Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Neoteny]

It's like a reunion in here...

[silvanricky]

WM

Well I am still waiting for you to actually make the case FOR Creationism rather than simply argue against evolution - note that disproving evolution does not prove creationism

Although to be honest I can't say that I could prove the case for either view.

[comic boy]

WM

Well I am still waiting for you to actually make the case FOR Creationism rather than simply argue against evolution - note that disproving evolution does not prove creationism

Although to be honest I can't say that I could prove the case for either view.

The best we can do is argue the case of probability !
In a thread titled ' Comparing each view ' one would expect comparison rather than simply discussion of evolution, rather gives the game away as to which is most probable

[AlgyTaylor]

Wow! I don't bother reading the forum for a couple of months and this topic's still on the 1st page!

This is always going to be a tricky topic - not because it's hard to argue a case for evolution, just because the case in favour of creationism seems to revolve around "I believe it so therefore it's true".

There's a number of creation myths in the world. I assume that most of the creationists here are fundamentalist Christian ones, so the first question would be - why is the Abrahamic creationism story being favoured over other, equally plausible, creation stories? Surely, by your reasoning, we should also give equal presidence/exposure to the Bakuba's creation story.

In brief, they believe that one day Mbombo 'vomited' the universe (the sun, moon, earth etc) in to existence, then later vomited living things - such as man, trees, animals and soforth - in to life.

I mean, surely you must accept that this is also a possibility - that humans are not made in god's image.

Secondly - suppose for the moment that triangles had a god. Would they not imagine god to be three sided?

[mybike_yourface]

Lewis Black sums it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4

[DaGip]

The truth!!
<mod edit>

[WidowMakers]

FYI

Hello everyone. Just to let you know my basement flooded today and my computer might be dead. I don't know yet if the hard drives are working but if they are not ALL of my stuff is gone. So it might be a long time until I actually do anything in regards to the maps, posting or anything else (even if the computer is ok)

Just wanted to let everyone know.

Thanks
WM

P.S. I will still try to get to my games and answer PM's as much as possible.

[Neoteny]

Wow, that sucks. Good luck with that. Hope everything works out well for you.

[MeDeFe]

Even a flooded harddrive can be saved if you get an expert on it.

[AlgyTaylor]

All the best WM, hope your hard drive etc is ok

[Backglass]

Lewis Black sums it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4

Brilliant. I have tickets to see him in two weeks in Vegas.

Can't wait!

[PLAYER57832]

there is a surprising amount of evidence for evolution once u start studying about it...

Ah, but see, that requires considering the highly biased views of scientists, who's whole purpose is to discredit Christianity. That is why home schooling is so very important! Have to make sure they get the RIGHT information! At least until all our school boards can be made to see real reason!

Anyone who thinks differently, is just obviously not reading the Bible well enough !


Maybe I am being a bit harsh. A post in CC won't have much impact in the greater world, and, as such, is easy to just let pass. The problem is, we are now encountering just this debate in our local school board ... and THAT is something else entirely. When you refuse to distinguish between what constitutes REAL, verifiable proof (note, I am NOT talking about the theories, I am talking about the FACTUAL bases for those theories! -- things like tree rings, Carbon 14 dating, fossils, etc. etc. etc. etc etc etc.) When you put theories with which you disagree under a minute microscope -- claiming that even the most minor possible "problem" (real or imagined) refutes the entire field ... you pass the line of free thought into plain falsehood.

when you try to say that MY son has to learn these falsehoods because you can't be bothered or DON"T LIKE the conclusions -- you cross the line. No, granted, Widow, you are not personally the one bringing this up to our school board, but here is the thing. I have had this discussion with many MANY folks in college -- folks who decided to pursue biology, naively thinking, as do you, that they could just refute all this supposed "evidence", and found instead that this supposed "fairy tale" of evolution is actualy based on real, credible evidence. I have helped them through faith crisis after faith crisis, because to me, there IS no conflict.

Know what? this whole debate would puzzle Jesus no end. The REAL truth is that this is a debate created in modern times by Christians. God created the Earth and all within it, but how he did it is not specifically addressed. The Bible says that God created the earth in seven "days", yes, but days in a way that means a block of time, not specifically one revolution of the earth.

The REAL truth is that the ONLY people who believe in this supposed "creationist" view are those who have not actually learned about REAL evolutionary theory. This, I am sorry to say, is really what your thread and "evidence" truly show.

But then, I am just another one of those highly biased, anti Christian scientists -- never mind what my church or GOD say on the matter!

[Neoteny]

there is a surprising amount of evidence for evolution once u start studying about it...

