Why Theistic Evolutionists and Christian Creationists Butt Heads

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
nvxplorer said:
I must strongly disagree. It is the arrogance of literalists that blinds them to the creation in favor of their man-made interpretations.
I suppose you could say that evolutionists believe that the Bible is man-made. Creationists believe the Bible is inspired. Given the so-called scientific evidence then, it is only natural that evolutionists would choose to believe in man's interpretation of origins/natural selection over God's account in Genesis.

What I am arguing is that the "evidence" of evolution is put forth as fact - truth - when really all it is is a set of loosely-interpreted hypotheses that may or may not be true. Evolution is not directly testable in the sense that gravity is, because evolution deals with history. That history is interpreted through fossil remains, which, after over 100 years, still do not prove conclusively that Darwin was correct in his theory.
 
Upvote 0

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
TheBear said:
I couldn't get past this line. It is absolutely false.

This is one of the major reasons there is a lot of head-butting. Creationists start out with a false premise, and launch their counter-points from the false premise.

It's especially disheartening, when someone is told something repeatedly, but still plows ahead on a false premise.

If you really want to minimize the head-butting, stop putting forth lies.
Sure sure. ;)

If evolutionary scientists presupposed that God exists and that He created all things, why are we here today? There would be no debate! Your argument is not only flawed, it's patently false.

The fact is, evolutionary scientists get all angry and defensive when the topic of God comes up. And a short time ago, I even cited a Nobel Laureate as saying that God should remain OUT of the picture altogether.
 
Upvote 0

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ryal Kane said:
What's his name? And what's his evidence?
He is a good friend of mine. To my knowledge, he has not published any articles on the specific topic of evolution. But in conversations I have had with him, he has expressed his Creationist point of view.
 
Upvote 0

Battie

Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
1,531
158
38
Northern Virginia
Visit site
✟9,989.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
SackLunch said:
Does anyone here have a valid, substantial remark in regards to the OP?

Why? Does it really matter? The OP is proof that you don't care what we say to you. We've explained our positions dozens of times on this board. We've explained why we are not disregarding God's word, we've explained evolution. We've answered all your questions. And here you start again at square one.

When are you going to start listening to us, to start considering what we have to say? This is becoming almost offensive.
 
Upvote 0

Douglaangu v2.0

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2004
809
40
✟1,169.00
Faith
Atheist
He is a good friend of mine. To my knowledge, he has not published any articles on the specific topic of evolution. But in conversations I have had with him, he has expressed his Creationist point of view.

You were talking about creation/creationism, not evolution.

What is his evidence of creation/creationism?
 
Upvote 0

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nathan Poe said:
So you say.

Let's assume for a moment that this is true. How would you propose to remedy this?

How should scientists, in your ever-so-humble opinion, include God in their scientific pursuits?
Well in a perfect world, evolutionary scientists would begin with the knowledge that God created the universe and the human race. They would then study our natural world based on this premise. Rather than "how did the nose develop from natural selection/random mutations" it would be "we know that God created the nose, so let's study it."
 
Upvote 0

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Battie said:
Why? Does it really matter? The OP is proof that you don't care what we say to you. We've explained our positions dozens of times on this board. We've explained why we are not disregarding God's word, we've explained evolution. We've answered all your questions. And here you start again at square one.

When are you going to start listening to us, to start considering what we have to say? This is becoming almost offensive.
I've listened to what you have to say, I just disagree. Have you listened to what I have to say?
 
Upvote 0

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Douglaangu v2.0 said:
You were talking about creation/creationism, not evolution.

What is his evidence of creation/creationism?
My good geneticist friend has not published any scholarly articles refuting evolution to my knowledge. But I have had many good conversations with him where he expressed his Christian Creationist, anti-evolutionary views.
 
Upvote 0

Douglaangu v2.0

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2004
809
40
✟1,169.00
Faith
Atheist
Well in a perfect world, evolutionary scientists would begin with the knowledge that God created the universe and the human race. They would then study our natural world based on this premise. Rather than "how did the nose develop from natural selection/random mutations" it would be "we know that God created the nose, so let's study it."

Gee golly gosh, back, oh musta been 200 years ago they did just that. They started with the premise that the world was 6000 years old, and that geology would support that.

You win a prize if you guess what happened.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
SackLunch said:
Sure sure. ;)

If evolutionary scientists presupposed that God exists and that He created all things, why are we here today? There would be no debate! Your argument is not only flawed, it's patently false.

The fact is, evolutionary scientists get all angry and defensive when the topic of God comes up. And a short time ago, I even cited a Nobel Laureate as saying that God should remain OUT of the picture altogether.

"Sure sure" my butt!

The fact is, science does not confirm or deny the existance of a God. Fact is, the topic of God never 'comes up' in scientific research, ever. It is not part of the scientific process.

Now that you know this, stop spreading these falsehoods. They are nothing more than wild, (and false), speculation on your part.
 
