How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[troodon]

Creationism, or the doctrine that man was created by, God doesn't drive people away from God. Evolutionary psychology, God as an evolutionary side effect, ancient texts as a remnant of the beast's mind do.

This is nonsense. The problem is the creation of a dichotomy, one the one side creationists claiming evolution is anti-God (as you just did), and on the other atheists claiming God is anti-evolution.

We are not anti-science. We only reject a single sect of science. There are dozens which use physical tools to inquire.

Astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, physics, archaeology... what field of science do you accept?

 

[Greg1234]

I too accept hypothesis #1 with one clarification.

Or 986 billion years, or timeless.

 

[Greg1234]

This is nonsense. The problem is the creation of a dichotomy, one the one side creationists claiming evolution is anti-God (as you just did), and on the other atheists claiming God is anti-evolution.

Actually texts on evolutionary psychology are widely available. The problem with trying to cover the wolf with wool is that conspicuous nose.

Astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, physics, archaeology... what field of science do you accept?

Not fields. Many people use physical tools and don't conform to the dicta of the most notorious clan. For example this faction of physical science.

 

[troodon]

Actually texts on evolutionary psychology are widely available. The problem with trying to cover the wolf with wool is that conspicuous nose.

The fact that it exists as a concept doesn't make it the component most responsible for "driv[ing] people away from God"

Not fields. Many people use physical tools and don't conform to the dicta of the most notorious clan. For example this faction of physical science.

"The earth is old" isn't a clan, or a cabal, or a group of weirdos who twist evidence to support their beliefs, it's the observation that all of these scientific fields independently verify.

If you wish to claim otherwise then I insist that you provide a satisfactory YEC explanation for the geologic evidence I have provided in this thread.

 

[Greg1234]

The fact that it exists as a concept doesn't make it the component most responsible for "driv[ing] people away from God"

Uncommon Descent | First question: Are the Christian Darwinists at Biologos conscious fronts for atheism? Or unconscious ones?

"The earth is old" isn't a clan, or a cabal,

For example this faction of physical science.

[The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect.]​

Response: The earth is old" isn't a clan, or a cabal,

Please hold ...

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

 

[lismore]

That today, the anti-science, evidence denialism of some churches is what is driving away the next generation by the thousands - making creationism the best friend atheism could ever have.

Yes, that is often true!

Sometimes the opposite is true too, if evolutionary theory is pushed too far It can turn people off God, because there is no room left for 'God' in the equation.

[/LIST]Anyway, welcome to these sub-fora! Have a fun day-
Papias

Thanks for the welcome

 

[Greg1234]

William Provine Lays Out The True Implications Of Evolution - Video

 

[troodon]

I don't understand this, please explain.

Also, you did not explain the geology I asked you to comment on. Does this mean that you admit that the geologic record is incompatible with a young earth and that you believe in a young earth in spite of evidence to the contrary?

 

[troodon]

William Provine Lays Out The True Implications Of Evolution - Video

Evolution =/= atheism. It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

 

[Jig]

Evolution =/= atheism. It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

Darwinism leads to atheistic conclusions about the world.

 

[Jig]

The evidence of an old earth/universe comes from a wide variety of sources and unrelated scientific disciplines, yet they all come to very similar conclusions. The notion of "presuppositions" is nothing but a smoke screen meant to deny that which one does not understand for the purpose of maintaining some particular dogma.

Unrelated? In discipline and source - yes. In presuppositions - no. Presuppositions directly impact interpretations. Similar conclusions only mean similar presuppositions. This has nothing to do with disciple or source.

If this is some kind of smoke screen as you suggest then please explain how the interpretation of the physical evidence has NOTHING to do with presuppositions.

This is not an issue of science. It is an issue of philosophy.

 

[sfs]

Unrelated? In discipline and source - yes. In presuppositions - no. Presuppositions directly impact interpretations. Similar conclusions only mean similar presuppositions. This has nothing to do with disciple or source.

If this is some kind of smoke screen as you suggest then please explain how the interpretation of the physical evidence has NOTHING to do with presuppositions.

