Evolution Evidence Vs. Creation Evidence

[gr4p34p3]

I have been strugglking with th equestion of evolution versus creationl ever since I have been saved. Are there some good websites that I could go to to find evidence that would help me to understand as to how creation would be so. If the bible says it is so, I won't argue with it, but I need to see some evidence in other resources. Any help here woulds be appreciated.

 

[Morat]

  Are you looking for sites that show both sides? Sites that show one side or another?

  Best I can do is point you to www.talkorigins.com They're a mainstream science site, so all the FAQ's are approached from the standpoint of current scientific thought (there are several FAQ's regarding the compatability of God, evolution, and Christianity). They also, and possibly more useful to you, contain the largest collection of links to both pro-creation and pro-evolution sites, as well as general skeptic and science sites.

  Further, you can always ask questions here.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Despite repeated pleas on this board, the only evidence that has been offered in favor of creation is the Bible.

 

[Jerry Smith]

check that - One single particular exegesis of the Bible.

You will hear some of the creationists complain that we evil evolutionists want you to accept evolution so you will reject the Bible. Not at all. We don't want you to be fooled into thinking that Creationism is scientific, or that the efforts of some to discredit science and scientists are accurate. Several of the evil evolutionists are Christians who applaud you for accepting the Bible. I'm not one of them, but I do want to make sure you are aware that you don't have to give up the Bible in order to accept the findings of science.

In other words, no one here wants you to reject the Bible. Only some of the "creationists" want you to believe you have to in order to accept the findings of scientists.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

Science in Christian Perspective

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Several of the evil evolutionists are Christians who applaud you for accepting the Bible. I'm not one of them, but I do want to make sure you are aware that you don't have to give up the Bible in order to accept the findings of science.

If you ever want to sign up, at least you can be confident that you're patient enough. I think people less patient than you have been canonized.

In other words, no one here wants you to reject the Bible. Only some of the "creationists" want you to believe you have to in order to accept the findings of scientists.

I have sometimes wondered if perhaps some of the "creationists" are people who really want people to reject the Bible, and are trying their level best to make it as hard to accept as possible.

 

[Stormy]

If you find a Website that is right let me know.

The creationists that omit evolution are wrong.

The evolutionists that omit God are wrong.

The Bible does not lie. But it is possible that we do not understand God's ways. What is a day to a God? Are scientists merely finding the clues that God has left behind? I would think so! Science has only discovered that life as evolved. Science did not start the evolution of life! How old is the Earth? I do not think the Bible even speaks of the Earth's age. Yet this is the argument most frequently used to destroy the truth … that God created all.


Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

How many years were uncounted between these two verses? In the beginning......... Now?

Maybe billions??

I can see the words in the Bible, that God spoke, as not denying evolution.

Genesis 1 :11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

Let the land produce plants? Is that not the beginning of evolution? You think not? You say that it is just talking about seeds sprouting? Then read this next verse and think again.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

Let the land produce animals? That sounds like evolution to me.

So far the evolutionist and I are in agreement. The Earth is very old. It evolved to produce both plants and animals. But Scientist that do not acknowledge God are lacking. What stimulus started all this? What hand planned and guided our Earth into the day when God thought it perfect enough for his most loved creation... you and I! I am not sure when or how but at some point God did create man. I believe man to be a distinct specie... separate from all that evolved. God created us in his image and gave us a soul that could one day hold his Spirit. I have all the proof that I will ever need.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Stormy

But Scientist that do not acknowledge God are lacking. What stimulus started all this? What hand planned and guided our Earth into the day when God thought it perfect enough for his most loved creation... you and I!

we don't know, thats the point...

 

[Jerry Smith]

If you find a Website that is right let me know.

The creationists that omit evolution are wrong.

The evolutionists that omit God are wrong.

