Can Evolution and Creation Co-Exist?

[AV1611VET]

I am trying to mesh my religious faith with some simbalance of reason and logic, which right now is getting harder and harder.

Try doing what I do --- give God the credit for His Creation - (including the science that makes our lives so much safer and easier).

 

[Matthewj1985]

Try doing what I do --- give God the credit for His Creation - (including the science that makes our lives so much safer and easier).

I might be able to do that after a little brain damage but sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling during biology class just ain't gonna cut it mang.

 

[AV1611VET]

No he has no problem using faulty science and outright lies to sell you books.

You mean, like this one?

 

[Matthewj1985]

You mean, like this one?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Bombila]

Perhaps he really believes it, Bombila?

I can say, from personal experience, that as much as I try to explain myself, I've been called a liar, deceiver, YEC, Last Thursdayist, Omphalos, idiot, troll, Poe, and a few things that I can't put into print.

I have said before, AV, that I'm pretty sure you believe what you say. I see no evidence that you're lieing. I think you're wrong, and I think you could be finding a whole new exciting layer of the creation you love if you were able to bust out of your literalism a bit, but that's your choice, and I don't perceive you to be a liar.

Hovind, though, really does make stuff up. He misquotes Laws, or quotes half of them. He deliberately says things that are not true, are proven to be not true, not just about evolution, but things like the kind of star the sun is.

I don't think he does believe any of what he says, except possibly as one might delude oneself by telling an untruth over and over. When I see what he writes and listen to what he says, I see a snake oil salesman, looking to make a sale of something not worth the bottle it's filling. It isn't just that I don't agree with his conclusions.

He's the worst kind of spokesman for creationism or any kind of belief in God, because he appeals to people who haven't the discernment or background to examine what he says critically. He takes advantage of them, plays them for fools. I hate that kind of thing. People shouldn't be made fools of and have money taken from their pockets because they are deceived into thinking someone like Hovind is an honest, upright man.

He isn't in prison because he's a Christian, AV. He's in prison because he lied multiple times to the IRS about his income and his possessions. Now, I've known quite a few ministers and preachers, and I'll bet you have too. How many of them break the law to hide money?

 

[Matthewj1985]

I have said before, AV, that I'm pretty sure you believe what you say. I see no evidence that you're lieing. I think you're wrong, and I think you could be finding a whole new exciting layer of the creation you love if you were able to bust out of your literalism a bit, but that's your choice, and I don't perceive you to be a liar.

Hovind, though, really does make stuff up. He misquotes Laws, or quotes half of them. He deliberately says things that are not true, are proven to be not true, not just about evolution, but things like the kind of star the sun is.

I don't think he does believe any of what he says, except possibly as one might delude oneself by telling an untruth over and over. When I see what he writes and listen to what he says, I see a snake oil salesman, looking to make a sale of something not worth the bottle it's filling. It isn't just that I don't agree with his conclusions.

He's the worst kind of spokesman for creationism or any kind of belief in God, because he appeals to people who haven't the discernment or background to examine what he says critically. He takes advantage of them, plays them for fools. I hate that kind of thing. People shouldn't be made fools of and have money taken from their pockets because they are deceived into thinking someone like Hovind is an honest, upright man.

He isn't in prison because he's a Christian, AV. He's in prison because he lied multiple times to the IRS about his income and his possessions. Now, I've known quite a few ministers and preachers, and I'll bet you have too. How many of them break the law to hide money?

These are further proof....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeUo6nTBVd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV72V-DFNJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_zikW-2yk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXJmsw-RewE

I personally think he believes this stuff and is very close to certifiable.

 

[Bombila]

I don't think Hovind believes it. I think he is convinced of his own cleverness, likes his money, thought he could fool the taxman and the courts the same way he fools a lot of people, and found out different. I think there was probably some hubris there, as he had avoided a court case on another issue and won.

 

[Naraoia]

This is what I was talking about. He doesn't make up stuff. I read some of his books. They make more sense to me.

That doesn't necessarily mean they really make more sense. If you don't have much science education, many things in science can seem confusing and hard to believe. On the other hand, if you do have that education, the stuff some creationists come up with starts to look fairly...

