Evolution is a fact!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation is a one time event.

Evolution is a process that is supposed to be going on now.

One has nothing to do with the other as far as process goes,
therefore when discussion on the topic of evolution, why is it
that creation mus ...[text shortened]... process, because of the fear that
creation may be true.
Kelly

When evolution is explained in the absence of reference to creationism , it's immediately attacked by people with a creationist axe to grind.
Also this is the spirituality forum and had not the issue of creation vs evolution been raised here by creationists , there would have been no need to defend science.
Bogus arguments against science need to be removed from the debate and that includes all the grasping for straws at answeringenesis.god that creationists have posted here, especially since all the get for their grasping are short straws that built on false premises.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]That is really an apples and orange debate, because evolution standing or falling has nothing to do with creation it only has to do with evolution.

You know, from the religious side of things (since I am not a scientist), I think that hits the nail right on the head. And it’s why this kind of debate has always left me confused.

I understand tha ...[text shortened]... t in a strict “God versus evolution” question, I think you’re right: it’s apples and oranges.
[/b]

Actually, that would first require science to raise the degree of certainty in God's existence to a much higher level than a belief, before it even gets to the mechanics of "creation".

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation is a one time event.

Evolution is a process that is supposed to be going on now.

One has nothing to do with the other as far as process goes,
therefore when discussion on the topic of evolution, why is it
that creation must be drug into the fray? Evolution either can
or cannot stand on its own. That is my point; moreover, if you
look at m ...[text shortened]... in
maintaining it as a viable process, because of the fear that
creation may be true.
Kelly

Do you really think this is true, or balanced, given DJ et al's efforts to disprove TOE with very shaky arguments that have been easily disputed (and already dealt with as any Googler will soon learn)
Personally, I don't think that TOE belongs in a spirituality forum, but some people seem to see it as a threat to their beliefs.

Originally posted by frogstomp
When evolution is explained in the absence of reference to creationism , it's immediately attacked by people with a creationist axe to grind.
Also this is the spirituality forum and had not the issue of creation vs ...[text shortened]... their grasping are short straws that built on false premises.

Evolution can be questioned, it does not mean, however that its
always because of the creation point of view someone holds. I
submit even if some question evolution didn't have a creation
point of view that wouldn't be believed by many, because
anyone who disagrees with evolution must have a creationist
point of view. To disagree with evolution in the thinking of
some is simply admitting creation is true. So creation is the
cause many believe in evolution, they believe it to be a matter
of religious disagreement.

I admit my creationist view, and I attempt to leave faith
out my disagreements where possible. I don’t just say God did
it so there, but I also dislike it when I start seeing people
believing in parts of evolution theory as if it were the gospel or
something. When these points have never been seen or
documented yet they are believed, if it may be remotely
possible so it must be true in their thinking.

The sources of our views about the beginning may be different,
one being scripture another the thoughts of man on how it could
have happened, but we believe we know what happened, and
then those things that follow are couched accordingly in our
world views.
Kelly

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Do you really think this is true, or balanced, given DJ et al's efforts to disprove TOE with very shaky arguments that have been easily disputed (and already dealt with as any Googler will soon learn)
Personally, I don't thin ...[text shortened]... orum, but some people seem to see it as a threat to their beliefs.

Yes, but saying what I did does not mean that there are not some
creationist that do not go take the route of simply saying "God did it"
and believe that is all that needs said either. For some that is all
that is required, so I suppose that is enough, just as for some in
in a class room if someone says it happened this way that too is
simply enough as well. It is a big world with lots of people doing lots
of talking. We will believe what we will.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evolution can be questioned, it does not mean, however that its
always because of the creation point of view someone holds. I
submit even if some question evolution didn't have a creation
point of view that wouldn't be believed by man ...[text shortened]... that follow are couched accordingly in our
world views.
Kelly

Kelly there is simply too much evidence that supports evolution. It comes from nearly every branch of science , a chemical fact here, a mechanist physical process there and quantum mechanics all over the place , biology up the gazoo.
There really isn't any doubt.
The God you see in the Old Testament is what Stone Age Man thought God was based on his view of the universe, we have learned so much more since then, its been estimated that the 99% of the human race's base of knowlege has been learned since 1900. We need a religion that can reflect knowlege and not one that fights it.
Christianity is still safe , however it does need to get a lot more on the spiritual side of things. Who knows, Kelly, we might have been able to get to where science is taking us through Christ if the religion hadn't gotten so damn dogmatic.

