Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I'm sorry, but I must -- Evolution!


Guest alexhorseman

Recommended Posts

Amanda, either you are wrong, or nearly everyone else in your entire religion of Christianity, for thousands and thousands of years, is wrong in this interpretation of the bible.

 

Cerise, perhaps you could be so kind to present the books and verses where the Bible takes the stand that it is the ONLY truth and has ownership of faith... THAT would settle all this... wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Amanda

    20

  • Ouroboros

    19

  • Mr. Neil

    18

  • MrSpooky

    18

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What verses are the ones where Jesus says "I am the truth, the way, the light, and none come before me"?

 

There's also the verses that espouse blatant misology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another reason why I like to keep the sciences separate.  Not only are these entirely different fields of study, but if you let creationists lump them together, then they start playing the "What-Came-Before-That?" game.

------------------------------------------------

There's always going to be something that science doesn't explain or can't account for.  Science is an on-going investigation, because there are always going to new questions to be answered.  To expect it to have immediate answers all the time is the wrong attitude to have.  Once you start demanding that, then you've rendered science inert, because you've made it so that it can't proceed without complete understanding.

 

Mr. Neil.. with the utmost due respect for you... AND everyone on this site... I would appreciate your perspective on this idea...

 

I DO believe in evolution... and if I can be so brave to say that it seems obvious to me that the whole Bible is about man evolving from what might be considered the amino acid (dust) to the crowmagnum man (Adam) to future manifestations of man.... not to mention the Big Bang... separating the heavens and the earth, the light and the dark, etc. (I can see many now... :lmao: ... and that's ok)

 

Having said that, there's the "What-Came-Before-That?" game. I thought that Stephen Hawking has a popularly accepted theory that the universe ALWAYS existed... and I know that some here do not accept that the universe collapses back into itself, hence bang to bang... so might we give Stephen Hawking the benefit here or perhaps someone should enlighten him or what? (not trying to be sarcastic)

 

Further, the universe is eternal... God is eternal. :scratch: The universe will eventually collapse back into itself.... God is reconciling the world back to himself. Does this mean God is the God of popular beliefs and popular interpretations... obviously not. Yet as scientist, it is known that popular beliefs are not always correct. Presenting this proposal with sincerity... if I called God, LMC5678, would that make the connection of these ideas more approachable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amanda, there is a significant difference between "the material universe" that cosmologists refer to beginning and "existence."

 

Existence is epistemically necessary. The real question is if the universe can be explained within such naturalistic terms.

 

And if by "LMC5678" you mean a supernatural and transcendant cause, then I do find the notion a little more emotionally approachable, but I still find it just as intellectually unintelligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to compare evolution with creation is not fair. The evolutionist doesn’t have an answer for the origin of life. There only answer is “we don’t have to have that answer”.

 

They insist on keeping it separate, obviously not understanding that you need life in order for life to evolve.

 

Creation addresses all the questions. It not only has an explanation for where life came from, it also addresses how we came to be a species. It even explains how we as a species have a place in which to exist.

 

You may not agree with the creation theory’s explanations, but at least it addresses all the issues. It is a much more complete theory that evolution.

 

The evolutionists will never understand the big picture because they refuse to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What verses are the ones where Jesus says "I am the truth, the way, the light, and none come before me"?

 

There's also the verses that espouse blatant misology.

Mr Spooky...

I am saying that everything in the Bible, original text, is true.

 

(I know we don't have the original text and the closest thing we have is from which present interpretations came... and researching each of those words evolution.)

 

Having said that, not everything that is true is in the Bible, original text, however enough is there to let us know what is truth or not. Jesus recognized that others were teaching other truths, yet aligned with him, and said we are to respect them also.

 

Mr 9:40 -

For he that is not against us is for us.

 

Lu 9:50 -

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

 

Blatant misology? I suppose you mean in regards to reasoning... and I suppose that is left to the reader or one's interpretation, and I suggest it is their interpretation that is wrong... according to the original text.

 

Of course, that is my opinion... and I don't think everyone should have the same opinion as myself... I assume this arena is just a place to debate views to expand one's thinking, should one want to consider it or not... that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amanda, there is a significant difference between "the material universe" that cosmologists refer to beginning and "existence."

 

Existence is epistemically necessary.  The real question is if the universe can be explained within such naturalistic terms.

 

Mr Spooky... Okay, so the only acceptable means of relating to knowledge is scientifically coined vocabulary? I suppose that certainly would put limitations on resources....

