Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[AV1611VET]

So why, when those scientists are right 95% of the time, do you feel they are so wrong that other 5%? What are they doing differently?

Ruling God out of the picture and going on empirical evidence alone.

Putting the creature (creation) above the Creator.

 

[marktheblake]

The bit about Everest is such a silly strawman, thats unworthy of you.

Not a straw man, it is an analogy that evidence doesnt talk - rocks do not have dates on them.

So how do you determine this date? there is the old cliche "from the age of the fossils we found it in" unfortunately the fossil doesnt have a birthday engraved on it either.

So is the "evidence doenst talk". Try that in court! They have a stack of photos, documents, fingerprints, empty bullets, bloody clothes, etc and so on. Your defense is "evidence doesnt talk"?

correct, the evidence has to be interpreted. The Prosecutor looks at it through the view that the defendant is guilty, the Defence looks through the view of innocence. Both have different outcomes.

Your ad hom about deciding what box put something in and then bending evidence to make it fit is also unworthy of you, or or any debate.

Incorrect, evidence cannot be bent or changed. Only the interpretation can, and you do, I do, we all do.

Pure and total objectivity is probably impossible. Theists of course, make no effort at all

.
The underlined is a purely subjective statement. There are many highly credentialed academics that believe in creation, you cannot apply that to them.

No ideology can stand up to that for long.

Christianity (which technically began supposedly 6000 years ago) is still going strong.

Darwinism on the other hand is beginning to struggle. Lots more scientists are beginning to break out, and really its mostly the Biologists that are really hanging on to it so tightly.

The kind of "fiath" that theists have may well seem like a basic way of approaching life that is common to all. It isnt. You keep it; I dont want it, wont accept it; its your problem, not mine.

Faith is not a leap, it is a foundation, no need to be so against it. Like it or not, you have faith.

 

[marktheblake]

You seemed to be implying that as "evidence doesn't talk" one interpretation is as good as another.

I was simply stating that two people can look
at one object and get a different result

Why would no God imply millions of years?

because thats what the materialist must have if there is no god. The best explanation he has is millions/billions of years.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7388141-post52511794/#post52511794
So why, when those scientists are right 95% of the time, do you feel they are so wrong that other 5%? What are they doing differently?
Ruling God out of the picture and going on empirical evidence alone.

Putting the creature (creation) above the Creator.

Okay, fair enough. So how do we know we are putting the creation above the creator? Check the bible? So what happens when they disagree, which one do we go with? You can claim the bible says it is the word of God, and therefore it is, but let me ask you this: which is easier for a man to create? A book or a universe?

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod

You seemed to be implying that as "evidence doesn't talk" one interpretation is as good as another.
​

I was simply stating that two people can look
at one object and get a different result

But only one can be right, that was my point. You should be able to show who made the mistake.

Why would no God imply millions of years?

because thats what the materialist must have if there is no god. The best explanation he has is millions/billions of years.

Millions of years isn't an explanation, it's a conclusion from the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, fair enough. So how do we know we are putting the creation above the creator? Check the bible? So what happens when they disagree, which one do we go with? You can claim the bible says it is the word of God, and therefore it is, but let me ask you this: which is easier for a man to create? A book or a universe?

Just fyi, if you want to put two quotes together, you do it like this:

Hello

Hello back

Join them like this:

Hello

Hello back[\quote][\quote]

Notice I used 'back slashes' here.

When you use 'forward slashes' --- it comes out like this:

Hello

Hello back

 

[Hespera]

Not a straw man, it is an analogy that evidence doesnt talk - rocks do not have dates on them.

So how do you determine this date? there is the old cliche "from the age of the fossils we found it in" unfortunately the fossil doesnt have a birthday engraved on it either.



correct, the evidence has to be interpreted. The Prosecutor looks at it through the view that the defendant is guilty, the Defence looks through the view of innocence. Both have different outcomes.



Incorrect, evidence cannot be bent or changed. Only the interpretation can, and you do, I do, we all do.

.
The underlined is a purely subjective statement. There are many highly credentialed academics that believe in creation, you cannot apply that to them.



Christianity (which technically began supposedly 6000 years ago) is still going strong.

Darwinism on the other hand is beginning to struggle. Lots more scientists are beginning to break out, and really its mostly the Biologists that are really hanging on to it so tightly.



