Can Evolution and Creation Co-Exist?

[AV1611VET]

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.

Let me know if I ever use the Bible as a science book. As I'm fond of saying:

• Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

 

[Matthewj1985]

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

Science. (Let me let you in on a little secret, your God is very, very young compared to the rest of them).

 

[Matthewj1985]

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

It is a yes in the science evolves. Just like science would change course if IDest could every actually provide any evidence to support their claims.

 

[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.

Let me know if I ever use the Bible as a science book. As I'm fond of saying:

• Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

 

[Holy Roller]

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.

Just to show you guys how far down the scale our current education system has fallen, consider this post from matthewj1985. The Dark Ages were brought on by "fundamentalists"? What Hollywood movie told you this, matthewj1985?.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science. (Let me let you in on a little secret, your God is very, very young compared to the rest of them).

Anything else I can't help you with, then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to show you guys how far down the scale our current education system has fallen, consider this post from matthewj1985. The Dark Ages were brought on by "fundamentalists"? What Hollywood movie told you this, matthewj1985?.
I agree we need more science education, but this thread proves we need even more western civilation history education...

Ya --- I was gonna pwn that, but decided against it for now. I can [somewhat] understand the older guys here having questions about God, but when I see these youngsters so dead-set against God and His Word --- it pains me.

 

[agentorange20]

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

This is basically what I was assuming with your views. And why not the invserse, why not the Bible can take a hike when it contradicts with Scienec?

For you, Science is all good and fine, then all of sudden when it contradicts the bible you reject it on face value and not b/cof lacking evidence for instance. Why? Clarify.

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

Evidence for this that it occured? Sure you'll say the bible, but logically what evidence outside the bible is there for this event that indeed it occured? If you just accept supernatural instances, then why this event and not say the instance in the Koran with Muhhamd taking a winged horse up to heaven? I suspect the only reason why the Jesus miracles are acceptable to you is only b/c of your affinity, as its your faith/religion.

Ever met someone suffering from Agent Orange, COPD, or advanced emphesema?

Nope.

I have. You know what I prayed?

No, what?

Probably the same thing you would pray if a tornado was barreling down on you.

But I don't, I don't pray at all. Good and Bad things happen all the time to good or bad people, and likewise good and bad things happen to theists of all sorts and atheists alike, there is no corelation there.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]

For you, Science is all good and fine, then all of sudden when it contradicts the bible you reject it on face value and not b/cof lacking evidence for instance. Why? Clarify.

Because God wants the credit for creating this universe, and in view of the fact that He documented how He did it, where He did it, when He did it, why He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were, I'd say it's a pretty open-and-shut case; and since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, and the Word of God is pretty detailed about the Creation events, then that means that the bottom line is --- I take how this universe got here by faith.

 

[agentorange20]

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

I might be new here, but I am not new to science, religion, logic or philosophy. It says you invoke 'goddidit' in your tagline at the bottom 'goddit case close', you're quite open with you close minded views, you've already assumed an a priori that god did it no matter what the evidence says, and no amount of evidence contrary from whom, from where, under any conditions would compell you otherwise. That my friend is a logical fallacy.

If asked how the Earth was formed, would you refer to any scientifc explanation on processes or mechanisms? Highly doubtfull, you'd instantly appeal to (drum roll) 'goddidit', AKA supernatural, unfalsifiable magic.

That's cute --- but you're assuming that the current level of energy in the universe has always been a constant - (uniformitarianism).

It's a law of thermodynamics, under all tested conditions we've never been able to either create or destroy energy or matter, we can only transfer one state to another. Thus, their existance defies the very notion of requiring causation in the first place. So, to ask, 'what created matter/energy?' is a logically wrong as you'd be ignoring how it operates in the first place. Your question is about as sensible as other nonsense questions like 'what sound does one handed clap make?'

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.

So you're saying the whole universe was created over 6 days, but earlier you'd remarked its age is 13.7 billion years old...contradict again?

 

[Matthewj1985]

Just to show you guys how far down the scale our current education system has fallen, consider this post from matthewj1985. The Dark Ages were brought on by "fundamentalists"? What Hollywood movie told you this, matthewj1985?.

So you disagree that biblical literalism was not behind the dark ages?

 

[Bombila]

AV, luvvamike, just write up a two paragraph screed explaining your peculiar embedded age belief and fling it at newcomers all at once. That way, pages and pages of headache inducing non-productive argument are avoided, and they can start right in on trying to show you why your embedded age theory is wrong.

Agentorange20, among other things, AVET1611 believes the earth is physically old, but chronologically young, because God created a mature earth in the first place in order to have soil the right composition for plants, etc., etc.

Yes, most of us think it's off the wall, but he has you arguing about stuff he doesn't even believe himself, at least, not as you are likely imagining it.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Anything else I can't help you with, then?

