Bible-Creation-Evolution

[Delphiki]

Forensics get on a fresh crime scene, where there is evidence left (created hours, or a few days before).

The origin of life, the earth etc is obviously completely different. We are talking billions or millions of years, and because of that huge timeframe hardly any evidence is left. We can't work out how the earth or moon was created, as some have already pointed out - there are 5 different theories on how the moon formed. Scientists don't have a clue. Evolution is exactly the same, its not proven - its just another theory. And the only people who disagree with this are militant atheists who NEED evolution to be true because they are insecure and fundamentalists.

Not a fan of Cold Case, I take it.

 

[Naraoia]

Forensics get on a fresh crime scene, where there is evidence left (created hours, or a few days before).

The origin of life, the earth etc is obviously completely different. We are talking billions or millions of years, and because of that huge timeframe hardly any evidence is left.

The relationship is not as simple as that. Not all evidence is erased by time.

This is hardly a fresh crime scene, but I bet you've seen something similar (and I don't mean the pencil or the limpets):

 

[Research1]

I'm afraid that maybe YOU can't. Some of us can and do.

Obvious troll.

No scientist have claimed they know how the moon was created. There is still five competing theories.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Obvious troll.

Please, don't use terms you don't understand.

No scientist have claimed they know how the moon was created. There is still five competing theories.

The consensus is the 'giant impact' hypothesis, for which there is considerable evidence. The other four hypotheses (internal capture, external capture, the tidal theory, and the cloud theory) have either fallen out of favour, or are too weak to stand on their own. While it is common to hear of five equivalent theories, there is, in fact, one clear consensus: the giant impact hypothesis.

 

[1611AV]

Because you say so?

That's your response to that post? Sad...

That's not what a religion is.

I can't observe what people in Tokyo are doing but thinking that they're probably going to work, eating, sleeping, etc isn't a religion.

Neither is the belief that black holes, virtual particles, or neutrinos exist.

This is merely an equivocation to make it seem as though evolution has as much, or as little, evidence as his religious beliefs.

We can't observe how murders happened either but we manage to convince a jury of who did it and their guilt. Is the law religious?

I think his point is, "I can't argue with evidence so I have to try and bring you down to my level." That's what I think his point is.

-KH

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious. If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

 

[sandwiches]

Obvious troll.

You were banned before for cursing and calling people 'trolls.'
I think it'd be best to avoid making the same mistakes twice even if you are on a new account.

 

[sandwiches]

-KH

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious. If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

Wrong and you're repeating yourself. We already told you that explanations of something we don't fully understand or know are not necessarily religion.

 

[Merlin]

Thank you. I'm just asking for more leeway in this discussion so it may be productive. Now just to be clear you didn't actually answer my original question but just illustrated my point.

Verse four is God dividing the light from darkness, and calling the former day and the latter night in verse five. Now in verse 18 why would there need to be a distinction between light and darkness when already this was done by God in verse four on the first day? Light was already separated from darkness on day one, so why again on day four? When I read the text word for word I still find that there are two descriptions of one event. Do you not notice that there are two accounts of differentiating between light and darkness, each on day one and four? What I am asking is why.

I am not saying that this is "proof" of God using evolution. I am saying that because of the similarities in the text that I just mentioned, Genesis is not depicted in a chronological manner and thus does not propose a "scientific" description of creation.

the first description is the description of the creation of light (photons).
the second description is the description of the creation of the sun and moon.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

-KH

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable.

Evolution is both: we can both observe and test evolution. The existence of the common ancestor is inferred through the veracity of evolution. You don't have to physically see it happen to know it happened; I haven't physically seen my brain, but I daresay I have one.

Thus, they are religious.

Depends what you mean by 'religious'. 'Taken on faith' isn't enough, because people who believe in ghosts and aliens aren't necessarily religious, but still take such things on faith.

If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

Not quite. Someone saying "I don't know" doesn't make them religious, nor does it make their beliefs faith-based beliefs. It may simply be that they really don't know. The Big Bang theory, for instance, is a very well-evidenced theory describing how the universe has developed and changed over the past 13.5 billion years (cheifly, by expanding from a singularity).

Where did that singularity come from?

Nobody knows.

BUT that doesn't make the Big Bang theory religious. One gap in human knowledge doesn't mean we should ring bells and sing praises to the LHC, or any such nonsense. It's not religious in the slightest - though it amuses me how the only people who attempt to charaterise scientific theories they don't like as 'religious' are themselves religious. Since when was 'faith' a dirty word?

Anyway. The Big Bang theory is well supported by the evidence, to the extent that there is no serious controversy within the scientific community as to its veracity. We are as confident that it is true as we are that atoms exist - which is to say, very confident indeed.

So the fact that we, at present, do not know where the singularity came from does not detract from the veracity of the Big Bang theory. Theories are allowed to posit things. The less they posit the better (as per Occam's razor), but they're not forbidden under pain of becoming religions

In short: if a well-evidenced theory posits something, then the evidence for that theory is also evidence for the existence of that something. The evidence for evolution constitutes evidence for the universal common ancestor of life on Earth, and similarly with the Big Bang and the posited singularity, and similarly with General Relativity and the posited speed limit of the universe, etc etc.

Neither the theory of common descent nor the Big Bang theory are religious.

 

[elopez]

Since when?

Since always. This is the most basic of science. Do you not know what a 24 hour day is? The sun must be involved.

 

[JoeNavy]

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable.

Reason’s you would say something like that.
1. You’ve never read Darwin’s work.
2. Didn’t pay attention in high-school biology.
3. Christian home-school.
5. You think that Genetic and fossil proof was placed here by God to test you…which an utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory. Against your own deity nonetheless. Leading me to wonder why you would worship a god like that?
I suggest you do some reading on microbiology research, or I can simply tell about bacteria that through EVOLUTION become immune to pesticides used on them. Or you can google the site below.

Evidence of common descent @ WIKPEDIA

Evolution is as real as the theory of the earth being round, and the earth revolving around the sun(both were heavily debated in the very recent past).

 

[Research1]

Please, don't use terms you don't understand.

Definition of troll:

''A person who posts outrageous, extraneous, controversial or off-topic messages to bait people to answer''

Sandwiches is a troll, who is claiming:

1. He knows how life started.
2. He knows howthe moon was created
3. He knows how the earth was created.

Militant Atheists like Sandwiches are trolls who think they have all the answers to everything, which kinds of contradicts the purpose of him posting here.

If he already knows everything, whey does he join a debating forum?

He's just posting stupid posts to wind people up.

The consensus is the 'giant impact' hypothesis, for which there is considerable evidence. The other four hypotheses (internal capture, external capture, the tidal theory, and the cloud theory) have either fallen out of favour, or are too weak to stand on their own. While it is common to hear of five equivalent theories, there is, in fact, one clear consensus: the giant impact hypothesis.

A mere hypothesis isn't a proven fact.

Sandwiches is claiming he knows (for certain) about everything and that scientists know all the answers about the origin of life (that evolution is a fact) and the origin of the moon. Re-read his post where he clearly stated this. I see you are jumping to protect Atheists like Sndwiches who break rules (and are clear trolls) but would you do the same to creationists or Christians if they began to post extraneous comments? Probably not...

 

[Phred]

Forensics get on a fresh crime scene, where there is evidence left (created hours, or a few days before).

So how long is too long before we can no longer learn anything? A week? A month? A year? Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand years? A million years? A billion years? The process is the same. It's just the evidence has fossilized.

The origin of life, the earth etc is obviously completely different. We are talking billions or millions of years, and because of that huge timeframe hardly any evidence is left.

But there is evidence all the same. Sure, most of the lifeforms that have existed over the eons are gone forever. But we get snapshots into the past. From those we learn quite a bit.

We can't work out how the earth or moon was created, as some have already pointed out - there are 5 different theories on how the moon formed.

Seven. I'm aware of seven different hypothesis on how the moon was formed. Doesn't change the fact that the moon is there, does it? Or that the earth is here. Or that we orbit the sun. Or how old each is.

Scientists don't have a clue.

Sure they do. And, as time goes by and we learn more and more we find that some of those hypothesis are incorrect. Either way each one takes into account the evidence that we have.

Evolution is exactly the same, its not proven - its just another theory.