Upvote 0

Douglaangu v2.0

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2004
809
40
✟1,169.00
Faith
Atheist
My good geneticist friend has not published any scholarly articles refuting evolution to my knowledge. But I have had many good conversations with him where he expressed his Christian Creationist, anti-evolutionary views.

Thats great and all, but falsifying evolution doesn't mean creationism is automaticly true.

So, what evidence did he use for creationism?
 
Upvote 0

Battie

Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
1,531
158
38
Northern Virginia
Visit site
✟9,989.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
SackLunch said:
I've listened to what you have to say, I just disagree. Have you listened to what I have to say?

I've listened and I've answered you.

If you've listened, why have you ignored almost every post we made in response to your threads. You've said earlier that you were dodging attempts you corner you and personal attacks, but I don't buy that because I know I have not been doing that.

You are free to disagree with us, but why have you made yet another thread with statements that have been answered previously? I recall that a great deal of this has been dealt with in your "Private Interpretation" thread, but you just dropped that one. If you're going to post the same statements with no evidence that you've considered our thoughts on the matter, then you've given us no reason to believe you listen or care about what we have to say.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟20,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
SackLunch said:
Well in a perfect world, evolutionary scientists would begin with the knowledge that God created the universe and the human race. They would then study our natural world based on this premise. Rather than "how did the nose develop from natural selection/random mutations" it would be "we know that God created the nose, so let's study it."
Do you remember my post about lightening and Franklin? Was Franklin wrong in ignoring the common belief that lightening was sent by God to strike homes that contained evil spirits? Should we ditch his lightening rod and return to the practice of letting homes that have been struck burn to the ground?

Do you see the difference between theism and scriptural interpretation? Just as God doesn’t control lightening bolts, he doesn’t mass produce noses. Lightening is a result of static charge, and the nose evolved. The fact that you cannot reconcile science with your biblical interpretation is sad. It must cause you much pain.
 
Upvote 0

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
TheBear said:
"Sure sure" my butt!

The fact is, science does not confirm or deny the existance of a God. Fact is, the topic of God never 'comes up' in scientific research, ever. It is not part of the scientific process.

Now that you know this, stop spreading these falsehoods. They are nothing more than wild, (and false), speculation on your part.
But when God is brought up as an issue, evolutionary scientists jump up and down like babboons and get all out of sorts about it. They claim the mention of God is pseudoscience, and would never dare to presuppose that God exists and that He created the universe and the human race. You should know this by now, right? :confused:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Douglaangu v2.0 said:
Thats great and all, but falsifying evolution doesn't mean creationism is automaticly true.

So, what evidence did he use for creationism?
Well in short, he believes in God's literal interpretation of Genesis in the Bible. As I do.
 
Upvote 0
SackLunch said:
First, the theory of evolution presupposes there is no God.
Me said:
Y'know, I stopped reading just about here.:sigh:
SackLunch said:
Keep reading. That's the truth. As if scientists are so inclined to acknowledge that God is the creator of the universe and the human race? In reality, evolutionary scientists are highly opposed to the notion of including God in their scientific pursuits. Many people here on this board reflect these views.

Your comment just doesn't make much sense.
Evolutionary theory presupposes nothing about God. Individual scientists in fields related to evolution (biology, paleontology, genetics, etc.) may presuppose any number of things about the supernatural, according to their own theological leanings or lack thereof. Until those presuppositions represent detectable, measurable, recordable data, those presuppositions cannot be included one way or another into the ToE.

DrummerWench
*wonders why she's responding*
 
Upvote 0

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Battie said:
I've listened and I've answered you.

If you've listened, why have you ignored almost every post we made in response to your threads. You've said earlier that you were dodging attempts you corner you and personal attacks, but I don't buy that because I know I have not been doing that.

You are free to disagree with us, but why have you made yet another thread with statements that have been answered previously? I recall that a great deal of this has been dealt with in your "Private Interpretation" thread, but you just dropped that one. If you're going to post the same statements with no evidence that you've considered our thoughts on the matter, then you've given us no reason to believe you listen or care about what we have to say.
Well obviously you haven't listened to a word I have said. I am tired now, and it would be a huge task to restate my entire set of Christian Creationist beliefs. Maybe in another thread you will pay attention. :angel:
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟20,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
SackLunch said:
But when God is brought up as an issue, evolutionary scientists jump up and down like babboons and get all out of sorts about it. They claim the mention of God is pseudoscience, and would never dare to presuppose that God exists and that He created the universe and the human race. You should know this by now, right? :confused:
THE MENTION OF GOD IS FAITH. FAITH CANNOT BE EXAMINED AS SCIENCE. MANY THINGS FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO GOD HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO OCCUR NATURALLY. WHAT DO YOU WANT, SACKLUNCH? A RETURN TO THE DARK AGES?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟20,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
SackLunch said:
Well in short, he believes in God's literal interpretation of Genesis in the Bible. As I do.
Freudian slip?

Are you now claiming to be God? Let’s get it straight, Sack. It’s YOUR interpretation that claims abra-cadabra-poof, not God’s.
 
Upvote 0