then he will reach a conclusion containing the "ingredients" with which he used. It depends on the honesty and integrity of the scientist and his willingness to accept where his science will take him, even if it means he was dead wrong. There are plenty of scientists both religious and non who have done this. There are plenty of people in general who have done this. But the scientific community as a whole refusing to acknowledge ID as legit, greatly shows the vast majority hold to their a priori commitment to not let the Divine foot in the door.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge a source and any of it's contents in debate, based on it's (irrational) conclusion that "God did it", shows that your starting point is objective, not open minded.
-
The Bible says in Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
Proverbs 1:7 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom, and instruction."
Fools here, does not mean silliness or lack of knowledge and instruction, but that they have the inability to apply knowledge properly. Evolution says that for something to be observed and tested it has to be seen. In actuality, both Creation and Evolution are "faith-based" systems in regards to origins. The problem is, then, is that even Evolutionists can't go back billions, millions, or thousands of years to observe and test the origin. They cannot prove that there was not or was an Intelligent Creator for the origin. But Romans 1:20 backs God's Creation.
Evolution began as a man-made theory. Also, it is an excuse to try and explain how life came and exists apart from God. Darwin never meant to disprove God's existence at first. He claimed to have been Christian, and because of tragedies in his life, he renounced God. In stating his theory after that, disproving God's Creation did indeed mean that he wanted to disprove God's very existence.
-
Clear example, what you perceive as rational automatically excludes anything supernatural. Your starting point in your reasoning makes an automatic assumption despite the fact that no scientific data exists to disprove God's existence. Therein lies the problem .....foundational reasoning.
Well what you quoted from me is the definition of science.
"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"
"knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. "
Who said I'm trying to disprove any possibility of a deity? I'm just saying there's no evidence for it, therefore it cannot be within any legit reasoning. Only speculation. I think i've used the example of the 2 cavemen with fire before with you. Just because we don't know where or how the fire came to be does not mean we should just assume that it was a gift from god. And considering the history of religion constantly doing this and failing with newfound info, I think you see the problem I'm displaying.
As I have said before ID is falsifiable and therefore should be considered on it's merits. It is falsifiable because if a mechanism of evolution can be found to have the ability to create information then ID is without a leg to stand on.
Evolution does create/add new information into organisms. I thought this was a well-known attribute and has been observed. Where are you getting these excerpts from? ID to me just seems to be a hollow cop-out since it can constantly claim that it's falsifiable since there's nothing there to look at. It's like kids playing cops and robbers-- the one kid that won't be killed because he keeps claiming his skin is made of metal. That was always lame on the playground.
There are plenty of people in general who have done this. But the scientific community as a whole refusing to acknowledge ID as legit, greatly shows the vast majority hold to their a priori commitment to not let the Divine foot in the door.
I think this statement is hypocritical because this is under the assumption that the scientific community is out to emotionally stomp religion. It's not. It just keeps bumping into it as more research is done that worries religious foundations. Why do you think ID has bloated up in the last 20-30 years? ID wants to be there with it, which is fine, but with science, you need evidence. That's all I'm saying.
-
Well what you quoted from me is the definition of science.
"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"
.......observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally
I'm just saying there's no evidence for it, therefore it cannot be within any legit reasoning
There is no evidence that cosmic causality was physical, therefore it cannot be within any legit reasoning to assume such a position. Unless you have faith...you know believing in something without proof ;)
Evolution does create/add new information into organisms
What mechanism of evolution creates/adds new information?
I think this statement is hypocritical because this is under the assumption that the scientific community is out to emotionally stomp religion
I don't believe that. I just believe that there are politics involved which obscure honest funding and research. And I believe that based on evidence :P
-
.......observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally
There is no evidence that cosmic causality was physical, therefore it cannot be within any legit reasoning to assume such a position. Unless you have faith...you know believing in something without proof
I'm not going into a speculative argument here. Speculatively, anything is possible. We're talking about evolution and creationism via ID here. Not the origins of the universe or what came before it. Also, no watchmaker analogies here, plz.
What mechanism of evolution creates/adds new information?
Mutation. There's a ton of examples. Everything from small bacteria to...us!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/can-natural-selection-produce-new.html
There's plenty of info on the internet. Even wiki has some good examples.
I don't believe that. I just believe that there are politics involved which obscure honest funding and research. And I believe that based on evidence
You've piqued my curiosity. Though I'm sure the hadron collider wasn't sponsored by evil atheist agendas! lol Please share what ya got on this subject tho.
-
We're talking about evolution and creationism via ID here. Not the origins of the universe or what came before it
The origins of the universe are completely relevant because we are talking about your assumption starting point that there can be no divine explanation. We are talking about your automatic disregard for anything assuming a creation position. Well, isn't the ultimate question, how did it all get here? Origins and ID vs evolution are not exclusive concepts.
I also want to make a clarification here....ID and creationism are not the same thing and although I sometimes use the terms interchangeably it is because I believe the Genesis account of creation which makes me a creationist. However I realize the position that creationists are in, in proving their case. ID is not creationism:
“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”
It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information (CSI).
Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#notsci
Mutation. There's a ton of examples. Everything from small bacteria to...us!
Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution9.htm (non creation site)
Please share what ya got on this subject tho
Well, I found examples in a number of books I have read over the last several months. I can't pin point a specific source because unless I JUST read it then I can't remember which source it came from. I DID just read about a Texas Tech professor who refused to give recommendations to students if they professed to believing in creation. He did not hide the fact that this was the case and when confronted the school administration sided with him. Though this is on a smaller scale of the kind of bigotry I am referring to. There are incidents of scientists losing funding because of their religious beliefs.
Edit:
Just came across this while further looking into the idea of mutation creating/adding information.....
Some scientific views are more equal than others in America
http://www.discovery.org/a/16491
-
We are talking about your automatic disregard for anything assuming a creation position.
Because ID leaves room for any type of deity or being. Including scientology viewpoints with star wars aliens doing it. Looking at it from the opposite end, you won't be able to conclude that some sort of designer was not involved in all/or part of the existence of life. Why? Because this ID claim can work with everything. There are no methods to test it. Thus my caveman fire and metal-skinned kid example-- you can attach this concept to anything you want and be invincible with it. You can't do that with things that exist-- they're testable. That's why it's pseudoscience and that's why it can't be used to explain things legitimately. It's a cop-out reasoning to put religion back into science. Debunked? No. Pretty much pointless unless there's scrutable evidence for it? Yes.
Ultimately ID should not be used on/for either side here since the designer is ambiguous. The chances of introducing one's own personal god into the mix is just a 'mind-bogglingly' irrational stretch. Behind the faith curtain, it's a grasp for straws.
Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA?
I'm tired and sick here so I have no idea right now. And I doubt either of us has enough high-end education to answer this thoroughly without chucking links back and forth. lol Even if I did, I bet any creationist reading this would keep moving the goal-posts and pull more of the "god did it!"
Well, I found examples in a number of books I have read over the last several months. I can't pin point a specific source because unless I JUST read it then I can't remember which source it came from. I DID just read about a Texas Tech professor who refused to give recommendations to students if they professed to believing in creation. He did not hide the fact that this was the case and when confronted the school administration sided with him. Though this is on a smaller scale of the kind of bigotry I am referring to. There are incidents of scientists losing funding because of their religious beliefs.
Thanks for sharing. I really don't see how that's bigotry considering I've read creationist books saying how the universe is 6000 years old by astronomers with their Masters. They've obviously taken a completely biased standpoint in the face of obvious evidence of it not being true. I'm under the impression that this Texas Professor knew about stuff like this and didn't want them to push for pseudoscience. I know this is a really harsh example, but if you're responsible for giving out FOID cards, are you going to give it to the guy with no record, or the guy who has a long criminal background?
-
It's a cop-out reasoning to put religion back into science
This is what sounds like a cop out to me "Sure it looks designed, sure we don't know and can't prove at the moment that it wasn't designed, but since you can't say without testable evidence who the designer is, EH throw it out the window." ID isn't saying anything about the designer....it is agnostic when it comes to that and many supporters of ID are not theists. They simply acknowledge that complex specified information seems to require an intelligent agent to create it. If someone wants to say it was God...that's their theological view...or if they believe the intelligence is aliens...that's their theological view. When it comes to the theological aspect is when it isn't science. ID making empirical statements about what is physically observed is what science is. And the ID theory is testable, making a statement about who the designer is, is not testable.
I bet any creationist reading this would keep moving the goal-posts and pull more of the "god did it!
I bet any evolutionist reading this will do the same and say "evolution did it". I mean that's basically what it comes to, because where science can't make an empirical statement about what IS reality (i.e we exist) someone saying evolution did it, is no different than someone saying God did it. You asserting it was evolution doesn't make it fact, and vice versa. BUT again with ID they are not saying God did it. They are saying, an intelligent agent did it and they can honestly say, they don't know who that agent is. ID is not even denying evolution essentially, although any aspect of evolution theory proposing that CSI can organize by purely random natural acts is obviously in contention. But ID does acknowledge partial common descent.
They've obviously taken a completely biased standpoint in the face of obvious evidence of it not being true. I'm under the impression that this Texas Professor knew about stuff like this and didn't want them to push for pseudoscience.
So I should make sure that no homosexuals are allowed to be teachers because they might push their lifestyle on everyone else?
I am a creationist, this does not make me less effective at what I do in my career of choice. My being a creationist is based on my religion and for someone to treat me differently based on that is discrimination. Further the recommendation was for medical practice. Someone being a creationist does not effect their judgment in practicing medicine. But that attitude is exactly what I'm speaking of, people who have certain religious beliefs are not given the same treatment in the area of scientific grant research funding because of a dogmatic naturalist philosophy.
Methodological naturalism is simply a quite recently imposed “rule” that (a) defines science as a search for natural causes of observed phenomena AND (b) forbids the researcher to consider any other explanation, regardless of what the evidence may indicate. In keeping with that principle, it begs the question and roundly declares that (c) any research that finds evidence of design in nature is invalid and that (d) any methods employed toward that end are non-scientific. http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#notsci
I highlighted recently because this hasn't always been the case. Although I shouldn't be, I am shocked that you would defend such an action as done by that Texas Tech professor. Having said yourself to have come across very intelligent people who believe in God. Their faith should not be discriminated against, and if it was any other situation of discrimination it would not be tolerated.