You don't know what a theory is, do you? A theory is a hypothesis that's supported by all the known evidence. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The theory explains the observed fact of evolution which is corroborated by not one but many lines of scientific inquiry. If any one found information that was contradictory the entire theory would have to be discarded or changed. Hasn't happened in 150 years. We know more about evolution than we do about nearly any other scientific theory. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. And you say it's not proven? That's simply not correct and couldn't be any more incorrect. Every living thing evolves and has evolved to get where it is now. Nothing contradicts this. Nothing.

And the only people who disagree with this are militant atheists who NEED evolution to be true because they are insecure and fundamentalists.

Hardly. The only people who feel the need to try and contradict science are religionists with their ancient texts who are trying to prove them literally correct. Otherwise there would be no reason to try. If your god created you in his image he did it through evolution. You can deny it all you wish, you can pretend it's not happening and build museums to ignorance. It doesn't change the facts. Mankind evolved.

 

[Phred]

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious. If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

There is no "creation theory" there is only a creation story. It is testable and has been falsified. It didn't happen that way. Evolution is not a theory that has anything to do with creation. You get all confused because your story just tosses everything into a few paragraphs and you're satisfied with that.

As to "in the beginning God" or "in the beginning dirt" no... there was no god in the beginning just as there is no god now. Dirt didn't show up until there were rocky planets a good few billion years into the lifetime of the universe.

Please don't try to conflate the belief in mythology with acceptance of science. If you want to believe that's how things happened, fine. But I won't let you get away with pretending the two are competing theories. They are not.

 

[Phred]

Definition of troll:

''A person who posts outrageous, extraneous, controversial or off-topic messages to bait people to answer''

Sandwiches is a troll, who is claiming:

1. He knows how life started.
2. He knows howthe moon was created
3. He knows how the earth was created.

Militant Atheists like Sandwiches are trolls who think they have all the answers to everything, which kinds of contradicts the purpose of him posting here.

If he already knows everything, whey does he join a debating forum?

He's just posting stupid posts to wind people up.

A mere hypothesis isn't a proven fact.

Sandwiches is claiming he knows (for certain) about everything and that scientists know all the answers about the origin of life (that evolution is a fact) and the origin of the moon. Re-read his post where he clearly stated this. I see you are jumping to protect Atheists like Sndwiches who break rules (and are clear trolls) but would you do the same to creationists or Christians if they began to post extraneous comments? Probably not...

Your god isn't a proven fact. Jesus isn't a proven fact. Nothing you believe in regarding Christianity is a proven fact. But you aren't honest enough to say it the way Sandwiches did, which was, "the accepted hypothesis". He never claimed it was a fact. He broke no rules nor did anything but make you feel bad. Evolution is a fact. Saying it isn't doesn't change that. Calling him a troll doesn't change that. Watching you have a fit because your belief is challenged... priceless.

Evolution is a fact. By every definition of the word. I can pour evidence down upon you until you drown in it. But you'll still continue to deny it. Because you NEED it not to be true. And that's your problem. Because if you're right and your god created all this then we're studying what your god did. And you're denying his work. That's something you really need to figure out.

 

[Shemjaza]

Forensics get on a fresh crime scene, where there is evidence left (created hours, or a few days before).

So, how long after Jesus of Nazareth's death were the books of the bible written?

Evolution is exactly the same, its not proven - its just another theory. And the only people who disagree with this are militant atheists who NEED evolution to be true because they are insecure and fundamentalists.

How do you explain the (sometimes devout) Christian theistic evolutionists?

Personally I'd be horrified by reality if the evidence pointed to your god being real, but a Christian TE type could be perfectly happy in a created world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since always. This is the most basic of science. Do you not know what a 24 hour day is? The sun must be involved.

No, the sun doesn't have to be involved.

Day:

The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.

Time required for a celestial body to turn once on its axis; especially, the period of the Earth's rotation.

period of time for the earth to rotate once on its axis.

 

[Assyrian]

The earth rotates? Where does Genesis say that?

 

[AV1611VET]

The earth rotates? Where does Genesis say that?

Ah, sorry -- my bad.

It didn't start rotating until Exodus -- right?

 

[Assyrian]

Ah you mean the water sloshing back when the earth started rotating is how the Israelites crossed the Red Sea? Do you have a verse to support that?