Faith is not a leap, it is a foundation, no need to be so against it. Like it or not, you have faith.

Your cliche about dating does sound like the kind of moldy canard that creos use to try to discredit that which they dont know anything about.

Meanwhile, serious minded scientists around the world go along being quite successful using things that they DO understand. With no concern that some religion thinks they are wrong. Some of them would possibly be surprised and amused to find out there were such cultists.

"Credentialed academcis" who believe in "creation' mostly have divinity degrees i expect. maybe English lit. Not physics, biology etc.

Another moldy canard is that more and more scientists are starting to reject evolution. In your dreams.

As for "faith', its not a case of being against it. Theist types use the word to mean all kinds of things. Define it, maybe I will agree that i have "faith".

 

[marktheblake]

I personally dont think that being responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people is very nice. So Im not a Mao fan.

You avoided the question. I know you don't think Mao is nice. Why do you think like that, why do you think that human life has value, Were you told, does it come naturally, Buddha told you, what?

Because Mao didnt think he was doing anything wrong. According to him just a bunch of chemicals reacting together that have no value at all, just like cutting down trees.

I said there are stories about god being responsible for the slaughter of innocents. There are. Simple

There is not.

The stories arent true anyway. Tho no doubt a lot of people did get killed.

So you pick and choose what to beleive, that is no basis for an argument.

I see that you are determined as any good little Maoist was, that whoever the maximum leader says should be killed,

It really is fanciful to compare God to Mao. There is really no comparison.

Why on earth would the old hebrews want to make up stories about how god sent them to do the killing, that the victims were evil? You honestly to goodness dont understand that?

I dont understand, you are making this up as you go along, its a good one though, have never heard this before, so you might as well finish the story.

You think that every firstborn in Egypt deserved to be killed, their parents hearts broken

According to you, there is no God, therefore that supernatural event could not have happened. It is unrealistic to even suggest that a race of slaves could kill tens of thousands of people in one night without causing any ruckus. Therefore a very bad example from your point of view.

There is also a reasonable naturalistic explanation how that could have happened as well.

but the guys who thought up the story didn't see anything wrong with it!

The Egyptians committed Infanticide for a long time against the Hebrews. Pharaoh was warned, and he refused.

The entire Nation of Egypt committed this horrible crime of humanity (killing babies shock horror ghasp), and God dealt with them. The entire nation therefore bore the consequences of the sin.

 

[marktheblake]

But only one can be right, that was my point. You should be able to show who made the mistake.

Impossible, nobody has absolute knowledge. (not in the area of origins anyway)

Millions of years isn't an explanation, it's a conclusion from the evidence.

In order draw a conclusion, you must have known something else first. Is that something else adequately grounded. If yes, something must have been known before that.

And when you get down to it, it began with an assumption, it had too, because no rock has a date on it.

 

[Hespera]

Ruling God out of the picture and going on empirical evidence alone.

Putting the creature (creation) above the Creator.

Putting reality above fantasy

 

[marktheblake]

With no concern that some religion thinks they are wrong. Some of them would possibly be surprised and amused to find out there were such cultists.

The ranting and raving about creationists in almost every edition of New Scientist suggests that they are fully aware that these people are out there.

"Credentialed academcis" who believe in "creation' mostly have divinity degrees i expect.

nice claim "mostly" make it sound like none but unless i produce a list of say 50 you wont be happy.

There are plenty. Now that i have said it, you will probably want 100.

maybe English lit. Not physics, biology etc.

yes Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, you name it, how about I just find one of each - fair enough?

As for "faith', its not a case of being against it. Theist types use the word to mean all kinds of things. Define it, maybe I will agree that i have "faith".

i was never talking about faith in a god. It is a fact that as limited creatures, we cannot know everything. We accept the witness of others, and have to assume certain things. We all do this, Our understanding and interpretation is always based on certain assumptions and presuppositions about reality. Thats having faith, we all do it, in fact all reason is based on some faith.

 

[Hespera]

You avoided the question. I know you don't think Mao is nice. Why do you think like that, why do you think that human life has value, Were you told, does it come naturally, Buddha told you, what?

Because Mao didnt think he was doing anything wrong. According to him just a bunch of chemicals reacting together that have no value at all, just like cutting down trees.

There is not.

So you pick and choose what to beleive, that is no basis for an argument.


It really is fanciful to compare God to Mao. There is really no comparison.

I dont understand, you are making this up as you go along, its a good one though, have never heard this before, so you might as well finish the story.

According to you, there is no God, therefore that supernatural event could not have happened. It is unrealistic to even suggest that a race of slaves could kill tens of thousands of people in one night without causing any ruckus. Therefore a very bad example from your point of view.

There is also a reasonable naturalistic explanation how that could have happened as well.

The Egyptians committed Infanticide for a long time against the Hebrews. Pharaoh was warned, and he refused.

The entire Nation of Egypt committed this horrible crime of humanity (killing babies shock horror ghasp), and God dealt with them. The entire nation therefore bore the consequences of the sin.

I come from a deep cultural tradition that has its sense of right and wrong, good and bad.

Regardless of that, I dont know of any reason that a 'god" has anything to do with setting standards. Gods of all sorts are imaginary; the values we attribute to them are human standards.

Blame the entire nation of Egypt for what the leader ordered troops to do?
Blame the little first born sons, kill them. What a mind set.

Hebrews could have gone out at night to all parts of Egypt and sought out the first born, sneaked in and killed them, and all the first born cows.... honestly. I dont think so.

I did not compare Mao to god. makes no sense go compare him to somthing that does not exist. I was comparing FOLLOWERS of their maximum leaders. Stalin, Mao, orders from "god" be it the emporer of japan or the 'god" of the jews speaking thru some "prophet".

People who are duped into committing atrocities in the name of their mzx leader are dangerous deluded people. I see no moral or funcitonal distinction between believing a god sent word, or some more mortal kind of max leader.

If you want to debate, fine, btw. if you want to play snarko, forget it.
this is uncalled for...

"I dont understand, you are making this up as you go along, its a good one though, have never heard this before, so you might as well finish the story." "So you pick and choose what to beleive," "shock horror ghasp)"

I might well be able to out-snark you but I dont want to play.


ok?

 

[uke2se]

nice claim "mostly" make it sound like none but unless i produce a list of say 50 you wont be happy.

There are plenty. Now that i have said it, you will probably want 100.

Ok, this I have got to see. Please produce a list of 100... nah, let's make it 50 accredited scientists from relevant fields (physics, geology and biology) that believe in Young Earth Creationism in any way. If you do that, I would be willing to grant you the point that there are some scientists that actually believe in that sort of nonesense.

If you cannot, however, will you publicly state that you retract your argument, and concede that there is a massive scientific consensus about the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, and that the scientists, almost exclusively in irrelevant fields, that cling to the already debunked Young Earth Creationism are a very small minority?

Please be aware that the Discovery Institute's list of 100 scientists that claims to have doubt about aspects of the theory of evolution have all been contacted. A lot of them have contacted the DI in order to be removed from the list, and most of the others have either been misrepresented or are simply not in the relevant fields.

Also see Project Steve.

 

[Skaloop]

nice claim "mostly" make it sound like none but unless i produce a list of say 50 you wont be happy.

There are plenty. Now that i have said it, you will probably want 100.



yes Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, you name it, how about I just find one of each - fair enough?

The lists of "scientists who don't believe in evolution" that I have seen are generally made up of scientists from fields that are far removed from the study or use of evolutionary theory, and top out between 1 and 2 hundred. If you have a different list, I'd be interested in seeing it.

In which case I will direct you to Project Steve, a collection of over 1000 scientists named Steve (or some variation thereof) from disciplines directly related to evolutionary theory who agree with the theory.

Not that science is decided by majority, but if you want to get into a listing contest, prepare to lose.

 

[Hespera]

The ranting and raving about creationists in almost every edition of New Scientist suggests that they are fully aware that these people are out there.



nice claim "mostly" make it sound like none but unless i produce a list of say 50 you wont be happy.

There are plenty. Now that i have said it, you will probably want 100.



yes Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, you name it, how about I just find one of each - fair enough?



i was never talking about faith in a god. It is a fact that as limited creatures, we cannot know everything. We accept the witness of others, and have to assume certain things. We all do this, Our understanding and interpretation is always based on certain assumptions and presuppositions about reality. Thats having faith, we all do it, in fact all reason is based on some faith.

