• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution and Creation, are both wrong?

Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
CG Didymus said:
I'm watching Ken Ham's and Kent Hovind's Christian TV show about creation vs. evolution. They both make evolution sound stupid. Sorry, maybe I being stupid for naively believing them. Thanks for great input.
Click to expand...

Anybody can make anything sound stupid, to those who know nothing about the subject, and lack the curiosity to investigate. Those who try to make something sound stupid to those who understand the subject at hand only succeed in making themselves sound stupid. For the record, as someone who is fascinated by biology and reads a lot on the subject, I think Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are two of the stupidest people on earth, and I know for a fact that NOTHING they say on the subject of evolution is true. It can't withstand even the most casual scrutiny. I am confident that if you investigate the subject, you will find that I am not exaggerating.
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
ecologist88 said:
Ok evolution is a fact but the idea that there is no alternative is false becuase there are theories about aliens designing life, living in a computer similation, the indepedent origins theory described on the previous page about all life forms coming from chemical pools, directed panspermia, and also something called autochthonous generation ....
Click to expand...

Those alternatives, much like Creationism, are not Scientific Theories.
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
CG Didymus said:
I'm watching Ken Ham's and Kent Hovind's Christian TV show about creation vs. evolution. They both make evolution sound stupid...
Click to expand...
It is easy for those who have absolutely no understanding of biology, and who state in their mission statements that they will reject anything that disagrees with biblical literalism, to make biology "sound stupid".

Galileo was also mocked by biblical literalists with an agenda.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Evolution and Creation, are both wrong?
Click to expand...

Clearly birth, creation, and evolution/adaptation are concepts that represent real aspects of sentient existence, but the underlying ineffable source of all, imho, did not evolve, nor was it born, nor created.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
tumbleweed41 said:
Thus the disclaimer of 'creation ex nihilo'.

Let me help you along, that means creation out of nothing.
Click to expand...

Please read more carefully...from my original post....creation from..."the underlying ineffable source of all, imho, did not evolve, nor was it born, nor created."
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
ben d said:
To help you along..an example of creation,...new star systems are being created in the Galactic nebula all over the universe...
Click to expand...

tumbleweed41 said:
Thus the disclaimer of 'creation ex nihilo'.

Let me help you along, that means creation out of nothing.
Click to expand...

ben d said:
Please read more carefully...from my original post....creation from..."the underlying ineffable source of all, imho, did not evolve, nor was it born, nor created."
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
Come on ben d, review what was asked and answered.

ben d said:
Yes, can't you think of an example of birth, or creation, or adaptation taking place?
Click to expand...

tumbleweed41 said:
If we are talking creation as in 'creation ex nihilo', then no, I cannot think of a single example of creation.
Click to expand...
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
tumbleweed41 said:
:facepalm:
Come on ben d, review what was asked and answered.
Click to expand...

I have never mentioned 'creation ex nihilo', quite the opposite. Why do you think gnostic asked me the question he did?

Look, here is my original post....

ben d said:
Clearly birth, creation, and evolution/adaptation are concepts that represent real aspects of sentient existence, but the underlying ineffable source of all, imho, did not evolve, nor was it born, nor created.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you understand from my post that the 'birth, creation, and evolution' aspects of sentient existence were in the context of 'ex nihilo', and not the 'underlying ineffable source of all'?
 
Last edited:
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
ben d said:
If you don't know there is one, that's not a problem, cheers....
Click to expand...

Which is not an answer.

So I'll repeat my question again:

What is this ineffable source of all?
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Something that can't be described. But I don't buy that and you can do better than that. You're simply avoiding the question.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
gnostic said:
Something that can't be described. But I don't buy that and you can do better than that. You're simply avoiding the question.
Click to expand...
If you want to engage me in a discussion, you need to understand what I say...and that means understanding the meaning of the words I use and the context....do you understand?
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
ben d said:
If you want to engage me in a discussion, you need to understand what I say...and that means understanding the meaning of the words I use and the context....do you understand?
Click to expand...

You're still avoiding the question. :tsk: *disgust*

Well, you should know that if someone don't understand what you say or ask you explain, then you should clarify when the person should ask you a question, instead of playing games with him.

If you don't want to answer me, then fine. I'll just put you in my ignore list. If I do, then congratulation, ben_d - you would be the 1st person I put in that list.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
CG Didymus said:
Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know. Plants being created before the Sun and stars? Yeah, right. All of creation crammed into a boat? Get real. Every has a little bit of proof. Mud with dinosaur footprints next to a human footprint? Hmm, how'd that happen? The fossil record doesn't mix the bones of the two together? Why not, if they all drowned together? There is proof of a major flood because of the way a few trees and animals were buried? Why couldn't that be any of several big floods that must have happened? Sea shells on top of mountains? A flood or the mountain used to be at the bottom of the ocean?
Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid. Yet, everything is changing, evolving, even religion. So what's the next step? What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.
Click to expand...

It would be a mistake, I think, to equate the Bible's account of Creation with the unscriptural teachings of creationists. Creationists claim the earth and all life were created in 6 24-hour days about 10,000 years ago. That is NOT what the Bible teaches. (Genesis 1:1) As for dinosaurs, the Bible is silent about them, except that God, as the Source of all life, is obviously their Creator. (Psalm 36:9) Their purpose, and when their life began and ended are not stated in the Bible. Were they still alive when Adam was created? Again, we don't know. I don't think scientists know the answers to these questions either.
As for the global Deluge, we have the eyewitness testimony of it's survivors as well as physical evidence for a great Deluge. The arguments made against the Flood do not hold up to careful scrutiny, in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top