bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) But, I'm still waiting for an answer. If you don't believe in God or creation, then you have to believe in something else. As I said, no one can give an answer as to how the universe and mankind came into being just by sheer chance. The inability to answer the question is entirely on you, because I can answer the question and am comfortable with my answer. If you want someone who doesn't believe some manifestation of God or a Creator is possible, you need to ask the question to someone else. However, I do think you are more interested in trying to make a point. The "if you can't explain how it all started, then it must be bunk" point of view is simplitisticly fallacious. "You cannot prove that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, therefore America doesn't exist." Edited November 20, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I still don't understand why evolution and creationism are believe to be mutually-exclusive. Only by morons. And there are plenty on BOTH sides of the fence. This is news? Likewise for those who think Christianity and evolution or even evolution and "I.D." are mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNasty Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 There's nothing wrong with believing in ID. There's nothing wrong with believing in Creationism. But neither one falls in the realm of science. Am I missing some part of this argument that's going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 ton, you cannot be convinced of anything on this subject because you dismiss facts and evidence that you don't agree with, while supplying no facts or evidence of your own (except for a creationist refutation of carbon dating which is clearly marred with inaccuracies). Seacrest out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 the fact that we can make an electronice board manage electrical impulses in an on or off setting is not relevant to the kind of extrapolations that have us dating things in the billions of years with a margin for error of several million years. Explain why exactly? You just stated the problem with some of the data is the methodology and technology is too new to develop a trusted scientifically supported view? We have laboratories that can detect dissolved phases of respective constituents in groundwater down to parts of a trillion. We can differentiate commingled plumes of contamination in groundwater identifying isotopes in a fashion very similar to what is done in radiometric dating. This is leaps and bounds above what was possible even a few years ago. These methods present data that is universsaly accepted as accurate and even used in courts of law to determine outcomes beyond a reasonable doubt. Am I not supposed to see a glaring inconsistency between this and what you claim to be a problem with evolutionary theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 ton, you cannot be convinced of anything on this subject because you dismiss facts and evidence that you don't agree with, while supplying no facts or evidence of your own (except for a creationist refutation of carbon dating which is clearly marred with inaccuracies). Haven't read every single word on this thread, but I get the distinct impression that even if so, he has company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 ton, you cannot be convinced of anything on this subject because you dismiss facts and evidence that you don't agree with, while supplying no facts or evidence of your own (except for a creationist refutation of carbon dating which is clearly marred with inaccuracies). Seacrest out. i thought that's what you were supposed to do in the tailgate ... heck atomic, i don't have any answers. all i'm saying is that i'm skeptical of the science we have generated in just the last few decades that causes us to think we know precisely how old our planet is. we throw out time spans of billions of years like it's no big deal. this is pretty new science in the grand scheme of things ... when it comes to evolution on a macro scale, i don't believe the scientists have made their case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I still don't understand why evolution and creationism are believe to be mutually-exclusive. Presumably because the version of creationism that is being discussed is the version where fully formed upright homo sapiens appeared one day out of the blue, as opposed to the evolutionary theory which holds that all creatures developed from something else - to wit, men from monkeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 in the words of the great linus......you should never discuss 3 things. religion, politics, and the great pumpkin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Explain why exactly? You just stated the problem with some of the data is the methodology and technology is too new to develop a trusted scientifically supported view? We have laboratories that can detect dissolved phases of respective constituents in groundwater down to parts of a trillion. We can differentiate commingled plumes of contamination in groundwater identifying isotopes in a fashion very similar to what is done in radiometric dating. there you go again, hauling out all the big words ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Why is it that when these discussions come up I always get the impression that the creationists are completely unable to appreciate what an incredible length of time has passed here on Earth? I think this inability to understand (or, if not understand, at least have an inkling of) the vastness of elapsed time (and therefore the potential for an almost infinite variety of events to have happened within it) causes them to deny the near infinity of it and seek simpler solutions. One other thing - there seems to be some problem with the fact that in the last 50 years or so we've managed to figure out carbon dating and other technologies. That's because, in general, we're on an exponential curve of inventiveness and ability as far as science and technology goes. Nanotechnologies, cures for "incurable" disease, satellites able to read newspapers on the ground, instant communication from anywhere to anywhere - all these things are now realities when once in our lifetimes, they (or some of them) were not. Compare and contrast to the progress rate at any other period in the ascent of man. Sure there are blips, but today is so far beyond even 1960 it may as well be millenia away. While the science races