Ranting and ravaing? Funny. You do by the way very consistently misread what I say, turn it into somehting else, then go after that.

I didnt say god is evil, i said "he" doesnt exist. Makes totally no sense to say something nonexistent is evil. There are nightmarish stories about atrocities attributed to this god. Which also makes no sense, excpet as a way for primitive minded people to shift responsibility for their actions.

I said that there are scientists all around the world working away, and some of them wont be aware of creologists. You expect in China or India they are concerned with christian creos? They are not.

Mention of creo ideas in the New Scientist has nothing to do with it.

Please pay attention to what i say if you are going to respond, its kind pointless to respond to thinks i didnt say.

Perhaps you could find one each in every field of study there is who believes in creationism.

That in no way demonstrates that the ToE is losing ground among academics, which I believe was your idea?

It also in no way demonstrates that anyone anywhere ever has produced fact one, one piece of data that would contradict or falsify the ToE.

Nobody ever has.

Now, you did say something about interpreting, and to some extent you have a opint. In court, or science, one seeks to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt. If all the fingerprints etc etc look bad you are going to get convicted, is not so?

In science or court of course, all the eividence can seem to point to one thing... but if you have one piece of contrary evidence of sufficient value, you falsify the whole case. You look guilty by a thousand things, but.... you have the photo of you holding the days date newsparer in BAngkok, and the crime was in New York. Ok...

One fact that would falsify evolution would do. But, nobody ever found one.


You said a couple of things about faith, but didnt define it.

 

[Psudopod]

Hi AV

Thanks for the tip. Let's see if I can do this right!

But only one can be right, that was my point. You should be able to show who made the mistake.

Impossible, nobody has absolute knowledge. (not in the area of origins anyway)

I never claimed they did. I said if two people make differing claims, you should be able to show one (or at least one) of them has made a mistake. Science doesn't work in absolutes, only in best understanding. If I date a rock, show you my data, my calibration and my error bars, you should be able to look at what I've done and tell me if I've made a mistake in my calculations.

Millions of years isn't an explanation, it's a conclusion from the evidence.

In order draw a conclusion, you must have known something else first. Is that something else adequately grounded. If yes, something must have been known before that.

And when you get down to it, it began with an assumption, it had too, because no rock has a date on it.

No rock has a hardness stamped on it, or a length, but we can measure that.

And yes, you are right, generally to draw conclusions about something you need to have an understanding of other things, in the case of age of the earth, it's largely radioactivity, but I fail to see how that is a problem. We do understand radioactivity and you can see that in the other applications of the topic outside of dating. There are also other dating methods that we can use to check our readings. The thing about science is that it's self consistant. If something comes along that is not, then we have made a mistake, either with our current measurements or our previous understanding.

 

[Cabal]

It's a science thing --- I don't know who said it, but someone recently said that he can't wait to be found wrong.

Scientists love to pwn themselves --- it gets them 15 minutes of fame and a little spending cash --- maybe even their name on the Periodic Table.

Unless they pwn a high-profile philosophy --- like evolution --- then they'll be able to retire comfortably.

Not what we say, but what we are.

Double standards FTW, eh?

 

[Cabal]

I've been asking you guys for years to tell me what you would even consider evidence --- and so far --- nothing.

QV please: 1.

I would worry more about the faulty documentation you have to shore up with fantasy, myself.

 

[Amoeba]

He told us how He created --- in Writing.

In fact, He not only told us what He did, but how He did it, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

The creation story in Genesis is blatantly mystical in nature. How you can see this as literal is beyond me, and frankly, ridiculous.

"The Bible is full of wisdom, history, and theology. But it is NOT a scientific document. Let me repeat that. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT."

 

[Nathan Poe]

The creation story in Genesis is blatantly mystical in nature. How you can see this as literal is beyond me, and frankly, ridiculous.

"The Bible is full of wisdom, history, and theology. But it is NOT a scientific document. Let me repeat that. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT."

This is the part where AV insists something along the lines of, "Of course it's not a 'scientific document,' it's the personal diary of the Great Scientist Himself."

And then we all laugh, and the world keeps on spinning.