-
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 Creationism are the same thing
- Thread starter zemelo.franky
- Start date
Jesusfreak888
Member
Ok there are way too many people trying to argue with me about this topic, but I am only one person so if you would like to continue this discussion, I will post a thread soon and discuss this with each of you one at a time.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Yet Darwin worked as a scientist, published many works in the journals of his time, and contributed greatly to science as a whole. The same cannot be said for Hovind.
Fallacy of false equivalency. "Lots of people are imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit, therefore Hovind is innocent".
He's a convicted felon sitting in prison. If you read the court documents (which I have), he didn't even try to argue that didn't commit the crimes, but rather attempted to argue other means (e.g. since his income "belonged to God" he didn't owe taxes on it), and failed.
It shows just how delusional and dishonest he is.
From "Patriot University" which is a diploma mill where all one needs to get a doctorate from them is $100. Again, more evidence of his delusional and dishonest nature.
What "other credentials"?
I've read his material and seen his presentations. He is a liar, a charlatan, and a convicted felon sitting in prison. If the best you can do is cite such a person to defend your position, I'll let that speak for itself.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Jesusfreak888 said:
Actually, many conservative Christians believe that God has used evolution, and that the story of Adam and Eve is not literally true.
Jesusfreak888 said:
In order to reasonably make a claim like that, you would have to have at least a bachelor's degree in biology or biochemistry. Do you have a degree in either of those fields? I doubt it. Even if you did, if you only had a bachelor's degree, you would not have any status in the national science communities of experts.
Jesusfreak888 said:
Actually, it is usually creationists who are confused about what evolution really means, and frequently falsely equate atheism with evolution when many millions of evolutionists are theists. Charles Darwin himself was a theist when he wrote 'On the origin of species,' and when he died, he was an agnostic.
Consider the following:
evolution (scientific theory) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia Britannica said:
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
religioustolerance.org said:
If you have a scientific alternative to evolution, please quote your expert sources.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
otokage007 said:
Dawkins has a lot of company in the scientific community, including lots of conservative Christian experts, including Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology. Miller is a devout Roman Catholic, and testified in the Dover trial. He is a theistic evolutionist, and a leading expert on evolution, including the evolution of the flagellum.
Okay. Let's see... the earth was created twice in the Bible, both with contradicting timelines of creation; the oldest tree is nearly 10,000 years old, thus nullifying the idea that the earth is 6000 years old(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html); there's no evidence for a global flood(Problems with a Global Flood)... need more?
Well, you should, since they're the ones who define what terms are good and which ones aren't.
Then you want to look into abiogenesis, which is a different branch of science.
All right. There are different ideas based on the different theistic philosophies, but here's what the Rig Veda, the Source of all Hindu religions, says on creation:
At first there was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was its wrappings? Where? In whose protection?
Was water there, unfathomable and deep?
There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
Of night or day there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing else at all.
Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was water indiscriminate.
Then that which was hidden by the Void
that One, emerging, stirring,
through power of Ardor came to be.
In the beginning Love arose, which was
the primal germ cell of the mind.
The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
Discovered the connection of Being and Nonbeing.
A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?
Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces,
thrust from below and forward move above
Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?
Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?
That out of which creation has arisen
whether it held firm or did not,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows or maybe He does not!
-Nasadiya Sukta (RV 10.129)
Which is because you're calling something that is not evolution by that name. Science does not yet have any sort of surefire answer as to where life came from, only varying hypotheses.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Not exactly a theory you can test, is it?
Except that it is contradicted by virtually everything we know about the order in which sea creatures, plants and Man came about.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Thank you for bringing that point into the thread. Now we all can be sure that if a roman catholic can be a scientist, Darwin can too.
That sounds about right to me. We should throw God in jail for tax evasion.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Love it. It goes to show that certain aspects contained in the bible aren't new considering this Veda is older than the oldest known scroll of Genesis.:clap
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I might be misunderstanding your question An Established Scientific Theory to me would be something that followed the Scientific Method. As I stated before MICRO-EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE, I would really like an explanation as to how life got started if there is no God. The ONLY examples I have been given so far in this thread are examples of Micro-Evolution, but there is much more to Evolution than that, it seems that you are avoiding the rest of the theory, and just explaining a very small part of it.