Scarlatti just posted a link to a web-page that you would probably agree with in toto:

American Scientific Affiliation/Science in Christian perspective

There you can find their basic statement We Believe in Creation, which states:

It is because of this foundational character of the Biblical doctrine of creation that it is unfortunate when the word "creation" is used narrowly and restrictively to refer--not to the fact of Creation--but to a possible means in the creative activity, usually to that means known as fiat creation. When it is implied that creation and evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive, or when the term "creation" is used as if it were primarily a scientific mechanism for origins, a profound confusion of categories is involved. The implication is given, deliberately or not, that if evolution should be the proper mechanism for the growth and development of living forms, then creation would have to be rejected. To pose such a choice is to do basic damage to the Christian position. It is to play directly into the hands of those evolutionists who argue that their understanding of evolution does away with the theological significance of Creation. If such an evolutionist is wrong to believe that his biological description does away with the need for a theological description, the Christian anti-evolutionist is wrong to believe that his theological description must make any biological description impossible.

You will also find A VOICE FOR EVOLUTION AS SCIENCE

Happy reading!

 

[Stormy]

we don't know, thats the point...

Raging Atheist: Do you think your answer surprised me?

I am a Christian. Not in the terms of a religion but instead as a personal relationship to God. I feel about as close to God as any person alive could possibly feel. I do not condemn people of other religions. But it is only through Christianity that the Spirit of Christ can fill your soul. I know that I have been blessed by the Spirit and am being led into truth.

So that is why your sentence should not include me in your we. I do not know how, or why, but I do know whom. I will not debate you. For if I believe that a Christian is the closest to the light of truth, than you should understand that I see an Atheist as dwelling in darkness. You turn from the light. It is impossible for it to reach you. If you ever decide that you would like to know God. I, or someone like me, will be around.

Jerry: Thanks for the link. I will check it out.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

You just can't win around here. You try to be a nice guy, have a nice conversation with those Christians that are at least relatively reasonable, as opposed to the holier-than-thou variety, you post a nice conciliatory link to a website run by Christians for a Christian looking for info about science, and then you come across this:

Originally posted by Stormy
But Scientist that do not acknowledge God are lacking.

And this:

Originally posted by Stormy
For if I believe that a Christian is the closest to the light of truth, than you should understand that I see an Atheist as dwelling in darkness. You turn from the light. It is impossible for it to reach you.

Let the record show who is gratuitously hauling religion (sorry, a "personal relationship with God") into this science forum, and let it show the sort of supercilious attitudes that often drag these threads into flaming oblivion (not that that isn't amusing, although relatively unproductive).

 

[Stormy]

Let the record show who is gratuitously hauling religion (sorry, a "personal relationship with God") into this science forum

Excuse me. Did you happen to notice where this Science forum was located? You are in Christian territory. Please be careful where you step.

So what is it that you did not like? I would guess it to be that I think Atheists are blind to truth? I do not like it myself. I wish it were different.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Stormy


Raging Atheist: Do you think your answer surprised me?
....


So that is why your sentence should not include me in your we.

Very well, you have been excluded from the contextual meaning of the "we" in my earlier post... happy?  I was referring to atheists anyway...

Is it my name, guys?  People never seem to take me seriously, read my posts or bother to give me the benefit of the doubt.  I think its my name... if I was, "MisleadSoul", I would get a whole lot more respect around here... Is it Christian policy to assume something different is the enemy? stupid, stereotyping... *trails off*

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Stormy


Excuse me. Did you happen to notice where this Science forum was located? You are in Christian territory. Please be careful where you step.

So what is it that you did not like? I would guess it to be that I think Atheists are blind to truth? I do not like it myself. I wish it were different.

I'm guessing, Stormy, that the SCIENCE forum was meant to discuss SCIENCE.  Seeing as how some Christians bother reading SCIENTIFIC literature and discussing SCIENTIFIC topics.

and I'm GUESSING he was pointing out that SOME Christians don't seem capable of not bringing religion into a discussion, especially when it is completely uncalled for...

As for watching where we tread, forget that.  This particular board is open to everyone, so deal with it.  If your virgin ears can't take it, then don't bother wasting post-space.

 

[Cantuar]

Originally posted by gr4p34p3
Are there some good websites that I could go to to find evidence that would help me to understand as to how creation would be so. If the bible says it is so, I won't argue with it, but I need to see some evidence in other resources. Any help here woulds be appreciated.

I know you asked for websites, but if you're looking for books too, you could try "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. He's a biology professor and a Catholic Christian who has written this book in an attempt to show that evolutionary biology and Christian faith are compatible.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Stormy
Excuse me. Did you happen to notice where this Science forum was located?

