Evolution vs Creation... Why?

[kaotic]

Today has been very weird on a few websites I goto they're debates about the subject of Evolution, and Creationism, and if both should be taught in 'public' High School science classes. After thinking hard about this I came to the conclusion that if we let Intelligent Design to be taught in a public science class that it would going against everything the four fathers of the USA believed in. I mean doesn't the constitution say something along the lines of no religion in schools that are being paid for with people tax money?

I know that they're a lot of people on here (I used to come here all the time) that are nice Christian going people that believe what they believe, and there isn't anything anyone can do (or would try to do) about that. But you have to ask yourself if you really want something to be science that isn't or can't be science taught to kids that will grow up to be tax payers themselves.

The thing that I have noticed is that some people just don't understand the true meaning of the word "theory". And some people use it as if a theory was only a guess (and I have to say that really irks me). I don't know how many people know this but the Earth rotating around the Sun is in fact a Theory. Now I'm pretty sure that the bibles says the opposite, or something completely different (I apologize for not remember what the bible says). I have read, and also heard people refer Evolution as a theory, and nothing more. The problem with this is that all works in science are theories, and they will always be theories. The problem with Intelligent Design trying to be an scientific theory is that the evidence that is used to show the theory as "true" is from the bible. Now if you want to have a scientific theory you can't have GOD, or any form of supernatural as evidence if you do then it's no longer science. Science is the knowledge of the natural world and nothing more.

 

[shinbits]

It's basically the fear that people will reject the Christian faith if they learn about evoluiton, which would be silly, since evolution a scientific conclusion, and Creation is a matter of faith.

Science does not contradict faith, since Christian faith is based on the supernatural, and science can't affirm or disprove supernatural events such as the Flood.


Good post, btw.

 

[Chalnoth]

The flood was disproved as it was described in the Bible in the early-mid 19th century, largely by Christian geologists seeking to find evidence for the flood.

What you can't disprove with science is blind faith that refuses to disbelieve in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[shinbits]

The flood was disproved as it was described in the Bible in the early-mid 19th century, largely by Christian geologists seeking to find evidence for the flood.

What supernatural methods did they use to disprove this supernatural event? Any?

No. They don't have any tools that can disprove a divine being flooded the world through supernatural means.

 

[tocis]

Quite right. If we assume that the judeo-christian deity exists and made the Flood happen by supernatural (miraculous) means... well... hard to disprove that.

Whether we have any reason to assume that... that's the real question.

 

[shinbits]

Quite right. If we assume that the judeo-christian deity exists and made the Flood happen by supernatural (miraculous) means... well... hard to disprove that.

Whether we have any reason to assume that... that's the real question.

this is a matter of faith. if you don't want to believe, that's on you. if you do want to believe, then you have faith in God.

 

[Alchemist]

this is a matter of faith. if you don't want to believe, that's on you. if you do want to believe, then you have faith in God.

Well, you have faith . Whether it is in God really depends on whether the Flood happened or not.

 

[Chalnoth]

No. They don't have any tools that can disprove a divine being flooded the world through supernatural means.

They didn't have to worry about the causes of a worldwide flood, just the effects. And geology shows quite clearly that there was never a worldwide flood. Are you saying that not only did God use supernatural means to flood the world, but also used supernatural means to clean up His mess afterwards, leaving no trace behind?

 

[Tomk80]

They didn't have to worry about the causes of a worldwide flood, just the effects. And geology shows quite clearly that there was never a worldwide flood. Are you saying that not only did God use supernatural means to flood the world, but also used supernatural means to clean up His mess afterwards, leaving no trace behind?

This is the real problem I see with the conclusion that we cannot conclude whether the flood happened or not because it was supernatural. Because not only does it look like a global flood never happened, but also it seems that a completely different, internally coherent history happened instead. Why mask the effects? Regardless of whether the flood happened by natural or supernatural means, the effects of a global flood should be visible as they are effects on the natural world.

The mechanism by which it happened never enters into it. It just didn't happen, and we can show regardless of the mechanisms.

 

[shinbits]

This is the real problem I see with the conclusion that we cannot conclude whether the flood happened or not because it was supernatural. Because not only does it look like a global flood never happened, but also it seems that a completely different, internally coherent history happened instead. Why mask the effects?

most likely because the effects would've been so devestating if not for complete devine involvement.

 

[TeddyKGB]

most likely because the effects would've been so devestating if not for complete devine involvement.

So varves and footprints had to be supernaturally left intact, and skeletal fossils had to be re-sorted to make it look like they existed in a hierarchical fashion because it would have been "devastating" otherwise?

 

[Chalnoth]

Not just left in tact, placed

 

[Tomk80]

most likely because the effects would've been so devestating if not for complete devine involvement.

Which still doesn't answer anything. I mean, even if God magically protected some ground layers, what about the layers above? Why do we see the specific sorting we see? Why do we see such an extreme correlation between different methods of dating, and such an extreme correlation between these methods of dating and vulcanic eruptions and meteorite strikes? Why do we see such a good correlation between the strike in Chixulub and the iridium in the KT boundary.

We're not talking about 'protecting the earth from total destruction' here. We're talking about complete recreating a complete history of 4.5 billion years that never happened, but nevertheless gives a coherent picture worldwide.

 

[Baggins]

Obviously Shinbits is making the point that god is good, and part of that goodness is that he is a tidy cove and after he'd had his flood he put everything back in its proper place.

 

[shinbits]

So varves and footprints had to be supernaturally left intact, and skeletal fossils had to be re-sorted to make it look like they existed in a hierarchical fashion because it would have been "devastating" otherwise?

good point.

 

[shernren]

First a congrats to kaolin, I loved this OP.

What supernatural methods did they use to disprove this supernatural event? Any?

No. They don't have any tools that can disprove a divine being flooded the world through supernatural means.

Actually, we're thrashing it out in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t3343614, with heavy reference to the Flood, wanna come watch?

Clearly Meert considers that paleosols have the potential to refute the global Flood. We agree! The concept of paleosols provides a good test for any biblical geological model. That we can use the Bible to develop a geological model that can be scientifically tested destroys the oft-repeated claim by evolutionists that ‘creation science’ is not science because it cannot be tested. We’re pleased that Meert acknowledges that biblical geology is a valid, scientific approach. But we do not agree that the biblical flood has been falsified.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp