Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[SkepticThinker]

Well then you have completely misunderstood my intentions. I do not post to convince atheists of anything. I post to give those who are undecided about this issue the other side of the story.

For too long atheism has fed the notion that only an uneducated moron would fail to recognise evolution as the only explanation for how life apparently changed on this planet over time. The likes of Dawkins and his ilk have strutted about like peacocks, looking down their learned noses at anyone who dared to challenge their theory (or perhaps more correctly, their ego) and relinquish all claim to an Intelligent Designer.

The reason it's still a theory and not proven fact is because science has no substantive evidence for what they claim, apart from the imaginitive musings of their fellow atheists from the weak findings of their so called evidence. I call them out on it and ask for something real, not imagined to back up what they say. No one to date has provided anything close to real evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone happened steadily over time to result in all that we see on this planet.

Science ignores the more important question....how did life originate?

Answer that one and it explains the rest. No mysteries, no unanswered questions....except the one you pose. We don't know what the Creator is because it is beyond man's present capacity to comprehend this incredible "first cause" of everything. But who knows, we may in the future, (as we regain lost mental capacity,) understand a lot more about this person we call "God".....?
I look forward to such a time.

Atheism and evolution are not synonymous. Many Christians around the world accept evolution. Of course, you already knew that though.

Science doesn't ignore the question of how life originated, not at all. That falls under a field of study called abiogenesis. Evolution does not deal with how life originated, as it deals with the diversification of life after it was already here. Just like gravitational theory doesn't deal with how life originated. Every scientific theory does not explain every single thing in the world. But again, you already knew all that.

 

[Sapiens]

I never did homework.

Somehow that comes as no surprise.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no doubt that we went from point a to point b, this is universally agreed to. There is discussion on the exact route, the shoes we wore, the color of our jacket, etc. Creationists try to impeach the journey by pointing to disagreements about where we crossed the street. How droll, indeed.

Saying "It happened....we just don't know how it occurs or what starts it", isn't very encouraging.

You may call it an "argument from incredulity," but actually, stating that functional complexity has an intelligent source, is an argument based on experience and observation. Other fields of science -- archaeology, etc. -- accept that (it's the scientific method) ....except biology and it's supporting theories.

 

[Sapiens]

Saying "It happened....we just don't know how it occurs or what starts it", isn't very encouraging.

You may call it an "argument from incredulity," but actually, stating that functional complexity has an intelligent source, is an argument based on experience and observation. Other fields of science -- archaeology, etc. -- accept that (it's the scientific method) ....except biology and it's supporting theories.

So you understand that Eden, Exodus, Jericho, and Noah's Ark (to cite a few) are fairy tales as shown by the scientific method, especially in archeology (not to mention common sense); but ... you have trouble understanding biology in the same light?

 

[cladking]

Every scientific theory does not explain every single thing in the world.

Science takes things apart for study and then forgets that every single thing in reality is affected by everything else. Science doesn't even understand the nature of consciousness and then forgets that every single individual that has ever existed was conscious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Saying "It happened....we just don't know how it occurs or what starts it", isn't very encouraging.

You may call it an "argument from incredulity," but actually, stating that functional complexity has an intelligent source, is an argument based on experience and observation. Other fields of science -- archaeology, etc. -- accept that (it's the scientific method) ....except biology and it's supporting theories.

You are of course wrong again. But then you are using undefined terms so that alone shoots down your argument. We know how new traits are added to the genome. And the problems of abiogenesis are being answered, unlike your belief in magic. You have no explanation besides "goddidit". But thank you for tacitly admitting that the theory of evolution is correct. Attempting to move the goal posts, as you just did, is an admission that you can't deal with the topic at hand.

I will always gladly discuss abiogenesis with an evolution denier. That is once they admit that life is the product of evolution. They first need to face that fact that they have admitted defeat by attempting to change the subject. If they can show just that much honesty there is a small chance that they will let themselves learn.

 

[Sapiens]

Science takes things apart for study and then forgets that every single thing in reality is affected by everything else. Science doesn't even understand the nature of consciousness and then forgets that every single individual that has ever existed was conscious.

BALDERDASH! The very term "Butterfly Effect" is a scientific one, coined as: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? This is an expression that is widespread in science and contradicts your premise. A butterfly flapping its wings has remained constant in the expression of this concept though the location of the butterfly, the consequences, and the location of the consequences have varied widely.

 

[cladking]

BALDERDASH! The very term "Butterfly Effect" is a scientific one, coined as: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? This is an expression that is widespread in science and contradicts your premise. A butterfly flapping its wings has remained constant in the expression of this concept though the location of the butterfly, the consequences, and the location of the consequences have varied widely.

You are mistaken. The butterfly is in China and it causes a hurricane. But more importantly this is a description of chaos theory and not the fact that science is disjointed in describing reality. Chaos theory says why we will never be able to predict the small scale or the long term.

Reality doesn't come apart as we engineer it in the lab. Reality takes place out in the open where everything affects it and this is part of the reason that evolution is poorly understood; it can't take place in the lab because the lab isn't billions of years old.

 

[Sapiens]

You are mistaken. The butterfly is in China and it causes a hurricane.

Just one more example of the surety with which you present erroneous data.

The idea that a minor event could have a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent historic events was featured in "A Sound of Thunder", a short story by Ray Bradbury about time travel published in the early 1950s. The exact phrase appears in a 1972 paper by Lorenz.

But more importantly this is a description of chaos theory and not the fact that science is disjointed in describing reality. Chaos theory says why we will never be able to predict the small scale or the long term.

Reality doesn't come apart as we engineer it in the lab. Reality takes place out in the open where everything affects it and this is part of the reason that evolution is poorly understood; it can't take place in the lab because the lab isn't billions of years old.

The phrase has become a commonly used meme to describe how minor changes can cause and foreshadow major events, overpowering its use in chaos theory.

You seem to have as much trouble understanding chaos theory as you do evolutionary theory.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

You are of course wrong again. But then you are using undefined terms so that alone shoots down your argument. We know how new traits are added to the genome. And the problems of abiogenesis are being answered, unlike your belief in magic. You have no explanation besides "goddidit". But thank you for tacitly admitting that the theory of evolution is correct. Attempting to move the goal posts, as you just did, is an admission that you can't deal with the topic at hand.

I will always gladly discuss abiogenesis with an evolution denier. That is once they admit that life is the product of evolution. They first need to face that fact that they have admitted defeat by attempting to change the subject. If they can show just that much honesty there is a small chance that they will let themselves learn.

For starters life isn't the product of evolution. Evolution is a product of life. When you understand that I will be glad to teach you more.

 

[metis]

For starters life isn't the product of evolution. Evolution is a product of life. When you understand that I will be glad to teach you more.

Since you're so certain of that, please present your objectively-derived evidence to support that position.

BTW, "A Man Called Horse" is one of my all-time favorite movies.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Since you're so certain of that, please present your objectively-derived evidence to support that position.

BTW, "A Man Called Horse" is one of my all-time favorite movies.

When discussion evolution here we are discussing biological evolution.
Define evolution and then decide whether or not evolution can happen before life. Then decide whether life is the product of evolution or is evolution is a product of life.

Yes great movie. I have it on VHS, DVD and Blueray.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For starters life isn't the product of evolution. Evolution is a product of life. When you understand that I will be glad to teach you more.

When you can understand a conversation I will gladly help you to learn.

 

[metis]

When discussion evolution here we are discussing biological evolution.
Define evolution and then decide whether or not evolution can happen before life. Then decide whether life is the product of evolution or is evolution is a product of life.

You didn't provide any objective evidence that was asked for.

We do not know what first led to life forms, so I would suggest it's best to keep an open mind. A great many biologists believe it is at least hypothetically possible that the right combination of matter and energy combined, thus leading to basic elements to form life.

Now I have no idea if that's what happened, nor do I have any idea of there's a theistic cause, so I'm not going out on a limb one way or the other.

 

[metis]

Yes great movie. I have it on VHS, DVD and Blueray.

Not exactly the same, but I was playing the soundtrack from "Dances With Wolves" this afternoon, which is also one of my favorites. But I admit I have a bias with three of my four grandparents being Me'tis, even though I didn't grow up in "the tradition of the elders".

 

[cladking]

Since you're so certain of that, please present your objectively-derived evidence to support that position.

BTW, "A Man Called Horse" is one of my all-time favorite movies.

It's a good movie... ...great post.

Yes! Life causes evolution. Consciousness and behavior are life and evolution. What we call "science" got it wrong. Darwin was completely wrong.

 

[Deeje]

I think you mean atheists and theists who believe in evolution don't you? Belief in evolution by religious tradition

From God's perspective, they are one and the same. God is the Creator and he detailed his creative activities in Genesis and had Moses record them for our benefit. There is much detail in Genesis that was beyond men's knowledge at the time. The fact that the earth was at first "formless and waste", covered in water and blanketed in clouds.....the order of creation which begins with sentient creatures in the oceans and winged creatures in the air....and finishes with the creation of man. How could the writer of Genesis know these things?

To call Genesis a myth is to call the Creator a liar. He takes a very dim view of people who do that if you remember that it was that kind of slander that got mankind in trouble in the first place. We are not free to dismiss what the Creator says just because it may paint us as more enlightened in the eyes of men to call it myth. Either God created all that he said he did...or he didn't.

And theism as represented by an awful lot of theists as per the link above.

You think God sees a difference? I don't....I see a bunch of people who have sold out to save face, or have tried to have a foot in both camps. It will not end well for them IMO.

Everybody take a good look at how Deeje constantly singles out atheists as the bad guys and then take a look at the statistics I posted in the beginning where for example 28% of Mainline Protestants (THEISTS) believe humans evolved over time due to natural processes. Why does she have it in for atheists and simply doesn't mention all the theists who also believe in evolution?

I hope you get the picture. It doesn't mean diddly what you call yourself...at the final judgment, Jesus rejects all who claim him as their "Lord" but who do not do "the will of the Father". (Matthew 7:21-23) Do you honestly believe that he will acknowledge those who deny God's word just to save face with men? Jesus says he never recognized people like that.

And for those who want even more detail, you will find an awful lot of detailed information in the Urantia Book. Home | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

"21:0.1 (234.1) THE Creator Sons are the makers and rulers of the local universes of time and space. These universe creators and sovereigns are of dual origin, embodying the characteristics of God the Father and God the Son. But each Creator Son is different from every other; each is unique in nature as well as in personality; each is the “only-begotten Son” of the perfect deity ideal of his origin." Paper 21 - The Paradise Creator Sons | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

Do you subscribe to this elaboration on the word of God? You don't identify with Urantia and its writings yet you want to promote things that have added to scripture? We are told not to do that. Your choice of course....

We are all free to believe whatever we like....

 

[Deeje]

Trying to show and explain science to Jehovah's Witnesses is like offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew.

Or plain logic to an evolutionist. Design is seen in nature in a multitude of ways. Purpose is demonstrated in the behavior and function of so many creatures.....and yet scientists claim that it is all one colossal fluke ( or rather a series of billions of flukes) with no intelligent direction required in any of it.

Evolutionists reject one supposed 'fairy tale' only to replace it with something equally unprovable....pick your fairy tale.....I think mine makes much more sense upon examination. You can think whatever you like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From God's perspective, they are one and the same. God is the Creator and he detailed his creative activities in Genesis and had Moses record them for our benefit. There is much detail in Genesis that was beyond men's knowledge at the time. The fact that the earth was at first "formless and waste", covered in water and blanketed in clouds.....the order of creation which begins with sentient creatures in the oceans and winged creatures in the air....and finishes with the creation of man. How could the writer of Genesis know these things?

To call Genesis a myth is to call the Creator a liar. He takes a very dim view of people who do that if you remember that it was that kind of slander that got mankind in trouble in the first place. We are not free to dismiss what the Creator says just because it may paint us as more enlightened in the eyes of men to call it myth. Either God created all that he said he did...or he didn't.

You have that backwards. To claim that Genesis is true is to call God a liar. The evidence for evolution and other sciences is overwhelming. The only way that that evidence could have gotten their with your myths is if your version of God planted that evidence on purpose. In other words, you are calling God a liar.

And you are merely reinterpreting Genesis after the fact. If you read the Bible literally it describes a flat fixed Earth at the center of the universe with a hard "firmament" over it. Yet you readily reject all of those errors.

You think God sees a difference? I don't....I see a bunch of people who have sold out to save face, or have tried to have a foot in both camps. It will not end well for them IMO.

Actually you see a bunch of people with faith much stronger than you have. They are not willing to call God a liar and realize that the Bible does not claim that it is literally true. It never makes that claim.

I hope you get the picture. It doesn't mean diddly what you call yourself...at the final judgment, Jesus rejects all who claim him as their "Lord" but who do not do "the will of the Father". (Matthew 7:21-23) Do you honestly believe that he will acknowledge those who deny God's word just to save face with men? Jesus says he never recognized people like that.

So you are saying that Jesus will reject you? That is not wise on your part.

Do you subscribe to this elaboration on the word of God? You don't identify with Urantia and its writings yet you want to promote things that have added to scripture? We are told not to do that. Your choice of course....

We are all free to believe whatever we like....

As we can see from your outrageous beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or plain logic to an evolutionist. Design is seen in nature in a multitude of ways. Purpose is demonstrated in the behavior and function of so many creatures.....and yet scientists claim that it is all one colossal fluke ( or rather a series of billions of flukes) with no intelligent direction required in any of it.

Evolutionists reject one supposed 'fairy tale' only to replace it with something equally unprovable....pick your fairy tale.....I think mine makes much more sense upon examination. You can think whatever you like.

Faith is your weakness. Evolution is testable. It can be falsified. It has not been after millions of trials. Tell me, what reasonable test would show your beliefs to be wrong if they are wrong?