Ah, but see, that requires considering the highly biased views of scientists, who's whole purpose is to discredit Christianity. That is why home schooling is so very important! Have to make sure they get the RIGHT information! At least until all our school boards can be made to see real reason!

Anyone who thinks differently, is just obviously not reading the Bible well enough !


Maybe I am being a bit harsh. A post in CC won't have much impact in the greater world, and, as such, is easy to just let pass. The problem is, we are now encountering just this debate in our local school board ... and THAT is something else entirely. When you refuse to distinguish between what constitutes REAL, verifiable proof (note, I am NOT talking about the theories, I am talking about the FACTUAL bases for those theories! -- things like tree rings, Carbon 14 dating, fossils, etc. etc. etc. etc etc etc.) When you put theories with which you disagree under a minute microscope -- claiming that even the most minor possible "problem" (real or imagined) refutes the entire field ... you pass the line of free thought into plain falsehood.

when you try to say that MY son has to learn these falsehoods because you can't be bothered or DON"T LIKE the conclusions -- you cross the line. No, granted, Widow, you are not personally the one bringing this up to our school board, but here is the thing. I have had this discussion with many MANY folks in college -- folks who decided to pursue biology, naively thinking, as do you, that they could just refute all this supposed "evidence", and found instead that this supposed "fairy tale" of evolution is actualy based on real, credible evidence. I have helped them through faith crisis after faith crisis, because to me, there IS no conflict.

Know what? this whole debate would puzzle Jesus no end. The REAL truth is that this is a debate created in modern times by Christians. God created the Earth and all within it, but how he did it is not specifically addressed. The Bible says that God created the earth in seven "days", yes, but days in a way that means a block of time, not specifically one revolution of the earth.

The REAL truth is that the ONLY people who believe in this supposed "creationist" view are those who have not actually learned about REAL evolutionary theory. This, I am sorry to say, is really what your thread and "evidence" truly show.

But then, I am just another one of those highly biased, anti Christian scientists -- never mind what my church or GOD say on the matter!

You are a very emphatic individual. May I ask what science are you involved in?

[PLAYER57832]

Biology

[Neoteny]

Biology

Indeed.

[tzor]

This debate reminds me of a quote attributed to Galileo, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." While he was working with a model (and a very flawed one that at; no model that used circular orbits could predict anything without being insanely complex) of the sun and planets, the same can be said about the creation of the universe.

Ignoring the whole "scientific" angle of creationism, the theory is flat out wrong from a religious point of view. It becomes even more morally correct when it is attempted to gloss over scientific observations about the universe because it implies that when God made the universe God lied. God cannot lie, He cannot deceive nor can He be deceived. If God made a universe only a few thousands of years old then it would look like it, because he cannot deceive.

On the other hand this is not to say that athiests who use evolution to "prove" their case are any better from either a scientific point of view. The whole history of science is riddled with people who turned theory into dogma and were later proven wrong. Most theories were strongly attacked by the scientists who came before them. Even Galileo was attacked as much by scientific men as he was religious men.

Evolution cannot asnwer "why." No theory in science explains why. How, when and where, perhaps but why is the realm of philosophy.

[PLAYER57832]

tzor, you speak the truth. And a further truth is that Christ, while he created discord, was about truth. Those he condemned were not those outside the church, the synogogue, both those within. His greatest condemnation? Hypocrasy. What greater hypocrasy can there be than a denial of truth.

Lies are ALWAYS the purvue of the great deciever.

Now, I don't know your faith, but truth is truth no matter your beliefs. ALL of the great faiths have in some way reconciled themselves to the proved, scientific truth. (I use the term "great faiths" not to dismiss or exclude any, but because I cannot be certain that each and every faith can be so reconciled). The big exception? A group of Christians outsiders tend to call "fundamentalist", though that term is incorrect.

Earlier someone asked Widow to provide proof of Creationism. This is impossible. It is impossible to provide proof for widowmaker's sort of creationism because it is false, but also becuase it hinges upon DISBELIEVING, DISTRUSTING scientific proofs that are available.

Point out any disagreement and what is the answer? Either an obscur website that does NOT stand up to full and honest scrutiny ... or dismissal of the view as "biased".

When I tried to point out earlier that this isn't even a debate about Christian versus non-Christian, but that many Christians believe in both ... then I was told "sorry... that is off the subject", I am not addressing "theological evolution" (the first I heard that term, it is just plain evolution)

Widowmaker does not want a true open debate. Widowmaker has been taught that those narrow views are correct, has never been exposed in an honest way to what the vast majority of the world accept as reality. Widowmaker is naive enough to assume that all that is necessary therefore is to "show" us the "truth" and we will all agree. It is a mission. This thread shows, however, that Widowmaker unfortunately lacks the skills actually necessary to even come close to proving her thoughts. She has not been taught true scientific reasoning. She has been taught that it is all false and that we have all been lied to, that all Widowmaker has to do is to show us the trut and we will believe.