I'm tired and sick here so I have no idea right now. And I doubt either of us has enough high-end education to answer this thoroughly without chucking links back and forth.
I'm sorry to hear that, I just started getting over my ailments today but my whole family has taken turns so it seems that someone has been sick for the past two months Yuck! Hope you feel better soon.
You have a point, I can't answer that question without reading other scientists research and if it doesn't have at least SOME laymens terms then sometimes I get completely lost. However, my whole point was that you were defending your automatic disregard for certain websites. If you can't say empirically that an intelligence was not the cause of complex life and the universe as we know it, then you can't honestly disregard a website that says intelligence is a possibility.
You want to disregard a statement that says it was God....ok I can understand that. But FYI someone who believes in God is capable of doing real science with observable testable research that disproves claims made by evolutionists. To dismiss their science simply because of their faith is basically hypocritical and closed minded. It's tantamount to refusing to eat food that was made by a (insert race of your choice black/chinese etc)person, not because the food was made wrong but just because they are (black/chinese etc) you conclude it MUST be made wrong. It's not because you are truly justified, it's that you have a prejudice. You have the right to do so, but it is my opinion of the situation at any rate.
-
"Sure it looks designed, sure we don't know and can't prove at the moment that it wasn't designed, but since you can't say without testable evidence who the designer is, EH throw it out the window."
The argument for a designer is not thrown out the window. It's there, but it can't be used in anything scientific since there is absolutely no basis for it. Every aspect of ID is speculative because you can't make any predictions and it simply relies on the whole 'god-of-the-gaps' reasoning (again- caveman fire) and those good ol' fallible watchmaker analogies. ID does not explain things, which is overwhelmingly essential to us. With evolution, scientists can and they have made predictions and validated their findings for everyone to see.
Intelligent design offers no testable hypotheses and, instead, offers only an explanation for observations of complex structures and phenomena in biology that must be taken on faith. As such, it offers less to a science class than does "flat-Earth theory" or "Earth-as-the-center-of-the-solar-system theory," both of which led to testable hypotheses and, ultimately, their rejection as predictive explanatory theories.
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/236793_inteldop.html
I bet any evolutionist reading this will do the same and say "evolution did it". I mean that's basically what it comes to, because where science can't make an empirical statement about what IS reality (i.e we exist) someone saying evolution did it, is no different than someone saying God did it. You asserting it was evolution doesn't make it fact, and vice versa. BUT again with ID they are not saying God did it. They are saying, an intelligent agent did it and they can honestly say, they don't know who that agent is.
I don't ever hear people go "Evolution did it!" without also hearing "This is how it went down via the findings. Keep in mind there are still gaps.". I've never heard an ID backer say something like this because they are christian and saying that they don't know who that agent is makes them look extremely unfaithful to their own personal god.
So I should make sure that no homosexuals are allowed to be teachers because they might push their lifestyle on everyone else?
I don't think an unchangeable sexual preference is a good example for something that can change via thorough research and discipline.
I am shocked that you would defend such an action as done by that Texas Tech professor. Having said yourself to have come across very intelligent people who believe in God. Their faith should not be discriminated against, and if it was any other situation of discrimination it would not be tolerated.
It depends on all the variables presented. We were both going on assumptions (me mostly), but now that I've researched it, I can see your point. Though I will say I understand both sides completely- the fact that Dini is also religious really waters this down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/education/03PROF.html
But FYI someone who believes in God is capable of doing real science with observable testable research that disproves claims made by evolutionists. To dismiss their science simply because of their faith is basically hypocritical and closed minded. It's tantamount to refusing to eat food that was made by a (insert race of your choice black/chinese etc)person, not because the food was made wrong but just because they are (black/chinese etc) you conclude it MUST be made wrong. It's not because you are truly justified, it's that you have a prejudice. You have the right to do so, but it is my opinion of the situation at any rate.
Well don't paint me as a religious-racist! lol I have no problem with those who believe in a god and don't push it left and right. I have a problem with those who push their faith into science and politics and expect it to be handled with no skepticism. The only 'racism' I have pertaining to this subject are against those who deliberately make their food taste like crap and then tell people praise and spread it when the faults are so obvious-- Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Venomfangx, etc.
-
Every aspect of ID is speculative because you can't make any predictions
That is false: As just one example of a successful ID-based prediction:
Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.
By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).
These Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed. e.g., ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk” DNA regions, including pseudogenes.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#nopred
I don't think an unchangeable sexual preference is a good example for something that can change via thorough research and discipline.
Sexual preference/religious preference. You don't deny someone something or treat them different based on something that has no basis on their ability to perform their job. It's called prejudice and it's called intolerance. And I have done research and I would consider myself relatively intelligent and my religious views about God have not changed. So it is the same situation.
I don't ever hear people go "Evolution did it!"
I have, and not only have I heard it but it is a statement by default when you claim there are gaps and yet deny a creator. There are only two possibilities when it comes to the existence of life:
1.Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals
2.There is a Creator who designed biological systems
If you deny a creator there are certian things that scientific research dictates that you must believe and you believe them despite lack of evidence and also in the face of contradictory evidence that proves otherwise.
