Creation or Evolution?

[kurogane]

he was speaking retrospectively, or didnt you notice the sarcasm either?

Can any discussion of the past be anything but?

Mind you, a prospective discussion of the various merits of a theory of total biological development and of a book written 2000 years ago would surely be a lot more interesting than the claptrap being posted on here.

[kurogane]

I don't like the Jehovah's--they got my name wrong.

Umm, they were talking about your father.

[kurogane]

my my Kurogane, arent you the regular little thread worm?

Gots to beat Paulh to 10,000.

Okay, gotta post.

[Hot Shoe]

Can any discussion of the past be anything but?

Mind you, a prospective discussion of the various merits of a theory of total biological development and of a book written 2000 years ago would surely be a lot more interesting than the claptrap being posted on here.

well, why dont you entertain us with your knowledge gerokero.
ive yet to see you post anything remotely meaningful.ever.

[Hot Shoe]

oh and try not to speak in tongues ths time.

the commoners might not be able to understand you.

[kurogane]

oh and try not to speak in tongues ths time.

the commoners might not be able to understand you.

魔王は都合なり聖書をつかう。

鬼の女房は鬼神なり。

[Hot Shoe]

魔王は都合なり聖書をつかう。

鬼の女房は鬼神なり。

im glad to hear it. you might actually be able to learn something

oh and some of the commoners can actually speak in tongues

[donpaulo]

the protestant and lutheran movements are directly linked to the luthers challenge, gutenberg's press and the church's indulgence.

Of course there are a number of reasons why the church used indulgence.

They used the word of god to claim the right to give indulgence. The certainly believed they were using the word of god and followed "his" teachings. So it appears your relgious belief is in fact directly linked to the "sin" of indulgence.

Without sin perhaps luther does not challenge the church. Who can say, but I think the catholic church would dispute the transformers conclusion that they do not follow the word of god.

I have another question.

Do you read the old testament ?

Do you know the history of the old testament ?

[mav777]

Umm...guys, sorry to break in here again but aren't we getting kind of off topic?

The question was about Evolution or Creation not about the accuracy of the Bible.

Just as a refresher for all - scientists have NOT been able to prove evolution, thus it is still called a THEORY. Theory meaning something that has not yet been proved.

As was mentioned earlier evolution DOES NOT teach how life originated all it does is say how the different species arrived, not how life.

Another interesting point is that it is impossible to prove scientifically that God does not exist!

You might find it enlightening to discuss for a minute what you believe is impossible. Is is impossible for a man to walk on water, raise the dead, etc? At what point does something become impossible?

From a mathematician's viewpoint anything that has less than a 1 in 10 to the power of 50 (i.e 1 followed by 50 zeroes) it is considered to be impossible. What do you guys think? When do you consider something to be impossible.

BTW can the answers be kept serious, I know the toungue in cheek remarks, jokes, etc otherwise will be ENDLESS :P

[Ewok]

Just as a refresher for all - scientists have NOT been able to prove evolution, thus it is still called a THEORY. Theory meaning something that has not yet been proved.

Yet another person who doesn't know what a theory is. Gravity is a theory - does that make it unproven?

[Kmart23]

I have another question.

Do you read the old testament ?

Do you know the history of the old testament ?

I am no scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I have read it.

I know some of the history, what are you getting at man??!! :P

[Kmart23]

Yet another person who doesn't know what a theory is. Gravity is a theory - does that make it unproven?

What are you getting at? That evolution IS a proven fact? I think you tried that one already??

[Kmart23]

Retrospectively? Are you sure you don't mean rhetorically?

First of all, he sidestepped the questions I posed. If his faith is as strong as he claims, he should be able to answer those questions easily.

Secondly, I didn't detect any real sarcasm there. If it was there, it was too weak for me to pick up on.

And lastly, who was talking to you? I posed this question to Walmart.

I don't know who walmart is, but I will help you with your perplexing problem. . .

Skyknight said:
So where is your proof that the bible is god's word? Your only proof of this is the bible itself. That's circular logic and it's worthless. I'll prove it.

I said:

There is no proof that the bible is god's word, and you will prove it. (smiley face)

You said: I didn't detect any real sarcasm there.

does that help?

Finally, what questions did I 'sidestep'?

[kurogane]

When do you consider something to be impossible.

When even the beer goggles aren't enough to render her attractive.......?

Perhaps we just need to have them more intelligently designed?

[Kmart23]

When even the beer goggles aren't enough to render her attractive.......?

Perhaps we just need to have them more intelligently designed?

What makes that impossible? The fact that you didn't drink enough, or the fact that there is actually people that ugly out there?

I think mav777 did bring up a very important question though!

[Skyknight]

Just as a refresher for all - scientists have NOT been able to prove evolution, thus it is still called a THEORY. Theory meaning something that has not yet been proved.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer! You lose not only the grand prize but your youngest daughter as well.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The correct answer is, "Scientists have been able to prove evolution. But the reason it's still called a 'theory' has to do with nomenclature and not 'that it hasn't been proven'". After all, the fact that the Earth goes around the sun and that you don't go flying off into space is due to gravity. But it's not called the "law of gravity", it's actually still refered to as a theory. As for the actual definition of it, this is a long winded approach to it, "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition."

In other words, a theory is something that has stood up to testing and still works. It starts off as a hypothesis such as, "things fall when you drop them". You then set up experiments to either prove or disprove this. After you've done all these tests, you publish them so other's can also do the experiements or conduct their own tests. If the results are consistent, it becomes a "theory".

I *love* it when people come up with this little gem.

[mav777]

Ewok you stated that I did not know what a theory was. In this my friend your assertion is quite wrong, I know quite well what a theory is. In general use the word theory usually denotes conjecture whereas in science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. In other words by use of the "scientific method"

The scientific method is as follows:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments to ratify or prove wrong the stated theory.

Until stage 4 has been completed it is still a THEORY. Therefore evolution is a theory, in the same way as scientifically creation is a theory. Until such time as it has been proved by the reproduction of the circumstances or events in a scientifically measurable way it will remain so.

It is also interesting to think that evolution has NOT been proved. Scientists have not been able to reproduce (no pun intended) the circumstances in which evolution is supposed to have taken place. As Kmart mentioned before fruitflies that have mutated are still fruit flies they do not become bats, birds, or humans . Creation has not been disproved as a theory either so if you are being scientific about it you should keep an open mind. As has been mentioned earlier not all scientists or an overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution.

What is the sticking point for most on the existence of God is not a scientific one but a moral/ethical one, i.e. if an all-powerful, loving God exists why is there suffering? Scientifically speaking, there is just as much scientific evidence to prove God's existence as to disprove it. Case in point, in one of my previous posts I brought up the entropy dillema, no one yet has mentioned anything about it!

So Ewok before you start accusing your fellow posters of ineptitude, ignorance, or stupidity you might want to ask for clarification of what they said. Let us keep it friendly here! Just because we may not agree does not mean we can't have a reasonable discussion.

As one person put it..."If the other person will not agree with you do not raise the level of your voice, raise the level of your argument"

[donpaulo]

what am I on about you ask ?

Just that the old testament is based on the teaching of jewish scholoars.

Do you believe they worship the same god as the bible ?

They in fact wrote much of the bible.. so in effect you have been reading jewish teachings have you not ?

[Nall-ohki]

I Ewok said the same thing and was unable to list any scriptures that were contradictory. Care to elaborate?

I graciously provided you with a link to these, and ChrisElliot2000 has since provided even further links.

My points have been made. Please read them.

I am saying that once I studied the bible I found it to be perfectly accurate in every way. It is unreasonable to say that man could have written the bible unless they were inspired by God.

And what of the Koran? Or the Veda?

Adherents to these religions claim much the same thing, and have no better and no worse logical claim to divine intervention.

However, we're getting off track here - I'm not interested in arguing about the bible. The details of the bible have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution vs. Creation.

So what exactly are you saying here? That evolution is intelligent?

Evolution is a process. Intelligence has nothing to do with evolution in the same way that intelligence has nothing to do with soil erosion.

This only proves that if we evolved that we evolve differently, or if we were created, that our creator made us to look different. I don't get your argument here.

Ah, but you see the difference here: one is begging the question, one is not.

If you look at it from evolution's standpoint, the fact that people are different is a FACT. This is used as part of the basis to formulate a theory.

If you look at it from your (creationism's) standpoint, you are BEGGING THE QUESTION by saying that the creator created us all different (thus assuming the result), and this information is useless.

This disproves the bible, how?

The part you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the bible, but...

My point is not to disprove the bible - just show that it is a worthless source of FACT for which a logical explanation about origins can occur.

We have discussed this earlier in the thread. Nothing has been proven scientifically that things can change over a period of time outside of their kind.

We have fossil records.

Define "kind". Creationists who use this argument usually actually define what a "kind" is.

Also, what kind of argument is this, anyway? That there are set "classes" of animals, and that these "classes" are iron-clad? Isn't this merely a classification problem?

Now your depiction of the God of the bible is a little bias and unfair, especially because it is obvious that you have not studied the bible yourself to make these statements.

Making some baseless assumptions here, aren't we? You have no idea of my bible knowledge. My knowledge of the bible is also irrelevant.

No, "well if you had studied it more you'd understand" is not a valid follow up argument, either.

[mav777]

Don,

Nice post there buddy! Of course, the answer should be yes, as Jews, Christians, and Muslims all supposedly worshipe the God of Abraham. The question that follows is, are they all worshipping this God in the way in which it has been outlined?

The answer to the above question is generally "NO", as has been mentioned, in the Old Testament it commands "thou shalt not kill" and for those that do murder the penalty was for them to be put to death, see much of that in Israel?

In the New Testatment the command from Jesus, was to love your enemies, and those that use the sword will die by the sword, and that his followers were to be no part of the world and not to fight. Again how many "christians" do you see that do not take up arms under any circumstances even under threat of their own life?

The question is not so much do they profess belief in the same God the question is more, do they genuinely follow his teachings or are they hypocritical? Of course, everyone is imperfect so mistakes are bound to happen, but hypocrisy is something else (imho)

[Nall-ohki]

Just as a refresher for all - scientists have NOT been able to prove evolution, thus it is still called a THEORY. Theory meaning something that has not yet been proved.

Not to jump on you here, as you are trying to be diplomatic but what you say here is a common gross misconception about "theories":

Theory in the scientific sense does NOT mean what it does to the layman.

A theory is BETTER than a fact in almost every way, as it defines a cohesive truth about how the world operates.
Theories ARE altered over time as more evidence becomes available. As a rule, though, proper theories are merely MODIFIED, and not scrapped.

To give you an idea, here are other things that are called theory in science:

- Gravity
- Atomic theory
- The Germ theory of disease
- Theory of Limits (which calculus is based on)

Evolution is not the weakest of the theories above.

What generally amazes me is the number of people who think they can use science, believe in it, and then throw out the parts that they personally believe are wrong, despite the evidence.

What are you getting at? That evolution IS a proven fact? I think you tried that one already??

It IS a proven fact.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

EVOLUTION IS A FACT, AND A THEORY.

To deny it happens is like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you!"

[just.me]

but do/did we need the bible or whatever teaching to tell us "thou shalt not kill"?
here is another question, if there were not such a teaching, human race would have killed each other?

i shall be sarcastic here.

god really create a great formula, by saying god means, all the son of god and prophets.

and the formula is "thou shalt not kill"

is'nt it in our instinct not to kill others, only if we have to defend our self?

anyone would have came to that formula, i call it formula because is related to a science issue too.

i don't understansd the big deal of the bible teaching.
is there a book older than the bible?

[mav777]

Another interesting point for the argument is to define what evolution is...According to Darwin it is a gradual change brought about by the natural promotion of traits that lead to survival i.e. survival of the fittest that brings about changes in species. That is of one species evolving into another.

Do you hold to the theory of phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Why did scientists feel the need to change from one to the other?

[Hot Shoe]

its funny.

science , in all its glory *sic*, has still not been able to prove that God DOESNT exist.

too many people are arguing about whether we have proof of God , well i ask, do you have any proof he isnt there?

