Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Someone who makes hypotheses based primarily on the Bible and then refuses to acknowledge when the hypothesis is demonstrated incorrect.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Just so know I know has anyone ever said, it is so because the Bible
says so here?
Kelly

Here are some examples of KJ's posts on the topic:

"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting their
views heard and want all other points of views cut off.
Kelly"

"You have witnessed the creation of a planet, and seen how time
has changed it for 6K years or so, or you think you know what one
is suppose to look like?
Kelly"

"No, with respect I don't think you understand what your doing if you
believe that! Seeing something in the here and now does not mean
that it "always" behaved that way throughout time since rates can
change given circumstances, and if you don’t have all circumstances
accounted for you simply are making assumptions upon assumptions. "

"Beliefs with a lot of evidence may be true, but at the same time it
isn't always so, especially if you have to explain your evidence to
make it appear to be something it may not be, which puts it all back
between the ears again. You know what occured billions of years ago?
You know how old the earth is, or is it a matter of faith?

We all shoot for absolute certainty, it isn't something any of us get
at many times, it doesn't stop us from looking for it, but you still
have to call faith what it is, if you are proclaiming something to be
true no one can disprove. We have levels of certainty where what we
have is right before us, and even then we can be wrong.
Kelly"

"What I'm really saying is faith is faith, we are people and we live by it.
You can try to say your faith in the logic of some scientist is better
than someone else's faith in God, I don't care! It is still faith, when
you apply your belief system to the world around you and come up
with what you call truth or facts. You may be right, you may be wrong,
it depends on the subject matter, bottom line you are still a person of
faith, it is just being put into something other than what I put mine
into.
Kelly"

You can see the Christianity easily in your posts. Talking about God (not Allah, Zeus or "the gods" ). Talk of a 6000 year old planet, talk about how "faith is faith", etc. You don't argue scientifically, you argue from a religious Christian perspective and simply dismiss arguments from evidence and well known fundamental physics principles as being based on "faith", which you feel is equivalent to the faith of religion.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Here are some examples of KJ's posts on the topic:

[i]"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting the ...[text shortened]... on "faith", which you feel is equivalent to the faith of religion.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Probably.

I'd invite a discussion with you about the validitiy of radioactive dating, but we've done it before. You generally choose to express skepticism that man can know anything - except you don't apply this skepticism to everything. You only apply it when you dislike the hypothesis under investigation. I'm not going to bother with you any m ...[text shortened]... ".

I will invite anyone else to try to argue the lack of validity of carbon dating.

There is so much silliness in literal creationism that it beggars belief. For example, you would then need to accept that God was something of a fashionista because he made something new look old - like a modern antique.
You just can't debate religious dogma, because all they can do is try to pick holes in the theory. They have nothing else to offer apart from a few lines in an old book and a belief in the literal truth of that book, which was written by a man who wasn't even around at the time. In a court of law it would be dismissed as hearsay.
Seriously, what's the point of arguing science with someone who would rather believe in magic?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have to test, stress, and test things all the time, and unless I have
been keeping a very close eye on the test flow, simply seeing data
does not tell me anything on what has happened to the device under
test. My problem with dating methods is that there is to much
unknown! You do not know why things are they way they are, you are
just making the lea ...[text shortened]... ons your truth, or is it just a
matter of making your views known when it comes to you?
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, in short, my answer is - they (the creationists) are simply afraid.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you mean that you can present here right now a known scientific fact which proves the falsity of this statement? -

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What fact do you have of which I should be afraid that Genesis 1:1 is an untrue myth?[/b]

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Reading more thoroughly both yours and whodey's posts, I belive that I haven't been able to rely my point.

My point was that, since evolution is reconcilable with all but the most literal interpolations of Genesis, one can both be a believer AND accept evolution.

It is not the true believer that is afraid (in my opinion) from evolution - in fact, it ...[text shortened]... esorting" to super-natural and/or divine explanations), it should not disrupt faith.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
tend to agree with you on that point; one can still believe in the Bible and evolution.

what would you say about KJ's point that the faith of science = the faith of religion?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
what would you say about KJ's point that the faith of science = the faith of religion?

Why does science require faith? Does gravity work differently for people who 'dont't believe in it'?