The only 'racism' I have pertaining to this subject are against those who deliberately make their food taste like crap
LOL, well that is an objective statement, after all I think cavier is disgusting yet some people seem to enjoy it ;)
-
That is false: As just one example of a successful ID-based prediction:
Seems like ID is just jumping on the wagon and sitting in the holes as usual. What's the testable mechanism to show the designer at work for the junk dna-- what's the testable theory behind these predictions? Surely any ID follower could show this without falling into the whole divine fallacy I keep bringing up.
don't deny someone something or treat them different based on something that has no basis on their ability to perform their job.
If I was a medical professor and someone wanted a reference from me, but they told me they believed witchcraft was an authentic way of treating a sick individual, I would not give them a reference. Much as if I was a geology/anthropology/history professor and someone wanted a reference, but they told me they believe the world can't be over 6,000 years old, I would not give them a reference. Call it intolerance and prejudice if you wish- I don't want my name soiled and I don't want pseudoscience spreading around to others. This one teacher stretched the concept a bit too far though and I agree with you that it was intolerant and a bit hypocritical.
you deny a creator there are certian things that scientific research dictates that you must believe and you believe them despite lack of evidence and also in the face of contradictory evidence that proves otherwise.
Again, I'm not denying a creator. I'm also not denying space aliens doing it. Or ______________ (fill in the blank with any super meta thing). These previous 3 sentences are the problem with ID-- there's nothing to work with to form into a theory. Saying it is science is both a divine fallacy and an argument from incredulity.
LOL, well that is an objective statement, after all I think cavier is disgusting yet some people seem to enjoy it
Heheh perhaps I didn't think up the example too well. Let me rephrase my last post- I get mad at those types who bend over and crap in the pot infront of everyone and then serve it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMfHLO2iOQc&feature=related
-
Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA?
I'm tired and sick here so I have no idea right now. And I doubt either of us has enough high-end education to answer this thoroughly without chucking links back and forth. lol Even if I did, I bet any creationist reading this would keep moving the goal-posts and pull more of the "god did it!"
Wow! I missed a lot of posts. Yesterday I was looking up information on a college, and today I was actually at the college scoping them out to finish my (Biology) degree. ;D
As for this, point mutations do explain both new chromosomes or the lengthening (or shortening) of DNA.
There are several types of point mutations. The smallest are base-pair substitutions; which change one pair of nucleotides with a different one. This can cause that particular section to produce a different amino acid (but it may not, many amino acids have many possible nucleotide combinations). It will usually lead to a protein that is useless or less effective, or rarely lead to a better functioning protein; it's typically the mildest of mutations.
Insertion and deletions are the additions or losses of nucleotide pairs in a gene (lengthening or shortening). These can have a devastating effect if they are near beginning sections of a strand, as they alter the amino acid codes of every part of the strand after it (the mutation).
Mutations occur in about 1 in every 100,000 genes per generation, and that change is passed on to the next generation of cells. It doesn't seem like many, but with the number of replications that occur at the cellular level, it occurs quite often. It's why single-celled organisms can adapt so much faster than more complex organisms; any mutations are passed on to the next generation of single-celled organisms, while multi-cellular organisms require a mutation during the creation of gametes (reproductive cells) for the mutation to carry on to the next generation.
This also answers the question about chromosomes, as chromosomes are the DNA. Chromosomes are the condensed and duplicated DNA strands, only appearing during cell replication.
And for chromosomes, they have their own special type of error called nondisjunction, where the homologous pairs of chromosomes fail to split apart during anaphase I of mitosis, or the sister chromatids fail to split in anaphase II of meiosis. This leads to one cell with two sets of an identical chromosome, and one cell missing a chromosome. Nondisjunction occurs very frequently in meiosis, but usually the results are so devastating in developing zygotes that they tend to miscarriage very early in a pregnancy.
Some of the disorders caused by nondisjunction: Down Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome
During cell division, pieces of the chromosomes can also be deleted, or broken off and joined with either a different chromosome (may cause errors in gene expression) or the other part of the homologous pair, causing a duplication. Add in the frequent rate of mutation, and that's how the genome managed to grow.
Sorry if this is a bit long-winded; I enjoyed it a little too much.
-
Seems like ID is just jumping on the wagon and sitting in the holes as usual
I have heard it said by many an evolutionist scientist that it's ok to say "We don't know". ID is proving through observational research that intelligence is the precursor to CSI. ID theorists say they cannot say who or what that intelligence is. It is the same as observing reality and creating the big bang model....this created a new hurdle. Causality. Causality all the way through to the appearance of life to all the forms of complex life we see today. Evolutionists say they don't know the cause but they are working on it (insert the various ideas of the day), ID says they don't know the cause but they believe it to be an intelligent agent, and they are working on the evidence. Not being able to determine the intelligence doesn't make it unscientific, it's saying we know this much and that's the platform we are working on for further studies.
Individuals who believe in ID can say they believe the intelligence to be a specified god/whatever. But as a theory, it isn't saying anything about god/gods, it's purpose is not to prove the designers identity, only to prove that CSI requires intelligence.
But I feel like we are going in circles on this issue at this point. So feel free to comment but there's not much else I can say about it lol. :)
Saying it is science is both a divine fallacy and an argument from incredulity.
Only from a standpoint of methodological naturalism.
I get mad at those types who bend over and crap in the pot infront of everyone and then serve it.
I can sympathize with your sentiments. ;D
-
In response to animikokala:
Molecular Evolution by Wen Hsiung Li,4 says "There is now ample evidence that gene duplication is the most important mechanism for generating new genes and new biochemical processes that have facilitated the evolution of complex organisms from primitive ones." Assuming this is true and that even Darwinists admit there must be at least something like 512 steps to create a new function, we would expect to find many gene duplicates that are genetic intermediates - close to the size of an average gene (>300 codons), without a "stop" codon in the coding part, and with a properly located and at least minimally effective promoter and TFIIB binding regions.
There is also likely the need for the intermediate to have a sequence-specific region nearby to trigger Deoxyribonucleic acid: promoter region for transcription. A secondary mechanism for the source of genetic raw material for the evolution of complexity, namely the co-opting of one of the two alleles of a polymorphic gene and slowly modifying one of them, has a similar expectation, in that we should expect to find many alleles in our genome that have different shapes and functions, with both having a positive selection coefficient in the same gene. These things should be able to be verified now that the physical genome mapping of humans is basically complete. So far, no evolutionist has provided any genetic evidence of the plethora of intermediates that would be necessary to affirm their mechanism of producing complexity.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/specifiedcomplexity.html
I am not a scientist however I see some certain things in your statement that seem to indicate a clever way to infer created information where there isn't any.
Insertion and deletions are the additions or losses of nucleotide pairs in a gene (lengthening or shortening)
Insertion of information that was already there, deletion of information that was already there.
Replication and duplication of DNA strands in not creating any new information, and mutating the duplication is simply that, mutating what was already there to begin with. The mutations can be extremely numerous given the vast amount of various breeds of animal groups. With over 150 breeds of dogs, they are all still dogs. I am not saying that evolution is completely defunct of any factual information in this area but you are taking something that is already vastly complex with which natural selection has to work with, to try and prove how evolution created the complexity in the first place. That is my issue.
-
Wow! I missed a lot of posts. Yesterday I was looking up information on a college, and today I was actually at the college scoping them out to finish my (Biology) degree.
Oh hey! Welcome back! I'm glad we have someone here who knows every intricate detail of what they're talking about on a biological level. Please be on more!
Individuals who believe in ID can say they believe the intelligence to be a specified god/whatever. But as a theory, it isn't saying anything about god/gods, it's purpose is not to prove the designers identity, only to prove that CSI requires intelligence.
Well for something that really wants to be included into science, ID's whole history is taking an extremely anti-scientific approach. Science uses failures to become narrower and make things more specific to get closer to whatever root they're shooting for. ID has always become broader when faced with newfound evidence about the world (such as keeping the designer anonymous after the whole creationist movement crumbled). Again, there's nothing testable with ID, so it can just sit aside and sound scientific, but it's always just relying on the divine fallacy. Until something supernatural presents itself, that's why science tends to ignore ID altogether.
Only from a standpoint of methodological naturalism.
Which is what science uses due to reliability. If I can be cheap for a moment and quote a bookmark I saved a while back-
The point is not that supernaturalism is logically impossible; rather, the point is that, from both an epistemological and a methodological standpoint, supernaturalism has not proved its mettle, whereas methodological naturalism has done so consistently and convincingly. Supernaturalism has not provided the epistemology or the methodology needed to support its metaphysics, whereas naturalism has, although the invitation to supernaturalism to do likewise is a standing one, as Schafersman indicates: "except for humans, philosophical naturalists understand nature to be fundamentally mindless and purposeless.... Of course, this doesn't eliminate the possibility of supernatural mind and purpose in nature; the only requirement would be the demonstration of its existence and mechanism, which is up to the supernaturalist to provide. We are still waiting
In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience).... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: "You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable." This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html
I can sympathize with your sentiments
*sniff* ...Thank you...
-
I really like what you quoted, it is at least honest in it's approach to the supernatural vs natural in the scientific arena. But again, ID isn't postulating anything supernatural, if there is evidence of design (and obviously there is) it's unscientific to disregard that possiblity because the scientific method cannot test a hypothesis on the the identity of the designer.
ID is limited, I'm in no way denying that. If you take out the idea of a designer then you have a wide range of theories out there that will and are trying to come up with a solution to find answers to the existence of life issues. I also am in no way saying that those endeavors should cease just because life appears to be designed. But if it is intelligence, and it's being ignored based on the problem of identifying a designer, that is a dogmatic hypocrital philosphy IMO.
What I AM saying is that;limited tho ID is in going beyond the task of proving it's postulate,by claiming a designer......, it is falsifiable, it is testable, it is observable and it makes predictions in what the scope of the theory entails.
I know I am not going to convince you that it is science, but I do feel, in my limited understanding of biology and technical scientific jargon that I weed myself through in order to comprehend both sides of the issue, I have comprhensively made my case for why I believe the way I believe. And so have you! :thumbsup: That's the purpose of debate.
