Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 7 of 13)

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

================================
I don't Suffer From Insanity .... I enjoy every moment

Everyone seems to be a doing a good job of covering all the larger points, so I'd just like to stick my head in and address a small one that appears to have been overlooked:

quote:

---

Or those that have been propsed to have been found. You all know that there is no such thing as a Brachiosaurus, right? Too bad, that was one of my friend's favorite dinosaur.

---

I think this is a pretty good example, Gideon, of how you spout off ideas without any independent research (which, incidentally, you perpetually say you don't have the time to do).

There was such a thing as a brachiosaur. The dinosaur you're trying to refer to is the brontosaur, which did exist depending on which classification you agree with.

Most people say the brontosaur never existed because O.C. Marsh simply put the wrong skull on an apatosaur skeleton and "invented" a new dinosaur. According to sources like this one, however, the bronto/apato naming issue has nothing to do with the cranial mix-up.

Instead, it's related to a disagreement over whether or not the skeleton (sans head) that Marsh discovered warranted a separate genus from Apatosaurus ajax. Those who say it doesn't call it Apatosaurus excelsus. Those who say it does call it Brontosaurus excelsus.

I hope this makes a good example for you on how one should always look something up before arguing, how one should dig deeper and look at all the research for himself before accepting the answer that's given first, and how each issue can be much more complicated than you realize. (Whereas you, if Linnean classification was beyond your understanding, would simply agree with anyone shouting the skull-confusion answer.)

Does anybody here agree that maybe, just maybe both evolutionism and creationism believers are correct? Things got created then improved from there. There is a good amount of evidence for both sides yet not enough to prove either completely correct. Without this theory we could be extending this thread for years repeating the same thing over and over. (I think the fact that this thread is up to 7 pages proves that point.)




.....I am going to regret jumping into this debate.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

I certainly believe that that Evolutionism and Creationism go hand in hand, the real creationism that is, not the new fangled Bush variety where the world is only a few thousand years old, that's just silly!

The thing about the religious texts such as the bible, which arguably all creationism is based upon, is that you need to dig deep to understand what is really meant from the owrds you read, it's certainly not all black and white. Did God create man as we know him today? Did he create Neanderthal man, or apes, what did the Bible mean when it speaks of 'created in his own image', most religous texts should not be taken literally, but instead pondered over and mused upon. Certainly they should not be cast aside and ignored!

Cheers,

[doh]Oh now, I double posted... but how?![/doh]

(Edited by Blaise on 01-31-2005 15:43)

quote:

---

There is a good amount of evidence for both sides yet not enough to prove either completely correct.

---

This is blatantly wrong.

If you read what has been posted in this thread, as well as the many other discussions of the issue that have taken place, it is abundantly clear that evolution is supported by a huge array of physical evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, is supported by an ancient mythology.

But yes, many people do beleive in the coexistence of creation/evolution.

But it MUST be reiterate, and you MUST understand this: science does not seek to disprove the bible, or the existence of god, or the story of creation, or anything else.

Therefore, evolution is not a "counter-theory" to creationism..

There is nowhere in science that it says "god did not do this".

There is, obviously, nothing that says "god did do this" other than ancient mythology.

^And that is basically one of the fundamental differences, between some forms of Religion (like the YECs) and Science - Science (and Evolution) says nothing about god, religion, etc.

But the YECs, and some Religious Sects, do have something against Science. (especially Evolution). Their version of how they view their Religion is disproved by Evolution and Science. Thus, they try everything they can, to discredit Science (and Evolution) where they can.

You're right, it's Creationists like YEC that give the rest of them a bad name, like Evolutionists that claim Evolution disproves Creation!

quote:

---

like Evolutionists that claim Evolution disproves Creation!

---

OK, I'll say it one more time. Are you listening??

quote:

---

science does not seek to disprove the bible, or the existence of god, or the story of creation, or anything else

---

That wasn't my point briggl, although I don't 100% agree with your statement.

