Evolution vs Religion

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: ScienceGuy

Now I present a radical view, Everyone (almost) is right in some way. Is there a way that science (evolution) and God could coexist on the same level? Yes!

Welcome to the discussion. But I wonder what makes you think that the god of the gaps idea is something "radical"? We have discussed here before in fact. There are plenty of people that try to cram some god myth into the ever narrowing gaps in scientific understandings of our existence. Most, like you, base their attempt on saving the bible from complete outright rejection.

 

The creation is scientifically explainable just the same as the plauges of Egypt.

 

OK, I can agree with this. Both Creation and the Plagues are fairytales. Neither has the first basis in historical fact. So they are both at the same scientific level, ZERO.

 

God may well have created the universe using the same parameters and time as we see and experience today.

 

And here, at the very beginning, we start to diverge from Science fact. Science currently holds that "time as we see and experience today" did not exist before, at or in the intital moments of the start of the universe. It did not exist until some period of time AFTER the BB.

 

The role of life on Earth is harder to explain, but a religious viewpoint of how it started combined with evolution can be traced in the fossil record for many animals.

 

Interesting assertion, lacking any factual support at this point. Please show us all how the fossil record is supported by "a religious viewpoint". But first, just to better define the discussion, please explain WHICH Creation myth you are referring to and what reference source it is connected to. If you are referring to the Crhistian/ Biblical myth, please state it. As there are hunderds of creation myths and there are as many very dfifferent processes in each.

 

I want to change the mentality of people on Earth to be a world with values and morals.

 

In what way would there be a change? The Earth already IS "a world with values and morals". They may not be YOUR "values and morals", but that does not mean they do not exist.

 

What you seem to be asserting is that you want "a world with (YOUR) values and morals".

 

If they take the scientific world and see that God did create everything in it, the choice is with them to believe.

 

So you want people to take a SCIENTIFIC world view and convolute it? Only by rejecting the Scientific concept of Ockham's Razor can one invent a god myth and force it into the explanation of Nature.

 

<b>To be saved you must believe!</b>

 

To be saved from "belief", you merely need an education. "Belief" is only needed when somone does not have FACTS to allow something to be accepted.

 

The contradictions in the Bible relating to creation are a tool to give a possible explanation of how it just could work.

 

Now I am really confused. You want us to accept that contradictory explanations in the bible validate the biblical creation myth? Ya, alrighty then! We'll explore that next. (I'm told my posts get too long otherwise.)

[ScienceGuy]

It seems to me that you do not discuss possible scientific views in your posts, but rather how to contradict what everyone says. That is one possible way to look at things. I am giving you a possible solution to how the Biblical creation story could make sense given the scientific findings that we have today. They may be changed or proven wrong in the future. This explanation I have given seems more logical (to me) than a six consecutive day creation week or the evolution of every living organism by chance alone. Granted, this is my view, you don't have to believe it. I would consider any alternative you will give me based on science. One more thing, God is the gaps, He is here for everything. Calling the plagues and creation fairytales is based on what? Did you research the plagues? Give me science to refute science, not just opinion of God or no God.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: ScienceGuy

This brings up the day-age theory and other assumptions. The Bible was written at a time when they did not understand most any science as we see it today.

 

I've always gotten a kick out of this attempt to resolve the errors of the bible. Basic fundamental concepts of Christianity are that the bible is a divinely inspired text. IOW, it is it's mythical god's perfect word as written down under direct and full control of this god over the people that he/it chose to transcribe this claimed "Truth".

 

This begs the question, lots of them actually, as to why this all powerful god was not able to get those he created in his image to correctly transcribe his ultimate TRUTH. I give credit to Biblical Inerrency advocates in at least being consistant, even if absurdly wrong. At least they don't try to resolve the obvious contradictions and errors in the bible by pretending their god lacks the ability to get his message correct.

 

IF the bible is the perfect word of an all powerful god, then it is totally irrelevant as to what the people at the time understood or did not understand. Either god is capable of getting his perfect word/ knowledge written down by direct divine guidance or he is NOT an all powerful god.

 

To pretend that the bible is in error because of lack of ability on it's god's part is mere obfuscation.

 

Interpreting the meaning of days and the viewpoint of the people a long time ago must be taken into consideration. The creation was written from the viewpoint of a hypothetical person around at the time of creation.

 

So to you, the bible is nothing more than whatever stories some unknown author invented as he went along and then claimed to be the word of some god. That there was not an all powerful god which was in full control of what "his" specifically chosen writers put down on paper.

 

The phrase "let there be" does not mean that it just appeared out of nowhere.