Indeed I did. It's located in an area plainly designated "Open Discussion & Debate (for Christians & non-Christians)." That's to distinguish it from the numerous "Christians Only" areas, where I do not venture out of respect for the proprietors of this domain, since they have clearly gone out of their way to expressly welcome non-Christians here, unlike some people.

By the same token I might ask you, "Excuse me. Did you happen to notice this Forum is dedicated to debate? Yet you, by your own admission, do not wish to debate. So what are you doing here? Pitching gratuitous insults at those without the remarkable spiritual insights you claim to possess?"

If this sort of behavior is derived from the exclusive possession of superior spiritual perception and a close personal relationship with "God," you can keep it, and you can keep it precisely where neither the greater nor the lesser light shineth.

You are in Christian territory. Please be careful where you step.

I will graciously refrain from delivering the punch line to that perfectly inadvertent set-up.

So what is it that you did not like? I would guess it to be that I think Atheists are blind to truth?

It's hardly a question of "liking" or "not liking." You can say whatever you want. You can mount your high horse, from which you can trot about, flaunting your baseless delusions of spiritual superiority. You can parade your apparent insecurities up and down the block. You can engage in whatever laughably smug histrionics you like. Just don't expect your fatuous hallucinatory revelations to go unremarked.

I do not like it myself.

I'm sorry. It must be very difficult for you. However I'm sure you'll overcome your displeasure by virtue of your decidedly superior insight.

I wish it were different.

Oh, I so dearly desire to share in your agony. But sadly, I am incapable of ascending to the lofty transcendental plane at which you ply your ridiculous trade.

P.S. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Stormy]

So tell me what tread on this forum do you deem to be of any scientific value? I have read a few and have found nothing.

 

[seebs]

The scientific content in here is moderately limited, but that's mostly because one has to go so slowly and carefully through the process. It's actually pretty good as discussions go; I've seen much worse, certainly.

 

[Ben Reid]

Firstly, let me recommend that you ignore the discourse in these forums for your information regarding Evolution, unless you wish to be indoctrinated. The ratio of Evolutionists to Creationists is about 10:1 so it's hardly a balanced dialogue.

And ignore the suggestion of talkorgins as your starting point -- Evolutionists may as well have suggested atheist.org as a starting point for a discussion of Christianity.

The Evolution vs the Bible issue is a tricky one. I personally believe in the affirmation that the universe and species originate from an
intelligent design. I believe this correlates with my particular exegesis of Scripture. Prima facie, it is very hard to see how the Bible supports Evolution.

The way in which a Christian should approach the Evolution issue comes under a more generalised heading -- how to deal with apparent conflicts between the Bible and science.

For an excellent treatment of this issue, see the following article by Alvin Plantinga, called "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html

Even Evolutionists are recommended to read this article as it outlines a very calm, balanced approach the the correlation of faith and science.

Cheers!

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Ben Reid
The ratio of Evolutionists to Creationists is about 10:1 so it's hardly a balanced dialogue.

Since the dialogue has to do with empirical evidence and scientific methodology, the balance would remain unchanged were the ratio reversed, or indeed were the ratio of creationists to "evolutionists" 10,000:1.

And ignore the suggestion of talkorgins as your starting point. Evolutionists may as well have suggested atheist.org as a starting point for a discussion of Christianity.

No, actually "evolutionists" suggested talkorigins as a starting point for a discussion of evolution, not exactly the unusual proposition your fallacious analogy suggests.

<snip>

For an excellent treatment of this issue, see the following article by Alvin Plantinga, called "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible."

Thanks. I didn't realize this drivel was online. I have a hard copy of this farcical article. Nothing quite like a course in evolutionary biology from a Christian apologist. Nonetheless I agree it's entertaining reading, if only to gape at its appalling lack of understanding and comically inept presuppositionalism.

And you'd be remiss not to recommend Ernan McMullin's superb and thorough evisceration of Plantinga's comedy of errors, "Plantinga's Defense of Special Creation." McMullin, unlike the hapless Plantinga, is an actual professional philosopher of science that can run rings round the panoply of misrepresentations contained in Plantinga's article.