And sometimes you don't even have to be educated in the particular field the creationist is talking about; a scientific mindset (by which I mean mostly critical examination of evidence) is often enough! I remember when ages ago I set about debunking CreationWiki's page about the moon's age. I'm an evolutionary biology undergrad, I know little about anything in that article, and yet I was able to spot massive, gaping holes in the arguments presented. They weren't holes in some highly technical subtleties of geophysics; they were general errors of reasoning and poor interpretation of data.

Whenever I read evolution stuff it always contradicts itself.

First, what evolution stuff have you read? Second, what contradictions have you found? I'm fairly sure that most of the "contradictions" stem from misunderstanding, and I'd be more than willing to help you resolve them.

(And, before you get scared, that doesn't mean I'm trying to take away your faith or anything. I know how much I wanted to have faith some years ago (not so sure what I want now); I wouldn't wish for anyone to lose it.)

 

[agentorange20]

Try doing what I do --- give God the credit for His Creation - (including the science that makes our lives so much safer and easier).

Your audacity and hypocrisy is hilarious. First, your headline reads 'Science can take a hike' only to be followed up with that remark. Contradict much?

 

[agentorange20]

There is no science behind the Creation --- therefore "Goddidit" is a viable starting point.

Since when is invoking supernatural magic a reasonable and logical explanation for anything for which we are temporarily ignorant of?

Don't know how/why life became so diverse? 'goddidit' (magic)

Don't know how/why lighting works? 'goddidit' (magic)

Don't know how/why celestial objects orbit in a predictable manner ?'goddidit' (magic)

Don't understand X, don't worry, godditit!

Ad infinitum...

Invoking the supernatural, or goddidit, as an explanation to anything unfounded is about as logical as invoking Gnomes/elves/leprachauns who magically create Rainbows.

Besides, the answer of 'goddidit' doesn't explain what processes and mechanisms god used, so it's entirely useless as it can't be shown to be right or wrong based on evidence. Saying goddidit explains who did it, not how. Science tells us the how/why.

As my challenge shows, even scientists have no problem with doing their work not knowing how mass/energy came about.

Science does have the answer for this, refer back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and how energy/matter as states can only exist, they can't not exist. Ergo, their existance defies the very notion of requireing an agent of creation in the first place.

 

[agentorange20]

No it can't. Creation is truth from the Bible.

And we know this b/c.....? 'truth' is contigent on objective evidence, not decries based on authority.

It is used to glorify God.

And all those other religious creation stories which don't conform to the christian version, do they glorify God then too?

Evolution was made to disprove and seperate from religion.

Right, just like Gravity was made to disprove that a God wasn't directly involved in the celestial orbits of planets. Home schooled?

The theory of evolution was created to get rid of God. Besides, these two things can never go together. Whenever they do, it contradicts the bible and it contradicts the laws of science.

I wouldn't worry about evolutionary theory contradicting the bible too much, especially with how much the bible itself has its own internal contradictions and how it also doesn't follow other science evidence and theories. Evolution contradicts science, how?

 

[agentorange20]

2. The man, Ken Ham, is actually a very smart man

I wouldn't call him a man, he's more like a mental midget, he's basically an apologist for th faith. Smart how? Degreed in what again, Theology or Science?

...who brings loads of evidence and some good points.

Loads? What scientific discoveries has he been involved in? Articles of peer review? By loads, do you mean his creation museum (which is built on fossil formations, oh the irony) which proposes a 6000 year old year universe and men walking with dinosaurs like 'The Flintstones'?

 

[Matthewj1985]

Since when is invoking supernatural magic a reasonable and logical explanation for anything for which we are temporarily ignorant of?

Don't know how/why life became so diverse? 'goddidit' (magic)

Don't know how/why lighting works? 'goddidit' (magic)

Don't know how/why celestial objects orbit in a predictable manner ?'goddidit' (magic)

Don't understand X, don't worry, godditit!

Ad infinitum...

Invoking the supernatural, or goddidit, as an explanation to anything unfounded is about as logical as invoking Gnomes/elves/leprachauns who magically create Rainbows.

