Theistic Evolution

BlueSubmarine · #1 19th October 2002, 11:07 PM

Not to insult anyone's beliefs, but I think believing in the account of creation presented in Genesis is insane. There is no real scientific proof that any of this happened. I believe the universe was created by God through the big bang and evolution. Science supports this theory. I am aware that many out there are going to be screaming at me for posting this, throwing out inaccurate "Creation Science" and demanding evidence for the theory of evolution. Well, read a modern biology book. Some claim that "theistic evolution" is an oxymoron, but I say it is a rational explaination of our creation.

paulewog · #2 19th October 2002, 11:27 PM

That's your opinion, and many opinions.

However, science has been trying, and still is, to prove it's evolutional theories through finding missing links, yet it hasn't. One proof of it's NOT finding missing links is the huge explosion of articles and haha-told-you-so's whenever they find a new supposed missing link

hehe

As to creation being insane, I actually find it much insaner to think that this whole orderly universe, vast universe (so vast that we get a tiny glimmer and find out we're actually NOT so terribly smart as we think we are) came about by chance.

TheBear · #3 19th October 2002, 11:39 PM

Welcome aboard, BlueSubmarine.

I understand and agree with what you are saying. Personally though, I would not have said it quite as you did. Remember, good science stands on it's own, without the need to attack another position.

And, you will be much better recieved, if you don't start out in attack mode.

I am a Christian who sees absolutely no conflict with God creating through an evolutionary process.

Hope you enjoy your stay here.

John

LewisWildermuth · #4 19th October 2002, 11:41 PM

Well BlueSubmarine, despite the screaming of the creationists, there are many Christians out there that agree with you. I am one of them, a former creationist that actualy bothered to read material outside of the creationist books and learned how bad the creationist arguments really were and still are.

Paulewog...

Isn't it interesting how science finds new evidence every day yet creationists have yet to supply any?

TheBear · #5 19th October 2002, 11:44 PM

Isn't it interesting how science finds new evidence every day yet creationists have yet to supply any?

True, that.

paulewog · #6 19th October 2002, 11:56 PM

Isn't it interesting how science finds new evidence every day yet creationists have yet to supply any?

It's interesting how much of it gets thrown down.

We do have "proof." Just, I don't think anyone would listen to us, since no one wants to beleive in Creation at all. Believe me, we've tried

But things can be hushed up pretty quickly.

I could mention some things, but you'd probably toss them aside in some way. One I've never had an answer for is "moon dust."

And yes, they come up with new evidence, but it's so weird how much of it eventually gets forgotten... all the supposed missing links that were found out nto to be, so nobody EVER mentions them anymore, even though they were firmly believed to be missing links

And evolution just doesn't fit well with the Bible... hehe

Pete Harcoff · #7 20th October 2002, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by paulewog
It's interesting how much of it gets thrown down.

Oh, really? Like what? I do recall a few hoaxes creationists like to bandy about (Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor), but I can't think of any others.

Partially I blame the media for all lot of this "perception" that evidence is being constantly overturned. The media will typically jump on any scientific "breakthrough", even before the discovery has been properly evaluated (cold fusion, anyone?).

I could mention some things, but you'd probably toss them aside in some way. One I've never had an answer for is "moon dust."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1372.asp

I'm surprised this one's still around (creationists should really pay more attention to their own literature).

fragmentsofdreams · #8 20th October 2002, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by paulewog
And evolution just doesn't fit well with the Bible... hehe

And finally we get to the real reason people are so enthusiastic about Creationism, a perceived conflict with the Bible.

TheBear · #9 20th October 2002, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by paulewog
It's interesting how much of it gets thrown down.

We do have "proof." Just, I don't think anyone would listen to us, since no one wants to beleive in Creation at all. Believe me, we've tried

Paul, I just wanted you to know that there are untold hundreds, and perhaps thousands of new ideas and hypothesis that get torn apart and rejected by the scientific community each and every year. Only a tiny fraction of these have anything to do with a religious perspective. What I am saying is, the overwhelming majority of the rejected ideas, have absolutely nothing to do with creationist or religious beliefs. All findings and interpretations have to go through a rigorous obstacle course. Most don't make the grade.

But things can be hushed up pretty quickly.

Listen to yourself, Paul. It sounds like a bad case of sour grapes. Read that last paragraph again. I hope I was able to clarify things for you.

One I've never had an answer for is "moon dust."

Give me a minute. I'll address this.

And evolution just doesn't fit well with the Bible... hehe

No....Evolution does not fit well with your specific interpretation of the Bible.

LewisWildermuth · #10 20th October 2002, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by paulewog
It's interesting how much of it gets thrown down.

We do have "proof." Just, I don't think anyone would listen to us, since no one wants to beleive in Creation at all. Believe me, we've tried

Since when did science ever say that anything was ever 100% proven? Science says that some things and ideas are more likely, but never 100% proven.

Why you ask? Well Prove to me that you exist... You cannot prove that at all. If you can even prove you exist you can't prove anything 100%.

But things can be hushed up pretty quickly.

Yes they do, by retractions in journals. As far as things being hushed up in the regular media, well let's face it, science is boring for the masses compared to some nutcase shooting people. So the media just moves on. Try reading some real scientific journals instead of the paper or magazines some time.

And never blame on conspiracy what can be attributed to stupidity, you'll be wrong every time.

I could mention some things, but you'd probably toss them aside in some way. One I've never had an answer for is "moon dust."

The "Moon Dust" argument???? Man that was shot down before it was ever used. AIG and most of the more "respectable" creationist groups have given up on this one, the only two people that use it currently that I know of are Jack Chick and Hovind.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1372.asp

Also...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...es/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp

There you go, a creationist site even demolishes the argument, sadly it took them until 1993 to figure out what Nasa figgured out in the late 1960's.

And yes, they come up with new evidence, but it's so weird how much of it eventually gets forgotten... all the supposed missing links that were found out nto to be, so nobody EVER mentions them anymore, even though they were firmly believed to be missing links

That is because, unlike some creationist groups, when something is proven false they go on to find a better explanation. Why keep saying something is this way when you found out it wasn't? Now if only creationists would do this more, I wouldn't mind creationism as much if it was atleast a little more honest and up to date on the issues.

And evolution just doesn't fit well with the Bible... hehe

No, evolution does not fit in with a strict literalist reading of the Bible, but then again neither does round earth theory and earth-is-not-the-center-of-the-universe theory, and germ theory and the North and South American continents.....