Is it a hoax?

[bhsmte]

Oh yes. Probably that is the reason why I have only an M.A. and a M.Div and stopped short getting a PHd.

What did you learn about science in that education?

 

[bhsmte]

About the same as you, unless you have a degree in science. If so, then I'd just be a young curate trying to instruct the Archbishop of Canterbury! My MA is in English Literature, which deals mainly with fiction, so Evolution would fit into that!

What is your opinion on all the Christians who agree with the theory of evolution?

 

[pitabread]

I choose to believe the Genesis account of creation because it takes less faith to believe that than the theory of evolution.

That makes for a cute bumper sticker slogan, but not particularly conducive to a real discussion.

 

[Tanj]

I choose to believe the Genesis account of creation because it takes less faith to believe that than the theory of evolution.

So you believe my faith (as an evolutionist) is stronger than yours (as a Christian)?

That's quite flattering, but also sad, since I couldn't care less about faith, whereas it's the cornerstone of your entire system.

Why is it do you think that your faith is weaker?

 

[Subduction Zone]

About the same as you, unless you have a degree in science. If so, then I'd just be a young curate trying to instruct the Archbishop of Canterbury! My MA is in English Literature, which deals mainly with fiction, so Evolution would fit into that!

So when it comes to science you have no education. What makes you think that you can comment on concepts that you are totally without ability to understand?

But as I said, you could always learn There is no reason that education has to stop at any point in a person's life.

 

[SkyWriting]

The theories and hypotheses are explanatory models for how the world behaves; when better explanations are discovered, the old models are updated or replaced.

That's exactly what I said. New fictional stories replace old fictional stories.
You just refuse to call them fiction. It's an ego thing and I know it well.
I've worked in Research and Development for 20 years. People love
their pet theories on everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's exactly what I said. New fictional stories replace old fictional stories.
You just refuse to call them fiction. It's an ego thing.

That is because they are not fiction. Yet strangely enough, long after your ideas were shown to be fiction you will not own up to that fact.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is because they are not fiction. Yet strangely enough, long after your ideas were shown to be fiction you will not own up to that fact.

Well if they get replaced, then the original ideas were wrong or lies.
I was being kind using the word fiction.
And I'm not sure what ideas you think I need to own up to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are humans and chimpanzees part of different trees, or part of the same tree?

Only on paper.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if they get replaced, then the original ideas were wrong or lies.
I was being kind using the word fiction.
And I'm not sure what ideas you think I need to own up to.

I doubt if you could find any that were shown to be lies. Wrong is not a problem for science. You see when science is "wrong" it replaces an idea with another that is closer to being correct. The changes in science keep getting smaller and smaller. Meanwhile the Bible has been shown to be wrong before even Darwin's time, at least when it comes to the book of Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its an endictment when our faith is so fragile we cant consider any other evidence outside of a literal translation of the bible

If you're talking about creationism, I wasn't aware a literal translation had any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you're talking about creationism, I wasn't aware a literal translation had any evidence.

That is correct. And that is because it is wrong. If it was correct one could find evidence to support it.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that is because it is wrong.

Either that, or it's a miracle.

Do you have evidence Jesus walked on water?

Can you produce His footsteps?

No?

Then I'd say you're SOL (short on luck).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Either that, or it's a miracle.

Do you have evidence Jesus walked on water?

Can you produce His footsteps?

No?

Then I'd say you're SOL (short on luck).

We have been over that. Even a miracle fails to explain what is observed.

And you have the burden of proof backwards when it comes to the claim of Jesus walking on water. It is not up to me to prove that he did not do it. It is up to you to prove that he did. But you know that you can't satisfy the burden of proof so you try to shift the burden. That is not honest AV and as a Christian you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are no hard body parts to individual cells.

My point as well. So, no fossils.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you believe my faith (as an evolutionist) is stronger than yours (as a Christian)?

That's quite flattering, but also sad, since I couldn't care less about faith, whereas it's the cornerstone of your entire system.

Why is it do you think that your faith is weaker?

There is no conclusive empirical scientific evidence for either creation or evolution, and given what evidence there is, to be honest, we cannot absolutely deny either explanation for how the world came into being; although we cannot absolutely confirm it either.

Creation theory is based on the Genesis account, while Evolution theory is based on certain scientific indications that it might have happened that way. This is why Creationists and Evolutionists have so many debates about it and it always ends up in a stalemate. The person who will be able to achieve a checkmate either way will be the most famous and celebrated scientist of all time!