 

Which of course can ONLY be the case if we IGNORE the very first passage of the bible:

 

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

Which STATES that this mythical god DID make things "appear() out of nowhere".

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth - A general statement identifying God as creator.

But not as having created it from NOTHING! ?

does not mean that it just appeared out of nowhere.

Ya gotta love how people pick and choose which biblical passages they agree with and just ignore the existence of the others.

 

This allows for the scientific Big Bang 13 to 16 billion years ago (bya). Galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, and moons appear. Ours began about 5 bya. The sun is forming and the disc of gas and dust around the sun is forming planets and other large bodies by gravity. As the Earth is forming during this time a large Mars-sized object hits the protoEarth and forms a large dustcloud. The dust does not settle, but rather blocks out the light from any sun or stars that may reach Earth. And now we start the day sequences.

 

WOW! Where do I even start here?

 

1) Gen1:3-5 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

 

We KNOW that "Night" and "Day" ONLY have meaning to people on earth (or other FORMED spherical planetiod bodies spinning on their own axis and circling a sun). Thus it is NOT POSSIBLE for the sun and planets to be formed billions of years AFTER night and day were created as there would not be a "night and day" until AFTER they existed.

 

2) if we assume th

[rileyj]

"rileyj will still believe in a gap god; Tim will believe in a combination of God and science"

 

gap god? what does that mean? i think i'm more of a combination like tim

[rileyj]

God claims lack ANY substance. Even here, the only "proof" that is ever offered is "well I can't provide ANY proof, but I KNOW it's true!".

 

do you love your mother?

if so prove it?

[rileyj]

But don't pull that ole Shift the Burden of Proof crap AGAIN! There is no "i don't know for 100% that there isn't a god.. If there is nothing to even suggest the concept is valid, then any RATIONAL person rejects it.

 

i'm sure you believe in the human mind,but there is no proof of that

[rileyj]

WRONG THINKING is WRONG THINKING. It is NEVER OK to intentionally promote, or USE WRONG THINKING

 

 

is it "wrong thinking" to think about and kill someone?

[rileyj]

by the way there has being murder well before there was any religion

[rileyj]

"And the mindset that allows one to accept murder as an acceptable process would also go away."

 

if there is no god than why is murder a bad thing?

if we are animals than murder is fine. animals kill everyday. if i want something i'll take it. if we are animals than the only right or wrong in the world will be, if you do for yourself no matter what thats right, it seems that the world would be a very selfish place.

[rileyj]

" Now I am too knowledgable to be believable! "

it's not that,its just that you bitter about something and alone

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

By Freethinker: <i> How funny! If this were TRUE, you would not have had to aks ME to supply the list of KNOWN examples of Speciation. The ONLY reason you are "looking into a few of your 'proofs' of evolution", is that I had researched this previously and KNEW the info. </i>

 

I have also researched this, and I knew some of your references. However, I will not even imply that I know everything, or that I could possibly know every single example that every single evolutionist would give at any given moment. I'm not omniscient!

 

No one said anything about knowing EVERY proof for evolution. There are way too many for ANYONE to know them all.

 

But you have not been able to disprove EVEN ONE.

 

And by and large, they are ALL THE SAME.They are ALL PROOF of SPECIATION. You know, when Creationists INVENTED the term "MACRO"Evolution, after they could no longer pretend that EVOLUTION itself did not happen. Well, these are all PROOFS of that. They are ALL examples of a common species, which due to genetic drift, split into TWO DIFFERENT species.

 

And remember, you already claimed to know that SPECIATION is when two entities can not procreate. When their genetic makeup is so different that they can not have progeny.

 

<i> Unlike you, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. And I am always open to ANYTHING that may cause me to change ANY stance I hold. </i>

Did anyone else laugh when they read this? I have admitted not knowing everything, and not always being right in my reasoning or beliefs, as well as making numerous 'mistakes' during my life.

 

I stand by my statement. And you have PROVEN my point in multiple ways. I stated that I could be wrong, and would change my views whenever someone showed PROOF to the contrary. And I stated that YOU could not claim to be this open minded.

 

Instead you LIE. You LIE first by saying you admit you COULD be wrong, as proven by the 2nd lie. You lied by saying you never said such. Yet from a previous message...

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I'll always believe in God, and Jesus, and everything that I believe now.

 

The only thing you said that has been true, is that you will never change your mind, no matter what. You will be addicted to your antiquated superstition no matter how much PROOF to the contrary you are forced to see.

