Evolution vs Creation

[philothea]

My favorite scientific "coincidence" is that the sun and the moon are visually exactly the same size. That's why we have eclipses like we do.

There is no objective reason that the sun and moon should be like that. (Actually, our moon is unique in many ways.)

[Jesus Freak]

I have never understood how athiests believe the things they do. Oh, " the universe was created by a big bang" and all that carp. What is to say that God did not create the universe using a big bang or whatever?
Science has not proven anything against Christianity. Science just explains in "scientific" terms HOW God made things.
Evolution...God created every living creature, yes. But why can't creatures adapt to their surroundings? Humans themselves adapt. We (humans) were hot so we decided with our minds to create the air conditioning. Dogs shed hair when summer come around. Tadpole evolve from water creatures into frogs and catipillars into butterflys. Evolution im not sure takes place, but adaptation does...


Think about it?

Freak

[Melchisedec]

[quote]Christians have always states one absolute truth, and have never been proven wrong.[/quote]

Creationism has been proven wrong time and time again. I shall elaborate.

[quote]Moreover, science is proving through cosmology, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics that the facts stated in the Bible are true.[/quote]

I don't see how you can possibly make that statement. If we are speaking in regards for a literal creation, science has proved that to be impossible. Noahs flood, no evidence for it. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence against it. For starters, why weren't the egyptians affected by the flood and completely wiped out?

Now in regards to some of the various arguments you have presented. I don't see how you proved a universe with no begining is not possible? In fact, it has not been ruled out, so I wonder if you are unwittingly misleading people. The fact is, we do not know how the universe was formed. We might have more definitive answers in the future, but a long ways from now. I could definitely accept a theory that requires a creator. I agree with your opinion on the complexities of life and that if one variable was out of place, we wouldn't be here. I see that alot in the universe and don't attribute it to randomess. To me it could signfy a purpose , a Creator.

I want to make it clear that Atheism is not a worldview. Its a stance on belief. Nothing more. There are varying atheist out there, with a large amount of differences in worldviews. So to stereotype them, only shows your misunderstanding of it.

[quote]If looking at the Earth in all it's form and beauty isn't enough to convince you that there is order in the universe and causation and purpose, let's examine the evidence of the material universe more closely.[/quote]

Back to the argument out of complexity for God. To me the argument falls flat, in this regard. You say that the complexity in life is proof of your God , Yahweh. But you fail to apply the logic to something even more complex, your God. To say complex things require a creator would require that reasoning to be applied to objects of high complexity. God being arguable the most complex 'thing' in the universe is Made exempt from that rule. But indeed the same argument can be granted to God's complexity.

So I don't see how a universe with no begining, could not be a possibility. Or even, a universe that is the creator or God if you will(I'm not a pantheist I assure you). What we do know of the universe is that all life sprang from it. The debate on how the universe came to be if such an event is required will most likely be debated beyond our lifetime. Right now, the debate exist primarily in the realm of philosophy as much as it is in science.

Now in regards to the absolute truth of the bible in events such as creation and noahs ark, and even exodus. There is alot of evidence against any of these things from occuring. If you would like to debate on this, I would be more than happy to. I can say, without a doubt that noahs flood did not occur. That the earth is far older than the bible implies. That the exodus never happened. This all points to mythology that is the bible.

In reason...

[zealousdefender]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 27 2005, 09:13 PM']

Back to the argument out of complexity for God. To me the argument falls flat,   in this regard.  You say that the complexity in life is proof of your God , Yahweh.  But you fail to apply the logic to something even more complex, your God.  To say complex things require a creator would require that reasoning to be applied to objects of high complexity. God being arguable the most complex 'thing' in the universe is Made exempt from that rule. But indeed the same argument can be granted to God's complexity. 

[/quote]
What is it about God that is so complex? Truth and pure love are the simplest things in the universe. (Not to be confused with romantic love, which can be [i]very[/i] complicated. )

Edited April 28, 2005 by zealousdefender

[Timothy]

I think it should be pretty clear to all what my belief is, however I am unsure as to exactly what you big hang up is. You seem to be bouncing back and forth a little(not that there is a problem with that). So to get a better understanding of where exactly you are coming from let me ask you a few questions:

1.Do you beleive that the universe is random? ( you have already answered this as NO). Thanks.



2. Do you beleive that the universe is stagnant?




3. Do you believe that the universe always existed?



4. Do you believe in evolution?




5. Do you believe that a person has a soul?





Thanks for answering the questions. I will begin working on a response to your questions as well. (if anybody replies before myself that will be fine as well.) Look forward to hearing from you Melchisedec.

[Timothy]

Oh yeah Mel, I need all the reason of why you claim that Noah's Ark did not exists. So please explain further in as much detail as possible. Thanks.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Timothy

[Melchisedec]

[quote]2. Do you beleive that the universe is stagnant?[/quote]

Another contested topic. I'm inclined to say that there is ample proof of an expanding universe. No.


[quote]
3. Do you believe that the universe always existed?[/quote]

I believe it to be a possibility. Yes.


[quote]
4.  Do you believe in evolution?[/quote]

I believe in the large umbrella that is evolution. But when most people ask about evolution they are most often referring to human evolution. My stance on that is one of equal skepticism. While I do acknowledge our current fossil record, I still think that there are too many assumptions in regards to human evolution. Do I believe it to be a categorical fact. No.


[quote]
5. Do you believe that a person has a soul?[/quote]

My favorite question. Do I believe in a self, a soul you might call it. What is consciousness , springs to mind. Are we simply acting on casuation or do we posses free will. I am inclined to say that we posses free will. Determinism is a highly debated topic, in fact this week on infidelguy there is a good show on it. Which you could call in and pose questions to a determinst. I have read alot about this subject and our current efforts in the scientific realm. Some scientist feel its a dead end street, that we will never locate a self inside the brain. Others like Dr. Susan Greenfield, believe we do have a self and are currently using brain imaging to better understand the brain and ourselves. Just recently scientist have learned more about empathy, which they call 'mirror nuerons'. In essence, the ability to read minds. Its fascinating, and it could very well hold many answers. It could provide legitamate proof of a supernatural element. I reserve my final judgement until further research is made on the subject. My answer to you is, I believe in a self. What the self is composed of or where it resides I do not know. My idea of a self is not necessarily in line with your theistic views, so my answer will be Yes and No

Hope this helps...

Regards,
Mel

[zealousdefender]

Hmm. If I understand correctly, Mel could be on his way.

(Hi Mel :peace: )

[scardella]

OOOH!

GK Chesterton's [i]Orthodoxy[/i] is a wonderful commentary on this! I'm reading it now. (Now, I see why Fr. Terence Henry of Franciscan U. always quotes him.)

Because it is public domain, it's available for free on the internet:
[url="http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/Orthodoxy-Gilbert.K.Chesterton.pdf"]http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/Orth....Chesterton.pdf[/url]

I'm trying to find a good quote, but the whole thing seems illuminative of our discussion.

[b]Here's the best two I found in about 5 minutes:[/b]

[quote]Evolution is a good example of that
modern intelligence which, if it destroys
anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an
innocent scientific description of how certain
earthly things came about; or, if it is anything
more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself.
If evolution destroys anything, it does not
destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution
simply means that a positive thing called an ape
turned very slowly into a positive thing called a
man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox;
for a personal God might just as well do things
slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian
God, he were outside time. But if it means
anything more, it means that there is no such
thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a
man for him to change into. It means that there is
no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only
one thing, and that is a flux of everything and
anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but
upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no
things to think about. You cannot think if you are
not separate from the subject of thought.
Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The
philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives
the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I
cannot think.”[/quote]

[quote]But what we suffer from to-day is
humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved
from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled
upon the organ of conviction; where it was never
meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful
about himself, but undoubting about the truth;
this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the
part of a man that a man does assert is exactly
the part he ought not to assert himself. The part
he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to
doubt -- the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a
humility content to learn from Nature. But the
new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can
even learn. [/quote]

[b]Also, to comment directly on the situation:[/b]
How do you explain two different Creation stories? I'm not sure whether I believe in evolution or not, but you can't take both Creation stories literally. One says man was created last, male and female, while the other says that animals came after mankind man (adam in Heb), then God made adam into ish (man) and isha (woman) last. You'd have to say at least one was symbolic or allegorical or somesuch.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 28 2005, 10:37 AM']
Another contested topic. I'm inclined to say that there is ample proof of an expanding universe. No.




I believe it to be a possibility. Yes


I believe in the large umbrella that is evolution. But when most people ask about evolution they are most often referring to human evolution. My stance on that is one of equal skepticism. While I do acknowledge our current fossil record, I still think that there are too many assumptions in regards to human evolution. Do I believe it to be a categorical fact. No.




My favorite question. Do I believe in a self, a soul you might call it. What is consciousness , springs to mind. Are we simply acting on casuation or do we posses free will. I am inclined to say that we posses free will. Determinism is a highly debated topic, in fact this week on infidelguy there is a good show on it. Which you could call in and pose questions to a determinst. I have read alot about this subject and our current efforts in the scientific realm. Some scientist feel its a dead end street, that we will never locate a self inside the brain. Others like Dr. Susan Greenfield, believe we do have a self and are currently using brain imaging to better understand the brain and ourselves. Just recently scientist have learned more about empathy, which they call 'mirror nuerons'. In essence, the ability to read minds. Its fascinating, and it could very well hold many answers. It could provide legitamate proof of a supernatural element. I reserve my final judgement until further research is made on the subject. My answer to you is, I believe in a self. What the self is composed of or where it resides I do not know. My idea of a self is not necessarily in line with your theistic views, so my answer will be Yes and No

Hope this helps...

Regards,
Mel [/quote]
hey mel,

id like to question some of those answers if it is ok (by e-mail if you feel more comfortable).

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Timothy' date='Apr 28 2005, 10:04 AM']Oh yeah Mel, I need all the reason of why you claim that Noah's Ark did not exists.  So please explain further in as much detail as possible.  Thanks.[/quote]
Lets start with the earth being covered with water. The geological record does not support this. In fact it contradicts it greatly and proves a huge hurdle for the flood to have occured. The fossil record is its undoing, but not alone. Lets take for example the egyptians. Who were thriving throughout this time the flood should have occured and not only do they not record any of this. But, they were not wiped out like they should have been.

National Geographic has been looking to prove the flood for many years now. The best they have at the moment is a localized flood theory. Where water came from the mediterranean and into the black sea . A great documentary series on this is out , here is a site link: [url="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html"]Search For Noah's Ark (National Geographic)[/url]

I have gone through alot of appologetic sites about this including listening to debates with creationist. Here are some interesting links that are creationist friendly

[url="http://sermonaudio.com/main.asp"]Sermon Audio[/url]

[url="http://www.trueorigin.org/"]True Origins - Creationist site directly refuting Talk Origins[/url]


Now on to the ark. At the height of ship building, the greatest builders of ships found huge limitations with working with wood. What happens to a large wooden ship is that, as it bends continually, it causes the wood to loose its shape and eventually break. This problem prevented ships from ever being close to the size of noahs ark. So ship builders turned to metal , because it would bend but go back to its shape. For noah to build a ship as large as he built, which I believe is bigger than the titanic. It would have to be able to defy what the greastest ship builders could not do.

Animals are a huge hurdle for the story aswell. Considering all our vast species on earth and those that are only found in specific regions. The limited size of the ark would give it a very low portion of animals to have on board, not including insects. Lets note aswell that the ark did not contain any form of plants. We are left with a problem on how to explain animals like the Koala. Koalas only live in austrialia, there diet is limited to only a few subspecies of eucalyptus. How did the koalas get to austrailia? Now the creationist theory as it stands is that every animal has evolved from roughly 2000 species that were present on the ark. That animals contain all the dna , prepackaged to evolved into the varying species you see. That nothing is added to the genetic code, and that it uses this prepackaged dna which contains all these variations you see in animals. These theories are on the fringe. Essentially they have more in common with ufologist than they do with science. In fact, most of the literature used in creationism uses other creationist literature as references. Most often , it boils down to attacks on science as a vast conspiracy to see religion fall. Thats as best as it gets.

Lastly, I'd like to touch on various flood myths. We have indeed countless flood mths from all around the world. The most famous besides noah is the story of Gilgamesh. It is striking how similar the stories are. It boils down to the question which story came first. The main argument is that , while the sumerian tablets predate the torah, it is possible that the oral tradition of the flood story was before the dates we have of the tablets.

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html"]Various Flood myths from around the world[/url]

[url="http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/073.html"]THE Flood narrative from the gilgamesh epic[/url]

I hope this helps explain my position.

in Reason...

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 28 2005, 03:37 PM'] hey mel,

id like to question some of those answers if it is ok (by e-mail if you feel more comfortable). [/quote]
Sure infinite, but I'm not promissing I will always respond

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 28 2005, 08:11 PM'] Sure infinite, but I'm not promissing I will always respond [/quote]
lol, MC Hawking

[infinitelord1]

hey mel,

nvm........ill just ask you a question..........do you believe life always existed? Disregarding any alien forms of life in older parts of the universe (if you believe in that sort of thing). Im talking about life on earth.

[Timothy]

Mel,

I have my response pretty much ready to post, but first I must have this answered. Why do you cliam the Egyptians were around at the time of the flood?

[quote]Lets take for example the egyptians. Who were thriving throughout this time the flood should have occured and not only do they not record any of this. But, they were not wiped out like they should have been. [/quote]