 

I, in NO way, am meaning this in a condescending manner... in case it is perceived so... just encouraging open minded consideration of other resources and perhaps inquiring as to what are 'naturalistic' terms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evolutionists will never understand the big picture because they refuse to see it.

 

Invictus, considering evolution only... not the origin of life... wouldn't you say that the whole Bible is about man evolving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to compare evolution with creation is not fair. The evolutionist doesn’t have an answer for the origin of life. There only answer is “we don’t have to have that answer”.

 

They insist on keeping it separate, obviously not understanding that you need life in order for life to evolve.

We've told you often enough that evolution only deals with what happens after life came about.

 

Just how do you mean we don't understand what we're telling you?

Creation addresses all the questions. It not only has an explanation for where life came from, it also addresses how we came to be a species. It even explains how we as a species have a place in which to exist.
Creation only explains WHY.

 

The only answer it has for HOW is to say "God did it"

You may not agree with the creation theory’s explanations, but at least it addresses all the issues. It is a much more complete theory that evolution.

 

The evolutionists will never understand the big picture because they refuse to see it.

You will never understand what we understand because you refuse to listen to us, prefering instead to spout your discredited strawmen.

 

 

 

Why do I bother? You've either put me on ignore, or you're trying to avoid me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to compare evolution with creation is not fair. The evolutionist doesn’t have an answer for the origin of life. There only answer is “we don’t have to have that answer”.
Why is that unfair? Because you have an all-encompassing story about the origin of life? Why should that even be considered? You haven't really given a reasonable answer for why it's "unfair" just because science chooses to address these matters differently.

 

Besides, you're the one who wants to compare evolution to creation. We're telling you that it's not even science, so your point is moot anyway.

 

Correct, evolution doesn't have the answer to the origin of life. Therefore, you need to go elsewhere. You're in the wrong topic. You need to make a new one.

 

Evolution doesn't address the big picture... Science does!

 

They insist on keeping it separate, obviously not understanding that you need life in order for life to evolve.
Stawman. This has been explained to you.

 

Science keeps these things separate, because you're talking about two different phenomena; the existence of life, and commonality in life. The first is addressed by matters of origins; the latter, evolution.

 

Also, they fall under different fields of science; biochemistry and biology, respectively.

 

Yes, you're right, you need life before life can evolve, but life exists. There's no issue there. There's no reason why scientists can't have theories about biological change without having a theory of origins.

 

Creation addresses all the questions. It not only has an explanation for where life came from, it also addresses how we came to be a species. It even explains how we as a species have a place in which to exist.
Creation "addresses" all of these questions by positing worthless conjecture that a creator made things.

 

Simply saying "God did it" is no different than saying, "It was done with magic." Any issue can be "addressed" by just saying "it was done with magic", but notice how that doesn't explain anything! That's the whole point!

 

You may not agree with the creation theory’s explanations, but at least it addresses all the issues. It is a much more complete theory that evolution.
Creation doesn't have a theory. There's no theory to test, it can't be falsified, and it has no explanatory power. Therefore, it is not science.

 

The evolutionists will never understand the big picture because they refuse to see it.
Ad hominem.

 

Science is the big picture. Evolution is one field of science. Evolution only addresses one phenomenon. If you want another phenomenon addressed, you're going to have to go elsewhere.

 

You're in the wrong topic if you want to talk about origins. Start a new topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, there's the "What-Came-Before-That?" game. I thought that Stephen Hawking has a popularly accepted theory that the universe ALWAYS existed... and I know that some here do not accept that the universe collapses back into itself, hence bang to bang... so might we give Stephen Hawking the benefit here or perhaps someone should enlighten him or what? (not trying to be sarcastic)

 

It's more than just a theory, it's impossible for the universe not to have always existed. Since time is part of the universe, there can not have been a time when the universe did not exist, as that would requires an actual contradiction.

 

The best you can hope for is to claim that the known universe is not all there is, and to further claim that something outside the known universe is in some noncausal sense responsible for the present existence of the known universe.

 

if I called God, LMC5678, would that make the connection of these ideas more approachable?

 

It isn't the label "god" that is a problem, it's that the word has no meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amanda,

 

I would say the Bible is about man evolving in his faith, but not physically evolving into a species.

 

--------------------------

 

To the rest-

 

Without life, there is no evolution.

 

No matter how hard you try to separate them, they are still going to be related.

 

Even Darwin the father of evolution, addresses the origin of life. Darwin said the “Creator” originally breathed life. (Orgel L.E., `The Origin of Life on the Earth', Scientific American, October 1994, p.53).

 

Many modern day evolutionists don’t like the idea of a “Creator”. But, since they can’t come up with anything better, they refuse to address the issue.

 

They hide behind “it is a separate field of science”. Refusing to admit it is all part of the same question - "where did we come from?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to compare evolution with creation is not fair. The evolutionist doesn’t have an answer for the origin of life. There only answer is “we don’t have to have that answer”.

 

...

 

Creation addresses all the questions. It not only has an explanation for where life came from, it also addresses how we came to be a species. It even explains how we as a species have a place in which to exist.

 

You do realize you're bifurcating don't you? Chemical abiogenesis vs. creation are not the only two possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They hide behind “it is a separate field of science”. Refusing to admit it is all part of the same question - "where did we come from?”

 

Oh please. We've already discussed that the origin of life is a perfectly valid issue that should be addressed, and we've also described HOW we are addressing that issue scientifically.

 

Note that your question, "Where did life come from?" can be broken down into two more basic questions...

 

"What is the nature of the transition of pre-biotic elements to biotic life?"

 

and

 

"How did primitive biotic life evolve into modern life?"

 

Intelligible dialogue is all about making distinctions, looking into each specific element as deep as you can, THEN putting it together to form a bigger picture. You seem to want to take in the whole but ignore the specifics. You need both.

 

Science knows a lot about the latter, little about the former, but in both cases we need to work in a bottom-up fashion. I've already taken note that we have a good solid foundation for the beginning stages of abiogenesis research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many modern day evolutionists don’t like the idea of a “Creator”. But, since they can’t come up with anything better, they refuse to address the issue.

 

They hide behind “it is a separate field of science”. Refusing to admit it is all part of the same question - "where did we come from?”

temper_tantrum.jpg

 

Notice that I'd already addressed this yesterday...

 

The theory of evolution is a theory which answers a particular inquiry postulated by Darwin in relation to biological commonality.  Not "where did we come from?".

 

Intelligible dialogue is all about making distinctions, looking into each specific element as deep as you can, THEN putting it together to form a bigger picture.  You seem to want to take in the whole but ignore the specifics.  You need both.
That is such a good point! He's trying to bitch until we agree to doing science backwards. In order to do science, though, you have to start with what you have and then work toward piecing together the whole.

 

Again, we have two phenomenons that we're talking about: the phenomenon of life, and the phenomenon of biological commonality. It is monumentally unconstructive to expect scientists to mash these two together. They're not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! I corrected that!

 

Note: I can correct things without the "this post has been edited" blurb, because I'm speshul!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet your post doesn't have a "this post has been edited" blurb at the bottom.

 

I think you're full of filthy lies, Neil.

 

And brilliance in evolutionary biology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's trying to bitch until we agree to doing science backwards.

 

 

So let's just make up some stuff and say "there, we evolutionists address the origin of life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's just make up some stuff and say "there, we evolutionists address the origin of life."

No, making stuff up is what Creationists do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, making stuff up is what Creationists do...

 

Yea, but telling stories is fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Telling stories is great, as long as you let everyone one know you're full of shit.

 

That's the problem with the Bible. Someone forgot to have the Comic Code Authority approve it, and now everyone thinks it's real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest alexhorseman

The gist of what I'm getting so far is that Evolution does not explain where we came from, and I'm inclined to agree. But then immediately using Creationism to explain what lead UP to evolution seems illogical, particularly from a science prospective. What is wrong with theories of abiogenesis instead of creationism to explain how life was created? To me, it seems much more plausible the life was created on this planet through abiogenesis (as was described on the first page of this topic) and then, through evolution, human beings were developed. Granted, Christians aren't going to be happy with that explanation, but is there any particular reason why these two theories TOGETHER don't hold water as far as explaining where life and then people came to be?

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are the only choices for the origins of life

1. Abiogenesis - Life formed from non life on earth.

2. God

 

I have always thought there was at least one more possibility...

3. Life started else where and got here by traveling on a meteor or the like.

 

We know that bacteria exist in the deepest parts of the ocean. Light here is very limited, the temperatures are very extreme.

 

What if, while exploring our solar system, we find bacteria on any of the planetary bodies?

 

Isn’t life forming (abiogenesis) on another world at least possible? I am not talking about humans mind you, just bacteria. Bacteria exist in all climates and extremes on this planet. This would change the amount of available time and the number of possible locations for the initial reaction to occur, thereby changing the probability of the right circumstances occurring considerably.

