Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
Thank you for the slack. Yes, the 'corona', not photosphere.
My 'bad'.
WHAT meaning what CAUSE and EFFECT, or in the case of creationism, WHO.
My point is that no one has all the answers. Science is an investigation and attempted explanation of the universe. The Bible is very limited, but mainly faith-based conceptualism of GOD and his creation of that universe.
Why there is the assumption that scientists are all atheists, I don't know.
Every form of life has a 'purpose'. This alone should give rise to something more than the atheistic concept that chaos randomly (....chaos/random) turned into order.
Thank you for taking the time to answer the posed questions. You may find them silly, but the answers given by each person tell me a lot about their education, history, and state of mind.
Accept this as a compliment. I usually find that those that take the time to answer, even if they find out their answer rebuked, are more intelligent, and better educated than those whom find it easier to call others ignorant and wrong without a bit of proof to back it up.
I learn much more from discussing subjects with people like yourself, and consider those kind of people to be the real stronghold of Free Republic.
I don't think there should be a rift between evolution and creationism. There is no doubt that species evolve.
Survival of the fittest is a widely demonstrable concept.
Were we to be creatures governed by instinct, living only by the law of the jungle, then I would say that atheists are correct. But we are not. We have a conscious. We have the ability to reason above and beyond our physical needs.
That alone should make one give credence to a higher power.
But, everyone believes what they want to, in the end.
BELIEF, and TRUTH. Two poles that do not necessarily coincide.
Yes. It does. It is very easy to misinterpret. A span of infinity (gonna let me get away with that one?), and another of possibly 10-15 billion years is all explained in two paragraphs.
It mentions Jesus in the first sentence (not by name).The Bible is all about CONCEPTS. (The names were changed to protect the innocent). The real importance of the Bible is not in it's TRUTH. Trying to pin down and verify each story is like trying to dig a hole in water.
The CONCEPTS are what is important, and that is why everyone can find a different TRUTH in the Bible. Each person's concepts are different. Each person's understanding of the Bible should be between them and God.
The Bible is like the universe. Much more complicated than we imagine. There is a huge complexity in areas with few words. Areas of the Bible that run on, and on, provide the least content.
I am not saying that historical reference is not important. It is from the point of belief. I don't think belief and faith are the same, some do.
I think the root of all of this disagreement is that we all would like to think that everyone see's GOD the way we do.
The reality (i cudda subbed TRUTH... but I didn't think you would laugh) is that no one does.
BTW, Thanks for putting up with my ignorance.
Maybe you wouldn't mind if I answered your post?
I have faith that the Bible does somehow convey the Truth to us, even if distorted by interpretation. I believe that the Christianity of today is not what the embodiment we call Jesus really intended. That a new religion will spring forth from the growth of mankind. That everything in the Bible explains what happens in us, from birth to death, as well as the universe from birth to the Revelation.
I believe this concept happens on scales from the molecular to the entire universe (gonna get away with this one?) and that our intelligence is a direct result of the intelligence that created this by mere thought (uh, which is just what we do.)
I believe that this 'mind' is part of a whole, and cannot be destroyed by death. It can only be destroyed by a lack of belief in itself (the part) ,which is caused by a lack of belief in the whole.
God is that whole, and the Earth, the Stars, you and I are parts of that whole. Every bit from the prokaryotes to the smartassed eukaryotes (numans) is a part of that thought. That image. Some translations have it as "And God made man in his image...". I am not deluded with the idea that this means God made man to look physically like God. If such a thing were true or possible, then I imagine we would not look like we do right now.
To me it means God made is 'in thought', 'in mind','visualized', or 'imaged'.
Simplest answer I can give, God is the universe.
It's ok. You can call me a dumbass.
numans=humans
To me it means God made US 'in thought', 'in mind','visualized', or 'imaged'.
Exhibit 'A': It [Big Bang] is a very specific theory about the expansion of space-time.
Exhibit 'B': Yes, theories can be modified, but that is the result of new evidence.
I thought that you were going to show Stremba contradicting himself, but you seem to have picked two non-contradicatory statements by accident.
IOW, we are back to the original assertion that believers in the religion of Evolution only have to believe one thing: Absolutely No Intelligent Design, anything else goes.
That is your assertion, but you haven't demonstrated it to be true. Scientists believe things for which they have been shown evidence. Those who support ID have not managed to make a convincing scientific case.
You can be refuted with Newton's own words, "If I have seen a little farther than others, it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants". Science advances by building on the efforts of those who went before. Newton and numerous other brilliant scientists prior to 1800 had no opportunity to formulate the Theory of Evolution because science and our knowledge of the world had not advanced to that point.
Remember, you are the one who claims to be a descendant of an ape.
The time-honoured response of the creationist who has lost the argument
I must also comment on your confusion between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is the basis on which theories are constucted. You and I have the exact same evidence, yet we each come up with different theories. I see the Grand Canyon and see a gigantic dam burst.
But in that case we don't have the same evidence. No-one with the slightest knowledge of how water and rock interact in a dam burst would see such a phenomenon in the Grand Canyon.
... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill
The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.
. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories of how mountains rose up from no where, for no know reason, and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top.
So now plate tectonics, an observed and well understood phenomenon is completely wrong too. Continental drift has been tracked and measured. If you wish to show that plate tectonics is "laughable" then you need to discredit the ample evidence for it.
Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" because for thousands of years we stick with the exact same theory that is consistant with the evidence rather than invent new ones only to be replaced by new ones when a different person interprets the same evidence differently (again).
Yes, it is silly to stick to a set of bronze-age religious beliefs that have been shown in numerous ways to conflict with the evidence. You have not substantiated your repeated assertions that mainstream science is in conflict with the evidence.
Also, it seems that you are sticking to the debate tactics of fellow evolutionist Joseph Goebbels...
Fallacy that because a bad person believed the theory it must be tainted
...in repeating a big lie often enough by somehow suggesting that only evolutionary thinking allows a person to invent the internet.
The science behind the technology of the internet is the same science that you reject. The fact that the growth of the internet has shown some interesting analogies to evolutionary behaviour is a separate issue that you appear to be confusing with the science and technology involved.
Just because you are a Christophobe isn't proof that evolution is science. Evolution is just the ramblings of God haters looking for any reason to call an ape "Daddy" .
More empty rhetoric. Incidentally, I am an ape too (like everyone else).
No problem. You are very polite. The glib answer (according to a google on "why is the corona hot". I am not a specialist on this either) is that we don't yet know. There are hypotheses to do with magnetic energy being emitted from the sun into the corona where it converts to heat but these have not as yet been tested.
From monotheism to pantheism, "distorted" is a bit of an understatement.
I must also comment on your confusion between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is the basis on which theories are constucted. You and I have the exact same evidence, yet we each come up with different theories. I see the Grand Canyon and see a gigantic dam burst, you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories of how mountains rose up from no where, for no know reason, and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top. Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" because for thousands of years we stick with the exact same theory that is consistant with the evidence rather than invent new ones only to be replaced by new ones when a different person interprets the same evidence differently (again).
Part of your misunderstanding appears to lie in a confusion between "Theories" and "Hypotheses". It is true to say the the creationist vs mainstream examples above are different hypotheses about the observed phenomena. However a hypothesis is not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word.
For a hypothesis to become a theory it must go through a demanding set of processes. Scientists try to tear it to pieces by finding logical or evidentiary errors. Observations and tests are suggested which have the potential of falsifying the hypothesis. Predictions are made using the hypothesis and scientists look to see if the predictions come true. Scientists examine the hypothesis to see if there could be a simpler natural explanation of the observed phenomena.
Hypotheses such as evolution, relativity, and plate-tectonics have passed these tests which is why scientists now refer to them as Theories (which has a completely different meaning to the lay word theory which is a synonym of hypothesis.) There is no statement of scientific truth stronger than a Theory (contrary to the common misconception that Laws are more certain than Theories, which is not so, laws are usually just simple mathematical relationships that fall out of certain theories)
The creationist hypotheses like the "Grand Canyon as damburst" and "mountaintop fossils resulting from the flood" on the other hand fail on every count. They don't make successful predictions, they fail the falsification tests, and they tend to be complicated, relying on a number of "miracles" to work at all.