I welcome true open debate on ANYTHING, including creationism. But, there is no way to counter one who says "this is what the Bible says" ... and any disagreement is either an outright lie/distortion or a misunderstanding of the Bible.

It used to be that anything printed would have to find a publisher. There were always frauds, just plain incorrect information printed. And, they were/are discovered. With the internet, anyone can now create their own institute, "hire" 100 PhD's and set up a wonderful looking website that is truly nothing but air. I am not suggesting that these creationsit sites are quite that ephemeral, but they do not stand up to true scientific testing. Those that do more than cite the Bible and express opinions, that is.

tzor is also correct in saying that the Bible itself refutes this view. Apply this same kind of verbal literalism to later texts and you come up with some serious quandries. For example, just who are the "gods" and "sons of god". (from whom came giants) Who, exactly did Noah's sons marry .. or Adam's for that matter.

The Bible is truth, but it is God's truth condensed into words that we humans can understand. It was written in "pre scientific" times, for folks who were intelligent, but who had basic understandings of the universe unlike our own .. and yet, in many ways also like our own.

It is much like explaining death. If you are talking to a 4 year old about a grandmother who has died, most folks will try to talk about her no longer being here physically, but that some part goes on. Maybe there is talk of heaven, maybe you say "a part of her is here, inside you". Is that the truth? yes. Now, if you are talking to a teenager, you will also talk about the spirit going on (assuming you are Christian, that is), the body dying. You will likely also talk of some illness or other cause of the death. If you are a doctor, talking to other doctors, then you have to talk about brainwaves, heart stopping, etc., etc. ALL of those versions are the truth, yet they are not the same truth. So is the story of creation. God created all. He did so in steps, as outlined. We do not know how, precisely, just the order, just that he did it in steps.

We know that he is in control, all knowing, always here, in charge. We know that we should do things in steps, work and then rest, because god did it. We know that we are made in God's image, but not exactly waht that means. Go We can try to understand these concepts, but the difference is greater than the difference between the five year old and the doctor's understanding of death.

[Neoteny]

[MeDeFe]

I disagree with the knowledge and truth in the last two paragraphs, but apart from that I sincerely applaud you for a magnificient post, PLAYER57832.

[Carebian Knight]

tzor, you speak the truth. And a further truth is that Christ, while he created discord, was about truth. Those he condemned were not those outside the church, the synogogue, both those within. His greatest condemnation? Hypocrasy. What greater hypocrasy can there be than a denial of truth.

Lies are ALWAYS the purvue of the great deciever.

Now, I don't know your faith, but truth is truth no matter your beliefs. ALL of the great faiths have in some way reconciled themselves to the proved, scientific truth. (I use the term "great faiths" not to dismiss or exclude any, but because I cannot be certain that each and every faith can be so reconciled). The big exception? A group of Christians outsiders tend to call "fundamentalist", though that term is incorrect.

Earlier someone asked Widow to provide proof of Creationism. This is impossible. It is impossible to provide proof for widowmaker's sort of creationism because it is false, but also becuase it hinges upon DISBELIEVING, DISTRUSTING scientific proofs that are available.

Point out any disagreement and what is the answer? Either an obscur website that does NOT stand up to full and honest scrutiny ... or dismissal of the view as "biased".

When I tried to point out earlier that this isn't even a debate about Christian versus non-Christian, but that many Christians believe in both ... then I was told "sorry... that is off the subject", I am not addressing "theological evolution" (the first I heard that term, it is just plain evolution)

Widowmaker does not want a true open debate. Widowmaker has been taught that those narrow views are correct, has never been exposed in an honest way to what the vast majority of the world accept as reality. Widowmaker is naive enough to assume that all that is necessary therefore is to "show" us the "truth" and we will all agree. It is a mission. This thread shows, however, that Widowmaker unfortunately lacks the skills actually necessary to even come close to proving her thoughts. She has not been taught true scientific reasoning. She has been taught that it is all false and that we have all been lied to, that all Widowmaker has to do is to show us the trut and we will believe.

I welcome true open debate on ANYTHING, including creationism. But, there is no way to counter one who says "this is what the Bible says" ... and any disagreement is either an outright lie/distortion or a misunderstanding of the Bible.