I will admit tho that animi will have me beat in technical arguments because I am definately not a scientist. All I can do is read other scientific research, and hope I know what they hell they are talking about ;)
Add in: Are you feeling better today??
-
In response to animikokala:
Molecular Evolution by Wen Hsiung Li,4 says "There is now ample evidence that gene duplication is the most important mechanism for generating new genes and new biochemical processes that have facilitated the evolution of complex organisms from primitive ones." Assuming this is true and that even Darwinists admit there must be at least something like 512 steps to create a new function, we would expect to find many gene duplicates that are genetic intermediates - close to the size of an average gene (>300 codons), without a "stop" codon in the coding part, and with a properly located and at least minimally effective promoter and TFIIB binding regions.
There is also likely the need for the intermediate to have a sequence-specific region nearby to trigger Deoxyribonucleic acid: promoter region for transcription. A secondary mechanism for the source of genetic raw material for the evolution of complexity, namely the co-opting of one of the two alleles of a polymorphic gene and slowly modifying one of them, has a similar expectation, in that we should expect to find many alleles in our genome that have different shapes and functions, with both having a positive selection coefficient in the same gene. These things should be able to be verified now that the physical genome mapping of humans is basically complete. So far, no evolutionist has provided any genetic evidence of the plethora of intermediates that would be necessary to affirm their mechanism of producing complexity.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/specifiedcomplexity.html
I am not a scientist however I see some certain things in your statement that seem to indicate a clever way to infer created information where there isn't any.
Insertion and deletions are the additions or losses of nucleotide pairs in a gene (lengthening or shortening)
Insertion of information that was already there, deletion of information that was already there.
Replication and duplication of DNA strands in not creating any new information, and mutating the duplication is simply that, mutating what was already there to begin with. The mutations can be extremely numerous given the vast amount of various breeds of animal groups. With over 150 breeds of dogs, they are all still dogs. I am not saying that evolution is completely defunct of any factual information in this area but you are taking something that is already vastly complex with which natural selection has to work with, to try and prove how evolution created the complexity in the first place. That is my issue.
I understand your issue. So I have to add that evolutionary theory also takes that into account; since all organisms share their most common ancestry with an unknown single-celled organism: this organism had few genes, and over countless generations (replications) mutations would build and build, lengthening the DNA strand. Without a "God Factor", this would have to happen by trial and error; the mutations that were neutral or beneficial allowed the organism to live and replicate those mutations, while harmful mutations would lead to the death of the organism. We cannot know 100% how this all began, but we can read the genome and work backwards. A theory does not have to be 100% certain, it just has to be that 100% of the theory has been tested and not disproved (over and over)
And as for ID: I'm not saying that a God (or Gods/Goddesses) did not have a hand in shaping the world as it is today. It's just that, from a scientific point of view, ID cannot qualify as a scientific theory. The issue at hand is not the identy of the designer; the issue is the fact that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of the designer (or the intelligence). Since you cannot test the existence of the designer, the entire idea cannot qualify as a scientific theory (a portion remains untestable), because the entire idea relies on the existence of the designer. If one day were to come that the existence of the designer can be scientifically proven, then there would be no reason to hold ID from being a valid explanation of life. Until that point, Evolutionary Theory is ahead for having all parts of the theory compatible with the requirements to be considered scientific. That doesn't mean ET (lol) is 100% right, it just means it's the best scientific explanation we have so far that still completely fulfills all requirements for science.
Let me know if I missed something; I get distracted easily and am prone to going off on tangents.
-
Thanks for your thoughtful response animi. I do understand where you're coming from, and I see the issue that others have with ID theory. However, there are theories that are considered legitimate science that have not been proven yet. Such as the multi verse, which is really just speculation at this point since physical laws dictate our ability to go outside our own universe is practically nill. Scientists search for answers and sometimes in finding one truth, they uncover another issue with a roadblock due to limited technology and human knowledge. This is what science does, so in searching for the truth of intelligent design, the research is an honest scientific attempt at finding an answer just like anything in the evolution arena. It's just that if the theory ends up with enough evidence to hold weight (and I think it does but obviously some would call me biased ;) ) they hit a road block in being able to identify the designer. Similar to "hey, we know the universe came from a "big bang" so now we know it began to exist, what caused it?"
It's a road block, it's untestable, and only speculation can abound until we figure out how too look past our own universe.
Also, the idea that we all have evolved from a common ancestor and that all life began as a single celled organism is not solid enough to be asserted as fact. As a matter of fact abiogenesis has MANY problems within in it's scope of ideas as to how life began. So when talking about this aspect of evolution, it's only an idea that is "still in the lab". Unsatisfactory results and too many unanswered questions still abound. It sounds good, (to those who want to believe it lol) but it's not fact.
Another interesting aspect to throw in the mixture is that SETI has been completely unsuccessful and that is profound to me. That is of course just a personal view on it, but in regards to the miracle life is, and the idea that it was not a random purposeless process makes sense when you find that in a universe so vast and with all our technology to look billions of miles into it, no other intelligent life can be found. More philosophical, but relevant in a way.