forward, the culture does not, so the creationists seek alternative and simpler solutions for everything in an attempt to keep their beliefs relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 While the science races forward, the culture does not, so the creationists seek alternative and simpler solutions for everything in an attempt to keep their beliefs relevant. many creationists are accepting the old earth explanation, usually thinking of genesis as a simplistic description of very complex processes that took billions of years to execute. so the seven days quoted in the bible could translate to long spans of time. i think all of our scientific advances (satellites, gps, ipods ) are indeed amazing and somewhat intoxicating. such a string of innovations could lead us to believe that in addition to breakthroughs on a health care or on a digital basis, we have made similar breakthroughs in now being able to definitively understand how we came to be. there will always be leading theories based on the best science of the day, but i believe that we have just scratched the surface on this. i also think the latest generation tends to believe that they know all the answers, much like the one that didn't believe there would ever be a need to have a computer in the home or that everything that was worthwhile to be invented has already been invented. there could be some kind of breakthrough insight tomorrow that changes our paradigms, like the recent "discovery" that our universe is expanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 there you go again, hauling out all the big words ... I'm pretty sure this is the first time in the Huddle I've been accused of using big words. Point being, we use similar technologies in the industry that you are refuting as your basis. We are but one firm that sends in thousands of thousands of blind samples into a laboratory on hundreds of different projects. Yet, the results are remarkably consistent on a routine basis; the samples collected from the dirtiest areas come out consistently dirty and the samples from the clean areas come out consistently clean. By consistent, I mean in parts per billion, +/- a trillionth for hundreds of contaminants in soil, groundwater, and/or vapor. The lab doesn't know what I'm sending them, and they don't know what results I expect off each given sample. They have no interest or idea how to "put forth results to support my theory." On a rare occasion we get an anomalous result; most of the time we can attribute to some type of error, sometimes we don't know what to expect when we collect a sample from an area we haven't investigated. The science is there and the precision and accuracy of the data is compelling. At the end of the day, none of the data can be accepted as 100% factual. Granted, evolution is a totally different animal and there is much more left to interpretation. That will always change as more evidence comes in. The interpretation of evolutions is always there to debate, but if you are convinced that the science doesn't work and are hung up on 6000 years vs. millions....I really don't know what to tell ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF409ers Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 In the end no one can disprove the existence of god and neither can one prove it, that's why it is called faith. I feel people get caught up in the argument of science and god believing as if they are totally separate, that one must believe in either science or god. IMO science is nothing more than our attempt to understand god's order. When referring to the topic of evolution as it applies to the origin of human beings the bible can not “prove” that its explanation is correct nor can the scientific facts surrounding the many theories of evolution “prove” that man evolved from a monkey or some other similar animal. One must exercise faith to some degree depending on what you chose to believe. I happen to be a Christian, referring to my faith not religion (never liked that word), and do believe in the explanations put forth by the bible and no I do not read the bible with “literal glasses” so my faith is based upon my best understanding of its meaning and my relationship with god. For me personally I have always found that one who believes in the mathematical probability applied to an “accidental circumstance” for the earth’s creation and ability to support life the way it does requires far more faith than it does for my believing in god as the creator of earth, the universe and originator of life. With that said I also don’t think that science can’t be used to explain some of it. It is ridiculous to just ignore science. With evolution there is no reason to think that god did not use that as way to expand all the creatures of the earth. I mean if god is the originator of all things that it is totally believable that everything evolved from one “thing”. Same with the big bang theory, this could have been the catalyst god used to create the universe. The science behind the creation of anti-matter shows that matter can be created from enormous amounts of energy; god could be that source of energy. Anyways, I apologize if I am way of topic from this thread; I admit I did not completely read the whole thing. This is all just my on science and faith. I also don't think people need to judge one another when it comes to believing in god or not. It does not prove that one is smarter, wiser, or more of an independent thinker, since either belief requires faith to some degree. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the spectrum that display enormous wisdom and enormous ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I should qualify something... I started out in my first post reponding to JJ, but it morphed into a general commentary on fundamentalists of any religion, or even fanatically based movements. So, much of that was not actually directed at JJ. I hope this doesn't take a turn towards bashing the Catholic church, we all know how many mistakes this church has made over time, from the Spanish Inquisition to witch hunting to the admission of gay preists and then paying protection money for them due to a severe shortage of preists.... the list of bad things and horrible decisions is long... but keep in mind it is a church that is run by men, and men make mistakes. With that as a precursor, the Vatican realised that the old theology of creationism was ... well, just wrong. The bible was no longer considered to be literal truth, although many passages are still to be