Creation vs Evolution (split from other thread)

Anything having to do with religion or religious debate goes here.

Moderators: Theodore, elliemaejune

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

"Lucy" is only 40% of a skeleton...

Postby Theodore » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:15 pm

"Lucy" is only 40% of a skeleton, and even these bones weren't all in the same place (the knee bones were found 1.5 miles away, which makes it highly unlikely they were even part of Lucy in the first place). Considering that fact, and that the primary evidence for Lucy being transitional is the angle of the knee (modern orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans), it's laughable at best to call this proof for evolution. Lucy's skull is anatomically the same as a modern chimpanzee, and it's likely "she" was just some species of monkey - not a missing link.

Who can say that God didn't create man as a neanderthal and gave us the power to evolve on our own.


I suppose that in the 1600 years between Creation and the Flood, man evolved enough to build and use the technology that built the ark? You can believe what you want, but evolutionary theory is still incompatible with the Bible.

After all, look at how much more we know now, in comparison to 2000 years ago when Jesus walked this earth.


That is entirely external to the debate at hand. Would you say that we've taken a quantum leap forward in the last 500 years in terms of evolution? Of course not - even the minor differences in height and so on can be attributed to better food and less disease. But have we (re)learned a huge amount of scientific information in the last 500 years? Yes.

...but I really don't think we should just throw out the idea of evolution.


Considering that all the evidence for evolution is either faked, incorrect, or open to wide interpretation, what other option besides throwing it out do you have? I suppose you can continue to believe in it even so, but like I said above, that makes it a religion, not science, and one incompatible with the Bible at that.

Nancette
User
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:33 pm

Postby Nancette » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:58 pm

SophiesMom wrote:, it was recorded by man, and there is no man alive or dead who did not make mistakes.


Ummm Jesus was a man on this earth, he never made a mistake and HE believed creation as it was written.

Paladin165
User
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:36 pm

Evolution is a system of thought

Postby Paladin165 » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:03 pm

Man I hate to see all the otherwise reasonable and intelligent homeshool supporters on this site jump up and down about evolution. You don't need to feel defensive about your faith when evolution is brought up. Children need to slowly come to realize that the world is a complex place, adults don't know everything, and adults disagree about things. What better topic to put them on their own path to philosophical thinking than evolution?

Evolution is a fruitful system of inquiry, a way of thinking about nature that leads to progress. That's all it is. Its just like quantum field theory, or non-euclidean geometry. Its a system of thought, a way of explaining a set of observations. Systems of thought are not mutually exclusive. Its not about capital R-Reality, so it doesn't have to threaten christian beleifs.

Christian or other religious beleifs do not exist primarily to explain a set of observations. They define the world one lives it, they are a guide to living. They are about what we really think, deep down, not about making sense of the results of our latest research project.

Some of you might take a cue from Kant: tell your children, "science is about appearances, religion is about reality". I would rather say they are two different ways of talking about reality, but you might not feel evolution deserves that much credit.

What you shouldn't do is tell your children evolution is completely worthless, or to pretend that the bible covers modern genetics. It doesn't, and saying things like that risks some teenage rebellion later I think. The important point is just teaching them not to take science too seriously.

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:06 am

That sounds like evading the question rather than answering it. According to the following definition of the scientific method...
  1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
  2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
  3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
  4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

...is evolution religion or science? My view is that the masses of evidence against evolution, and the total lack of evidence for it, make it a belief system rather than science. But public school textbooks assume the opposite, that evolution is science, and conveniently ignore any opposing views, even well-documented and proven ones. That's propagandizing, not supplying information and letting the students make up their own minds.

And there are many mutually exclusive systems of thought. For instance, what if one group of people thinks it's ok to cheat anyone that's not part of their clan, while another group thinks the opposite? One view or the other has to go, if the two groups are going to interact for any length of time. But which view? Without any absolute moral basis to work from, what you end up with is majority rule, which as you know from your study of the French Revolution, works so well. Not.

Bottom line, evolutionary theory is worthless, but everyone needs to learn it anyway, if only to be able to argue one way or the other. By all means, teach it for purposes of debate - just don't call it science.

You are correct that the Bible does not cover modern genetics, but genetics shows just how complex the human body is, and how difficult it would be for even the tiniest part of the human body to evolve by accident.

Paladin165
User
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:36 pm

Postby Paladin165 » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:35 am

Theodore,

If the question is "evolution or creationism, pick one" then yes I'm "evading" it, because its a bad question (complex question fallacy).

The definition you gave about science is the naive version. After all there are whole branches of science that don't do experiments, and others that only pretend to do experiments. It is closer to the truth to say that "science" is whatever scientists say it is.

Its your creation science vs. their evolution science, and unfortunately for you, they've got all the big-name scientists. The debate is so stacked against you guys that they won't even allow you to call it "science". Contrast this to the APA, which has a bona fide "parapsychology" chapter in its organization.

About evidence. If you look at things the way evolutionary biologists do, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, there's no use denying it. There are a million websites out there that cover this topic in fine detail, so I think its a waste of time to address it here. Suffice it to say, it doesn't really matter how much evidence there is, short of a DVD of the past in its entirety, we are never going to be 100% certain about what exactly happened. Both creationism and evolution only give us the vaguest idea.

The question is, what do you infer from the sparse evidence available? What I'm pointing out is that some reasonable people look at the evidence and say "creation", while other reasonable people look at the same evidence and says "evolution". I think there is value in each side coming to understand the other's way of thinking, instead of each side ridiculing each other as if they weren't both human and rational. I think you want your children to be able to look at the evidence, and see two, three, or more ways it could be viewed rationally.