Again thanks for your input, I appreciate it ;D
-
I believe in Evolution.
-
I agree that god could have.
-
I personally believe in creation by a supreme God. I dont believe man evolved from the sea what do you think? also do you believe in reincarnation? :dontknow:
I believe in God :) I don't believe in Evolution but I do respect the beliefs of others :)
I believe in God and evolution how do you explain how certain animals have changed over the years. Didn't God say be fruitful and multiply. That's where evolution came into the picture. :wave:
-
Thanks for your thoughtful response animi. I do understand where you're coming from, and I see the issue that others have with ID theory. However, there are theories that are considered legitimate science that have not been proven yet. Such as the multi verse, which is really just speculation at this point since physical laws dictate our ability to go outside our own universe is practically nill. Scientists search for answers and sometimes in finding one truth, they uncover another issue with a roadblock due to limited technology and human knowledge. This is what science does, so in searching for the truth of intelligent design, the research is an honest scientific attempt at finding an answer just like anything in the evolution arena. It's just that if the theory ends up with enough evidence to hold weight (and I think it does but obviously some would call me biased ;) ) they hit a road block in being able to identify the designer. Similar to "hey, we know the universe came from a "big bang" so now we know it began to exist, what caused it?"
It's a road block, it's untestable, and only speculation can abound until we figure out how too look past our own universe.
Also, the idea that we all have evolved from a common ancestor and that all life began as a single celled organism is not solid enough to be asserted as fact. As a matter of fact abiogenesis has MANY problems within in it's scope of ideas as to how life began. So when talking about this aspect of evolution, it's only an idea that is "still in the lab". Unsatisfactory results and too many unanswered questions still abound. It sounds good, (to those who want to believe it lol) but it's not fact.
Another interesting aspect to throw in the mixture is that SETI has been completely unsuccessful and that is profound to me. That is of course just a personal view on it, but in regards to the miracle life is, and the idea that it was not a random purposeless process makes sense when you find that in a universe so vast and with all our technology to look billions of miles into it, no other intelligent life can be found. More philosophical, but relevant in a way.
Again thanks for your input, I appreciate it ;D
I will be honest with you. I've managed to happily live my life without having to take a single physics or astronomy class (although that will change; OH requires physics in their biology degrees :bs: ). Physics and Astronomy are the two sciences where I have the most trouble accepting all of their Theories. My realm is the realm of observable, testable life sciences. I don't care much for the abstract math-based theories of Physics and (often) Astronomy. They rely too much on speculation at times, since so much of their realms are difficult to test.
And I agree that abiogenesis has its problems, mostly due to not knowing what the exact composition of early Earth was, but it has been proven that abiogenisis can occur, and thus it remains a valid option. Of course, I am open to the suggestion (as I had stated in my very first post in this thread) that it's entirely possible the a Creator kicked life off and let it run from there, but it can't go further than a possibility to me without the science backing it up. I'm afraid that I am very much a creature of logic; perhaps I'm lacking in creativity. ;D
And on the topic of physics and astronomy: don't you find physicists and astronomers a bit....creepy.....sometimes? They want to create black holes and rip up space and time, destroying us all in the process, or they want to make contact with aliens who will go all Independence Day on us....biologists just want to clone extinct animals and evil sheep. :thumbsup:
-
And on the topic of physics and astronomy: don't you find physicists and astronomers a bit....creepy.....sometimes? They want to create black holes and rip up space and time, destroying us all in the process, or they want to make contact with aliens who will go all Independence Day on us....biologists just want to clone extinct animals and evil sheep.
LOL I think the idea of tampering with DNA to create animal human hybrids is way more creepy. YIKES! :o
-
I believe in some of each. Seems the likeliest in the overall scenerio. Keep hearing my dog make monkey sounds someitmes. lol
-
I personally believe in creation by a supreme God. I dont believe man evolved from the sea what do you think? also do you believe in reincarnation? :dontknow:
I suppose one has to know the LORD to be able to have that kind of faith to believe in Creation, but I think it would take
more than faith to believe in the big bang ??? theory that it just all happened without a supreme power - I am not sure I could
even buy into that kind of 'faith'.... yes there is One GOD, :angel11: One Creator and I feel sorry for those who do not believe.
I Plan to walk on streets of gold one day where there is no sickness, sadness, sorrow, pain or death and all is perfect...
that sure sounds better to me than a fiery pit! :angel12:
-
I think that when it comes to the Universe - it formed on its own from gravitational pulls. Living creatures on Earth itself however, are much more interesting. There is scientific evidence of evolution. Species, viruses and bacteria are constantly evolving even today. But human beings are different. I think to some degrees we've evolved since the first human beings, but I don't believe the whole theory of us evolving from primates. Because it just doesn't make sense - if we evolved from primates (aka monkeys) then why are there still primates around? Why have they not evolved. I believe someone stepped in during the evolution of earth and either sped up our evolution or created us from themselves and primates through DNA splicing. It would make sense. According to the Sumerian Tablets of Creation, that's what the Annunaki did. So, knowing what we have done for years splicing plant DNA & have the capability to create life through cloning or any other method - is that really so far fetched?
