An unreasonable debate...

[rusra02]

Perhaps. But the problem with this is that if Creationists believed this they would no longer be Creationists. Because I'm sure that in the Bible it says that God created the world in 5 days (or was it 6 or 7?), and evolution happens over an extremely long period of time.
So yeah, they are incompatible

You are incorrectly lumping anyone who believes in Creation into the term "creationist". I believe in Creation, but I do not believe the Bible teaches that God created the earth in six 24-hour days, nor that the earth is only 10k years old. I do agree that evolution and creation are incompatible. Millions of others believe as I do, and we reject the term creationists, because we do not agree with YECs unscriptural ideas.

 

[Sir_Loin]

You are incorrectly lumping anyone who believes in Creation into the term "creationist". I believe in Creation, but I do not believe the Bible teaches that God created the earth in six 24-hour days, nor that the earth is only 10k years old. I do agree that evolution and creation are incompatible. Millions of others believe as I do, and we reject the term creationists, because we do not agree with YECs unscriptural ideas.

Do you believe that God created the universe? I'm not quite understanding you..
You say you believe in Creation, which is the belief in that God created the "heavens and the earth" in 6 days. That's what Creation is supposed to be. If you believe that God created everything but don't believe he did it in 6 days then you have a modified Creationist view.

 

[rusra02]

You missed my point. A theory could be *extremely well established emprically* and it will still be a theory. It doesn't turn into a fact because facts are not explanatory models and theories ARE. Something being a theory has nothing to say about whether or not it has a lot of empirical evidence or not.

Richard Dawkins asserts that "EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” I don't know anyone who would argue the Sun is not hot. But many people, including prominent scientists, argue that the empirical evidence for evolution is unconvincing. So, when is a "Fact" not a fact? When it is presented as proven, when, (in fact), it is not. Asserting that an unproven theory is fact is propaganda, the big lie, not fact, IMO, as is calling the variety in closely related living things "evolution".

 

[Looncall]

I appreciate your comments. I don't agree that all that believers in Creation have is the Bible. I believe the scientific evidence for Creation is abundant. I also believe the scientific and academic communities have actively opposed any theory (such as ID) that doesn't fit their preconceived worldview. Such shameful and unscientific conduct has been documented and is available on the Internet and elsewhere, for those interested in knowing the facts.

Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy! Evidence at last! Please don't hesitate. Please show us this evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Richard Dawkins asserts that "EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” I don't know anyone who would argue the Sun is not hot. But many people, including prominent scientists, argue that the empirical evidence for evolution is unconvincing. So, when is a "Fact" not a fact? When it is presented as proven, when, (in fact), it is not. Asserting that an unproven theory is fact is propaganda, the big lie, not fact, IMO, as is calling the variety in closely related living things "evolution".

To be fair it isn't "Richard Dawkins" calling it fact. Its the whole of the scientific community that isn't religiously motivated to further their non-scientific agenda.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy! Evidence at last! Please don't hesitate. Please show us this evidence.

Creationism combats Evolution not by using evidence, but by using counter-evidence and finding a way to fault The Theory, that is, evolution.

EDIT: The strongest piece of evidence against Evolution have to be the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[rusra02]

Do you believe that God created the universe? I'm not quite understanding you..
You say you believe in Creation, which is the belief in that God created the "heavens and the earth" in 6 days. That's what Creation is supposed to be. If you believe that God created everything but don't believe he did it in 6 days then you have a modified Creationist view.

Yes, I believe God created the universe. The Bible puts no date on when this occurred. Genesis 1:1 simply states: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The six creative periods, called "days" in Genesis, were not 24 hours long. And the earth had already long existed when God began to prepare the earth for life, as Genesis 1:2 shows. Thus, what the Bible says accords with what science has discovered, that the universe had a beginning, and this occurred in the long distant past. Not all people who believe in Creation believe the same thing. That is one reason we reject the term Creationist. We believe creationists have brought disrepute upon the Bible with their unscriptural teachings.

 

[rusra02]

To be fair it isn't "Richard Dawkins" calling it fact. Its the whole of the scientific community that isn't religiously motivated to further their non-scientific agenda.

So your position is that anyone who challenges the ToE, for whatever evidential reason, is "religiously motivated to further their non-scientific agenda"? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Yes, I believe God created the universe. The Bible puts no date on when this occurred. Genesis 1:1 simply states: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The six creative periods, called "days" in Genesis, were not 24 hours long. And the earth had already long existed when God began to prepare the earth for life, as Genesis 1:2 shows. Thus, what the Bible says accords with what science has discovered, that the universe had a beginning, and this occurred in the long distant past. Not all people who believe in Creation believe the same thing. That is one reason we reject the term Creationist. We believe creationists have brought disrepute upon the Bible with their unscriptural teachings.

sigh

The Bible puts no date on when this occurred.

It says "In the beginning....". Implying the beginning of time. (You are right that we don't know when this was in terms of years-ago, but "in the beginning".

The six creative periods, called "days" in Genesis, were not 24 hours long.

What? A day is the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: This would have been the case when "God created" the earth.

And the earth had already long existed when God began to prepare the earth for life, as Genesis 1:2 shows.

I don't believe "long existed" is the correct word because you don't actually know what the interval between the two was. "Long existed" is hypocritical.

Thus, what the Bible says accords with what science has discovered, that the universe had a beginning, and this occurred in the long distant past.