About the mutually exclusive systems of thought objection, perhaps I didn't put my meaning very well. What I meant is that knowing about one system of thought doesn't preclude you from learning another, even if you think one is right and the other is wrong. Mentally, they're not exclusive. Sure they may recommend different courses of action in a given situation, but then you simply have to pick the best one for the situation. Systems of thought don't decide actions for you, you do.

Since you brought up politics, I would point out that societies always maintain multiple systems of poltical thought that often conflict with one another. In fact our system of checks and balances between the branches of government relies on this kind of conflict to inhibit tyranny.

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Re: Evolution is a system of thought

Postby Theodore » Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:35 pm

Some good points there. I guess the basic question is, are scientists who subscribe to evolutionary theory ignoring or modifying data in favor of their base assumptions, or modifying their assumptions in favor of the data? The former is religion, the latter science. An old skeleton is not automatically the missing link, nor is a particular rock sample automatically millions of years old because it's dated using the radiometric dating method for that time range. And if a fossilized tree is standing vertical through millions of years of rock layers, then the rock layers obviously do not span millions of years. You see what I'm getting at? It's not a matter of interpreting the data differently, it's a matter of ignoring data that contradicts your assumptions. Any reasonably intelligent mind without bias one way or the other will come to the conclusion that at the least, the large majority of evolutionary theory is contradicted by the available data. Those parts need to be removed for evolution to retain any sort of status under the definition of the scientific method.

Really, the pro-con evolution debate reminds me of Aristotle vs Galileo. Aristotle had very nice theories, so everyone ignored Galileo's evidence to the contrary. Which side followed the scientific method?

momo3boys
User
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:00 am
Location: Western Mass

In public school?

Postby momo3boys » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:39 pm

Paladin165 you have some great points, you have argued admirably and better than any other science oriented person I've heard (read). My Father is a scientist that firmly beleives in evolution, my question for you is, if evolutionists are so secure in their findings and theories, than why won't they look at creationists evidence with scientific eyes? My father thinks that I am a crazy person for thinking that anything but the "big-bang" created the universe. Why can't public schools be ok with showing both theories if they are so sure that evolution is the logical choice?
Phi 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

bobbinsx5
User
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:24 am

Postby bobbinsx5 » Mon May 01, 2006 3:34 pm

We cannot forget that while the bible is the word of God, it was recorded by man, and there is no man alive or dead who did not make mistakes.


So, SophiesMom, are you saying that God, who is powerful enough to save you and I from Hell if we ask Him, isn't powerful enough to preserve His perfect Word? I'd sure hate to put my trust in a god who wasn't that powerful!

I'm curious, exactly how do you teach your children to believe the Bible when it comes to salvation, but then not believe it when you disagree with it? How are they supposed to be able to discern that? I've heard there are people who don't believe the entire BIble is God's Word, I've never encountered one before, so I'm very curious. Thank you.

bobbinsx5
User
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:24 am

Postby bobbinsx5 » Thu May 11, 2006 10:48 am

Can anyone answer this for me?

MeganWiles
User
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Postby MeganWiles » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:40 pm

I certain can't answer for SophiesMom, although I personallly know many people who believe that portions of the bible are fable and metaphor not neccessarily historical fact, so I am surprised to hear that you have never met ANY of these people.

I do have a question for you though. If you believe that all the books of the bible are the preservation of "His perfect word", what are your thoughts on the editting of the bible, where certain books have been excluded? Are those books not just as valid as the others?? There are different versions of the bible that include and focus on different texts, not to mention the variations in translation, so I just wonder how someone who takes all of this text as literal feels about those books that have not been included.

Also, have you been reading or hearning about the translation of the book of Judas that has recently been pieced back together? What are your thoughts on that text?

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

"Book of Judas" is almost certainly fake:

Postby Theodore » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:40 pm

It's quite simple. Only those books that there were many different (but identical or virtually identical) copies of were kept. Also, the author had to be one of the known names, for instance someone with a connection to Jesus in the New Testament.

Through this method, you might theoretically leave out some Scripture, but you certainly weren't going to add to Scripture. My view is that it's better safe than sorry - anything outside the KJV is going to be doubtful, usually obviously so. The "Book of Judas" meets none of the requirements for inclusion.

bobbinsx5
User
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:24 am

Postby bobbinsx5 » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:33 pm

I honestly have never met anyone who admitted to believing only portions of scripture as true. How do you choose what to believe and what not to believe? How can you believe in salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ, without having doubts?

As far as the book of judas, I don't think anything of it. God promised us His preserved, perfect Book, if the book of judas was part of God's perfect Book, it would have been included from the beginning.

So, back to my original question:
Quote:
We cannot forget that while the bible is the word of God, it was recorded by man, and there is no man alive or dead who did not make mistakes.


So, SophiesMom, are you saying that God, who is powerful enough to save you and I from Hell if we ask Him, isn't powerful enough to preserve His perfect Word? I'd sure hate to put my trust in a god who wasn't that powerful!

I'm curious, exactly how do you teach your children to believe the Bible when it comes to salvation, but then not believe it when you disagree with it? How are they supposed to be able to discern that? I've heard there are people who don't believe the entire BIble is God's Word, I've never encountered one before, so I'm very curious. Thank you.

Isikole
User
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:29 am
Location: North Carolina

Postby Isikole » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:13 pm

Man - I love this thread.......

I'd sure hate to put my trust in a god who wasn't that powerful!


Oh really?!?!?!? Well, I wouldn't put my faith in this god:

[i]"But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul aliveâ€

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Interesting series of Bible verses, but...

Postby Theodore » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:40 pm

[quote]"But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul aliveâ€

Isikole
User
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:29 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Interesting series of Bible verses, but...

Postby Isikole » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:41 pm

[quote="Theodore"][quote]"But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul aliveâ€


Return to “Religious Discussion / Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest