I believe in Creation ...and Evolution

[Yerda]

In the end, doesn't the evolutionist scientist and the creationist preacher want the same thing? To point to their neighbor and say, "I'm right and your an idiot."

Personally, I prefer my neighbours to have a bit more sense.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

If religion was supported by scientific proof, wouldin't that defeat the purpose? There would be no faith. If everyone knew that the gospel was true, what would be the challenge in believing it?

Jesus had to give proof, and performed miracles. Moses needed proof, and got the ten commandments. There is no reason why God would not allow proof now as well. Only scientists don't look for proof because they don't believe in it.

 

[andyjamal]

Many theists believe we were created as we are now because that is exactly what their religious texts tell them happened.

I think it is more accurate to say that is how they interpret the texts. For, I might read the same text and recognize it as a parable which has a deeper spititual significance meant to guide souls closer to God, rather than an historical account which serves no purpose but to cause arguments in this forum.

 

[SpiritElf]

I think it is more accurate to say that is how they interpret the texts. For, I might read the same text and recognize it as a parable which has a deeper spititual significance meant to guide souls closer to God, rather than an historical account which serves no purpose but to cause arguments in this forum.

This is so true. Some people have certain misunderstandings about the way the Bible speaks about the creation of the world and humanity. They don't realize, much of what they object to about Christian beliefs are based on old misunderstandings that perpetually are repeated.
There are all sort of possibilities, from the "gap theory" to the possibility that it should be taken as a parable, or metaphor, or a compacted history of our origins.

And I think to equate creation by an intelligent designer with "Christianity" is not correct, as one PP suggested. Certain kinds of Creationism are certainly based on scientific fact, as well as logic. They are not just based on faith alone.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Certain kinds of Creationism are certainly based on scientific fact, as well as logic. They are not just based on faith alone.

For example?

 

[SpiritElf]

For example?
Didn't you check out the links that I posted before, about the continuum of creation beliefs?

 

[Scuba Pete]

To SpiritElf;

Frubals on your head! ND Excellent post!!!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

For example?
Didn't you check out the links that I posted before, about the continuum of creation beliefs?

The link you posted (Talk Origins) does not say that any one of those positions are valid, or based on evidence of any sort - it merely explains what the adherents of each of the belief systems believe.

Deut's question is legitimate - what forms of Creationism are based on scientific fact, as well as logic? Can you provide an example?

TVOR

 

[SpiritElf]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

This is the link I was referring to. It provides a basic outline of the different beliefs from Creationism to Evolution, and the stops along the way. If anyone knows of any positions about creation that are not on this continuum, please let me know.
Each belief is briefly described, and it's not comprehensive. But it allows you to at least see the different stances out there on this debate, and do follow up on your own.

This is what I said when I posted the link,that it just gives a brief description of each. It's up to YOU to decide which one is valid.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This is what I said when I posted the link,that it just gives a brief description of each. It's up to YOU to decide which one is valid.

Exactly. Then, you made the claim that this site provides evidence of Creationism (in the post that contained the quote below).

Certain kinds of Creationism are certainly based on scientific fact, as well as logic. They are not just based on faith alone.

That is the point that Deut was making. The description of the various views of Intelligent Design/Evolution are clear, and accurate. They stop short of providing any evidence whatsoever, for any of the positions. Your claim that you provide examples of Creationism that are based on scientific fact and logic by virtue of referencing this site is incorrect. That is why Deut asked you for an example of a version of Creationism that is based on scientific fact and logic.

TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Deut's question is legitimate - what forms of Creationism are based on scientific fact, as well as logic? Can you provide an example?


TVOR

EVOLUTION CRUNCHER​

TABLE OF CONTENTS ​

PREFACE: A Treasure House of Informationhttp://evolution-facts.org/a_treasure_house_of_new_information.htmThe origin of this book and how to use it​

Introductory: Scientists Speak about Evolution — 1 Statements by Non-creationist Scientists — Even they do not believe evolutionary foolishness

Introductory: Scientists Speak about Evolution — 2​

​

1 - History of Evolutionary Theory — How modern science got into this problem.