I was talking about Evolutionists, and ones in particular that 'claim Evolution disproves Creation'. you can't deny that they don't exist, their beliefs are based on science yes, they are not necessarily scientists..

There are many people that attempt to use science to disprove religion, I have met more than one so I figure there has to be a lot of them.

And you are correct about them not being scientists, because a real scientist would not make such an unfounded claim. That is not science.

As for science disproving god. This is not the purpose of science, but for some religions this is a side effect. For instance if you base your belief around the fact that the earth is flat, well you are then going to run into a couple of problems, or that hell is in the middle of the earth. These kind of things don't work. If your religion keeps a separation of this world and that of the gods you won't have to worry so much about science muking up you religious beliefs.

And please don't drink the koolaide.

Dan @ Code Town

Science is an ever-evolving discipline

YE creationism is a never-evolving discipline that concludes you will be disciplined if you conlude otherwise.


WarM: From Code Town to Jonestown... You're only a step to two away boy! . I like the red stuff how about you?

(Edited by NoJive on 02-01-2005 16:27)

It occurs to me that while Science may not prove or disprove the existance of a god, it has for some time been proving exactly how error-filled is the bible.

This alone will incur the wrath of the faithful, especially those who hold it to be the immutable word of their mythological being.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

There is a big difference between disproving the existence of God and showing that a book written thousands of years ago, filled with parables, shouldn't be taken literally.

I agree Briggl and besides didn't Darwin (a christian) state in the beginning of his paper or book when he wrote it down that he didn't mean to disprove any religion or something like that?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Stating the obvious hardly adds to the discussion.

Darwin was doubtless intelligent enough to add that disclaimer knowing the mood of the age and the consequences. I believe he suffered consequences from the narrow-minded regardless of this attempt to deflect them though.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Is there perhaps some hope for some of the faithful? Or will these folks now be listed among those to he hated and reviled by 'right-thinking xians"?

http://lgpiper.home.comcast.net/docs/ONA_FAQ.html

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:
It occurs to me that while Science may not prove or disprove the existance of a god, it has for some time been proving exactly how error-filled is the bible.This alone will incur the wrath of the faithful, especially those who hold it to be the immutable word of their mythological being.

---

it occurs to me that the MANY discussions we've had on this subject show that the majority of "errors" found are based on perspective and things being taken out of context and not on science "proving" something.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

I agree interpretation/perspective and pure just wishing that is the way it is, accounts for a lot of the errors.

However, in all my growing-up years and since, proponents of the bible always held it up to be a snapshot of 'the way things were' and historically accurate.

In recent decades archeology has given the lie to many of the popular myths contained in that infamous collection of old tales.

More recently, the flood myth has been debunked.

Furthermore, there is increasing doubt being cast on the likliehood of this chap xist ever having existed outside of some story-teller's fertile imagination.

Seems that while ancient Roman and other records from the time mention many people known to history, there is no mention of this alleged messiah.

Now, it would seem if the fellow was making the fuss the modern day xians would have us believe, there would be some mention of miracles and other such goings on.

Nothing.

So science, in my view, has done quite a bit towards debunking the bible, though it is just incidental to more important studies.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

um, k. no idea where you're getting most of that so its obviously not too common of knowledge. change of opinion or certain people not totally agreeing with something isnt exactly debunked either. whatever the case, not gonna get into it, been around these discussions long enough to know how they go. just realize there's plenty of knowledgeable people around here who actually happen to believe a lot of things you've "proven" aren't true

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Ok, let us start with problems within the bible itself - Contradictions & fallacies in the Holy Bible:

An interesting read.

All the things you should've asked in Sunday School

A nice set of questions, indeed.

Now, how about this? Science and History in the Bible

That is a nice, long list, isn't it?