Besides, the answer of 'goddidit' doesn't explain what processes and mechanisms god used, so it's entirely useless as it can't be shown to be right or wrong based on evidence. Saying goddidit explains who did it, not how. Science tells us the how/why.



Science does have the answer for this, refer back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and how energy/matter as states can only exist, they can't not exist. Ergo, their existance defies the very notion of requireing an agent of creation in the first place.

Remember the dark ages were brought on by fundamentalist and the current dark age of the Islamic world was as well. Back when were were bleeding people to cure a cold they were inventing Algebra.

 

[agentorange20]

Is that why you guys have given us the age of the universe about 20 different times?

No. Science works according to evidence and how well its supported is dependent upon how much its tested and how consistent it is with other evidence. Over a 100 years ago people didn't know about Physics and so they couldn't have known that isotopes decay over time and in turn give off additional heat, which was at the time one of the methods used by Lord Kelvin to adjust for the Earths age (which by the way he adjusted to be around 100 million years old).

 

[AV1611VET]

Your audacity and hypocrisy is hilarious. First, your headline reads 'Science can take a hike' only to be followed up with that remark. Contradict much?

Well, newbie, let me clarify something by making a longer sentence out of that tagline:

• Science can take a hike ... when it disagrees with the Bible.

Better now? If not, I'll further clarify.

• Jesus made science take a hike often, as when He stilled the storm on the Sea of Galilee.

Need further clarification? Ever met someone suffering from Agent Orange, COPD, or advanced emphesema? I have. You know what I prayed? Probably the same thing you would pray if a tornado was barreling down on you.

• Lord, intervene here and work a miracle, please.

So you can stop laughing at my "audacity and hypocirsy" now, since I'm sure you've done the same thing at one time or other, or maybe thought about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since when is invoking supernatural magic a reasonable and logical explanation for anything for which we are temporarily ignorant of?

Since when, newbie, have I ever invoked "supernatural magic" as an explanation?

Science does have the answer for this, refer back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and how energy/matter as states can only exist, they can't not exist. Ergo, their existance defies the very notion of requireing an agent of creation in the first place.

That's cute --- but you're assuming that the current level of energy in the universe has always been a constant - (uniformitarianism). According to the Bible, the amount of mass/energy currently in existence started at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Well, newbie, let me clarify something by making a longer sentence out of that tagline:

• Science can take a hike ... when it disagrees with the Bible.

Better now? If not, I'll further clarify.

• Jesus made science take a hike often, as when He stilled the storm on the Sea of Galilee.

Need further clarification? Ever met someone suffering from Agent Orange, COPD, or advanced emphesema? I have. You know what I prayed? Probably the same thing you would pray if a tornado was barreling down on you.

• Lord, intervene here and work a miracle, please.

So you can stop laughing at my "audacity and hypocirsy" now, since I'm sure you've done the same thing at one time or other, or maybe thought about it.

So you deny testable, repeatable, verifiable science when your 2000 year old book disagrees? What kind of a messed up creator gives us the ability to "do" science and then dooms us to hell for believing it. Bill Hicks has a great segment on this that I really do wish I could post here. BTW, Hicks was actually a minister but would have laughed you off the stage.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Since when, newbie, have I ever invoked "supernatural magic" as an explanation?That's cute --- but you're assuming that the current level of energy in the universe has always been a constant - (uniformitarianism). According to the Bible, the amount of mass/energy currently in existence started at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

Using the bible as a science book just puts me at a loss for words....again I wonder how you are able to function in society.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that why you guys have given us the age of the universe about 20 different times?

No. Science works according to evidence and how well its supported is dependent upon how much its tested and how consistent it is with other evidence. Over a 100 years ago people didn't know about Physics and so they couldn't have known that isotopes decay over time and in turn give off additional heat, which was at the time one of the methods used by Lord Kelvin to adjust for the Earths age (which by the way he adjusted to be around 100 million years old).

So this is a "yes" --- with rhetoric attached?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you deny testable, repeatable, verifiable science when your 2000 year old book disagrees?

Um ... who disagrees? Who was here first? God or science?