Evolution vs. Creationism

[UniversalAxis]

I think that you spent a bit too much time analyzing what I said. So much so that you forgot to tell me in your own word what your beliefs are, so I'll repeat the question:

So, Pilgrim33, does that mean that faith is not necessary since there is so much evidence?

 

[UniversalAxis]

By the way, Allegorical, by way of Allegory is defined my Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as:

Main Entry: al·le·go·ry
Pronunciation: 'a-l&-"gOr-E, -"gor-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English allegorie, from Latin allegoria, from Greek allEgoria, from allEgorein to speak figuratively, from allos other + -Egorein to speak publicly, from agora assembly -- more at [size=-1]ELSE[/size], [size=-1]AGORA[/size]
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
2 : a symbolic representation : [size=-1]EMBLEM [/size]2

 

[Observer]

Arikay... just to make things clear, I was only addressing the "first cause", and nothing after that. I was saying I don't believe evolution can or ever will explain the very start of existence... if it ever does somehow, then I guess that'll go out the window

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I love how the photo that showed the skulls of our ancestors all the way from Australopithecus Afrarensis all the way to Homo Sapiens one right after the other in perfect succession CLEARLY showing our evolution was completely ignored by the creationists who said evolutionists had no evidence or argument.

It always is. I’ve seen it presented and then ignored so many times here I have lost count.

Ghost

 

[ProtestantDan]

What God does He does right the first time.

The answer to those old bones lies elsewhere.

I agree with the first half of the statement.

However, these are not just some "old bones." These bones closely track the shape and modification of early mammals. From Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus, creating the pongid and hominid lines, on down through Austrolapithecus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, etc. One can see the lessening of the jaws, the ridge above the eyes, the lessening of the canines and the disappearance of diasthemas. Did you know that Chimpanzee DNA is closer to human DNA than Zebra DNA is to Horse DNA?

 

[Tomk80]

Arikay... just to make things clear, I was only addressing the "first cause", and nothing after that. I was saying I don't believe evolution can or ever will explain the very start of existence... if it ever does somehow, then I guess that'll go out the window

Well, of course you are 100% correct. However, from this it seems that you think evolution might possibly do that. Since evolution (at least as in the theory of evolution) does only look at life, it will per definition never address a 'first cause'.
For example, the beginning of life is explained (although not perfectly yet) by abiogenesis, which is something different from evolution entirely.

 

[Ron21647]

Pulling a few things together a bit...

If, OTOH, you had an interplaner transferral of material from hell to the bones of growing half-demon, then that would call into question the purely spirit nature of demons..

<snip>

Comments?

FYI, I did not make the post attributed to me here. However, I think I agree with it.

If the Nephilim ate living plants and animals, the same as we do, and the carbon from that food was deposited in their bones, and if those bones are less than 40 or 50 thousand years old, then we should be able to carbon date them.

First you would have to find the bones.

It would not matter if the father was an angel or demon or whatever. They would have to be fairly close to human to be able to mate with huiman women and produce offspring. But the bottom line is whether or not the bones contained carbon from when they were alive on earth.

Ron

 

[Ron21647]

I thought that the comment was pretty funny, but, there is a question there.
I have studied some Geology, and they say that the most abundant element on the surface of the earth is Silica. 90% of the content of all sand is silica. I was just wondering: If man was made from sand and dirt, shouldn't we be silica based, and not carbon based?

Maybe He grabbed a handfull of compost. Ooops, there was no decay before the Fall, so there couldn't have been compost. Ok, I don't know, then. Or, maybe the compost was created already decayed?


Ron

 

[Ron21647]

The problem with this idea is that Genesis and the OT is the very basis for EVERYTHING in the NT. If there is no creator, or act of creation, there is no existence of God before time itself. Jesus ceases to the the Pre-Existent Word of God and becomes mearly a man like the rest of us. The OT itself is cruicial to EVERYTHING found in the NT. The debate is not simply an academic one, it is at it's very CORE an Theistic debate. Evolution stopped being science long ago, it is as much a religion today as is Christianity. I know this will draw fire from Evolutionists, but it is true. Evolution requires as much faith, or more to beleive in that divine creation. But, if I can "prove" that I came only from a monkey, I'm descended from other animals, etc. then why should my actions be any different than what I find in the rest of the Animal Kingdom? Evolution is simply bad science. Again, I know I will draw fire from the opposite side for this, but it simply CANNOT be taught as fact. That said, let me qualify it by saying that neither can Creationism. Neither idea can the be taught as FACT, they can ONLY - according to scientific method - be discussed as theories. I am getting a little off subject though. You are correct in saying that at the heart of the matter, whether you will go to Heaven or Hell, or attain salvation or not, is NOT decided by what you beleive about Creation or Evolution. But, the basis of Cristianity begins in Genesis, not in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is not something that can be dissmissed as simply an academic endeavor.

Just a few posts before yours, in post 322, Ondoher posted on "evolution is both fact and theory", going into the scientific definitions of both terms.

And near that, Mistermystery posted on in post #325 "evolution is not a religion", giving definitions of those.

So on both those points, you are totally wrong. Please go back and read those posts before commenting.

Ron

 

[william jay schroeder]

<snip>

FYI, I did not make the post attributed to me here. However, I think I agree with it.

If the Nephilim ate living plants and animals, the same as we do, and the carbon from that food was deposited in their bones, and if those bones are less than 40 or 50 thousand years old, then we should be able to carbon date them.

First you would have to find the bones.

It would not matter if the father was an angel or demon or whatever. They would have to be fairly close to human to be able to mate with huiman women and produce offspring. But the bottom line is whether or not the bones contained carbon from when they were alive on earth.

Ron

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate, i dont think evolutions use it much any more . radio active dating is unreliable because of they are not constant and or immune to environmental influences. Has any one heard of the hydroplate theory.

 

[Tenacious-D]

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate, i dont think evolutions use it much any more . radio active dating is unreliable because of they are not constant and or immune to environmental influences. Has any one heard of the hydroplate theory.

You are only posting a statement you believe because some Creationist told you this. Dating is accurate. That is why it is used in many disciplines in the physical sciences.

The rates are constant accept for some variations in very esoteric inapplicable conditions. Variations that were predicted theroretically ahead of time and found to as expected.

 

[Mistermystery]

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate,

Carbon dating is a tool. If you use the tool incorrectly you are bound to get wrong dates. Tell me, how has it been proven to be incorrect? Via testing on rocks? Via testing on sea animals? Via testing on dinosaur bones?

i dont think evolutions use it much any more .

Oh yes they do. Because it is an incredible tool to date relative young organic material.

Has any one heard of the hydroplate theory.

nothing new here.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate, i dont think evolutions use it much any more . radio active dating is unreliable because of they are not constant and or immune to environmental influences. Has any one heard of the hydroplate theory.

I can only conclude at this point that you are lying about radiometric dating.

I have posted information for you on how radiometric dating actually works and real-world examples of how its accuracy and precision are so well demonstrated.

I even had to repeat those very same examples because you kept repeating the claim, as you did above. You ignored those instances.

Why should anyone give you any more information to refute your claims if you are just going to ignore it yet again?

Radiometric dating is reliable and useful. This has been demonstrated to you. Apparently you are emotionally unable to accept that, but you're just going to have to get over it at this point.

 

[ProtestantDan]

Furthermore, billion year old bones are certainally not decendant from man of any form. In fact, there are no other species that are decendant from man, we exist right here and now.

Two things about the "existing here and now" point.

a.) G.K. Chesterton spoke of the "Tyranny of the merely living." It is unwise to view one's self as more important because one is living at one particular moment (not to say that I believe you are)

b.) Never speak of evolution in the past tense. It is an on-going event, and it is inconsistent with evolutionist theory to consider humans as the "culmination of hominid existence." We fit the demands of the environment currently, but it could change at any given moment. Some people have already (and are continuing to make) predictions as to the next steps in human evolution. Though, primarily, most people think the majority of changes will occur in our cultural evolution.

Lastly, on a side note, people calling ancient fossils "monkey bones" are inaccurately describing them. Modern monkeys and humans were on the same path a long time ago, but met a divergent roadblock (according to current evolutionist theory) with Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus. One gave rise to the pongid line, the other to the hominid line. The creationist claim that "evolutionists think humans came from monkeys" is incorrect. Humans and monkeys are two separate lines. Apes went one way, we went the other.