So you agree that since Evolution has legions of logical and evidentiary errors that it is overly charitable to call it "Theory"?
What are you saying? That prior to Darwin there weren't any fossils? There weren't layers of dirt holding different kinds of rocks? What kind of unique scientific technology did Darwin haul out with him to the Galápagos Islands that was crucial in the formation of his so-called "theory"? So new and cutting edge that man had to wait until the 19th century before he could possibly have a grasp on his origins?
Come on, you're really a troll aren't you... (you can admit it)
But in that case we don't have the same evidence. No-one with the slightest knowledge of how water and rock interact in a dam burst would see such a phenomenon in the Grand Canyon.
OK, I see the required gratuitous insult, but I am searching... and I don't see your explanation or an attempt of a refutation (I guess "science" only requires insults)
... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill
The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.
Yes, but the if you look carefully at a topographical map, you will see that the headwaters of the Colorado river are several thousand feet lower than the Kaibob uplift. I much prefer to hear your theories about "how water and rock interact" in such a way where a creek that is at lower elevation than the rock it is supposed to chew a mile's depth through accomplishes what it did. I am also intrigued by your theories in hydrodynamics of how these remnant tributaries break from the river, not lead to it. Don't rivers usually join not separate?
But no, you must scoff at the Creationist as you ignore the maps, ignore the fact that a huge basin lies to the north of the Grand Canyon, and that how the "rock" would break apart isn't so hard to understand when one considers the type of rock and the Creationist's simple and consistent with the evidence explanation of how not-yet-solidified "rock" would break apart when saturated with water.
LOL!!! Do you stand-up work? Let me guess how you perceive the existence of the internet. (oh, this is priceless)
Billions and billions of years ago there was nothing.
One day, out of a chaos of random elements (that evolutionists conveniently exempt themselves from describing how it got there) copper and silicon molecules bonded together in extraordinary ways, all without any intelligent input whatsoever. These copper and silicon molecules, bonded with plastics gold and other synthetic materials (one of the missing links here) and organized themselves into routers, switches, computers, modems, wires and power supplies. There were countless beneficial mutations of the power supplies as one formed out of the chaos that supplied one million volts of power and blew up the entire primeval internet, but because there were billions and billions of years, and 10^80 molecules all working synergistically for a common goal it was able to rebuild itself and "learn" from the mistakes of a million years ago. One day, a scientist on contract for DARPA went to the Galápgos islands and saw a variety of modems, some DSL, other cable, and he found the "fossil" ancestor of the cable modem called the ISDN, buried in layers of earth below this, he was even able to spot a Radio Shack 300 Baud plug-in modem (whose parents were US Robotics). So excitedly he returned to his native homeland deep inside a government bureaucracy and drew gill slits on the embryonic modem, which after full gestation turned into a Cisco Router. He proved that all elements of the internet had a common ancestor in the telegraph. A single transistor, with the cathode missing was found buried in a sanitary landfill, miles away, a broken RJ13 cable connector was discovered, and soon museums and libraries around the world had taken these two "fossils" and constructed an elaborate display of what is now AOL....
Then Al Gore came along, and said that He was the Creator of the Internet. After that claim, millions of unthinking myrmidons who readily accepted the Words of the Creator Al Gore soon wanted to worship him as a President over all. Others looked at the internet and said "Surely this had to come about by intelligent design" yet they looked at Al Gore and didn't see intelligence there, and went on New Age theories and syncretisms of evolution and catastrophism. Maybe Al Gore sort of put the elements together and through evolved design over six "ages" finally became what it is today. Then there are people like you, who look at the Internet and say, that it all came about by itself with absolutely no intelligent design at all.
Please don't project your the lack of intelligence in your posts by saying that there is a lack of intelligence put into the internet.
I don't debate bratty children. Look up "cyclic universe" on Google, take a course in logic, learn to spell, and, most especially, grow up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.