considered so, but rather it is symbolic truth. The idea is that all of the many people who wrote the bible were directed by divine intervention to write truths, both symbolic and literal. Even the leadership of the Roman Catholic church realised that creationism had been disproven, and they were not about to repeat the same mistakes they made when some hooligans said the earth rotated around the sun.... not this time. Some may consider the change in philosophy as backpedaling, I think it is simply an admission of having been wrong about something. Anything run by man will make msitakes, some very bad ones, from social clubs to governments to local community churches. This willingness to rethink theology and what God's mmessage is, at it's core is why I still embrace an institution that says unborn babies are human beings, but still doesn't bury them with full funeral rights..... but, not to turn this into a Catholic teachings thread.... Basically, I have found a middle ground here, and find that creationsists are in a word, delusional. That sort of idealogy attracts troubled people that hate gray areas.... those who want everything spelled out in black and white, right and wrong. If one buys into that idealogy, life and decision making become automatic.... no need to stress over what to do or how to handle a situation. It's like Linus and his blanket. As an example... I knew this self proclaimed born again fundamentalist. He denounced Darwinism and evolution. He was a died in the wool creationist. He also hated gay people, said they would all go to hell, and that being gay was a choice that would self condemn them. So, I asked him what he thought about true hermaphroites.... people born with both male and female genitalia. The guy was actually visably shaken. This could not be black and white, just round and square pegs... this was an oval, an it just would not fit into his judgemental world of right and wrong. I'm sure he went off to his reverend, and was comforted by being reassured that evil people like me are just there to shake their faith. Probably called me an evil doer too. This guy was not a stupid man, but has been brainwashed because it's easier to have every piece of the theological meaning of life puzzle fit neatly together. It is a very comfortable place to be.... no conflict, all right and wrong, black and white. Show me someone who is not a right wing christain, and I'll show you someone who is not a creationist. Even in my world, there are still a few black and white situations that are easy to understand. Creationist= right wing christian. Now, some might say my belief in a God was also delusional in the absence of clealy proven evidence. I would understand that opinion. But, the beginning of everything is still not understood scientifically, and therefore remains a mystery to human intelligence. I knew a guy that was a super high powered researcher, splitting atoms at the cutting edge of physics at Brookhaven National Labs. He siad no matter how many times they split ataoms into smaller and smaller particles, there is always something smaller and shorter lived that the quark, and then the next smaller particle.... here was a scientist who was steadfast in his belief that it was something other than understandable physics at work when everything was created. That is where one makes the jump either to or from a God based belief. In either case, it's still is and will likely always remain a mystery. Back on the original topic, creationism is without any doubt a single God oreinted theory, and doesn't belong in publically funded institutions like public schools. Show me one one-hundreth of a shred of scientific evidence to support creationism vs. evolution.... than I'll say fine... spend 1- 100th of teaching time in the classroom for it. The massive amount of scientific research to support evolution is overwhelming.... but I have never seen a shred of scientific evidence to support creationism. Therin lies the difference. That is what the judge said in this case, and he was absolutely correct in his ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 In the end no one can disprove the existence of god and neither can one prove it, that's why it is called faith. I feel people get caught up in the argument of science and god believing as if they are totally separate, that one must believe in either science or god. IMO science is nothing more than our attempt to understand god's order. When referring to the topic of evolution as it applies to the origin of human beings the bible can not “prove” that its explanation is correct nor can the scientific facts surrounding the many theories of evolution “prove” that man evolved from a monkey or some other similar animal. One must exercise faith to some degree depending on what you chose to believe. I happen to be a Christian, referring to my faith not religion (never liked that word), and do believe in the explanations put forth by the bible and no I do not read the bible with “literal glasses” so my faith is based upon my best understanding of its meaning and my relationship with god. For me personally I have always found that one who believes in the mathematical probability applied to an “accidental circumstance” for the earth’s creation and ability to support life the way it does requires far more faith than it does for my believing in god as the creator of earth, the universe and originator of life. With that said I also don’t think that science can’t be used to explain some of it. It is ridiculous to just ignore science. With evolution there is no reason to think that god did not use that as way to expand all the creatures of the earth. I mean if god is the originator of all things that it is totally believable that everything evolved from one “thing”. Same with the big bang theory, this could have been the catalyst god used to create the universe. The science behind the creation of anti-matter shows that matter can be created from enormous amounts of energy; god could be that source of energy. Anyways, I apologize if I am way of topic from this thread; I admit I did not completely read the whole thing. This is all just my on science and faith. I also don't think people need to judge one another when it comes to believing in god or not. It does not prove that one is smarter, wiser, or more of an independent thinker, since either belief requires faith to some degree. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the spectrum that display enormous wisdom and enormous ignorance. ive had faith in frank gore for 11 weeks now and its gotten me nowhere! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF409ers Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 ive had faith in frank gore for 11 weeks now and its gotten me nowhere! Frank Gore is definitely no FF god this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) I think this one simple statement utterly destroys your credibility. You have obviously been to brainwashing camp if you've picked up this little nugget there. All the days are named after pagan gods: Monday - Mani Tuesday - Tyr Wednesday - Woden Thursday - Thor Friday - Freya Saturday - Saturn Sunday - Sunne I was on my way out the door and didn't proof what I wrote. To rest or to cease is tied in with sabbath not Saturday. Saturday is the day that God rested after creating the Earth. This is why Jews observe the Sabbath on Saturday. Christians moved everything forward a day on Sunday to celebrate Jesus' resurrection which was on a Sunday. Edited November 20, 2007 by Jumpin Johnies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 It´s a thread about evolution, and you came in posting bible verses and saying the bible was accurate. Either you´re implying that you believe in literal biblical creationism, or you are blathering off-topic. You might be able to convert some people if you try to make a good argument instead of smugly quoting verses. I said that I believe the Old Testament is the word of God becaues the messianic prophecies written in Isaiah and Daniel that were written 700 and 600 years before Christ were dead on. I then posted Isaiah 53 so folks could see what I was talking about. I though it was important to point out why I firmly believe in the Old Testament before I started posting about how it was to be taken literally on creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 IMO science is nothing more than our attempt to understand god's order. When referring to the topic of evolution as it applies to the origin of human beings the bible can not “prove” that its explanation is correct nor can the scientific facts surrounding the many theories of evolution “prove” that man evolved from a monkey or some other similar animal. One must exercise faith to some degree depending on what you chose to believe. Science doesn't concern itself with God or his order,Creationists take that into consideration. I believe the best explanation for why we became who we are is explained by preponderance of defensible data and observations made thereof. I believe it is likely God created earth; which I attribute to nothing but gut feeling and faith. But, I refuse to put on blinders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) But, I refuse to put on blinders. So do I. I firmly believed in evolution over creationism until 3 or 4 months ago. Edited November 20, 2007 by Jumpin Johnies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF409ers Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Science doesn't concern itself with God or his order,Creationists take that into consideration. I believe the best explanation for why we became who we are is explained by preponderance of defensible data and observations made thereof. I believe it is likely God created earth; which I attribute to nothing but gut feeling and faith. But, I refuse to put on blinders. To say that science does not concern itself with gods order yet believe that god created the earth, and therefore the phycial properties that accompany it, seems to be a bit contradictory. Take gravity for example, that is the science that explains why objects fall to earth (in basic terms), an earth you believe may have been created by god, how are we then not using science to explain gods "order"? Again, the premise of my post was that, IMO, science and god are not mutually exclusive. And that one could use science to explain how god's "order" works. IMO if you believe in god than you would have to believe that science is a part of gods world. When I get into an airplane I am aware of the physics of flight, I don't think that god is holding up the plane, but I believe in god, so I believe that the physics behind flight is a scientifc understanding of the physical properties of gods "order" / "blueprints". I am not sure if I am articulating this correctly with my use of the word order. EDIT TO ADD: I want to add that if it were to be proven true that man did evolve from "monkeys" / whatever, it would not lessen my faith in god in the least. Applying the same logic I use with my view of the relationship of science and god, I would view that as gods way "order" for creating us. I am not one who believes in absolutes, that is why I do not read / believe in the bible as literal truth. If Adam and Eve were an attempt to explain the origins of man by a primitive culture and science were to prove otherwise, it still does not, according to my faith, remove god from the equation as "him" being the origintor of life. Edited November 20, 2007 by SF409ers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 To say that science does not concern itself with gods order yet believe that god created the earth, and therefore the phycial properties that accompany it, seems to be a bit contradictory. I never made a definitive statement, your interpretation of what I said is certifiably untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF409ers Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Science doesn't concern itself with God or his order,Creationists take that into consideration. I believe the best explanation for why we became who we are is explained by preponderance of defensible data and observations made thereof. I believe it is likely God created earth; which I attribute to nothing but gut feeling and faith. But, I refuse to put on blinders. I never made a definitive statement, your interpretation of what I said is certifiably untrue. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said. FIXED: To say that science does not concern itself with gods order yet believe that it is likely god created the earth, and therefore the phycial properties that accompany it, seems to be a bit contradictory. Edited November 20, 2007 by SF409ers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said. Please exlpain what part of my statement is "certifiably untrue". .I think it's pretty obvious what part of my statement wasn't definitive. But that seems to be your hang up not mine. Also, Gravity is a law. Not quite sure if it is relevant, but then again. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.