 

Just like you CLAIMED there wasn't any proven examples of Speciation, when in reality there are dozens of them. Then you want to claim that you did not have time to review them ALL. When in reality, you are incapable of disproving even ONE of them, much less any major percentage of them.

 

However, you throw out any argument you don't like as invalid, or without factual basis, regardless of the content of the statement.

 

Tell ya what, as soon as one of you actually produce your first piece of VALID EVIDENCE, I will stop showing why what you DO post SHOULD be rejected.

 

When provided with actual quotes from leading evolutionists stating that there is no actual fossil evidence of evolution, you disregarded everything as invalid, with no further explanation.

 

See? Here we go again. Another LIE. You have not provided a single:

 

quote from leading evolutionists stating that there is no actual fossil evidence of evolution

[rileyj]

i think that we did evolve but one can say that that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved. so evolution has to be taken by faith just like a god, unless you have something that show it to be true freethinker.

[IrishEyes]

"rileyj will still believe in a gap god; Tim will believe in a combination of God and science" gap god? what does that mean? i think i'm more of a combination like tim

 

gap god is a term used to explain that God fills in the gaps that believing in science leaves, or that science fills in gaps that believing in God leaves.l I'm sure Freethinker will give a much more detailed and accurate definition, but that's basically it.

 

I said that you will still believe in a gap god because you have made many statements that support a Gap theory, such as belief in partial evolution, but still accepting there is a creator partially responsible for life. It wasn't meant as a derogatory term, just as an illustration that people probably will still hold to their personal beliefs regardless of what anyone posts to this forum. Please don't take offense.

[rileyj]

i didn't just asking

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<i>Yet we hear Christians scream about the 10 Commandments. while failing to KEEP THEM IN CONTEXT. The ACTUAL 1st Commandment states that the commandments ONLY apply to Jews...CHRISTIANS were NOT "brought ... out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." </i>

I agree 100% here. The 10 were given to the people of God, later called Israelites. Christians are not under Mosaic Law, we are saved by grace through Christ's blood. Only the Jews that do not accept Christ as Messiah remain under Mosaic law.

 

So you do not accept the 10C's? You do not support the efforts of other Christians to have the 10C in Schools, in Public Spaces and do not claim that the US is based on these laws?

 

Great, glad to hear it! Though I find it highly unusual.

 

<i> And this "out of context" nonsense is often used to try and resolve the bible having it's mythical Jesus say: Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me...But it IS in PERFECT context. </i>

 

This was a PARABLE!

 

a PARABLE? You mean the bible has PARABLES in it!

 

Who woulda thought! My mistake. I had no idea the bible had PARABLES in it! When did that happen?

 

Hahahahahahaha, what a laugh! What a poor attempt at resolving WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS! Like it is some kind of big SUPRISE that there are parables in the bible!

 

Parable Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin parabola, from Greek parabolE comparison, from paraballein to compare,specifically : a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle WWWebster

 

And YES that is EXACTLY why it IS in context. It is a COMPARISON based on a short fictitious story about a KING (hmmm, Jesus was considered a KING!) that leaves his kingdom (Jesus dies, leaving his "earthly kingdom") and goes elsewhere (heaven, next to his father). Before he leaves, he gives something of value (his WORD) to his subjects. When he comes back, he judges his subjectws based on what they DID with what he left behind. Those that shared (his word) were rewarded. And as a bottom line, final "lesson", moral attitude or religious principle, he states:

 

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me

 

The entire chapter details Jesus' conversation with Zaccheus, and his story of the ten pounds. The enemies are not, as you imply, those who do not believe in Christ as Messiah. The enemies are Satan and his emmissaries, who try to keep man from God through sin!

 

Talk about intentionally distorting the context! There is not a SINGLE SUGGESTION of Satan being in this PARABLE. And the FACT that it says, "bring them here and kill them in front of me" shows it does not relate to Satan. As those addressed in the PARABLE are not CAPABLE of killing Satan. Or would GOD not KNOW this? lol

 

<i> Just because you don't LIKE what is ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE, don't pretend it says something else. </i>

This is just crazy. WHERE did I EVER say that I didn't like what is actually in the Bible?

 

You are struggling so hard to CHANGE what it says! Failing miserably at the attempt, but trying none the less.

 

I don't have to pretend it says or doesn't say anything! If I have a queston about a supposed contradiction, I study my Bible, and sometimes other texts, for answers.

 

So you do use outside sourcces to check validity of the bible?

 

I am not totally fluent in all of the languages of the original texts.

 

That would be a good trick. Especially since THERE IS NOT A SINGLE ORIGINAL TEXT of

[IrishEyes]

Freethinker, personal attacks are not necessary.