Just thought I'd point that out.

not even gonna try to get into it WS (and we've been thru this before anyway). some things on there are interesting points, tho i also think a lot of scripture is interpreted too literally and out of context. i've never argued that there arent some things that dont line up and there's lots of things i explore on my own and still have questions about.

point is tho, there's no point. if i went thru every thing on that list and had an answer for it it still wouldnt change anyone's mind who's already decided what they believe. for my beliefs at this point in time, a book written by dozens of people over hundreds of years that's remarkably consistent in theme, tone, and facts works. whether a dove came back to the ark with a leaf in its mouth or not doesnt really alter my belief system

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 02-08-2005 18:22)

Oh, I wasn't "dissin'" you Fig. Just pointing out some stuff in the Bible that are grounds for contetnion.

I don't believe that Evolution and Science should be used to "disprove" or "prove" god, until such is measurable, and provable. Since that is clearly not the case, I beleive that Science and Religion are two seperate things.

What does bother me, and concern me greatly, is this "YEC" stuff. It is like the "Flat Earth" stuff. That alone wouldn't matter to me one bit, except for the fact that they are trying to get Evolution either out of the schools, or at least their own "Creationist" stuff in with it.

That bothers me.

As I have been reading, it seems to be concerning alot of what I consider serious Christians, as well. What has apalled me in threads like this one, is the lack of outcry against the YEC position by other serious Christian members on this board. One would think such as they would have an interest in such.

no worries WS, i think we've known each other long enough to respect each other's positions

i hadn't really been reading this thread, but i find the whole YE idea...well, goofy. science doesn't tell us everything with regards to creation but it gives us at least a pretty good idea, and even if one chose not to believe in evolution the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that God "planted" fossils, etc....it just all seems very contrived. people are going to believe what they want to believe, but considering that the earth doesn't even exist until a few "days" into the biblical creation account leads me to believe that the seven days certainly don't have to be based on our modern timeline.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Personally, I pretty much don't care what someone else believes. They can kneel down and burn small animals in front of their old Crosley TV if they wish.

But when the Gideons of the world struggle up onto their hind legs and try to tell me their way is the only way, well man the barricades!

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Those links are very obviously in existence strictly in regard to those people who insist on a literal reading of the bible, who insist on the bible - in it's entirey - being completely infallible.

The bulk of this conversation has revolved around the same issue, and so the links are very relevant in that context.

For people like you, Fig, they are not, and many of the things brought up there are easily explained/reasoned by someone who takes the bible as what it is - stories written primarily by people with little or no scientific understanding of the world (whether or not they also attach religious meaning to those stories).

For reference, it has been said by a major participant in this conversation that, though the bible is not a science book, where it speaks about scientific things it is infallible.

So while some of the things on the list on that page are just plain silly to even bring up for some of us, they are necessary to point out to someone who states such a belief in the "science" of the bible...

.....just to clarify

quote:

---

I believe that Science and Religion are two separate things

---

How did you come to this conclusion Web? Why can't science and creationist bible view be intertwined? Why must the concept of how creation came into existence be one way, opposing the other for you ? Wouldn't this viewpoint alone give man limits in his quest for the spiritual and scientific understanding of his nature. And it depends on the viewpoint of one's specific beliefs in regard to scripture. The general fundamentalist viewpoint dictates, they take the bible literally in many areas. This is not how my understanding of scripture, especially of Genesis story is taken.

I know in the history of the Christian religion, its philosophers have been directly interested in the questions of evolution because this touches on the concept of man, who according to their belief is created in the image and likeness of God. We could believe, if the origin of humanity is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual souls in them were directly created by God. The theory of evolution which, as a result of scientific studies, can also consider the spirit as coming from forces of living water/matter all working together with the creator in the supernatural. Without the creationist view, the theory is incapable and incomplete in laying the foundation for the truths and dignity about man/mankind. Science just puts us into more of a perspective timeline. A possible Christian approach in its philosophy of life and in its experiences of the metaphysical, its awareness of self, of its nature, moral consciousness, liberties, or still yet its religious experience, along with the sciences could all be according to the Creator's designs. For some believers man cannot become the nature he was destined for by the creator unless he uses the full capablites allowed him. In essence, this means "to be completly human is to be in complete union with God physically and spiritually.

