Evolution vs. Creationism

[Pilgrim 33]

...the creation of evolution's creation
...evolution's creative evolution
...evolution's evolving creativity

Oh, contrare, that is evolution evolving as well as its creative evolving of mankind and, as history has witnessed evolution's creative evolution, yes, it is very relevant.

The title of this thread is Evolution Vs. Creationism, so shouldn't the debate center on things which oppose creation/evolution? That way we can actually come to a conclusion.

The Answer is a foregone conclusion so there is no debating to it so all we can do is discuss the history of the humanist evolutionary religious thought and its slinky ways and means through time followed with a view towards its ultimate demise.

 

[UniversalAxis]

The Answer is a foregone conclusion so there is no debating to it so all we can do is discuss the history of the humanist evolutionary religious thought and its slinky ways and means through time followed with a view towards its ultimate demise.

I think a great many people who come here would say that the answer to the question posted is not a foregone conclusion. The only foregone conclusions are the ones people bring with them. Besides, humanists accept people of all religions and simply don't belive that one should be promoted over the other. It is the exclusive stance of many religions that they disagree with, and credit for religious conflict. One need only look at history to know that when a nation is based on a religion to the exclusion of other religions, conflict arises.

It's christian humanists who creatied this nation. And they might have believed in Evolution. How scary is that? Not at all, I think. That is why we are free to practice whatever religion, say whatever, etc. Darn those pesky humanists for creating America, huh?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

we are free to practice whatever religion,

Fee will free choice. We have the free will to accept Jesus Christ or not.

All authority extends downward from God.

We have the freedom of thought, The Bible said it and the Founding Fathers echoed it in the Religion Clause in the First Amendment. The Bible says to Go, and preach The Gospel and the Founding Fathers afffirmed that in the Speech and Press Clause of the First Amendment. The Bible tells us to fellowship with believers and, again, the Founding Fathers assured us of this in the Assembly Clause in the First Amendment.

The past hundred years in the u.s. has seen a huge shift in religious and ethnic diversity and while, imo, the Founding Fathers were having difficulty agreeing upon the use of the term, "religion", as opposed to Christianity, Baptist, Church of America, or whatever, their main concern appears to have been in not establishing a state church. This naming issue proved fortuitous later, predominantly, in the 1880-1920 timeframe when there was a sudden influx in new religions and beliefs and later in the 1950-2000 time frame when we saw more immigration coupled with humanist related issues, abortion, civil rights, equal rights, save this and free that and free those and everything else that the 60's and 70's conscience explosion spun off, the longer range effects of which we are only lately beginning to witness.

Which is all well and good, respect is always a good rule to follow and when that fails looking to rule 2 that says see rule 1 sounds really copascetic yet it took fifty years to take Christmas out of Happy Holidays because we are now afraid of offending Moslems who trace their lineage, as do the Jews, to their Father Abraham and that drives home the madness of just how impossibly distant we, as a race, still have to go in our evolutionary stage before we finally attain godhood and ultimate eternal nirvana.

 

[USincognito]

...in our evolutionary stage* before we finally attain godhood** and ultimate eternal nirvana***.

* You're still confused about what evolution is, what it means and what it's ramifications are.
** This is a Mormon concept. It has nothing to do with evolution.
*** This is a Buddhist concept. It has nothing to do with evoltion.

I snipped the rest of your post because you did nothing but discuss your own version of U.S. History and not Creationism or Evolution. Any chance you could get back to the topic?

 

[UniversalAxis]

we are free to practice whatever religion,

Fee will free choice. We have the free will to accept Jesus Christ or not.

All authority extends downward from God.

Government can exert an authority its citizens feel all too keenly when ever it wants. Try looking at a few totalitarian governments. You will see that, even if authority comes from God, governments can intercept that authority before it reaches the people. Moreover, try telling the Japanese who went to internment camps that the authority to do it came from God.
The last time I checked God hadn't done anything to modify the authority that humans impose on other humans except threaten hell after death, which according to your earlier posts dosen't even count.
If God had killed hitler before the massacre of the Jews, then we might be able to say that authority comes from God. I could go down a mile-long list, instance by instance of governments who have used authorities NOT given to them by God.

still have to go in our evolutionary stage before we finally attain godhood and ultimate eternal nirvana.