Originally posted by Langtree
I assumed you would know that, I said this was a correspondence course. I admit I am vain, since my PhD was only correspondence, it probably won't get me job. It wasn't a "reputable" university, but Dr. Davis was a professor at Aubur ...[text shortened]... mar was my biggest problem, that's where my wife came to my aid.

It sounds not only not reputable, but almost certainly nonaccredited.

I own the copyright to my dissertation. You can find it at Disseration Abstracts International in Ann Arbor, Michigan (they can even sell you a copy). My college has three copies--one in the stacks, one in the archives, and one on microfilm.

I had not one professor, but three (the minimum) and they spent two hours grilling me in the presence of another faculty member from outside the discipline after they had approved the text. When it was over, I became one of them.

These facts are all standard at accredited colleges.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Kelly there is simply too much evidence that supports evolution. It comes from nearly every branch of science , a chemical fact here, a mechanist physical process there and quantum mechanics all over the place , biology up the gazoo.
There really isn't any doubt.
The God you see in the Old Testament is what Stone Age Man thought God was ...[text shortened]... o where science is taking us through Christ if the religion hadn't gotten so damn dogmatic.

Funny thing about evidence is that, it can mean one thing to the
person trying to prove a point, and another to the one disagreeing
with the point. The truth of it all, is that both people could be
wrong too with their views on the evidence. Having a mountain
of evidence means there are a lot of things to talk about, not that
evolution is a slam dunk as far as a process responsible for life
changing from simpler to complex from very simple life forms to
the very complex by comparison.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
and i answered no, evolution is not necessarily faith based. there is at least one fundamental difference between evolution and creationism and this difference breaks down along lines of faith and consequently along the lines of the natur why was that an improvement, and how and why did it
happen?
Kelly

sorry KJ, i totally missed this post of yours because i was on vacation and just now got around to reading some of the stuff posted while i was gone. i like this topic and am glad you see fit to take it seriously.

There is no test or tests we can come with to prove (creationism), it is purely faith nothing more.

agreed. and i also agree this is not the end of the debate.

We can and have come up with other ideas on how it may have
occurred, such as the Big Bang, and abiogenesis but that does not
mean that the Big Bang and abiogenesis are true either, they are just
other beliefs on the matter of the beginning.

don't get me wrong, KJ: i am not trying to say that evolution is and must be right beyond a shadow of a doubt. i am, after all, an agnostic atheist. however, until god realizes the game of hide and seek has gone on far too long and reveals himself to our senses, i will continue to assert that creationism is irrational and unjustified, whereas belief in the evidence supporting evolution is rational. there is a fundamental difference between the two that breaks down along lines of natural versus supernatural (i would say along the lines of faith, but it is clear to me now that your definition of faith and mine do not coincide, which is certainly fair enough).

consider a simpler example than big bangs and abiogenesis as a starting point: consider my assertion that 'it is rational for me to believe i have hands'. i know that i have hands through natural sensory perception and rational thought. does this mean that i do, in fact, have hands? not beyond a shadow of a doubt because if an omnipotent god does exist, then he could certainly just fool me into thinking i have hands when in fact i do not have hands (it goes without saying that such a god, if he exists, has far too much time on his own hands and doesn't deserve any praise for his whimsical fancies). does this mean that i employ 'faith' in asserting that it is rational for me to believe i have hands? only if your definition of 'faith' is extremely esoteric. my knowledge that i have hands is based on natural events and capacities and rational thought; there are no supernatural premises that i must posit.

likewise, concerning evolution, there are no supernatural premises. evolution is based on natural occurrences, and there is a wealth of scientific data (based on the scientific method) that appeal to my cognitive faculties that support evolution. belief in evolution is rational for all these reasons. you seem to argue that because evolution cannot be known without doubt to be true, then it must be that i am employing 'faith' by saying that belief in evolution is rational. again, as with the hands example, only if your definition of faith is extremely esoteric. even if you play musical chairs with the definitions, it is certainly a fundamentally different type of 'faith' than that of believing in creationism -- one breaks down along the natural, one along the supernatural. i don't see how this distinction can go unnoticed: it is IMO an insurmountable problem for the creationist since the supernatural is unknowable to us by definition. thus the creationist who doesn't recognize his belief as completely arbitrary is in effect saying that he can know the unknowable -- that is an indefensible position if ever i have heard one.

