Creation vs. Evolution Debate

RJHinds

Spirituality

04 Aug '15 00:12

Wulebgr
Angler
River City
Joined
08 Dec '04
Moves
16907
06 Aug '15 04:16
Originally posted by sonhouse
They want zombie voters to force evolution out of the science market and force creationism to be taught as a science, as a fact. It is neither.
bob58
Joined
04 Apr '09
Moves
612036
06 Aug '15 04:24
Evolution seems to true on so many levels but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive. Could God not have used evolution as a part of his creation?
Wulebgr
Angler
River City
Joined
08 Dec '04
Moves
16907
06 Aug '15 05:15
Originally posted by bob58
Evolution seems to true on so many levels but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive. Could God not have used evolution as a part of his creation?
Only literalism, which is poor reading, renders science and Christianity incompatible.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
06 Aug '15 09:181 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgr
Only literalism, which is poor reading, renders science and Christianity incompatible.
You make the same error that Bill Nye does by thinking evilution is real science rather than just a religious belief. 😏

Evolution Is A Religion Based Upon Faith And Assumptions That Have Nothing To Do With Science

YouTube

YouTube
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
06 Aug '15 11:55
Originally posted by RJHinds
You make the same error that Bill Nye does by thinking evilution is real science rather than just a religious belief. 😏

[b]Evolution Is A Religion Based Upon Faith And Assumptions That Have Nothing To Do With Science

[youtube]HyRt-4r0LUM[/youtube]

[youtube]OGo6lf6XXIk[/youtube][/b]
"Just a religious belief" Boy you got that right about religion. NOBODY should have religious beliefs. They should be outlawed.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
06 Aug '15 18:204 edits
Originally posted by bob58
Evolution seems to true on so many levels but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive. Could God not have used evolution as a part of his creation?
If you are referring to evolution as just the programmed genetics in the cells to allow for reproductive variability and adaptation to survive as well as the God given dominion by man over the animals and plants through selective breeding, etc., then yes that is a part of God's creation.

However, the theory of evolution that bacteria and amoeba came together from chemical elements and molecules by chance and evolved into every plant and animal in existence today without the direction of God is contrary to the Biblical account, especially the part of evilution that suggested the lie that one of the apes, like a chimpanzee, evolved into man rather than man being made directly from the ground by God to be in the image of God.

We have never seen any kind of animal reproduce another kind of animal, the animals all seem restricted within the same family, just as the Holy Bible reveals. So the theory of evolution has never been observed and is certainly not part of observable and reproducible science, the kind of science that benefits the society of man.

So the theory of evolution is speculation that must be accepted on faith and belief just like any other religion of man. It is definitely not science and should not be established as a state religion any more than Humanism.
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
06 Aug '15 19:19
Originally posted by RJHinds
If you are referring to evolution as just the programmed genetics in the cells to allow for reproductive variability and adaptation to survive as well as the God given dominion by man over the animals and plants through selective breeding, etc., then yes that is a part of God's creation.

However, the theory of evolution that bacteria and amoeba came toge ...[text shortened]... definitely not science and should not be established as a state religion any more than Humanism.
I don't know what it takes to get through to you that life origin is NOT evolution but an entirely different science discipline? Evolution scientists don't do origin studies. They are and always was and always will be separate studies. You just expose your own ignorance with idiotic posts like that.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
06 Aug '15 22:38
Originally posted by sonhouse
I don't know what it takes to get through to you that life origin is NOT evolution but an entirely different science discipline? Evolution scientists don't do origin studies. They are and always was and always will be separate studies. You just expose your own ignorance with idiotic posts like that.
You are the one that keeps exposing your own ignorance. 😏
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
08 Aug '15 10:322 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
You are the one that keeps exposing your own ignorance. 😏
Oh, that one cut to the quick. Is that all you got, Tenth Century Man?

I guess this dude is just as ignorant as I:

http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=f8

If you can take off your usual blinders, try reading this, it isn't even a video so you have to have the ability to read, but try it, you might even like it.

This is a new study on the origins of life:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150720094522.htm

Notice, there is no reference to evolution, because like I have been saying all along, life origins and evolution are two separate scientific disciplines. It doesn't matter WHAT the results of the life origin studies reveals, evolution is the study of what happens to life after it is already here.
CalJust
It is what it is
Pretoria
Joined
20 Apr '04
Moves
66733
08 Aug '15 14:11
Originally posted by sonhouse
Notice, there is no reference to evolution, because like I have been saying all along, life origins and evolution are two separate scientific disciplines. It doesn't matter WHAT the results of the life origin studies reveals, evolution is the study of what happens to life after it is already here.
That is the way Smugface argues, like the kid who just says: Njah, njah!

But as far as evolution vs origin sudies is concerned - YECs like Smugface don't understand the difference between ANY sciences.

They confuse Biology with Geology and Cosmology and Physics and Chemistry.

They only focus on one field of study, and that badly, and that is Mythology.
googlefudge
Joined
31 May '06
Moves
1795
08 Aug '15 14:21
Originally posted by Wulebgr
Only literalism, which is poor reading, renders science and Christianity incompatible.
No, you don't have to take the bible to be literally true to have a problem between Christianity and science.

Christianity requires faith, belief without evidence and despite contrary evidence.
Christianity thus promotes faith as a valid and indeed desirable way of determining truth, and of deciding
what to believe.
However faith is a complete anathema to science, it goes completely contrary to everything science stands for.

This means that there is an inherent and unavoidable conflict between science and Christianity.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
08 Aug '15 20:47
Originally posted by googlefudge
No, you don't have to take the bible to be literally true to have a problem between Christianity and science.

Christianity requires faith, belief without evidence and despite contrary evidence.
Christianity thus promotes faith as a valid and indeed desirable way of determining truth, and of deciding
what to believe.
However faith is a complete ana ...[text shortened]...
This means that there is an inherent and unavoidable conflict between science and Christianity.
Then why do you support the theory of Evolution as science when it requires so much blind faith to believe it? 😏
Suzianne
Misfit Queen
Isle of Misfit Toys
Joined
08 Aug '03
Moves
36633
09 Aug '15 11:31
Originally posted by googlefudge
Christianity requires faith, belief without evidence and despite contrary evidence.
I don't know how many times you have to be asked to produce this "contrary evidence" before you either produce it, or stop making this claim.
Suzianne
Misfit Queen
Isle of Misfit Toys
Joined
08 Aug '03
Moves
36633
09 Aug '15 11:39
Originally posted by bob58
Evolution seems to true on so many levels but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive. Could God not have used evolution as a part of his creation?
Because too many people, on both sides, are frozen in their antiquated mindsets and only want to argue. Never mind being right, at this point. But I will award you the entire internetz for your forward thinking. 🙂
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
09 Aug '15 12:44
Originally posted by RJHinds
Then why do you support the theory of Evolution as science when it requires so much blind faith to believe it? 😏
So you think Dr. Behe is just another evolution scientist? He is an avowed creationist and says so right in his own Lehigh University Bio:

faculty

Department Home • Faculty • Post-docs & Research Scientists • Adjuncts • Staff
Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.
Professor
Biochemistry

Department of Biological Sciences
Iacocca Hall, Room D-221
111 Research Drive
Bethlehem, PA 18015
610-758-3474 voice
443-346-2436 fax
mjb1@lehigh.edu

Research Summary

"
I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Many molecular systems in the cell require multiple components in order to function. I have dubbed such systems "irreducibly complex." (Behe 1996b, 2001) Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete. (An illustration of the concept of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap pictured on this page, which needs all its parts to work.) Despite much general progress by science in the past half century in understanding how complex biochemical systems work, little progress has been made in explaining how such systems arise in a Darwinian fashion. I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent. (Behe 1996b, 2001) The proposal of intelligent design has proven to be extremely controversial, both in the scientific community (for example, see Brumfiel, G. 2005. Nature434:1062‑1065) and in the general news media. (Behe 1996a, 1999, 2005) My current work involves: 1) educating various groups to overcome mistaken ideas of what exactly intelligent design entails, so that they can make informed judgments on whether they think it is a plausible hypothesis; and 2) trying to establish a reasoned way to determine a rough dividing line between design and non-design in biochemical systems.

Official Disclaimer

My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."

He is a firm believer in creationism, hiding under the term 'intelligent design'.

That makes all of his science work biased before he even starts a project.

He is not out to learn the truth, only to bend his work to force it to support creationism.