 

[Ondoher]

What is the ultimate goal of science?

"Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I think that you spent a bit too much time analyzing what I said. So much so that you forgot to tell me in your own word what your beliefs are, so I'll repeat the question:

faith

 

[Ondoher]

There is actually more scientific fact for a divine creation than there is for evolution. I am talking about Macro evolution in this case. Micro-evolution, aka. Adaptation DOES occur, but the idea that all species have developed from a single original parent creature in not only absurd, it in just plain bad science

Well, except that it is not bad science, it is the prevailing view of the vast majority of scientists. Do you really think it is so widely accepted by those in the biological science despite being "absurd." Or is it more likely that they understand something about how science works, and the arguments and data for evolution, that you don't?

 

[Arikay]

How, and why has C-14 dating been proven inaccurate?
(You really need to stop making baseless claims, especially when you admit you don't understand a lot about these things).

Did you know that the Carbon dating has been used to support the bible?
Did you know that creationist groups have proven themselves to be untrustworthy when it comes to radiometric dating? Did you know they have been caught in outright lies when it comes to radiometric dating?

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate, i dont think evolutions use it much any more . radio active dating is unreliable because of they are not constant and or immune to environmental influences. Has any one heard of the hydroplate theory.

 

[Ondoher]

The problem with this idea is that Genesis and the OT is the very basis for EVERYTHING in the NT. If there is no creator, or act of creation, there is no existence of God before time itself. Jesus ceases to the the Pre-Existent Word of God and becomes mearly a man like the rest of us. The OT itself is cruicial to EVERYTHING found in the NT. The debate is not simply an academic one, it is at it's very CORE an Theistic debate. Evolution stopped being science long ago, it is as much a religion today as is Christianity.

And I suppose that journals like Science, Nature, Journal of Immunology, Nucleic Acids Research, Bioinformatics, DNA and Cell Biology, The Plant Journal, and many, many more, are all religious texts? Or is it rather that evolutionary biology is actually on the cutting edge of basic and applied biological sciences.

The fact is, evolution was created and is sustained using the scientific method, and none of the many predictions, despite being evaluated against mountains of data, have yet to fail confirmation.

I know this will draw fire from Evolutionists, but it is true. Evolution requires as much faith, or more to beleive in that divine creation.

Science requires no faith.

But, if I can "prove" that I came only from a monkey, I'm descended from other animals, etc. then why should my actions be any different than what I find in the rest of the Animal Kingdom?

Evolution =/= atheism. Even atheists agree that humans are moral creatures, they just have a different explanation for that morality.

Evolution is simply bad science.

Execept that it isn't, and you have yet to provide a single reason why anybody should believe you.

Again, I know I will draw fire from the opposite side for this, but it simply CANNOT be taught as fact.

Well, except that today, evolution is so well confirmed that refusing to grant it conditional acceptance would be perverse. That's kind of the definition of fact, as used by science.

That said, let me qualify it by saying that neither can Creationism. Neither idea can the be taught as FACT, they can ONLY - according to scientific method - be discussed as theories.

Creationism is not a theory. What testable predictions can be deduced from it never fail to be falsified. It never got past being idle speculation to ascend to status of theory.

I am getting a little off subject though. You are correct in saying that at the heart of the matter, whether you will go to Heaven or Hell, or attain salvation or not, is NOT decided by what you beleive about Creation or Evolution. But, the basis of Cristianity begins in Genesis, not in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is not something that can be dissmissed as simply an academic endeavor.

 

[Ondoher]

Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate,

If by inaccurate you mean confirmed against multiple independent lines of data, then we might agree.

i dont think evolutions use it much any more.

Nobody has the title "Evolutionist." It isn't a job. However, those who have to date biological material that is less than about 50,000 years old will be likely to use it.

radio active dating is unreliable because of they are not constant and or immune to environmental influences.

Please demonstrate the data indicating decay rates have changed in the past. Also, please indicate the environmental conditions that can effect the half life of a radioactive isotope. And please, provide sources to back up these claims.

Has any one heard of the hydroplate theory.

Yes, it is a crackpot idea.