i also get the feeling that you are arguing that since creationism is somehow 'complete' and 'explains' everything (with the convenient blanket statement 'god did it all the way he wanted to'😉 while evolutionists have not yet explained everything perfectly or even satisfactorily, that means that creationism is somehow tenable and rational and justified. this is nonsense. in this sense, creationism is no more rational than if i asserted that the world is the way it is for no other reason than because my hair is brown. then everything is conveniently explained as well ('it is the way it is because LemonJello has brown hair'😉.

concerning big bangs, and abiogenesis, and cells splitting into two sexes and whatnot: if you think that there are currently no definitive explanations of these events based on natural occurrences, then i think you should do as i do and be okay with saying 'i don't know how to explain those things right now. good scientists are working on them through the scientific method, and thus maybe someday we will know...but maybe not too.' just because these are hard questions, it does not justify supernatural solutions like the existence of a supernatural creator. if one absolutely must have answers now, then he can certainly leech onto the 'complete solution' of creationism and delude himself that all his problems are solved. i only ask that he remember that his belief is arbitrary and irrational (based on the supernatural which defies reason), and that he is not justified in going around stating otherwise.

IN SHORT: make no mistake -- the creationist is absolutely entitled to his opinion; he just cannot reasonably demand or even expect to be taken seriously when he willfully chooses to ignore the wealth of evidence for evolution and the associated lack thereof for creationism. my advice to the creationist is not to deny that little agnostic that i think lives deep inside us all: sometimes saying 'i don't really know' is the only honest stance with respect to our own nature as rational beings. and frankly, continually parroting 'god must have done it' is just not a convincing vessel for arriving at 'answers'.

there is no reason why belief in god and belief in evolution cannot be compatible. i think many creationists refuse to acknowledge the evidence for evolution because it flies in the face of a literal reading of the bible...not sure, just speculation.

... until god realizes the game of hide and seek has gone on far too long and reveals himself to our senses..

Have you seen, felt, touched, smelled, or heard your own brain?

If not, how do you know that you have a brain?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]... until god realizes the game of hide and seek has gone on far too long and reveals himself to our senses..

Have you seen, felt, touched, smelled, or heard your own brain?

If not, how do you know that you have a brain?

[/b]

je pense donc je suis.

Have you seen, felt, touched, smelled, or heard your own brain?

not to my knowledge. from what i understand, it's generally not good to remove your brain and poke at it. my friend used to pull his out and play kick ball with it, but i don't think he's ever been the same; plus it's messy and i ruined some fine sneakers.

If not, how do you know that you have a brain?

there are a myriad of plausible reasons why i am rationally justified in believing i have a brain. it is reasonable for me to believe that it is extremely likely that i have a brain for the same reasons. if you are actually having trouble figuring out what some of these reasons are, then maybe the question is better directed at yourself. i doubt that one could perform cut and paste operations without a brain, so you may just pass the test. if i in fact do not have a brain, then i'm quite certain my autopsy will be the talk of the town.

once you actually present some evidence for your theistic belief system, then perhaps it will be reasonable for me to believe that the existence of your god is likely as well. what is your first premise?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]... until god realizes the game of hide and seek has gone on far too long and reveals himself to our senses..

Have you seen, felt, touched, smelled, or heard your own brain?

If not, how do you know that you have a brain?

[/b]

Try and add something worth responding too ,nobody is interested in
looking at brains. or touchy-feely ones either. and I just heard yours make a wicked brainfart , can't you smell it, or are you so used to the smell that you think its flowers.
I tell ya dj , ya gotta get out in da fresh air and smell da roses

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Actually, there is no doubt that the Big Bang happened.
A god is not needed to explain the way things are right now.
Science has found no evidence of any god, anywhere, at any time from the Planck Time after the Big Bang until now.
Science didn't plan this result, just worked out that way.
This is good news, means we don't need to follow the laws of barbarians, we can make just laws.
Praise be.

All this absence of doubt in KneverKnight is still unfounded on any empirical proof, so obviously he has a lot of faith in his Big Bang to have dispelled all doubt. This still puts him in exactly the same boat as Kelly, who can't prove creation. Inherently origins go beyond the realms of "Science", as you can't prove nor disprove it. How do you disprove the abscence of something that cannot be scientifically tested?