Godhood and Nirvana are two very different terms which have almost nothing to do with one another. Nirvana is defined as Cessation, Extinction. It is sanskrit. It is a term used in Buddhism to indicate the cessation from the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) on this earth. The only way to attain Nirvana is to detatch yourself from the pain of existence, this also includes the pleasures of life which Buddhism only defines as lesser pain. Godhood on the other hand is quite different. Godhood requires that an individual is both immortal (the word you should have used) and able to omnipotently influence his surroundings. Every being worthy of being called a God has demonstrated that ability. That is part of the definition. An evoloved human can still be killed by both bullets and traffic accidents, a God is effected by neither.

As for immortality: The human body, and the bodies of all living things, eventually die. This an effect of aging. If a person who is stuck in a wheelchair, is blind, and is beyond senile, as most old people are before they die, then the odds of medical science keeping them alive forever are negligable to non existent. You give medical science too much credit, especially where neurology is concerned. The odds are great that even if the body becomes immortal the brain will die eventually. There is little chance that medical science will ever be able to do anything more that make sure a human lives its full compliment of years before dying. But this should be the topic of another thread.

 

[ProtestantDan]

Fee will free choice. We have the free will to accept Jesus Christ or not.

All authority extends downward from God.

We have the freedom of thought, The Bible said it and the Founding Fathers echoed it in the Religion Clause in the First Amendment. The Bible says to Go, and preach The Gospel and the Founding Fathers afffirmed that in the Speech and Press Clause of the First Amendment. The Bible tells us to fellowship with believers and, again, the Founding Fathers assured us of this in the Assembly Clause in the First Amendment.

Does the Bible tell us to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia? This is the Second Amendment.

The past hundred years in the u.s. has seen a huge shift in religious and ethnic diversity and while, imo, the Founding Fathers were having difficulty agreeing upon the use of the term, "religion", as opposed to Christianity, Baptist, Church of America, or whatever, their main concern appears to have been in not establishing a state church. This naming issue proved fortuitous later, predominantly, in the 1880-1920 timeframe when there was a sudden influx in new religions and beliefs and later in the 1950-2000 time frame when we saw more immigration coupled with humanist related issues, abortion, civil rights, equal rights, save this and free that and free those and everything else that the 60's and 70's conscience explosion spun off, the longer range effects of which we are only lately beginning to witness.

Are you saying having a conscience that is more inclusive of other ideas, religions, and opinions is a bad thing?

Which is all well and good, respect is always a good rule to follow and when that fails looking to rule 2 that says see rule 1 sounds really copascetic yet it took fifty years to take Christmas out of Happy Holidays because we are now afraid of offending Moslems who trace their lineage, as do the Jews, to their Father Abraham

I have taken offense in the past when people, in my 95% Catholic town, referred to all Christianity as Catholicism, whilst myself (Congregationalist Protestant) and other non-Catholic Christians practised our religion in the town. Is it wrong to want to be included?

and that drives home the madness of just how impossibly distant we, as a race, still have to go in our evolutionary stage before we finally attain godhood and ultimate eternal nirvana.

First off, as I repeatedly stress on these forums, never speak of evolution either in the past tense, or as of stopping in the future. Evolution is a constantly occurring and continuing process. There is no "attaining" a final form or status in evolution. The inference of the definition of your term "evolutionary stage" above indicates a portion of human existence that involves evolving that will eventually end. Evolution never ceases. Having Godhood would not bring about nirvana. Nirvana (other have commented on it) is a sort of "extinguishment." First of all, a God would be immortal and would not die, so extinguishment and/or reincarnation could not occur. Secondly, if all authority comes from God, couldn't he just revoke our authority to reach such a state?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

* You're still confused about what evolution is, what it means and what it's ramifications are.

With all due respect, I believe you are confused as to terms used; I am using the term, evolution, in its broadest sense while, you, I suspect, are referring, instead, to the "theory" of evolution, a subset of the main category, evolution, itself.

** This is a Mormon concept. It has nothing to do with evolution.
*** This is a Buddhist concept. It has nothing to do with evoltion.