 

So am I off my rocker, Spooky…Neil? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gist of what I'm getting so far is that Evolution does not explain where we came from, and I'm inclined to agree. But then immediately using Creationism to explain what lead UP to evolution seems illogical, particularly from a science prospective.
Using creationism at all is illogical, because contrary to what Invictus keeps claiming, it doesn't account for anything, unless you think "It's magic" accounts for things.

 

There's a problem with just saying "God did it." It lacks explanatory power.

 

Let's say I'm in a science fair, and I invent the disintegration pistol. I win first prize, and someone asks me how the pistol was created. If I keep saying, "I did it", have I explained anything? No I haven't.

 

It's useless conjecture, and therefore it's disqualified before it's even allowed to enter scientific discussion.

 

What is wrong with theories of abiogenesis instead of creationism to explain how life was created? To me, it seems much more plausible the life was created on this planet through abiogenesis (as was described on the first page of this topic) and then, through evolution, human beings were developed.
Well, from a philosophical point of view, the god concept itself doesn't answer anything, because you still have to believe that something uncreated exists. In an atheistic universe, the universe exists uncreated, but in a theistic universe, God exists uncreated. Both way, you have the same problem, so one could easily strike God from the equation and just say "the universe exists uncreated".

 

And it's the same problem with abiogenesis. Theists are like, "Life is too complex to exist uncreated", and then they insert their uncreated, ultra-complex, personal god into the situation, thus begging the question.

 

Even if scientists had no idea how abiogenesis works, I still think it's more reasonable to assume a naturalistic origin of life than a supernatural one. For one thing, all known causes are natural. Second, all previous supernatural explanations have been replaced with natural ones. And finally, there is simply no evidence whatsoever of supernaturalism in the universe at all. In fact, there is no coherent way of defining supernatural, unless someone can find a meaningful way of interpretting "beyond nature".

 

Granted, Christians aren't going to be happy with that explanation, but is there any particular reason why these two theories TOGETHER don't hold water as far as explaining where life and then people came to be?
Well, technically no. Human evolution is so far removed from life origins, that there's no sense in using abiogenesis as part of the explanation of human origins.

 

Now, although abiogenesis and evolution explain two different phenomena individually, they could and should be used together when explaining the story and Earth history. But then so should the science behind the formation of the Earth itself and the formation of the solar system. It all depends on which question you're asking and how far you want to go back.

 

However, that's not to say that these things deserve to be challenged together. That's what Invictus wants to do, and that's simply not fair. Neither is dependant upon the other, and one can be proven wrong without affecting the other.

 

Why are the only choices for the origins of life

1. Abiogenesis - Life formed from non life on earth.

2. God

Well, they're the only two known options. Scientifically, though, there's only one option, and that's abiogenesis. The only other acceptable alternative is "I don't know".

 

Personally, I think it's a fasle dichotomy, because even if we assume that God created the universe, that doesn't stop the universe that he created from being naturalistic. Clearly this is a naturalistic universe with absolutely no evidence otherwise, and therefore we should expect all events within this universe to have natural cause, even the origin of life.

 

I have no problem with God bringing forth natural process and natural process bringing forth life.

 

The problem with God, though, is that he's incompatible with cosmology. Since time is tied to the universe, it makes no sense to say that God created it. It's an argument that disqualified itself, via absurdity.

 

I have always thought there was at least one more possibility...

3. Life started else where and got here by traveling on a meteor or the like.

Yeah, but right away, that option breezes over the actual creation. It's the same as saying "I don't know how life started". Moving the origin of life to another planet doesn't really answer the question.

 

What if, while exploring our solar system, we find bacteria on any of the planetary bodies?
We could then disqualify biblical creationism. ...not that it hasn't been already.

 

I think I know what you're getting at. It would definately be something to make scientists rethink exploring Earth for a possible explanation of life. If life came from outerspace, then the question becomes a whole lot harder to answer.

 

Isn’t life forming (abiogenesis) on another world at least possible?
Absolutely.

 

I am not talking about humans mind you, just bacteria. Bacteria exist in all climates and extremes on this planet. This would change the amount of available time and the number of possible locations for the initial reaction to occur, thereby changing the probability of the right circumstances occurring considerably.

 

So am I off my rocker, Spooky…Neil?  :shrug:

It's interesting. Spook will know more than I do, naturally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.