2 - The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution — Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas.​

3 - The Origin of the Earth — Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state. ​

4 - The Age of the Earth — Why the Earth is not millions of years old.​

5 - The Problem of Time — Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change.​

6 - Inaccurate Dating Methods — Why the non-historical dating techniques are unreliable.​

7 - The Primitive Environment — Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life. ​

8 - DNA and Protein — Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance.​

9 - Natural Selection — Why natural selection only makes changes within species. ​

10 - Mutations — Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change.​

11 - Animal and Plant Species — Why the species barrier cannot be broken.​

12 - Fossils and Strata — Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax.​

13 - Ancient Man — Why there is no evidence humans have evolved from anything.​

14 - Effects of the Flood — What actually happened after the Flood.​

15 - Similarities and Divergence— Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution.​

16 - Vestiges and Recapitulation — You have no useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life-forms.​

17 - Evolutionary Showcase— The best examples of evolution have proven worthless.​

18 - The Laws of Nature — The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory.​

19 - Evolution, Morality, and Violence — Evolutionary theory is ruining modern civilization.​

20 - Tectonics and Paleomagnetism — The truth about plate tectonics and paleomagnetism.​

21 - Archaeological Dating — Egyptian, and other, dates correlate archaeological finds with the Bible.​

22 - Evolutionary Science Fiction — Fabulous fairy tales which only tiny children can believe. ​

23 - Scientists Speak — Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless.​

24 - Utterly Impossible — Things evolution could never invent. ​

Appendix -Research Guide ​

SPECIAL APPENDIX - Something To Think About ​

​

​

FOR THE 3 VOLUME 'EVOLUTION DISPROVED ENCYCLOPEDIA'-






​

SEE Encyclopedia - Table of Contents






​

Creation Research Societies​

​

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well, I'll have to say that even though the site is unabashedly biased, I gave it a read. Of the 24 "chapters", 23 of them made no attempt whatsoever to provide evidence FOR Intelligent Design - rather, they were amazingly weak arguments (based on ignorance and intentional misrepresentation of scientific fact) AGAINST evolution. This is the very definition of an Argument from Ignorance. The only "chapter" that did not attack evolution outright was chapter 21. It did not actually present evidence FOR ID either - it actually tried to show that archeological dates were consistent with the Bible's dates. Not evidence for ID, mind you, but at least it wasn't an attack on evolution.

Overall, this has been the first post that attempted to provide evidence in support of ID - and it is 23/24ths based on attacking evolution. Not a good start. The other 24th of the site is simply a red-herring, that doesn't address either evolution or ID.

The quotes from scientists is quite a thrill. I'm sure that if one were to examine them closely, you could probably find one that was accurate - but I doubt it.

TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Overall, this has been the first post that attempted to provide evidence in support of ID - and it is 23/24ths based on attacking evolution. Not a good start. The other 24th of the site is simply a red-herring, that doesn't address either evolution or ID.

The quotes from scientists is quite a thrill. I'm sure that if one were to examine them closely, you could probably find one that was accurate - but I doubt it.

TVOR

Can you show me any evidence of evolution that is not biased? I do not think the intention is to bash evolution, but if it does not fit with the hypthesis, it will be noted, just like evolutionists do in response to their hypothesis not fitting with the bible.

You are calling the kettle black, my freind

 

[The Voice of Reason]

A great example of the misrepresentation of the scientists' quotes:

From your website (evolution-facts.org):
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on , only 164 statements are by creationists.
The quote:
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

Notice that your website, by use of the asterisk, is trying to pass Agassiz off as someone that is not known to be a creationist. Yet, when we do a little background search on the esteemed Mr. Agassiz, we find the following article:

From a website at the University of California (Berkely)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html:
But Agassiz was no evolutionist; in fact, he was probably the last reputable scientist to reject evolution outright for any length of time after the publication of The Origin of Species. Agassiz saw the Divine Plan of God everywhere in nature, and could not reconcile himself to a theory that did not invoke design.

Most of the quotes are taken out of context, or are simply someone that knew the scientist in question giving a second hand quote.

This site has no credibility, though it does provide a great resource for anyone wanting to poison the mind of someone with no ability to discern **** from shinola.

TVOR

 

[Yerda]

Can you show me any evidence of evalution that is not biased?

Biased for or against what?

I do not think the intention is to bash evolution

No? From a quick glance at the chapter titles and description I think it's clear that bashing is the only intention.

Before I strain my retinas, TVOR, is this any more than a combination of the arts of self-serving and willful ignorance?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Can you show me any evidence of evalution that is not biased?

