Evolution or Creationism?

[GoldenBoy89]

TOE is the natural materialistic explanation for the diversity of life. God is the supernatural explanation of life. The universe's existence is more cohesive with a Creator than a natural cause. TOE could be proven wrong and people would still look for a natural cause for the universe and life itself.

God is the supernatural explanation for the creation and existence of the universe. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversification and genetic relationship between life forms here on earth. Even if God was 100% confirmed true and real, it wouldn't change the fact that evolution is what is observed in nature.

 

[lasthero]

Without dogmatic preaching Darwinism would be history as the evidence against it has been piling up especially in the last decade. You are trying to dogmatically claim the evidence is getting stronger while even other scientist claiming they see the emperor naked.

Hm. Where have I heard this before?

Oh, right. The hundreds of other times creationists have declared something similar over the past hundred and fifty years. The evidence is always 'piling up against evolution', and there's always some sort of mass exodus of scientists towards creationism right around the corner, but it NEVER happens. Weird.

 

[Oncedeceived]

God is the supernatural explanation for the creation and existence of the universe. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversification and genetic relationship between life forms here on earth. Even if God was 100% confirmed true and real, it wouldn't change the fact that evolution is what is observed in nature.

We observe processes that we have labeled evolution and that process indeed is observed and is cohesive with God and how He created.

 

[Loudmouth]

We observe processes that we have labeled evolution and that process indeed is observed and is cohesive with God and how He created.

So you accept that humans share a common ancestor with other species such a chimps, bears, and fish?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The fact that there is always a cause and effect in our universe provides evidence of something outside of the universe for its creation.

Except when we ask where that 'something' came from, suddenly the rules of logic no longer apply. Then, you can just ignore your own argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Except when we ask where that 'something' came from, suddenly the rules of logic no longer apply. Then, you can just ignore your own argument.

The logic is in accordance with the universe. If something is not part of that system the rules do not apply to it, they come from it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you accept that humans share a common ancestor with other species such a chimps, bears, and fish?

I don't know.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know.

Then why do you keep claiming that you accept science that you really don't accept?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why do you keep claiming that you accept science that you really don't accept?

I accept science. I don't believe that the science provides conclusively common descent. Common descent may be accurate but I am no longer convinced it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

I accept science. I don't believe that the science provides conclusively common descent. Common descent may be accurate but I am no longer convinced it is.

The science is conclusive. You just don't like the conclusions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The science is conclusive. You just don't like the conclusions.

I really don't feel common descent is something that I "don't like". IF it is accurate it is accurate. It would be cohesive with my worldview in that there would be non-spiritual beings that would be available for Cain to go and find a woman. So it isn't a matter of not liking the concept due to my worldview because it would fit into it quite well.

 

[Loudmouth]

I really don't feel common descent is something that I "don't like".

I do think so. Your threads are oozing with distaste for the idea. You can't cite a single reason for not accepting it, other than a general feeling of distrust.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I do think so. Your threads are oozing with distaste for the idea. You can't cite a single reason for not accepting it, other than a general feeling of distrust.

The single reason is there is not conclusive evidence that provides confirmation.

 

[Loudmouth]

The single reason is there is not conclusive evidence that provides confirmation.

Yes, there is conclusive evidence. The ERV evidence is very conclusive, as one example.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, there is conclusive evidence. The ERV evidence is very conclusive, as one example.

Or ERV is where viruses come from the start with. Where do you think viruses get their genetic code? I'm amazed the best evolutionist can do is the Junk DNA argument. Do you really believe an animal can become a scientist with a pile of junk?

 

[Smidlee]

Hm. Where have I heard this before?

Oh, right. The hundreds of other times creationists have declared something similar over the past hundred and fifty years. The evidence is always 'piling up against evolution', and there's always some sort of mass exodus of scientists towards creationism right around the corner, but it NEVER happens. Weird.

I don't believe the evolution religion is going anywhere.

 

[Smidlee]

You demonstrate with almost every post that you are ignorant of biology and the theory of evolution. I am largely ignorant of particle physics. However, you don't see me claiming that all particle physicists are wrong, or that particle physics is a religion. More so, I don't claim that particle physics should be taken out of class rooms.

Particle physics doesn't try to explain the particle physicist away or it too would be a religion. You don't have understand biology to see a biologist trying to explain himself with biology which is a product of his biological brain . That's a dog chasing his own tail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Particle physics doesn't try to explain the particle physicist away or it too would be a religion. You don't have understand biology to see a biologist trying to explain himself with biology which is a product of his biological brain . That's a dog chasing his own tail.

Bad analogy and more pure Smidlee nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe the evolution religion is going anywhere.

That is because it is not a religion. And this backhanded attack on evolution is actually an attack on your own religion. Why do you keep doing that?

 

[phileas007]

I disagree. As you say we are all ignorant about certain topics. Telling someone that they are ignorant about a subject is not necessarily an insult. Most, if not all, of the creationists are ignorant about the theory of evolution here. The reason that they are ignorant is that they purposefully keep themselves this way. It gives them a psychological out when they are told that it is a sin to lie.

You are right in the sense that you put into the word, I would just prefer to call them "not knowledgeable". However you are correct that it's very stupid to claim you understand something when in reality you are so clueless.
Whether they do this on purpose or not, that's another question and I have no idea - possibly this is the result of cognitive dissonance.

We observe processes that we have labeled evolution and that process indeed is observed and is cohesive with God and how He created.

True, the "label" itself is meaningless, just like "global warming" vs. "climate change".
However please do tell: where in the bible is there any reference to the laws known to us as ToE???

I don't believe the evolution religion is going anywhere.

How do you define Religion? I somehow have a bit of a problem understanding your position!