Creation and Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

It means that things become old news because people repeat them and people repeat them because they're true. With me now?

With you now, Sighold.

Tim, please pardon us for being ill-mannered toward creationism, but it doesn't appear that you have gone to much trouble to explain to us why you expect us to think it's anything but a crock of s**t. You've pointed out shortcomings in evolutionary theory, both real and perceived, but you're still talking about evolution. Our contempt for creationism, then, is justified. Put up, or shut up. Period.

I don't have to! Who said my Christian faith depends upon creationism? My faith started out with the biographies of Jesus Christ and continues with the signs and wonders he has made available. Jesus my Lord respects Genesis and on that basis, so do I. I know that's going to frustrate the dickens out of you, that you can't put me on the defensive, but that's the way it is. BTW, I'm a Methodist.

What I have been doing is showing that the evolution fed impressionable children is not so sure as the Humanists portray it. I was once a Humanist, but I dumped it because of the logical flaws in it. And that was before I ever considered Christianity.

What is the Humanists' agenda? Depends upon the group. To the Nazi Humanists, "the good of Humanity" is eugenics by concentration camp. To the Marxist Humanists, "the good of Humanity" is equality by dictatorship of the global proletariat. For the scientific Materialist Humanists, "the good of Humanity" is getting human genes off this very vulnerable planet before a big meteor hits. It looks like the Scientific Materialists are losing. Which wonderful, hopeful utopia are you looking forward to?

To Elemental, is the calibration of the Potassium-argon dating method the same as the carbon 14 method? Is the proportions of potassium to argon in the beginning known? Is it knowable?

you seem to be confused.


you say that jesus respect the old testament and respect genesis......jesus was a jew, it was his religion...he didn't respect it...he lived it, he followed it because that was his law. he redefined the parts of the laws that were wrong but never set out to create a new religion, that was done through the working of his followers after he died then re-died/disappeared/rose to outer space.


quit talking like as if jesus wasn't jewish and quit acting like as if we're morons who don't comprehend that fact.

You sure can harvest a load of "offense" from such a modicum of information. Jesus did respect it, too. I guess you are trying to distract from my point. Are you frustrated about it, too?

No, this doesn't frustrate me at all. I was raised Methodist, myself, and I understand your underlying point of view. When you talk about "competing theories," however, you put yourself under some obligation to defend their validity. What actually does annoy me is that you seem to consider us "on the defensive." When you approach the issue with this mentality, it appears to me that you have a hostile attitude toward evolutionary theory and toward those who see the sense in it.

The theory is actually very well-supported by the empirical sciences, though. It's really a pretty natural conclusion.

I tend to be more ecumenical, myself.

I still want that exoskeleton. One step at a time, though. Dude, you're really twisted. Get help.

You sure can harvest a load of "offense" from such a modicum of information. Jesus did respect it, too. I guess you are trying to distract from my point. Are you frustrated about it, too?[/quote

no, it's just the second time you've mention jesus respecting the old testament as if he were christian and the new testament was already written. which those books never saw written form until roughly 50 years after jesus died at earliest...i forget which gospel book it was...i think john was the last actually committed to writing.

it just strikes me as if you're putting down the old testament (and more so the jewish faith) and acting like as if jesus was a born again christian like you are rather than the radical jew looking to redefine jewish law like he was. really, i think i hold jesus in higher respects than you do.

No. I'm looking more at the assumption that what holds today always held, unless shown differently. That reality is consistent with what it appears to be. Essentially, that everything IS explainable, in some fundamental way, even if we don't have the explanation. I doubt that this is the case - and religion seems to embrace that doubt. Science is just beginning to do so. Any mature faith must.

It's the simplest possible assumption. With no other grounds on which to measure data, it shouldn't be assumed that matters changed unless there is evidence that they did so.

This assumption isn't made. In fact, this is why theories have to be tested.

No, modern scientific method is just a piece of software designed for gathering and sorting data into feasible conclusions. Science, itself, is any deliberated effort at gaining knowledge, which is a perfectly natural behavior demonstrated in the antics of a marmoset. It isn't necessary for the scientist to believe that everything is explainable. It doesn't matter what the scientist thinks. All that matters is what the scientist does.

I don't really have any investment in your faith, one way or the other. Believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you want, I'm cool with it.

What I do object to is faith being used to override science. The two have nothing to do with each other. I cannot prove God exists, and I cannot prove he does not exist. Therefore, whether he exists or not, God is unscientific, so faith in God is not relevant to a scientific debate.

Since your position does not and cannot have any evidence, it cannot be measured alongside a scientific one. You might as well try to compare "diagonally" and "purple".



As I keep on saying, all scientific theories are unsure (if they were completely certain, they would be faith instead of science). The theory of gravity has been revised since Newton discovered it, but nobody fell off the planet.

And I see you're still refusing to acknowledge that many scientists have been devoutly religious, instead of part of the Communo-Fascist Atheist-Humanist Conspiracy. For another interesting example which you'll probably skim over, Vedic Mathematics.

Lastly, are you really trying to argue that religion has a better track record in not indoctrinating children than science does?



You know what? I could rebut that, but it's so self-evidently stupid that it would be too much effort. I mean, your misunderstandings are so profound that it'd require going over the history of Nazism, Communism, eugenics and humanism, just to start.

Produce some evidence for this grand Communo-Fascist Atheist-Humanist (I love typing that phrase) conspiracy.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_argon_dating

It's like radiocarbon dating, but much more reliable over long timespans. Since you read the link I provided in the last post, you'll be familiar with why your argument that these types of dating are circular is provably false....right? An interesting general dissertation on the age of the Earth can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Religion may be about high-bound belief for belief's sake, and pretending to know things for a fact through faith, but science is not the same way. Science is supposed to be about struggling towards the truth. As new evidence comes about, our understanding of the world is refined. A religious man says "God in fact exists" but a scientist says "There's a current strong and widely accepted theory that (insert scientific theory here)."

Faith is only 'required' for the types of people who are afraid to not know something for a fact. You only need to see the next 20 feet of road ahead of you at a time to make it in a long car ride at night, anyway.

I'm sorry. Did I hurt your feelings? What do "feelings" have to do with an intellectual debate?

The Humanist religion vitally depends upon their theory of evolution to be accepted to be truth. The Christians don't need any of the theories of creationism to be true for Jesus to still be our Lord and savior. Thus the burden of proof falls on the Humanists.

Unfortunately, the Humanists have the bigger megaphone, controlling the news media and dominating the schools. They frame the debate so that they seem to be on the winning offensive against the stupid Christians who can only ineffectually defend their position. I hate liars. And I won't use that silly liberal argument of being "offended."

They accuse us of the very things they are guilty of, to steal our moral thunder. For example, this business of accusing the Christians of circular reasoning in carbon 14 dating. But carbon 14 dating is based upon circular reasoning. So I'm judged guilty until proven innocent before I can point the finger of guilt where it truly belongs?!? Word games. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I've not been able to keep up with you guys for all the stuff I'm involved with. Christian charity takes priority.

But empirical science is based upon statistics and believing beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike experimental science. Your great "support" depends upon the faithful all singing in harmony.


Your insult is duly noted and ignored. My policy is to go along with Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He's been right so far.

Which? Political conclusions could be drawn from either; the motivation of the points of view probably varies somewhat, and is distinct from the ways in which the point of view itself may be a motivating factor.

As a future geologist, I am inclined to believe in Darwinism.

Tim

maybe it's time someone looked past the evolution and creationism ideals i find the myth of creation laughable the idea that a god created everything is just absurd to me, im surprised anyone of logical mind or high I.Q could believe in god, its pure fantasy like Elves out of LOTR and such story books. sorry if iv offended anyone i mean not too but darwinism and evolution also seem absurd yes yes there are "proven" points most likely artificial constructs but dinosaurs did exist maybe not as long ago as scientists believe. how such intelluectual people came up with the idea of monkeys becoming human i will never understand. i must agree though evolutionism seems the most plausible and so i will agree with those that have said evolution is the truth to our descendence.
we will never know unless someone builds a time machine and i hope they manage it in my life time.

Not all scientists are humanists. I recall saying that a few times already, and citing evidence that you have failed to contradict. Of course, you've steadfastly ignored all uncomfortable evidence so far, but at least I can make sure that nobody else reading this thread takes your conspiracy theories for truth. Besides, I want to see how far out your theories about the evil humanists will get.

As I have stated before, religious faith and science are fundamentally incompatible. They simply do not work on the same critieria, so one cannot be relevant to the other in a debate. To extend the earlier metaphor, I might as well use the fact that you make purple from mixing blue and red to disprove that diagonal lines progress on two axes.



Ah yes, damn the vile Nazi-Marxist alliance! And of course, since they control the media, you can't produce any actual evidence for your arguments (it's not that they're wrong or anything!). This is no different from the people who rant about how the Jews secretly control finance and the media.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#Circularity

I posted this very specific rebuttal of your argument once before, but you appear to ignore anything that contradicts your own convictions.

And Christianity was polled as having 2.1 billion believers (just under 1 in 3 of the global population), as of six years ago. You are not an oppressed minority.



So, if scientists debate the specifics of evolution, it proves that it's riddled with uncertainty. If they agree (you seem unable to decide what you think it is) it proves that they're just sheep.

Which one of us was using circular logic, again?

Last edited by Elemental on 16 Apr 2007, 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.