God and Evolution

Stands to Reason ^ | Gregory Koukl

[Dimensio]

How would one go about proving that "creation" is a lie? What criteria would falsify "creation"?

To a Godly believer, no proof is even necessary.

That isn't exactly a good thing, it speaks of gullibility.

[f.Christian]

Bad...dumb/vain---evil(satanic)--wrong/'liberal'!

[Dimensio]

Vain?! How is evolution vain?

[f.Christian]

Bias(lies/blasphemy)...self favoritism/sin(pride)---denial of Truth/God!

[ppaul]

Could a can of Spam have evolved over billions and billions of years without any human intervention?

[Tourist Guy]

>>>The Bible is 2000 years old, and the evolution minions are just getting started.<<

*ahem* correction: the New Testament is 2,000+. Old Testment add 5,000 years +. They've a ways to go...

[Salgak]

Incorrect. Scientists prove their "beliefs" via the repeatable experiment. But then again Science isn't about Truth. Science is about constructing models of reality with a very high congruence to observed reality, which can be reliably used as predictors of activities in observed reality, given specified inputs.

Religion is about Truth. And it has to be postulated as such, because you CANNOT do repeatable experiments with it. . .

[Dimensio]

Which God? Can you adequately demonstrate the existence of this God?

[concerned about politics]

There's no documentation at all, of course, except those hundreds of thousands of fossils found by thousands of evolutionists all over the world spending years and years in the field.

Yes. The thousands of fossils left over from the earth that was, the age before when the dinosaurs were destroyed. There was a "nuclar winter' from an asteroid, causing the ice age. The earth was then was null and void.
God said "Let there be light", and he created the animals and man in the next age, reviving the earth that was destroyed. It's where this age and the Bible starts. It's in the good book. It's already explaned for us.

[ppaul]

Religion is about Truth. And it has to be postulated as such, because you CANNOT do repeatable experiments with it. . .

That's what I have been saying.
Belief in the theory of Evolution is religious belief.

[Dakmar]

Must be a product of home schooling....

That was uncalled for. There is nothing wrong wth home schooling. I think he ate the brown acid.

[f.Christian]

The CREATOR/FATHER---SAVIOR...GOD!

Changing-MORPHING words-meaning-reality via...

your 'logic-reason(ideology)' to your fantasy-bias world-bs is---

called psychosis!

[Dimensio]

Uh...your comments don't really do anything in the way of providing evidence for your asserted God.

[Ohioan]

This thread, like the many others on different views of Creation and the ongoing nature of life and the observed changes through the generations, reminds me of some of the endless battles that different Conservatives engage in over their differing views of the history of the early 1860s. I realize that these issues are very important intellectually to many. Yet I wish here, as with the American history debates, Conservatives would minimize the acrimony.

The important thing to remember is that we have a common enemy, today, which seeks to force acceptance of an undifferentiated humanity; where all peoples will be equalized and homogenized in a Socialistic World Order, that denies even the existence of God. We have times for these intellectual debates, because the wise men who charted our course, a little over two centuries ago, did so fine a job. And those men would not have seen this debate as a question of whom is virtuous. They would have seen it rather as a skirmish in an ongoing pursuit of truth--in which the injection of acrimony has no place whatsoever.

As J.C. Nott, a pioneer American Anthropoligist wrote well over a century and a half ago, "Man can invent nothing in science or religion but falsehood; and all the truths which he discovers are but facts or laws which have emanated from the Creator." It is the pursuit of that truth that enobles--not the angry insistence of a particular explanation for a very complex pattern of data.

Men of good will and honest Faith can be on any of at least a thousand different sides of these questions--and at that I probably understate the virtual infinite variety of possible explanations for the same data. Have fun with the debate, but do not forget the more immediate worldly problems that face even your right to have that debate.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[concerned about politics]

To a Godly believer, no proof is even necessary.

That isn't exactly a good thing, it speaks of gullibility.

Hmmmm. Same argument Satan uses. If there is no God, there must not be a Satan.
Satans greatest achievement is the belief that HE does not exist. It allowes him free reign over the athiests.

[f.Christian]

Which God? Can you adequately demonstrate the existence of this God?

68 posted on 7/5/02 1:36 PM Pacific by Dimensio

Pathologically I see the 'effects(bad)' very poorly defining the cause/causes...

my own existence is unimaginable...

the world w/o God is incomprehensible---too great--beautiful.

I saw my son born--grow up!

[Tourist Guy]

>>>>Which God? Can you adequately demonstrate the existence of this God?<<<

Mohammed: Dead. Visit the tomb.
Budda: Dead. Visit the temple.
Confucious: Dead. Visit the tomb.

Christ Jesus: Died, was buried and rose again on the third day. 500 eye witnesses. Sitting at the right hand of God our Father.

[whattajoke]

Haha, thank you all for making my Friday funny. In the last 10 posts we have: To a Godly believer, no proof is even necessary.
Thank you concernedaboutpolitics for ending this discussion. Some people in the world prefer to at least have SOME intellectual curiosity, if you don't and you are comfortable with that, I bid you a life of peace.

When one accepts a "theory" as fact and calls it "science"
ugh, THIS again. ppaul, do you have any idea how many "theories" you utilize happily every day?

Prove creation is a lie. The burden of proof is on you, concernedaboutpolitics. One can NEVER prove a negative.

If there were evolution, my dog would evolve to do some useful purpose, such as taking the trash out to the curb. The cats would figure out how to use the can opener by now AND humans would evolve so that we could scratch our own backs
While I recognize the sarcasm here, it still goes to show the level of evolutionary understanding the typical creationist has. again, Ugh.

Bad...dumb/vain---evil(satanic)--wrong/'liberal'!
my man, fchristian. I'd love to party with this guy, but I'm unsure whether they let him out of the home. (and even you good christians are scared of fchristian, don't pretend otherwise! : )

[whattajoke]

Wow. I keep trying not to get caught up in these threads, and this one is sure to be a long one, but I can't help it...
What is the problem with evolutionists referring to "Mother Nature?"
That term is a colloquialism and you will never find it in a scientific article/book/treatise.

In-Fisherman does not qualify. What you are doing is using a laymen's article for your own purposes. Not unlike scientologists using a hack sci-fi writer to "prove" their religion. This whole argument, therefore, is kinda odd, sorry.

I'm sure someone will discuss the eye-spot conundrum at length but I have to point out that ONCE AGAIN, a creationist has used scietific principals to debunk itself. Science tests itself. It must conform to the most rigorous testing ever. Perhaps we currently don't have a definitive answer on eyespots. Or perhaps one species evolved eye spots as a means of singular predator avoidance with the tail spot b/c that species of shad doesn't school as much as the other with the body spot. Each species has evolved their own distinct form of predator evasion. It's really not that uncommon, despite your predictable response of, "another satanic evolutionist twisting truth to fit his lies," or whatever.

Btw, I agree, mother nature should not be worshipped and this non-theist is as critical of those pagan/gaia/witch goofballs as christians are. I find all worship of the supernatural unworthy of my time.

Mouths were made for eating. as well as defecating as many, many species do. Hands were made for grasping. except for the many,many species who use them solely for digging, or walking, or flying, or swimming... Legs were made for walking See above

A Creator we see quite obviously ah yes, a layman writer for a fishing magazine uses colloquialisms and THAT, dear friends, makes the creator readily obvious. Cheers!

[Raymond Hendrix]

The Blind Atheist