Creation vs. Evolution continues to be a hot topic to debate. I would like to take a philosophical look at why we enjoy, or are driven to do this. Honestly, folks, is it merely the same dynamic as rooting for our favorite football team while bashing the other guy's team? I have read a lot of posts which seem like a tennis match between two opposing worldviews--one side tries to serve the fastest and hardest sound-bite from the TalkOrigins playbook while the other side tries to serve back with a hard slam from the Discovery Institute or AIG, etc. Rarely do I see the tennis ball actually being volleyed back and forth, so to speak. So, for me, the first question we should be asking is WHY we play this game? What exactly is it that we wish we could accomplish? Is there such a thing as "winning" this game, or are there other purposes involved? Can we all please take a moment to honestly reflect on our own motives and ambitions and perhaps share some candid thoughts with each other? If you are a Creationist, how do you suppose you would benefit if every Evolutionist suddenly said; "O.K., you are right...we see it now"? If you are an Evolutionist, how might it benefit you for all Creationists to say; "O.K., I now believe in Darwinian evolution"? Can I hear some real deep-down honesty here? I'll be happy to share some of my own thoughts after I am convinced that others are interested in the same philosophical adventure, so please respond with amazing candor and grace, rather than a 100mph serve!!!
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why Debate Origins?
- Thread starter WisdomSpy
- Start date
- Feb 9, 2014
- 24,684
- 10,668
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
People that aren't afraid to speak their mind will probably always argue for their own brand of perceived truth.
You can hold a Bible in front of an evolutionist or a 3.5 billion-year-old fossil in front of a creationist and the vast majority of the time, neither side will concede their position.
We can only observe the world around us and draw conclusions based on what's available. Not everyone does that, but we can't force them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.
You can hold a Bible in front of an evolutionist or a 3.5 billion-year-old fossil in front of a creationist and the vast majority of the time, neither side will concede their position.
We can only observe the world around us and draw conclusions based on what's available. Not everyone does that, but we can't force them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
What you are dealing with in this debate, are huge differences in ideology and ideology differences are always hot debate topics.
One ideology is deeply entrenched on understanding reality based on empirical evidence we can observe and test. The other ideology is deeply entrenched on following an ancient book and a faith belief.
It really, couldn't be a more different approach if you tried.
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I used to come here to have good, honest debates. But the fact is, some creationists don't know how to debate honestly. It really is an exercise in futility.
Why am I still here? For the lulz. It's extremely entertaining for me to 1) Be reminded over and over again about just how silly some things some people believe really are, 2) Watch the facts get twisted so badly, that they don't even come close to resembling facts any longer, and 3) See the mental gymnastics required to debate the creationist position (this is both amusing and frightening at the same time, really).
tl:dr Here for the lulz.
Why am I still here? For the lulz. It's extremely entertaining for me to 1) Be reminded over and over again about just how silly some things some people believe really are, 2) Watch the facts get twisted so badly, that they don't even come close to resembling facts any longer, and 3) See the mental gymnastics required to debate the creationist position (this is both amusing and frightening at the same time, really).
tl:dr Here for the lulz.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So far, only football mentality seems to prevail. Will somebody please amaze me with some original thoughts and honesty?
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
You have what you need, you just don't acknowledge it.
When one side is relying on objective evidence to form positions and the other is relying on faith beliefs without objective evidence, what do you think will develop from that point?
Why do you need something original, when it is plain as day why these issues are debated as they are?
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You ask a question on opinion, then when opinions are given, you post this. If you didn't want opinions, or only wanted specific ones that are pleasing to you, you should've posted this elsewhere.
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,868
- 7,884
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I think creationism is a giant sucking chest wound in American evangelicalism, and it would be good for both the church and the country if it ceased to exist. So trying to persuade creationists does have a point for me. But mostly it's the usual reason:
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I think creationism is a giant sucking chest wound in American evangelicalism, and it would be good for both the church and the country if it ceased to exist. So trying to persuade creationists does have a point for me. But mostly it's the usual reason:
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
RandyWindborne
Newbie
Allow me to try something (semi-)original. Most of us are probably aware of God's first words recorded in scripture. If you've been exposed to the 1897 Michelson-Morley experiment, Lorentz transforms, special and general relativity, you're also aware of the intimate relationship between light and time in our universe.
Imagine, then, a Creator for whom none of these familiar principles apply, fashioning a universe such as ours at t=0 about 6000 years ago according to our reckoning. Since singularities in this universe are incredibly violent affairs, the Creator would likely want to separate organic life from the violence by space and (necessarily) time. By first generating a timeline, the Creator could fabricate a continuous, reliable (not to mention awe-inspiring) environment segregated from the immense production of mass and energy at the t= -13 billion year (or so) point.
As the Creator modified his art through a series of "commands," the timeline would necessarily adjust to accommodate the desired outcome maintaining the required continuity.
From our point of view within the timeline, we can detect light, and therefore time, from 13 billion years or so in the past. From the POV of someone outside the timeline, the t=0 creation point would be largely irrelevant. In other words, the Creator could have generated our universe ten years from now and we would be unable to distinguish the difference.
I think apparent paradoxes between empirical observations within the timeline verses biblical descriptions based on God's POV are primarily due to boundary effects between the temporal (timeline) and eternal (no timeline).
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
"Know" is a strong word here. This is just an attempt to mesh what we know now with what Biblical writers didn't know then, and still keep the faith.
It's convoluted. It's unnecessary. It's more mental gymnastics than I care to even try to dissect.
Upvote
0
RandyWindborne
Newbie
Sorry if I muddied the waters.
Relativity theory was part of my bachelor's degree. Of course I haven't studied it since 1978. Our concept of time is established by a property of light (the speed of light is finite and constant within all inertial frames of reference) as demonstrated via Lorentz transforms.
This property of light allows us to see back along our timeline, but not ahead. We assume the timeline is fixed in the past, but this may not be accurate. If the present is altered by outside influences or the future fixed, the timeline may adjust to maintain continuity. From the POV of someone outside the timeline (who sees the end from the beginning) and has the capability to intervene, this may be a normal occurrence.
The point is that all our observations occur within our own timeline. I think we err if we assume our observation-based conclusions are valid outside our timeline.
Upvote
0
You're right, we are born and we die, the time between both is all we have, has anyone said anything different when they write about their time? don't they write about their timeline in exactly the same way we write about ours? what evidence do you have to say these timelines are different in any significant way? your imagination is not enough.
The length of time we have been here is a couple of seconds in the day the earth has been here.
The dinosaurs existed for over 150 million years, how long do you think we will last? so far it's about 6-7 million years.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
I'm mainly here to defend the teaching of science and to fight against the misrepresentation of science I see from creationists all the time. I care less about convincing creationists they are wrong about creation and more about convincing them not to misrepresent scientific theories and what scientists actually claim about the world around us and why we do.
Upvote
0
acehighinfinity2015
Born again
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
The debate is important based on that particular verse. Take a look at the red bolded words. Has anyone told you about HELL? It's not a nice place. But that's fine FREE will gives you own choices. So good luck with that!
Yea me too I'm here for a good laugh.
1) Stated nothing but noise
2) So you have facts? Nothing presented
3) Last I heard, people go to the cinemas and watch a movie to be amused or entertained
. Must be boring up your way huh?
Upvote
0
RandyWindborne
Newbie
JayFern - yes, what others write must be consistent, otherwise continuity would not be maintained. Time/space discontinuities (singularities) are quite dangerous.
If, for example, God intervened today in some significant way (e.g., re-arranged the constellations), then I imagine the timeline of our past would adjust to support the change and maintain continuity. I wouldn't expect to find early writings that described the constellations differently.
If our reality can be altered by someone outside our timeline, I don't know of any method to detect the changes based on observations from within the timeline.
My entire point has been that the biblical account of creation may well be entirely consistent with our observations due to the relationship between light and time in our universe. I cannot prove or disprove this theory since all my observations are currently limited to the timeline in which I reside. Of course that may not always be the case. We'll know soon enough.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