Retrovirus.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My point was that, since evolution is reconcilable with all but the most literal interpolations of Genesis, one can both be a believer AND accept evolution.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree that one can be a believer in the Christian gospel and also believe in evolutionary theory. I myself came to know Christ as my Lord and Savior when I had a typical belief in evolution.

But on the whole subject of "fear" -

Just because some missionary types "fear" the theory of evolution does not in and of itself mean that it is all true.

People in Europe "feared" that the Berlin Wall would always be there. Today that wall has been torn down to the ground. Such a formidible barrier can be overthrown. So what that some people spent their lives in "fear" over something that can be toppled?

Some people "feared" that the Soviet Union would always be around. Today the system has been dropped and discarded for something more workable, in principle.

My point is that the supposed "fear" of the politically blessed and established iconic Evolution Theory doesn't prove it truthfulness or its permanentness.

There may be aspects of Evolution Theory which are true and worth holding on to. There may be other aspects of it which future generations will toss into the trash can of failed and false human imaginations.

++++++++++++++++++++++
It is not the true believer that is afraid (in my opinion) from evolution - in fact, it does not interfere with his faith at all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That may be true. There is a problem with the obscuring of the history of a first man and a first woman. If this obscuring of the stated flow of history from an original human couple does not completely invalidate the basis of Christ's redemption it does weaken it I think.

There is another issue. That is the "fear" that some aspects of it are just plain bad science. Some scientists "fear" that Darwin is not completely right. That is not a theological fear. That is a fear of the acceptance of a false scientific knowledge.

++++++++++++++++++
It is the religious "establishment" (for lack of a better word) and the missioners that are afraid: in the past, they could have used the animals, plants, biological mechanisms ect.. as an evidence backing the existence of god, while today evaluation provides another explanation, thus disrupting the use of that "evidence".
++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't think a lot of common sense ordinary people shake in fear when you propose that random and chance activity of molecules were "selected" into the structure of a working human eyeball, so that no intelligent agent is needed for its design.

I just don't think a whole lot of people are afraid your theory is so much more believable than some Intelligent planning somewhere going on behind our kidneys, eyes, lungs, muscles, brain, ears, heart, feet, hands.

I just don't see a lot of thinking people are terrified that Evolution provides a more powerful alternative to some kind of intelligent planning going on somewhere with living things.

I mean I have yet to see anyone run out of the house screaming in fear at the most persuasively presented episode of NOVA.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ancient people encountered a great deal of unexplainable phenomenon, many of those they tried to explain using gods or mythical creatures (like explaining lightning as Zeus's weapon or something). As science progresses, we need less and less of these supernatural explanations.
++++++++++++++++++++

You mean like today when we moderners speak of The Big Bang?

I mean naively supposing that a sound could be heard ... a big BANG !!?

Genesis speaks in scientifically imprecise language. It is not unscientific. It is just not scientifically precise language according to modern standards.

This is similar to our saying today the "Big Bang" initiated the universe. There was no air and thus no Bang to be heard. Scientifically imprecise language to discribe something which generally may be true.

How is it that we are so strict with ancient people and yet easy on ourselves?

Genesis poetically and prophetically discribes how creation was made for man. A brief and economical word is written about how at the pinnacle of all living things on earth, human beings were intended to be at the top.

Genesis is not an exhaustive description of how God created everthing. Otherwise the prophet could have taken 50 chapters just to explain how God made water. The author was not unable to go into great detail about minute designs you know? In the Exodus and Leviticus Moses explains extremely minute details about the measurements of the ark, the tabernacle, the utensils, the priestly clothing.

The author was obviously intelligent and capable of accuately discribing technical details.

What God showed him or told him to write about the creation of the world is trustworthy and factual. It is just economical, somewhat poetic, and its language is scientifically imprecise according to modern standards.

One thing is for sure. Man DOES occupy a unique position among all the other animals that exist. I think if you garner from Genesis this fact and that God is responsible for the existence of the world, you have done well with the intended purpose of the communication.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Here are some examples of KJ's posts on the topic:

"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting the on "faith", which you feel is equivalent to the faith of religion.

If the YEC's here were honest with themselves, they'd ask themselves why they must retreat to universal skepticism in order to defend their position. Are their beliefs so at odds with everything we know to be true?