-
Because it just doesn't make sense - if we evolved from primates (aka monkeys) then why are there still primates around?
Well there's a lot here I don't think you get. We didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from earlier primates and we share a common ancestor with monkeys, apes, chimps etc. That common ancestor was not what we call a present-day monkey. That original group had some split-offs and some slowly evolved into us and others evolved into apes, chimps, etc.
I believe someone stepped in during the evolution of earth and either sped up our evolution or created us from themselves and primates through DNA splicing. It would make sense.
According to the Sumerian Tablets of Creation, that's what the Annunaki did. So, knowing what we have done for years splicing plant DNA & have the capability to create life through cloning or any other method - is that really so far fetched?
That is interesting-- never heard that tie-in before. Though it's easy to speculate, the ultimate problem is proof.
-
Falconer02 - You're right - there isn't any proof. But its not that far-fetched given our current ability to do some of the same things.
And what i meant is that - yes i understand us and primates came from a common ancestor - but if we evolved into such a higher life form - why didn't they evolve the same way??
-
- but if we evolved into such a higher life form - why didn't they evolve the same way??
Because macro evolution has not been proven and that's because evolution cannot turn a monkey into a human. There is no proof that one species evolved into another species. There is sketchy evidence and theory and speculation but only evolution by natural selection which acts on random mutations have proven anything and it has only proven variation WITHIN a species.
-
And what i meant is that - yes i understand us and primates came from a common ancestor - but if we evolved into such a higher life form - why didn't they evolve the same way??
Its called Convergent Evolution.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/convergent_evolution.htm
As for the "humans evolving from monkeys" argument, I get so exasperated when I come across it. Please please read this article if you honestly believe that evolution consists of humans evolving from monkeys. Evolution is honestly too rich a topic to be explained away by a simple one-liner.
http://www.macroevolution.net/ape-to-human-evolution.html
For everyone else, evolution is not contrary to religion. Please actually take the time to read about it before you dismiss it.
-
Falconer02 - You're right - there isn't any proof. But its not that far-fetched given our current ability to do some of the same things.
The key word here is current. Perhaps I'm missing something you said, but I think it is pretty far fetched to think that the early ancients had the same type of tech we have today considering we didn't know anything about basic bacteria till the 1600's. I highly doubt something that so ideal and amazing would be lost in time.
yes i understand us and primates came from a common ancestor - but if we evolved into such a higher life form - why didn't they evolve the same way??
I highly suggest reading Amy's links. You'll walk away much more knowledgeable on the subject!
-
For everyone else, evolution is not contrary to religion. Please actually take the time to read about it before you dismiss it.
Well for one thing, I have read extensively about evolution so my dismissal cannot be blamed on ignorance.
Secondly here is a quote from an evolutionist:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G. Richard Bozarth, 'The Meaning of Evolution', American Atheist 20 September, 1979, p. 30.
I would add to this for the Jewish sake, that although you don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, your religion believes in a Messiah if I'm not mistaken, and the need for that Messiah is solidified in the OT....under this pretense ANY Messiah would be rendered unnecessary and pointless thereby undermining the entire faith.
Evolution does not support the idea that God works behind the scenes. Evolution states that material matter is the creative power along with natural laws.
The Bible says those who reject the truth, “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1)”. Worshiping creation is the natural result of evolution. Carl Sagan said that evolution’s natural conclusion is atheism, but in his book ‘Cosmos’, Sagan stated:
“Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even a mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars? “
God said that men would worship what is created instead of giving glory to the Creator; Sagan said that it is not foolish to worship the sun and stars......
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/psych.shtml
Logical conclusion, believing in evolution contradicts belief in the God of the bible.
-
I feel as evolution goes. You could compare the world to an apple.
In the beginning it was just a seed that blossomed into a flower
Then turned into a red delicious apple and just hung there on the tree with the rest of them
Some left the branch of life others just hung around until they became rotten to the core
They then fell from the tree.
Like the world
It was created by God and has grown and changed time over time
It is just too bad Man kind may not survive.
Evolution evolves like the story about the frog put in cold water then placed on the burner. He is too far gone before he realizes he is boiling to death and can not jump out of the pot.
Mankind lives so much in immunizations, sanitary everything that when the wind blows they need to run to the doctors to protect them from the natural effects of mother nature and the changing of the times.
-
As for the "humans evolving from monkeys" argument, I get so exasperated when I come across it. Please please read this article if you honestly believe that evolution consists of humans evolving from monkeys. Evolution is honestly too rich a topic to be explained away by a simple one-liner.
http://www.macroevolution.net/ape-to-human-evolution.html
On the last line of the page you linked too was this statement
In the years since Darwin and Huxley, a wide variety of fossil forms ("hominids") have of course come to light, providing just the sort of series that one might expect to see if ape to human evolution had actually occurred.
I imagine from your comment that you think people are misunderstanding evolution when they make the comment that apes evolved into humans....but this statement on your link seems to support the idea. Also, I would hate to see anyone taking that statement at face value and assuming that these hominids in the fossil record actually prove a direct human ancestor....because they don't. Evolutionists assert human evolution as fact but admit that there is no substantial proof for it.
Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[101] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[102][103] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[103]