Well, you've got me there. Other than the volumes of evidence supporting evolution that have been posted all over this board, and the absolute mountains of peer reviewed scientific papers that have been published by societies such as the American Institute for Science, I have nothing I can show you.

I do not think the intention is to bash evolution...

Well, they spent a lot of bandwidth and a bunch of typing bashing evolution - so, if that wasn't their intention, they sure pissed away a lot of resources for nothing. Come to think of it, it is odd that you would say that the intention of the site is not to bash evolution, when you used the title:
EVOLUTION CRUNCHER
Curious, wouldn't you say?

but if it does not fit with the hypthesis, it will be noted, just like evolutionists do in response to their hypothesis not fitting with the bible.

You may find this hard to believe, but most evolutionists don't address the Bible, unless it is (mistakenly) used as a scientific basis to denounce evolution. As I have stated before (apparently you aren't reading some of my posts) - the majority of Christians accept evolution. The truth is, the majority of the people that share your religious faith in Christianity do not share your fanatical need to reject something that is so clearly supported by empirical evidence.

You are calling the kettle black, my freind

That would be because the kettle is black, my friend.

TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Before I strain my retinas, TVOR, is this any more than a combination of the arts of self-serving and willful ignorance?

LOL - In all honesty, Truth, I went to the site with an open mind - hoping that it would provide some evidence FOR ID. Alas, as you can see by the titles of the chapters, it is just another site spewing the "Evolution is wrong, therefore, ID must be right" tripe. The quotes pages are a real piece of work, but they appear to be a regurgitation of the same old song and dance that you can find at any one of several ID pages on the internet. Nothing new, or well thought out.

As for straining your retinas, I wouldn't bother. This site isn't willful ignorance - it is written as outright deceit, hoping someone with a weak mind will "surf in" and be swayed.

TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The truth is, the majority of the people that share your religious faith in Christianity do not share your fanatical need to reject something that is so clearly supported by empirical evidence.
TVOR

I am not rejecting evolution. I have stated that over and over again. All the Christians I know do share a belief in creation. I am merely more open minded than you are. I am willing to accept that science does not have all the answers and ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Are you willing to say the same, and mean it?

I am not attempting to say evolution is wrong, I am attempting to say that THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN THAT.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I am willing to accept that science does not have all the answers and ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Are you willing to say the same, and mean it?

I am not only willing to say that science does not have all the answers - I am willing to say that it never will have all the answers. As science makes deeper inroads into every field of study, even more questions will be raised with each discovery found.

As for ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, I will disagree. CONCEIVABLE, yes - possible, no.

So, in answer to your question, no - I will not mean it, because I will not say it - because not all things are possible.

I am not rejecting evolution.

My mistake. How could I have possibly jumped to that conclusion? Could it have been your post that sent me to a site that is dedicated to a pathetic attempt to discredit evolution? Perhaps I read too much into the title that you used for that post:
EVOLUTION CRUNCHER

Clearly, I am guilty of prejudging your intent....

TVOR

 

[SpiritElf]

QUOTE=The Voice of Reason]Exactly. Then, you made the claim that this site provides evidence of Creationism (in the post that contained the quote below).

That is the point that Deut was making. The description of the various views of Intelligent Design/Evolution are clear, and accurate. They stop short of providing any evidence whatsoever, for any of the positions. Your claim that you provide examples of Creationism that are based on scientific fact and logic by virtue of referencing this site is incorrect. That is why Deut asked you for an example of a version of Creationism that is based on scientific fact and logic.

TVOR[/QUOTE]
The short answer: no, that is not what I'm claiming by posting to this site. I didn't say that this site provides EVIDENCE of Creationism. I said it *describes* the different variations of thought, so that you can know what they are and as I said, DO FOLLOW UP OF YOUR OWN. The webpage I linked to does not provide evidence, that is not the point of the website. It's to SHOW how many differnet kinds of thought there are, and that they fall on a continuum. I wasn't trying to prove anything *by virtue* of referencing this site. It was for information purposes only.

My comment that "certain kinds of Creationism are certainly based on scientific fact" has nothing to do with the website contents. But if you look at it, it does say that Evolutionary Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Methodological Materialistic Evolution accept, in part or full, modern science.
So there you go. All you and Deut had to do was read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :banghead3