It used to be that anything printed would have to find a publisher. There were always frauds, just plain incorrect information printed. And, they were/are discovered. With the internet, anyone can now create their own institute, "hire" 100 PhD's and set up a wonderful looking website that is truly nothing but air. I am not suggesting that these creationsit sites are quite that ephemeral, but they do not stand up to true scientific testing. Those that do more than cite the Bible and express opinions, that is.

tzor is also correct in saying that the Bible itself refutes this view. Apply this same kind of verbal literalism to later texts and you come up with some serious quandries. For example, just who are the "gods" and "sons of god". (from whom came giants) Who, exactly did Noah's sons marry .. or Adam's for that matter.

The Bible is truth, but it is God's truth condensed into words that we humans can understand. It was written in "pre scientific" times, for folks who were intelligent, but who had basic understandings of the universe unlike our own .. and yet, in many ways also like our own.

It is much like explaining death. If you are talking to a 4 year old about a grandmother who has died, most folks will try to talk about her no longer being here physically, but that some part goes on. Maybe there is talk of heaven, maybe you say "a part of her is here, inside you". Is that the truth? yes. Now, if you are talking to a teenager, you will also talk about the spirit going on (assuming you are Christian, that is), the body dying. You will likely also talk of some illness or other cause of the death. If you are a doctor, talking to other doctors, then you have to talk about brainwaves, heart stopping, etc., etc. ALL of those versions are the truth, yet they are not the same truth. So is the story of creation. God created all. He did so in steps, as outlined. We do not know how, precisely, just the order, just that he did it in steps.

We know that he is in control, all knowing, always here, in charge. We know that we should do things in steps, work and then rest, because god did it. We know that we are made in God's image, but not exactly waht that means. Go We can try to understand these concepts, but the difference is greater than the difference between the five year old and the doctor's understanding of death.

If I wanted to use up hours of my time again, I would point out the lies/distortions in your post. But since I no longer have the time for that, I will point out only one. Noah's sons were married before the great flood, again, please know where we are coming from. I'm not a science major or anything, but I still have the general understanding of the subject and quite a few people, not including you Player I don't know you well enough, don't know even the most well known stories in the bible which means their views are narrowed to only what they were taught by science, they haven't had the chance to see the other side of the argument.

[Carebian Knight]

Sorry Player, I didn't read the last two paragraphs. Are you a christian? Or are you exactly the person I've been trying to find that literally knows both sides?

[PLAYER57832]

I am a Christian, and a biologist, though I would not claim to be an "expert" in either .. nor do I think it is possible. There is just too much out there to know. But, I will also say that roughly 80% of those with whom I have worked fall into the same category, with some variation in either church or biological understanding. We have largely remained a silent majority, because, to be frank we thought this a battle already fought and won. Also, we tend to be a pretty tolerant lot, uncomfortable with challanging someone's personal religion. However, tolerance ends when you insist that I must allow my child to be taught that truth is not, in fact, truth ... and that only the most literal, narrow interpretation of the Bible is "allowable".

As for Noah's sons. I have heard that interpretation .. that his sons were married prior, but the Bible seems to indicate otherwise. And, it does not answer who Adam's sons .. and daughters married. (some suggest they married each other... ). At any rate, my point was just that if you feel the whole Bible must be taken with an exact literalism, then you must do so for the whole text. I also feel you should be sure you are using the most accurate translation. Note, all translations bear the basic truths, but when you start getting into minutae, then translation matters. The great wonder of the Bible is not that there are multiple translations, multiple views by different people reading the same words, but that so much has remained so very, very consistant throughout written time. I may well disagree with Widowmaker on some points, but we firmly agree on the most basic issues -- Christ died on the cross for our sins and God is in control. (for an extremely brief summary).

[Snorri1234]

As for Noah's sons. I have heard that interpretation .. that his sons were married prior, but the Bible seems to indicate otherwise. And, it does not answer who Adam's sons .. and daughters married. (

Or who the grandchildren of Noah married. Or any of the "lol incest" stuff that would result in mentally handicapped children and shit.

[Neoteny]

As for Noah's sons. I have heard that interpretation .. that his sons were married prior, but the Bible seems to indicate otherwise. And, it does not answer who Adam's sons .. and daughters married. (

Or who the grandchildren of Noah married. Or any of the "lol incest" stuff that would result in mentally handicapped children and shit.

Antennapaedia FTW

Technically not a recessive, but a humorous example of crazy genetics anyhow... ya'll get the idea... It's the first thing that came to my mind when I saw "lol incest"

[Neoteny]

I couldn't resist...