Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
This is all personal opinion and definately subjective and I am in no way shape or form an advocate of evolution.
1. Creationism is not observable or testable scientifically.
2. Evolution/Creation debates are generally moderated by science that requires testing of observable data.
3. A first cause does not rule out a second cause.
Honestly I believe that these types of debates don't get very far because the two sides have totally different ideas on what science truly is. Nobody really "wins".
Evolution, to an extent, is a supplement to creation.
.....but my conclusion will probably stand the test of time:
Bones in dirt dug up equals:
Bones in dirt dug up.
__________________ God made humor. He must really love me.
The subconscious thoughts of an atheist: "I can use subjective morals. God can't."
My bigest problem is that some Christians seem to fear science and thus attack it and convince others that if you belive science you are not saved. It was done when science proposed the Earth was round, aslo when it proposed that Earth was not the center of the universe. How many souls were lost when the church was forced to eat those words? Even one would have been too many, but it is more likely in the thousands if not more. And now they are doing the same with evolution...
The only thing that science could possibly do to threaten Christianity is to invent timetravel and prove that Jesus did not return from the dead or even exist at all. And if that were true than Christianity needs toppled. But we are so far from making a time machine, even if that is possible which is still under debate, that Christianity has nothing to fear for thousands of years.
Do those Christians who feal threatened by science think that their religion is that weak?
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth My bigest problem is that some Christians seem to fear science and thus attack it and convince others that if you belive science you are not saved. It was done when science proposed the Earth was round, aslo when it proposed that Earth was not the center of the universe. How many souls were lost when the church was forced to eat those words? Even one would have been too many, but it is more likely in the thousands if not more....Do those Christians who feal threatened by science think that their religion is that weak?
In the introduction to his book Genesis and the Big Bang, Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder writes:
"An understanding of both physics and biblical tradition shows that the opening chapters of the book of Genesis and the findings of modern cosmology corroborate with rather than dispute each other.
"I make this statement well aware that skeptics from both the scientific and the biblical schools are looking over my shoulders. They have a shared design: Each wants to leave the topic totally unconvinced of the validity of the other's teachings. I doubt that I can convince an avowed secularist that, beyond providing cultural insights, the Bible is also a valid source of cosmological insight. The fundamentalist, on the other hand, may have little use for the claims of cosmology as an aid to understanding the Bible. If this book can broaden the perspective by which each views the other's knowledge, then I will have accomplished my goal."
This is all personal opinion and definately subjective and I am in no way shape or form an advocate of evolution.
1. Creationism is not observable or testable scientifically.
2. Evolution/Creation debates are generally moderated by science that requires testing of observable data.
3. A first cause does not rule out a second cause.
Honestly I believe that these types of debates don't get very far because the two sides have totally different ideas on what science truly is. Nobody really "wins".
Evolution, to an extent, is a supplement to creation.
.....but my conclusion will probably stand the test of time:
I know a few cosmologists. They are, without exception, totally indifferent to the truth or falsehood of the Bible when it comes to their work.
They are consumed with the validity of their model against the only evidence worth pursuing: The universe.
Same is true of scientists at say, the U of Beijing. Why would they possibly give any more attention to the bible than to Brazilian soccer scores, when doing their work?
if the bible got something right, fine, who cares; same if it got something wrong.
Same is true of scientists at say, the U of Beijing. Why would they possibly give any more attention to the bible than to Brazilian soccer scores, when doing their work?
Because they couldn't, even if they tried.
The Bible defies all science, so most scientists like to pretend It is just another piece of lore.
To attempt to accredit It will bankrupt them; to attempt to falsify It will bankrupt them -- so they protect their interests by pretending It is a work of fiction.
Then, when someone happens to come along that believes something written on one of Its pages, these scientists then suddenly demand evidence that they, themselves would know better than to try and search for themselves.
1. Creationism is not observable or testable scientifically.
In the real world, creativity and creation are observed on a daily basis. Even Richard Dawkins admits creationism is testable. Rather it is spontaneous evolution that is unobserved and untestable.
"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005
"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008
2. Evolution/Creation debates are generally moderated by science that requires testing of observable data.
False.
3. A first cause does not rule out a second cause.
A First Cause = God.
__________________ "Would that I had unknown utterances, sayings that are unfamiliar, even new speech that has not occurred (before), free from repetitions, not the utterance of what has [long?] passed, which the ancestors spake." -- Khekheperre-Sonbu, priest, 19th century B.C.
"Man will believe anything, as long as it's not in the Bible." -- Napoleon Bonaparte, emperor, 19th century
"We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet." -- Harold C. Urey, chemist, 1962
In the real world, creativity and creation are observed on a daily basis.
And funnily enough none of them need any kind of supernatural explanation!
Even Richard Dawkins admits creationism is testable.
And so far it's failed every single test.
Rather it is spontaneous evolution that is unobserved and untestable.
So which part exactly did we fail to explain to you thoroughly enough last time? We've shown you exactly how evolution works, how modern genetics has made common descent a fact, and how we've observed speciation events both in nature and in the lab...
"..." William A. Dembski
Quoting a religious philosopher who holds not a single degree relating in any way to evolution, genetics, or any other field relating to them really doesn't help your case. He's an evangelical christian with a political agenda. Nothing else.
"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, [Ph.D, FRS, FRSL, Evolutionary Biologist], 2008
This is called intellectual honesty. Every scientist is open to being proven wrong; in one of the greatest joys in science besides discovering something revolutionary is being proven wrong. He's open to the possibility of panspermia, just as much as he's open to all other possibilities. The issue is evidence. Anyone can make a claim of irreducible complexity, but unless you can show it to be true and back it up with evidence, your claim is meaningless.
Also, on a side note: calling such an esteemed professor of evolutionary biology an 'atheist preacher' because he's outspoken is less an insult to him, and more an insult to yourself. I fixed it for you at the bottom of your quote. I'm surprised you didn't add 'PhD' after Dembski... Although it's in the completely unrelated field of mathematics...
False.
Saying something is false doesn't just make it so. You must also back up your claim. Ever wonder why you never see any of us atheists replying with simply 'That's false' without giving an explanation and evidence? Exactly.
A First Cause = God.
Sure you could conject that the universe required a first cause, and you could even conject that it was some intelligent being. Where your idea falls flat is proving what intelligent being was the first cause. I say the first cause was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Show how your god is any more valid that mine at being a first cause. (And no, bible quotes don't count because you would first have to somehow prove its veracity first)
Linear Mode