Buddhism, yes, has evolutionary and reincarnation concepts, as do all other religions and beliefs (Judaism and Christianity excepted).

I snipped the rest of your post because you did nothing but discuss your own version of U.S. History and not Creationism or Evolution. Any chance you could get back to the topic?

I realize the humanist public school system has brainwashed and "purified" the history books of a lot of data it would just as soon forget; sadly, most who started school in the @ 70' and 80's timeframes are unaware of this and have been raised on a diet of lies and deletions and feel such is true never knowing there is more they have been denied access to in the "public" school systems.

 

[UniversalAxis]

I realize the humanist public school system has brainwashed and "purified" the history books of a lot of data it would just as soon forget; sadly, most who started school in the @ 70' and 80's timeframes are unaware of this and have been raised on a diet of lies and deletions and feel such is true never knowing there is more they have been denied access to in the "public" school systems.

Conspiracy Theorists of the World Unite... against science?

And I suppose that the evidence YOU have is better because it comes out of an even more incomplete, less historically accurate book compiled in the 4th century.

You really hate 'humanists' don't you?
Even though this country was created by them?

 

[william jay schroeder]

Why do evolutionist seperate science to explain themselves like origins of the universe or biogenisis ect. they have to relate to prove evolution, youo cant not just prove one right they all have to be right together, or its all wrong. if i proved the earth was only 7000 years old this ruins evolution if i prove that the univers came about supernaturally(which i cant). or that the flood really did happen as in the bible evolution would be false you couldnt use another aspect of science.

 

[Hydra009]

Why do evolutionist seperate science to explain themselves like origins of the universe or biogenisis ect. they have to relate to prove evolution, youo cant not just prove one right they all have to be right together, or its all wrong. if i proved the earth was only 7000 years old this ruins evolution if i prove that the univers came about supernaturally(which i cant). or that the flood really did happen as in the bible evolution would be false you couldnt use another aspect of science.

Because they really are seperate. If the Big Bang were falsified tomorrow, and it turns out that the universe was steady state, then it wouldn't falsify evolution. If abiogenesis were falsified and it turns out that life came to Earth from Mars or that Q waved his hand and caused the first unicellular organisms, that wouldn't fasify evolution. Obviously, if it were proven that the world was only 7,000 years old, that would be a huge problem for the gradualism component of evolution. Fortunately though, the claim that the Earth is 7,000 years old is falsified with roughly the same amount of certainity as a flat Earth.

If the flood really did happen the way creationists believe it did, then we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Look up the effects of inbreeding.

 

[netwindscritic]

Wow!!! I was completely shocked when I saw the results of the poll so far! I woulda figured that it would have been the opposite of what it is! wow! I'm a Creationist through and through. For a long time I wasn't able to defend what I believe when questioned about it, but, thanks to Dr. Hovind, I can do it better now, not perfectly, but i have alot more information to use now. I believe that the earth is about 6000 years old. about 4400 years ago there was a world wide (yes world wide, not universal) flood. The pre-flood world was very different from what the world is today. Any questions and I'll do my best to answer them.

 

[Arikay]

Hovind is not the best source for information.

Since you are new, I feel kind of bad throwing this at you, but you need to understand some things about Hovind, this is a good starter thread,
http://www.christianforums.com/t796091

Hopefully you will read it with an open mind, if so, there are plenty of people here that can explain why Hovind is not a good source, and plenty of christians who can help you realize that Hovind's idea that evolution is atheism is wrong.

Wow!!! I was completely shocked when I saw the results of the poll so far! I woulda figured that it would have been the opposite of what it is! wow! I'm a Creationist through and through. For a long time I wasn't able to defend what I believe when questioned about it, but, thanks to Dr. Hovind, I can do it better now, not perfectly, but i have alot more information to use now. I believe that the earth is about 6000 years old. about 4400 years ago there was a world wide (yes world wide, not universal) flood. The pre-flood world was very different from what the world is today. Any questions and I'll do my best to answer them.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

In the picture you link to, Where's the tower?!?

it's in iraq. near babel, babylon, and baghdad. apparently saddam started building another palace over the tower of babel site but never got beyond putting up the outer walls which is in another pic in that set.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

* You're still confused about what evolution is

I don't think so, USi, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would use the definition that claims evolution as being amongst the sciences.

I, otoh, put it, first and foremost, in the category of a religion; and see your "claim" as being a secondary subset within its religious category.

 

[UniversalAxis]

I don't think so, USi, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would use the definition that claims evolution as being amongst the sciences.

I, otoh, put it, first and foremost, in the category of a religion; and see your "claim" as being a secondary subset within its religious category.

If you asked every prominent religious figure to name all of the religions they know of, I doubt that any of them would come up with Evolution as one of them. This is because it is not.

 

[william jay schroeder]

You can not say evolution is science, it is not, it is a theory. it uses science to further its cause but not science. science was around or started to understand how things work not to prove how we became.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Government can exert an authority its citizens feel all too keenly

Authority and its Source are never open to moral or ethical question.

It's not just governments, it's everyone. Government leaders, employers, pastors, teachers, parents, spouses, children, we are all subject to authority.

The key is that authority and responsibility are constitutionally inseparable.

One cannot assume responsibility without accepting the accompanying authority to carry out the aims.

For a government leader, employer, pastor, teacher, parent, or child to depart from those aims inherent in its "Source" delegated authority is to act not in the capacity of the Source's authority but in their own. Which is what (we expect from) the Hitlers, Mussolinis, unethical lawyers, abusive parents and rebellious kids, etc to do.

In short,
authority is sacrosanct and cannot be questioned.
how man carries out that authority can be questioned.

The last time I checked God hadn't done anything to modify the authority that humans impose on other humans except threaten hell after death,

Musta really been just a quick "check", indeed, chief, 'cause that whole line about God threatening hell if they dont do it His way is the biggest crock and bll line to ever surface from the past thousand years and i find absolutely no basis in Scripture for it.

If God had killed hitler before the massacre of the Jews,


God didn't kill them, Hitler (et ali) did.
God's authority is not in question.
Hitler's use of that authority is questioned.

Godhood and Nirvana are two very different terms which have almost nothing to do with one another. Nirvana is defined as Cessation, Extinction.

Actually, i think it's more on the order of simultaneously "somewhere" AND "nowhere". go figger! Anyway it was more dry humor using nirvana to replace heaven.

As for immortality: The human body, and the bodies of all living things, eventually die. This an effect of aging.

ie, the Law of the Natural Order. Upon death that's it. Period. Kaput. History. ash. Dust. History. Nada. Never more. The end. Fine.

You give medical science too much credit

I don't think you give mankind enough credit, God certainly did...

"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."-Genesis 11:6

I'm sure you've heard similar to the effect, that, whatever man imagines he can do.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

If you asked every prominent religious figure to name all of the religions they know of, I doubt that any of them would come up with Evolution as one of them. This is because it is not.

c'mon now, this is not cool protocol.

and, yes, they would.

and, yes, again, most definitely, humanism and its right arm prodigy, evolution, are religions!

This is not just a case of some guy waking up one morning a hundred years ago in the jungle and saying he was going to invent a theory of evolution. thousands of years earlier it's roots were founded in a philosophy, a rebellious philosophy, against God.

 

[Ondoher]

You can not say evolution is science, it is not, it is a theory.

A theory is a scientific construct. The purpose of science is to generate theories, which are explanations for natural phenomena. A theory is the endpoint of science.

it uses science to further its cause but not science. science was around or started to understand how things work not to prove how we became.

"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." AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES, Edwards v. Aguillard, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html


​

Evolution is the study of, and explanation for, the diversity of life. It is certainly within the realm of science.

 

[UniversalAxis]

You can not say evolution is science, it is not, it is a theory. it uses science to further its cause but not science. science was around or started to understand how things work not to prove how we became.

I know this has been explained before, but I will explain it again on the off chance it will stick this time:

THEORIES ARE PART OF SCIENCE.

It is no wonder you defend Young Earth Creationism: Every time someone tries to tell you something to think they are trying to convert you to some pagan cult. You have no idea that Evolution is not a religion. That is totally unfair to every Christian scientists who dares belive in Evolution; they are still Christian. Someone says 'Evolution' and you say 'Heretic!'. If I'm wrong about this you should be more clear where you stand. About other religions and about science.