[just.me]

does it really matter that god exist?
to argue about it fine with me.
but answer the question, does it really matter?
maybe to you psychologically speaking has helped you to live your life in a more positive way, if you need to beileve that is.

[Glenski]

KMart wrote:

The bible is Gods word. You can use any source you want to discuss evolution. Any facts from anywhere. I only want to use the bible to support my belief in creation. I do not wish for you to take this point of reference away from me. It is hardly fair, wouldn't you agree?

Then, KMart wrote/quoted:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,

So, then, KMart, can I take it from your own words that you DON'T have to rely solely on the Bible for discussions here? ALL SCRIPTURE is fair game.

If you disagree somehow with circular logic (or just by saying that "all Scripture" = only the Bible), let me pose this one to you. Religious scholars rely on more than one document (the Bible) to do their research, do they not? So, why don't you? Others have posted here about such materials as the Koran, for example.

Oh, and please ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?????

I think it is only fair (to use your own words) to ask for this simple thing. STOP avoiding the question, which you YOURSELF brought to this table 10 pages ago!

[Glenski]

too many people are arguing about whether we have proof of God , well i ask, do you have any proof he isnt there?

Yes, MY faith. If you call that slipshod thinking, turn it back on yourself.

[Glenski]

scientists have NOT been able to prove evolution, thus it is still called a THEORY. Theory meaning something that has not yet been proved.

The cause of gravity (gravity waves? particles?) has not been proven, yet are you willing to concede that there is indeed gravity, and that it must have a cause?

People have not seen atoms, so their existence is purely theoretical, but theoretical particle physics explains a lot of the universe and has been put in to practical applications. If you don't believe in atoms or atomic energy, I invite you to visit the results at the Hiroshima or Nagasaki Peace museums.

[mav777]

Glenski, I can put that one right back at you...what then CAUSED the Universe?

[Kmart23]

Glenski, I appreciate your comments and your questions, however. . .

I think you need to read the thread from the beginning. Most of your questions (including a lot you say I have not answered) have already been answered a long time ago. This thread is getting long enough, without answering questions that have already been answered.

Your question about 'all scripture' has already been answered also.

I have answered your question already about evolution also.

Finally, people are making links to other websites saying that the bible is not consistent, but if we then prove that to be false, other people will not know what we are talking about, so please post more information, and not just a link. Thanks!

[Bye-Bye kin]

its funny.

science , in all its glory *sic*, has still not been able to prove that God DOESNT exist.

too many people are arguing about whether we have proof of God , well i ask, do you have any proof he isnt there?

You can claim that there is a god. Just as I can claim that I have a 10-inch tadger. Both claims may be difficult for some people to believe but only I have a chance of providing evidence that my claim is for real.

[Nall-ohki]

its funny.

science , in all its glory *sic*, has still not been able to prove that God DOESNT exist.

too many people are arguing about whether we have proof of God , well i ask, do you have any proof he isnt there?

God cannot be proven to exist or not exist.

It is not a question that is answerable within our frame of reference.

[Kmart23]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The correct answer is, "Scientists have been able to prove evolution. But the reason it's still called a 'theory' has to do with nomenclature and not 'that it hasn't been proven'"

I find it truly amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary 'experts' themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened!

For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6?

If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.

Now both parties agree that at this stage in this debate, neither side has supplied the proof to support their argument.

I think what we now need to do is look at what evidence we do have that makes us believe in either creation or evolution.

I want to set the record straight for the argument of creation. The people that have been involved in this debate that support creation clearly believe in the bible. This being the case, we do not accept any other book written after this time. The Koran is out, the Book of Mormon is out. These books are not what we represent, and do not support our side of the argument, unless you want to debate Satan and his role in our existence.

For people who have not read this entire thread, I say this because the 3rd last verse in the entire bible states:

Revelation 22:18 - “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

My first point why I believe that the bible was inspired by God, hence proving His existence is found in the following two scriptures:

Isiah 40:22 - There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,

Job 26:7 - He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;

The book of Job was written by Moses well before 1000 B.C.E and the book of Isiah was written by Isiah between 778B.C.E. and 732B.C.E.

These are the only two times reference was made to the fact that the earth orbits in space 'hanging upon nothing' meaning that it is in space, with no elephants under it as support. It does not say that it is revolving around the sun, but I think this is truly a remarkable scripture. Also, that the earth is in fact a 'circle' is totally accurate.

How could Moses and Isiah have so accurately depicted the earth with no scientific knowledge of such things, unless their words were inspired by God?

[Glenski]

I think you need to read the thread from the beginning. Most of your questions (including a lot you say I have not answered) have already been answered a long time ago. This thread is getting long enough, without answering questions that have already been answered.

I HAVE read this thread from start to current post. You have continually dodged answering questions, from me and others.

I find it truly amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary 'experts' themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened!

I find it truly amazing that anyone accepts the existence of God when there is no physical, tangible proof, and when religious scholars do not agree.

Isiah 40:22 - There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,

Job 26:7 - He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;

The book of Job was written by Moses well before 1000 B.C.E and the book of Isiah was written by Isiah between 778B.C.E. and 732B.C.E.

These are the only two times reference was made to the fact that the earth orbits in space 'hanging upon nothing' and that the earth is in fact a sphere, a 'circle' when viewed from space.

How could Moses and Isiah have so accurately depicted the earth with no scientific knowledge of such things, unless their words were inspired by God?

You interpret these as astronomical facts. I can easily and equally interpret these to mean nothing more than literary license and storytelling. I mean, c'mon. Where is the description of ORBIT here? The fact that "circle" was mentioned could easily have been taken to mean an equal point in 3 dimensions from any source, not that the source itself was a sphere. "Hanging on nothing" has equal description by other religions such as elephants holding up the earth on a turtle's back. You see things only as YOU want to see them. Make your own Wikipedia.


I'm outta here.

[Glenski]

Glenski, I can put that one right back at you...what then CAUSED the Universe?

I could argue by saying that this is not the point of the discussion, but you'd only get angry and say I'm evading the issue. Fact is, I don't know the answer, and I have not studied such things in detail, but I go with the scientific theories to date, not with the Bible. When science shows me a God that has done so, I'll consider it.

[Kmart23]

Post # 281 Kmart writes:

Do I believe in evolution?

At this stage in our debate, my belief in an intelligent creator has only been strengthened reading about evolution and the many and varied flaws in this theory.



Post # 293 Glenski writes:

KMart wrote that "NO" he/she does not believe in evolution.


Post # 386 Glenski writes:

Oh, and please ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?????

Post # 394 Glenski writes:

I HAVE read this thread from start to current post. You have continually dodged answering questions, from me and others.



. . . Now how can we have an intellectual debate if you can’t even remember what you yourself have read in regards to my answers?

[swampwallaby]

its funny.

science , in all its glory *sic*, has still not been able to prove that God DOESNT exist.

too many people are arguing about whether we have proof of God , well i ask, do you have any proof he isnt there?

How do you prove that something non-existant, doesn't exist?

[Kmart23]

How do you prove that something non-existant, doesn't exist?

By there being no evidence to suggest otherwise. We have an abundance of evidence to prove that He does exist.

[Kmart23]

You interpret these as astronomical facts. I can easily and equally interpret these to mean nothing more than literary license and storytelling.

You can call it literary license and storytelling if you want. No problem, but the fact still stands that it is 100% scientifically accurate!

"Hanging on nothing" has equal description by other religions such as elephants holding up the earth on a turtle's back. You see things only as YOU want to see them.

'hanging the earth upon nothing' is a world of difference to being held up by elephants. Why? Because the earth IS 'hanging upon nothing' and the only elephants I have ever seen are in the zoo.

I say that YOU, Glenski see things only as YOU want to see them. To say that a perfectly accurate description is in any way similar to a false story is using no common sense and reasoning. You are not being sensible and your view is being clouded by your refusal to accept even this simple fact.

[swampwallaby]

I'm tripping over all the negatives and double negatives here; but hangon,

My point is the whole of creation has been attributed to God in the past, but this has been continuously eroded by scientific understanding of natural processes.

My point is that scientists don't attempt to demonstrate the existance of something that doesn't exist.

Scientists don't NEED God as a factor in their equations or theories.


Why is God never mentioned in all of the scientific literature ?