Tell me why you are in the Sciences forum if you tell it to take a hike.

 

[agentorange20]

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.

Let me understand something here. You state quite openly in another post your lacking understanding for science...

"Get this down --- and get this down pat, please: I will never, ever talk science --- not here, not there, not anywhere. Why? Because I can't."

Fair enough, mate, fair enough. But then, you do a 180 degree turn and make it openly suggested that matter/energy aren't eternal and thus require creation, in doing so completely ignoring the 'Sciencystuff' (1st Law of Thermodynamics states).

And where did this knowledge come from for which you can assert with such certitude that matter/energy aren't eternal? None other than the Bible. And then, just in time you end up hanging yourself later with another contradictory argument.

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

 

[Matthewj1985]

AV, luvvamike, just write up a two paragraph screed explaining your peculiar embedded age belief and fling it at newcomers all at once. That way, pages and pages of headache inducing non-productive argument are avoided, and they can start right in on trying to show you why your embedded age theory is wrong.

Agentorange20, among other things, AVET1611 believes the earth is physically old, but chronologically young, because God created a mature earth in the first place in order to have soil the right composition for plants, etc., etc.

Yes, most of us think it's off the wall, but he has you arguing about stuff he doesn't even believe himself, at least, not as you are likely imagining it.

Wow....that is a new one. Wouldn't that imply a deceptive God?

 

[agentorange20]

Because God wants the credit for creating this universe,

Ok, which God? There are some 3000+ recorded ones in history.

and in view of the fact that He documented how He did it, where He did it, when He did it, why He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were, I'd say it's a pretty open-and-shut case;

Whoa, whoa, back it up. Witnessed by who again? Documented by who again? What processes and mechanisms were used to demonstrate He did it?

Say what you will about holy books, inspired or not, but they were written by men. Inspired perhaps, but mere fallible and corruptible men none the less.

and since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, and the Word of God is pretty detailed about the Creation events, then that means that the bottom line is --- I take how this universe got here by faith.

Faith is simply believing what you know aint true or something which you have no supportive evidence for, they wouldn't call it 'faith' otherwise. Faith begins where knowledge ends.

 

[agentorange20]

Agentorange20, among other things, AVET1611 believes the earth is physically old, but chronologically young, because God created a mature earth in the first place in order to have soil the right composition for plants, etc., etc.

AV, consider it for a minute, let it rattle around if you will. WHY would a God, so powerful, omnipotent and such intentionally leave deceptive evidence which is contradictory towards his own supposed Word (Bible) at all? Such work doesn't seem very, shall we say, benevolent.

If a God can do anything, which most hypothetically say he can, WHY not he just tell us the age of the Earth to be very close to some 4.57 billion years old? Certainly such a phrase in the bible would seem quite insane in such times as whence it was penned, but it would have been accepted none the less on faith alone. Only later in today's science age would the age be vindicated, and could you image the believers with such a prediction? They would be trumpeting it up for all to hear.

The position you hold makes no logical sense at all. You're in a position of arguing He left deceptive evidence so potential believers would essentially doubt the very Word (bible) he's being credited with and in doing so, hypothetically, risk their eternal damnation in Hell. Gee, nice plan God! Couldn't see that one coming, some omniscience there!

Again, if you take this notion of deception for just this account, then why not apply it to other things in which for instance the bible and science don't conform?

If anything God would have left MORE evidence for a very young earth if the bible actually states this, but apparently this isn't what we find in geology and physics, and so we have people like yourself who compartmentalize the evidence and try to make it all fit, even though it's entirely incoherent and illogical.

 

[paug]

Why wouldn't God just tell us what he did in the first place. Why would he need to make the world look x years old? Why not just make it perfect without that superfluous addition of "extra maturity and/or age"?

I have no answer to this, but then again, neither does AV. Because "Who are we to question the motives of [the Judeo-Christian] God?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Enough's enough --- /thread.

 

[HumbleServant94]

I'm sorry, but he does make stuff up, lies about a lot of things, and does not understand the science behind most of the things he talks about. He even slanders people he's never met, people who could never even meet him face to face, such as when he insists all the feathered dinosaur fossils in existence were faked by poor Chinese people making forty cents a year. This is a big fat slander, as it is in no way true, not a word of it.

Hovind writes in simple to understand language. I could write similarly and tell you all about the life cycle of the pixie angels in your garden. I could even say I was a creationist while I was at it and God told me to write the book. Would those qualities make it true? Of course not. Believing what Hovind says = being scammed. It happens, because some people have no scruples.

Evolution 'stuff' does not 'always contradict itself'. Educate yourself a little more and you'll find evolution science is very consistent and self correcting. When real scientists discover something that looks different, they try to figure out why, not lie about it.

Do you have any proof he lies to people? Unless you have proof, then I won't agree. As for proof he's telling the truth, he has evidence from the Bible, which is God's word.