Science didn't "discover" that the universe had a beginning, which occurred in the "long distance past".. Everything has to have a beginning in the first place. So it's only logical thinking.

Not all people who believe in Creation believe the same thing.

If you don't believe completely in a theory (or anything, in that respect) then you have no right to say that you believe in that theory..

We believe creationists have brought disrepute upon the Bible with their unscriptural teachings.

Please explain these un-scriptural teachings... I'm intrigued.

 

[Looncall]

Creationism combats Evolution not by using evidence, but by using counter-evidence and finding a way to fault The Theory, that is, evolution.

EDIT: The strongest piece of evidence against Evolution have to be the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Balderdash. If the TOE were found to be incorrect, that would provide no support for creationism. Creationism must provide its own evidence. There could be other explanations.

You have been conned by villains. Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.

 

[McBell]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.
Let me elaborate.

Evolution is a theory on how modern man came to be today- today meaning long ago, of course. Evolutionists (yes it's a word) believe in changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can create new species. Creationists (also a damn word for you etymological geniuses) believe that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

An Evolutionist and Creationist step up to the pulpit to debate their ideals.
We now have a predicament. The problem being that one is supporting their theory by examining the world around us and carrying out experiments to support this theory by finding old fossils and carrying out dating techniques such as carbon dating (Side note: Dating techniques aren't exactly accurate anyway) and what-not. This is the Evolutionist.
The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

Reasons why the "evolution vs creation" is a worthless 'debate':

1. evolution is fact, creation is wishful thinking.
2. creation is about the beginning of life, evolution is about how life changes
3. debunking evolution does not help creation

 

[McBell]

Creationism combats Evolution not by using evidence, but by using counter-evidence and finding a way to fault The Theory, that is, evolution.

EDIT: The strongest piece of evidence against Evolution have to be the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Ray?
Ray Comfort?
Is that you?

 

[McBell]

Balderdash. If the TOE were found to be incorrect, that would provide no support for creationism. Creationism must provide its own evidence. There could be other explanations.

You have been conned by villains. Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.

Sir_Loin has certainly been conned.
But I would not call him a villain.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.

How does it not? The First Law of Thermodynamics encompasses several principles one of them being the law of conservation of energy.

This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system does not change.

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed", therefore the universe could not have created itself, correct?

EDIT: I know, I know, Evolution is a biological process and I'm talking about origins, but just think about it this way.
We have established that the universe could not have created itself- that's absurd. So, the only other alternative would be a God. (Which also doesn't make sense, but to me makes more sense than a "Big Bang". If the only other alternative is a "God" then the Bible would be correct and Evolution could not have taken place.

P.S: I'm not denying Evolution, in fact, I believe that creatures adapt to their environment, but I don't agree with the claims of one-celled beings evolving into clever, "soul-containing", humans that we are.
Which brings up another question- what about a human's soul? Where could that have possibly come from?"

 

[rusra02]

sigh



It says "In the beginning....". Implying the beginning of time. (You are right that we don't know when this was in terms of years-ago, but "in the beginning".



What? A day is the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: This would have been the case when "God created" the earth.



I don't believe "long existed" is the correct word because you don't actually know what the interval between the two was. "Long existed" is hypocritical.



Science didn't "discover" that the universe had a beginning, which occurred in the "long distance past".. Everything has to have a beginning in the first place. So it's only logical thinking.



If you don't believe completely in a theory (or anything, in that respect) then you have no right to say that you believe in that theory..



Please explain these un-scriptural teachings... I'm intrigued.

People today use the term day in reference to periods other than 24 hours. "In my day, we didn't have the Internet." So does the Bible. For example, Genesis 2:4 states: "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Thus, the entire creative period is spoken of as a single day. The creative days are spoken of as an evening and a morning, not as a 24-hour period. (Genesis 1:4) I believe this indicates these periods lasted at least thousands of years, if not longer. The seventh "day" in Genesis is spoken of later in the Scriptures as continuing and ongoing, thousands of years after it's start. (Hebrews 4:3-9)

The teaching that God created the universe in six 24-hour days is unscriptural, or that God created the universe six to ten thousand years ago.

 

[rusra02]

How does it not? The First Law of Thermodynamics encompasses several principles one of them being the law of conservation of energy.

This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system does not change.

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed", therefore the universe could not have created itself, correct?

EDIT: don't quote me on this yet, I'm editing it

The problem is you are thinking for yourself, and not checking with the evolutionary orthodoxy for the correct way to think. One must not stray from the evolutionary path by thinking for oneself. How dare you think about the first law of thermodynamics, and (gasp) certainly not about the second law.

 

[McBell]

Which brings up another question- what about a human's soul? Where could that have possibly come from?"

First you will need to define "soul" in a meaningful and useful way.
Then you will need to show that this "soul" actually exists.

Then we can get into where it came from.

 

[McBell]

The problem is you are thinking for yourself, and not checking with the evolutionary orthodoxy for the correct way to think. One must not stray from the evolutionary path by thinking for oneself. How dare you think about the first law of thermodynamics, and (gasp) certainly not about the second law.

Your blatant hypocrisy is an excellent source of entertainment.

 

[McBell]

We have established that the universe could not have created itself

When was it "established" the universe was created?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So on the discussion of thermodynamics: evolution isn't about the origin of the universe and life defies entropy because it feeds off the free energy of our dying sun. Once the sun dies all life will end on this backwater rock.