I also like how everyone is eager to claim I know nothing about Evolution, and yet NO ONE has rebuttal me you all are so quick to say I have no clue what I am talking about, and yet it seem no one can prove me wrong
Why am I not surprised
Alright...
Scientific Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.
Scientific Theory v. Hypothesis v. Scientific Law - The Scientific Method
Biological Evolution: Biological Evolution is an observed fact. Simply put, it is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Abiogenesis: Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose from inorganic matter.
The Theory of Evolution: The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the mechanisms used in Biological Evolution. It is a set of related observations or events in biology based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
Absolutely none of the above attempt to prove or disprove God.
To my understanding there are 6 basic stages or level of Evolution
1. Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets
4. Organic Evolution: The origin of life
5. Macro-Evolution: change from one kind into another
6. Micro- Evolution: Variations within the kinds
The first 5 stages are 100% Religious. Science deals with things that can be demonstrated, tested and repeated, therefore it is absolutely impossible for these first 5 stages to be scientific, if you would like to believe this is the way we got here you are more than welcome to believe that, but it is a religion not scientific. Micro-Evolution is Science, it is variation within the kinds, but that does not prove that we evolved from a rock 4.6 Billion years ago
I will tell you now, I am not some science major, who claims to know everything there is to know about how we got here. I am a simple Christian. With that being said I will admit up front that I cannot prove that God exists, just the same as you cannot prove that he doesnt. I also cannot prove that Evolution did not happen, just as you cannot prove that it did. All we can do in this life is gather as much evidence as we can, and decide for ourselves what happened. After being an Atheist, and studying Creation, Evolution, as well as other religions, I think it is safe to say that Christianity is the Truth that I can find.[/quote]
Pathetic
Simply pathetic...There isn't one scientist on this planet who would say that within your life time you will see one species evolve into another species. That doesn't happen. That isn't what evolution is. No species walking the planet today has evolved from another species walking the planet today. We are however, all decended from common ancestors.
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, we simply have a common ancestor. If you're going to comment on evolution, you should learn what it is first.
I might be misunderstanding your question An Established Scientific Theory to me would be something that followed the Scientific Method. As I stated before MICRO-EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE, I would really like an explanation as to how life got started if there is no God. The ONLY examples I have been given so far in this thread are examples of Micro-Evolution, but there is much more to Evolution than that, it seems that you are avoiding the rest of the theory, and just explaining a very small part of it.
I also like how everyone is eager to claim I know nothing about Evolution, and yet NO ONE has rebuttal me you all are so quick to say I have no clue what I am talking about, and yet it seem no one can prove me wrong
Why am I not surprised
As previously pointed out, The Theory of Evolution doesn't try to suggest how life appeared on earth, there are other more specific theories for that. The Theory of Evolution describes the diversity of life on earth, the fossils we find etc...
otokage007
Well-Known Member
tumbleweed41
Thank you. A very good work.
Thank you. A very good work.
The components for life come from giant starts that at the end of their life become increasingly dense and hotter, creating the heavier elements essential to life (e.g. carbon). At the end of their life they explode in a phenomena called a supernova, thus ejecting all the heavier element into space. Within the nebulea that the supernova creates, new stars are born (like ours) and new planets may gradually form to obit the new stars.
The actual theory you really need to look into I think is the big bang theory. Scientists have pieced together all the evidence that they have (too much to list here but I shall list some useful books below) which suggests that matter, space and time were all ctreated in the Big Bang (the 'big bang' title is a bit misleading, think of it more as a 'big expansion' from a singlarity).
Scientists do not claim to know everything, this is a common misunderstanding from critics. Scientists produce theries which best suit calculations, obsevations and predictions. Theries are proven wrong all of the time and they have to be replaced. For example, Newtons theory of gravity was surpassed by Einsteins theory of gravity. One day Einsteins will more than likely be surpassed by another theory.
Finally, as an athiest, I can confidenty say I am not in denial. I simply do not feel the need to believe in a faith. I find the answers science can give to be sufficient enough. So please do not tell me what I believe and don't believe.
A good introducrty book to read to start learning about science is:
'The Short History of Nearly Everything' - Bill Bryson
Its pretty basic but worth a read if you're not clued up on basic science
Last edited:
fitchyfullistening
New Member
Well, from what I understand, CREATIONISM does not necessarily mean Young Earth Creationism, does it? Therefore one can believe in Old Earth Creationism? That is to say, Theistic Evolution?