It's not a matter of having weak or strong faith. Creationists have faith in the Genesis account and Evolutionists have faith in the logics of Evolution Theory. It is true that Evolution theory is very logical and apart from the Genesis account, there is no other explanation of how the world and its inhabitants were formed.

To believe the Genesis account, one has to believe that there is a Creator somewhere, and if there is, then there might be a possibility of finding out who he is and what he is like, leading to the desire to get to know him better.

For the person who does not want to believe that there is a Creator and takes the stand that Stephen Hawkings takes that the universe doesn't need a Creator and Sustainer, because he believes that the makeup of the universe shows that it is self-sustaining, then the only explanation that would make sense is Evolution Theory.

So the real issue is whether one has faith in a Creator or one has faith in a self created and sustaining universe where there is no creative intelligence behind it all. Either way, it is faith in something.

There are different types of faith:
Christian faith = faith in God
Existentialism = faith in faith
The Occult = faith in fear
New Age Humanism = faith in the self

I am not sure where Evolution fits into that model. It may fit into Existentialism and New Age Humanism because it involves faith in our own evolution to be better people, and because I have faith in that, then I have faith in my own faith that Evolution is true.

So, is Evolution a scientific or a philosophical concept? Who knows?

I guess that is something interesting to chew on...

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point as well.

Do you realize your error now?

Jellyfish have left fossil imprints. Stomatolites are far older and they have left fossils. Fossils are not limited to hard body parts.

 

[SkyWriting]

Jellyfish have left fossil imprints. Stromatolites are far older and they have left fossils. Fossils are not limited to hard body parts.

Stromatolites are not single cells and are formed by a complex combination of processes including precipitation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no conclusive empirical scientific evidence for either creation or evolution, and given what evidence there is, to be honest, we cannot absolutely deny either explanation for how the world came into being; although we cannot absolutely confirm it either.

Actually you are wrong. There are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. So much so that it is now regarded as a fact. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. Perhaps you should expand your education a bit and learn what "evidence" is.

Creation theory is based on the Genesis account, while Evolution theory is based on certain scientific indications that it might have happened that way. This is why Creationists and Evolutionists have so many debates about it and it always ends up in a stalemate. The person who will be able to achieve a checkmate either way will be the most famous and celebrated scientist of all time!

There is no "Creation theory". A scientific theory by definition needs to be falsifiable. That means that one must have reasonable tests for it. What reasonable test would show creationism to be wrong if it was wrong? If you can't answer this question you have just admitted that you do not know of any "Creation theory".

It's not a matter of having weak or strong faith. Creationists have faith in the Genesis account and Evolutionists have faith in the logics of Evolution Theory. It is true that Evolution theory is very logical and apart from the Genesis account, there is no other explanation of how the world and its inhabitants were formed.

No, only creationists have faith. Faith is not needed for evolution. And the theory of evolution is the only current explanation of how life came to its present state.

To believe the Genesis account, one has to believe that there is a Creator somewhere, and if there is, then there might be a possibility of finding out who he is and what he is like, leading to the desire to get to know him better.

You do realize that even most Christians do not share your beliefs. Many believe that God was able to start the universe and that man evolved as a result. There is no need to believe the six day creation myth to be a Christian.

For the person who does not want to believe that there is a Creator and takes the stand that Stephen Hawkings takes that the universe doesn't need a Creator and Sustainer, because he believes that the makeup of the universe shows that it is self-sustaining, then the only explanation that would make sense is Evolution Theory.

Now please, you are merely projecting your flaws upon others. No one "wants" to believe anything if he is rational. One accepts the theory of evolution because it is the rational thing to do. Not because one wants to believe one way or another.

So the real issue is whether one has faith in a Creator or one has faith in a self created and sustaining universe where there is no creative intelligence behind it all. Either way, it is faith in something.

Again, only you are relying on faith. The theory of evolution can and has been tested countless times. You do not test your belief in God, that is why it is mere faith.

There are different types of faith:
Christian faith = faith in God
Existentialism = faith in faith
The Occult = faith in fear
New Age Humanism = faith in the self

I am not sure where Evolution fits into that model. It may fit into Existentialism and New Age Humanism because it involves faith in our own evolution to be better people, and because I have faith in that, then I have faith in my own faith that Evolution is true.

I guess that is something interesting to chew on...

That is because your argument is a huge strawman. You simply do not know what others think and project your own flaws upon others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stromatolites are not single cells and are formed by a complex combination of processes including precipitation.

And have no hard body parts.