The key being in H2O is not so far-fetched for believers in the evolution theory. The properties of water through the evolution process theory has more common ground with the bible than they think. Could be herein lies the mystery. Christians are born & cleansed from the waters of baptism. The whole concept of the Christian church is built on the water along with the blood coming from the body of the crucified Christ. The symbolizing a born again humanity who's captivity in sin was over is from water. And a new spiritual created body is born again from water. Our physical bodies are made mostly of water. Our society depends and is sustained by water. We would all die without water. In Christian teaching we will eternally die without the waters of baptism. Water sustains our physical life and for the Christian baptismal water gives new life and promises eternal life. Could be the evolution/science & religion/creationist water working together theory makes better sense. Not sure how. But the real understanding is out there, just not tapped into yet that will make a connection.

(Edited by jade on 02-09-2005 19:58)

quote:

---

Why can't science and creationist bible view be intertwined

---

How about all of the other creation myths out there? Why shouldn't they be included as well? Many of them are documented as well as the one in the Bible.

What are some of them specifically briggl?

"specifically" would take a pretty long time to go through.

But at it's base, regardless what you make of it via your religion, the jewish creation myth is just another of many many many primitive creation myths.

Every major culture had a fairly significant creation myth.

Check out some of these links for starters -
http://in-dented.com/links.php?cat=02&sub=035

in particular, I have always found the Encyclopedia Mythica to be a great resource.

Don't forget the American Indian creation myths as well.

more here




(Edited by briggl on 02-09-2005 21:40)

The main reason I think Science and Religion are two seperate things?

Science is based on evidence.
Religion is based on faith.

They just don't match up on that basis, obviously.

Sometimes though, Science shows that a certain way of believing is incorrect.

quote:

---

Why can't science and creationist bible view be intertwined?

---

There is no reason why one cannot attempt to. One can also beleive in a variety of "mixtures" as one sees fit, as far as I care.

But if you mean this seriously, provide the evidence for the creation, the evidence that the version in the bible is the only creation myth that is true, and that the biblical god exists, using the scientific method.

Of course, you will be doing something that no-one has succeeded before in doing.

Impossible! Such a tome would qualify only as science fiction, but with less liklihood of coming true.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Jade check this out ...

it talks about the biblical beginings in Canaan

Here is a little overview of Canaanite mythologies and gods

edit: also, Jade here is a pretty good book that might help you look deeper into your faith's roots historically

http://www.2think.org/hii/god.shtml

(Edited by Ruski on 02-10-2005 03:15)

Interesting read, Ruski. Thanks for posting that.

These are interesting reads also. Kinda long but well worth the read.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04405c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07310a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm

Ruski

Found this info on the Cannanites on my NA site also as to give you another view.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03569b.htm

(Edited by jade on 02-10-2005 23:09)

quote:

---

But if you mean this seriously, provide the evidence for the creation, the evidence that the version in the bible is the only creation myth that is true, and that the biblical god exists, using the scientific method.

---

Well,you know I can't provide proof my biblical God exist. But then again no one can prove the theory of evolution is truth too. There is no finds to prove an ancesteral link to humanity as we know it today. Right? So in this age of advanced scientific technology, why haven't we found the missing link? There are so many resources available.

Jade, I said

quote:

---

using the scientific method

---

.

You need to pay a bit more attention to what is posted, before replying.

quote:

---

But then again no one can prove the theory of evolution is truth too.

---

And I also said provide evidence. In the above case, evidence has already been provided using the scientific method. What you are saying, has nothing to do with what I posted. It is a perfect example of The Straw Man.

So, shall we go 'round this circle a few more times?

A plethera of evidence supporting evolution has been provided here.

SO far I have not read any evidence to the contrary.

I have read plenty of uninformed conjecture, plenty of outright denials, plenty of off-hand dismissals....

But nothing that holds water.