 

Instead you LIE. You LIE first by saying you admit you COULD be wrong, as proven by the 2nd lie. You lied by saying you never said such.

What is this??? What is my first lie? "saying you admit you COULD be wrong" ??? Huh? How exactly is admitting that I could be wrong about something a lie? And your word games have lost me on the second lie as well. Where did I say that i never said such? truly, you like to twist things! It's almost laughable, if it weren't so very sad.

 

The only thing you said that has been true, is that you will never change your mind, no matter what. You will be addicted to your antiquated superstition no matter how much PROOF to the contrary you are forced to see.

I believe, taken IN CONTEXT ( I know that's tough for you, but please try!), that I was making a point about how things said in THIS FORUM will not alter my personal beliefs in God. I doubt that you will bring up any new and groundbreaking proof, unless you have discovered things the rest of the world is unaware of, and besides, your main retort is "There you go again, shifting the burden of proof... ad nauseum!" I will not state that i have seen every single 'proof' that you can possibly give, but I will state that I have seen most known 'evidences' of the theory of evolution, and when looked at as a whole, there are just too many HOLES in the evolution theory!! And here, in this forum, under this topic, instead of strengthening your case when asked to provide proof of evolution, you instead resort to your safe zone of crying "not fair, you can't ask me questions, I don't have to answer, I only have to sit here and make fun of you for believing in God".

 

Just as you can say that there is no proof of God, you have contuinually avoided providing proof of how human life "evolved" on this planet. No, I have not provided a single positive proof of God. Neither have you explained the origin of human life. Yet you were very quick to attack someone that questioned you, resorting to taunts and word games (hence the beginning of the speciation/abiogenesis line).

 

See? Here we go again. Another LIE. You have not provided a single:

Quote

quote from leading evolutionists stating that there is no actual fossil evidence of evolution

 

According to you, you read every single post by me, correct?

 

Fri Apr 02, 2004 10:47 AM

 

Darwin stated (My Life and Letters, Vol. I, p 210) that "Not one change of a species into another is on record... We cannot prove that a single species has changed".

Colin Patterson, Senior Principle Scientific Officer of the Paleontolgy Dept. of the British Museum of Natural History, (as quoted by Luther Sunderland in Darwin's Enigma:Fossils and Other Problems, pg 89) stated "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutioary transitions in my book. If I knew of ANY, fossil or living, I certainly would have included them... There are no transitional forms...There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Professor Lois T. Moore, a vocal evolutionist, stated in 'The Dogma of Evolution' (p.160)- "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone"

Another evolutionist, Sir Arthur Kent, admits "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable".

 

 

So tell me, which lie will YOU claim - either you didn't read every post as you claimed, or I did provide at LEAST a single quote.

You pick?

[IrishEyes]

Freethinker, Very nice try, but not quite!

 

So you do not accept the 10C's? You do not support the efforts of other Christians to have the 10C in Schools, in Public Spaces and do not claim that the US is based on these laws?

Great, glad to hear it! Though I find it highly unusual.

Trying the old 'twist the words around' game again, huh? Read what I wrote again, that's not at all what I said, or even implied.

 

Talk about intentionally distorting the context! There is not a SINGLE SUGGESTION of Satan being in this PARABLE. And the FACT that it says, "bring them here and kill them in front of me" shows it does not relate to Satan. As those addressed in the PARABLE are not CAPABLE of killing Satan. Or would GOD not KNOW this? lol

This verse is referenced in many other places, including Revelation, where Christ returns and slays Lucifer's workers, with a sword coming from His mouth. How deep do you really want to go with this? I'm telling you, I've studied the Bible, searching for contradictions. They just don't exist. You will find one verse that makes a statement, and another that may seemingly contradict it, but if you actually read the passages, you will not find contradictions. And yes, this was a parable, though I don't need the definition. I never said that parables weren't contained in the Bible. They are used often, by Christ, as a teaching tool.

 

You are struggling so hard to CHANGE what it says! Failing miserably at the attempt, but trying none the less... You SHOWED it by trying to CHANGE what it ACTUALLY says into something more acceptable to SECULAR morals and ethics.

HAHAHA!! I think this is a pathetic attempt at shifting the focus of your failed attempts to prove 'contradictions'. Just as you can cut and paste till the cows come home from sites about evolution proof, I can sit quietly and read my Bible and refute every single supposed contradiction that you can find. I don't have to struggle to change what the Bible says.

 

So you do use outside sourcces to check validity of the bible?

Again, nice try. Did I say that i was checking the validity of the Bible? "Twist and Shout" should be your theme song! LOL!!