Since you're the one making the claim here, why don't you provide the explanation? What presuppositions, exactly, lead to the conclusion of an old earth? What presuppositions would lead to the conclusion of a young earth?

 

[Freedom63]

Unrelated? In discipline and source - yes. In presuppositions - no. Presuppositions directly impact interpretations. Similar conclusions only mean similar presuppositions. This has nothing to do with disciple or source.

If this is some kind of smoke screen as you suggest then please explain how the interpretation of the physical evidence has NOTHING to do with presuppositions.

This is not an issue of science. It is an issue of philosophy.

Since you obviously choose to remain ignorant of the sciences I am not sure it would be possible to provide anything you would accept. Also I did not claim that physical evidence has NOTHING to do with supposition. (Although the statement is in fact true as a supposition has to do with the interpretation of the evidence...not with the evidence itself) I said the claim of suppositions explaining away the evidence is NOTHING but a smokescreen.

Suppositions may represent a starting point as in what one expects they will find when they evaluate the evidence...but the evidence will either support or deny the supposition. Of course some very closed minded individuals may not be able to see the truth because their suppositions have become dogma...but the very nature of scientific study itself tends to weed those individuals out very quickly.

Contrary to what you seem to believe...science has not declared an old universe because some hidden agenda forces it upon the research...it is simply where the facts lead. As a Theistic Evolutionist I happen to believe that God placed those facts there and God is not trying to deceive us.

 

[troodon]

Darwinism leads to atheistic conclusions about the world.

God not writing "GOD EXISTS" in fire in the sky also leads to atheistic conclusions about the world; what do you do with that fact? Do God's actions therefore also equal atheism?

The idea that something in this universe (be it a theory, a fact, or an inaction on God's part) allows atheists to rationalize their beliefs (or lack thereof) is not an argument against the veracity of said thing.

 

[troodon]

In presuppositions - no. Presuppositions directly impact interpretations. Similar conclusions only mean similar presuppositions.

The very first rigorous scientific studies were all done by people very well educated in theology, and many of them were ministers. Where did these presuppositions about the earth being old come from? When the first geologists went to look at the rocks, they originally tried to interpret them through the global flood paradigm. After it became obvious to them that the rocks weren't the result of a single flood they tried to say it was the result of multiple divine floods (see Catastrophism). Seriously, please read that article.

We, as modern scientists, only presuppose that the earth is old because it was proven without those presuppositions to earlier generations of scientists who went into the field with the presupposition that the earth was young!

 

[shernren]

A husband returns from work and sees the mail motorcycle parked across the street and the door open. He runs up the stairs to find his wife naked amidst crumpled sheets and drenched in sweat, a postman's uniform lying on the floor, and the shower running with the silhouette of a guy showing from behind the curtains. He is about to slap her silly when she says:

"Well, you never actually saw the postman with your own eyes, right?"
"No, but - "
​

The wife then bursts into tears and exclaims:

"You don't trust me!"
"But look at all this evidence!"
"Answer me this then: explain to me how the interpretation of physical evidence has nothing to do with presuppositions!"
"Whatttttt??"
"You're presupposing that I'm cheating on you. If you chose to presuppose that I wasn't, you'd obviously have nothing against me."
​

=========

The things people say! Sometimes foruming here feels like watching a sketch on SNL, except people genuinely believe they've proven the whole world wrong with their cute simple one-line nags.

 

[troodon]

Sometimes foruming here feels like watching a sketch on SNL, except people genuinely believe they've proven the whole world wrong with their cute simple one-line nags.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[shernren]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Yeah, I know. If I would only just presuppose that Jig is right all the time! Then all of my problems would, like, go away!

 

[sfs]

i think I'm going to presuppose that I have a really nice car.

 

[philadiddle]

We, as modern scientists, only presuppose that the earth is old because it was proven without those presuppositions to earlier generations of scientists who went into the field with the presupposition that the earth was young!

You think that people go through ten years of education and spend decades in the field of study and it never dawns on them that they are just presupposing everything? All that and they don't really have evidence it's just what they were taught?