Trippster Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 If the Bible is true (which there's a lot of evidence it is) and if Jesus is God (which there's a lot of evidence He is) then you have to take His statements on our beginnings very seriously. He said that in the beginning He created them male and female, which would track with the Genesis account of creation. He also said that as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the time of the end, which would add a lot of validity to the flood account. Personally, I choose to believe someone who was there over any other evidence you can give me. Maybe the earth is older than 6,000 years, but if you read the words of Jesus, evolution is NOT how we got here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Sigh. And so we see that some can reconcile science and religion, and some can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I really dont care, but for some reason I think it happened like this: God created Adam already grown - correct? So why couldnt he have created an Earth that had some years on it too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I really dont care, but for some reason I think it happened like this:God created Adam already grown - correct? I never thought about that. Adam was created as a fully developed man. He had no infancy, no childhood. Boom he is created as a, what? 18 year old man? A brand new man, with no wear and tear on his body. Able to walk, speak, think like a man without the benefit of years of growth and development? Adam's children never had to listen to boring stories from dad that started, "Well, kids, back when I was a child. . . ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'll hold my own beliefs aside for a moment. OK, I can't do it. I just can't. I though about it for a moment and I really wanted to be nice about creationism. I really wanted to say that they could both exist and everyone can be happy. When it comes down to it though, there can only be one "truth" as to our beginnings as human beings. Both theories have their own source material. Creationism's source is a book that has been passed down, translated and rearranged more times than I can count on one hand. There is no scientific method behind how the bible was originally and how it came to be today. Evolution takes observations, scientific methods, theories and applies them in a testable manner. If one does not believe in evolution, how would they explain viruses that become immune to the drugs we once used to cure them? Is it that evolution applies to all other species of life except form human? The two theories are attempting to answer the same question. I don't see how they could both coexist when it is very apparent that one has to be the correct theory. Sorry Larry. I couldn't do it, I just couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I never thought about that. Adam was created as a fully developed man. I just solved everything :bow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Yeah, there are some other crazy things too, like somehow Noah got a breeding pair of each animal into a giant ark. Yes, I'm quite certain that you're more than able to give me a list of things you find to be irrational. You've done it so many times before, and I'm quite certain you will continue to do so in this very thread. What I am asking, however, is not what you think is irrational. My precise question was this (and I will now extend it to you): What do you believe is required for a belief to be rational? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 If one does not believe in evolution, how would they explain viruses that become immune to the drugs we once used to cure them? Is it that evolution applies to all other species of life except form human? The two theories are attempting to answer the same question. I don't see how they could both coexist when it is very apparent that one has to be the correct theory. Why does the truth have to be ONE of the TWO? Not a very scientific or philosophical conclusion there Bud:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Why does the truth have to be ONE of the TWO?Not a very scientific or philosophical conclusion there Bud:evilg: Evolution itself is not a means of creation, so it is certainly possible that one or more deities created the universe. However, if you get into the business of defining creationism too strictly it is entirely possible to reach a point where the two cannot coexist. The real question is: what version of creationism is Springfield referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Why does the truth have to be ONE of the TWO?Not a very scientific or philosophical conclusion there Bud:evilg: (Yeah, I deleted the chair! ) Well, I have to conclude that one of the two has to be correct. To me, the whole idea of how we "came to be" is involved in the larger argument of the history of time. Dating back from today, there is the history of man. To this day, you can see things evolving (hence my virus immunization point). From today, looking back, animals have adapted and evolved into what they are today. If other animals can evolve into what they are currently, humans must have done the same. So, given my argument that we (and other animals) evolved into what they currently are, I'd look back further. There was a time before human life on this planet. Millions of years before man, there were dinosaurs. Millions of years before dinosaurs, there were simpler creatures and single celled organisms before them. I trust that this history holds true because of things like archeology and carbon dating. Science like that can be studied and recreated in a lab. Opposed to that, directly (in my opinion), is creationism. It also explains how we "came to be". In short, the whole entire world was created in 6 days. Man was placed on the earth in a fertile garden and then flourished. The liberal interpretations of creation theory are more scientific but still stumble when compared to "true" science. Explaining things like dinosaurs and prehistoric animals is a tough point to counter for creationism. Essentially... creationism vs. evolution is two opposing theories of how we "came to be". Both attempt to explain the beginnings of human life on this planet. While science would suggest, and I would believe, that there is a long, long, long history on this plant before man, creationism would suggest that earth began with man. I honestly believe that there is a greater chance that life on Earth started on Venus. I think that it is more likely that we were super advanced at one point in time and a few, lucky individuals left Venus as it became uninhabitable. Those few individuals started over on Earth, giving us man we know today. Now I don't think that the above situation is at all likely, but I think that it's more likely than a creationist theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 And the answer is that Springfield has confined his definition of creationism to young earth creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 And the answer is that Springfield has confined his definition of creationism to young earth creationism. Is there any other type of creationism that can be inferred from the bible? (And please links out of any responses. I won't read them anyway. Please! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Evolution itself is not a means of creation, so it is certainly possible that one or more deities created the universe. However, if you get into the business of defining creationism too strictly it is entirely possible to reach a point where the two cannot coexist.The real question is: what version of creationism is Springfield referring to? Indeed,I can think of a half dozen w/o trying Or even which version of evolution(if you wish to use it for origin of life,which it ain't),since of course the theory adapts as more knowledge is gained. I kinda like his Venus theory though:saber: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Is there any other type of creationism that can be inferred from the bible?(And please links out of any responses. I won't read them anyway. Please! ) Creationism at it's very core isn't really reserved for any one religion, so I'm really just making a point about semantics without being too terribly helpful otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Obviously evolution exists. Look at how the creation argument has evolved over the last 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Suggesting that evolution is a "belief system" is silly, to me. There is a comparable amount of scientific evidence supporting the existence of evolution as there is supporting the existence of gravity. Both are extremely complicated, and we don't understand all the details, so they are both "theories" (if using the term theory in the scientific sense), but there are essentially no credible scientists that deny their existence. Now, accepting that evolution is real does not mean that you have to be an atheist. I think it makes a certain reading of the bible (i.e. earth is 6k years old) fairly untenable, but it doesn't mean a thing to other parts that are frankly more important to what it means to be a Christian. Bottom line, to deny evolution is pretty silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Is there any other type of creationism that can be inferred from the bible? Of course. There are a lot, but I'm tired, so I'll give you the easiest to explain possibility. Genesis 1 and 2 are not literal history, as indicated by the poetic language used. God created the universe and everything in it, and set the process in motion that led to us today, including evolution. I believe this is the position of Francis S. Collins (of Human Genome Project Fame), who believes in evolution and is a Christian. In point of fact, evolution can actually be used to argue for creationism. explains why the Bible and Creation are not necessarily incompatible with evolution, and then makes the case that evolution argues for God.Another Christian Philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, makes an Evolutionary argument against naturalism, which basically holds that it is self-defeating to hold simultaneously to evolution and naturalism, because evolution's only drive is survival, so without some guiding force, there's no reason to believe that our intellects would evolve to be reliable. In other words, he argues that the only way it makes sense that we can trust our own thoughts in light of evolution is that there also be a greater, guiding force. Apparently, Darwin himself wondered about this, writing (as cited in the above link): "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 and then makes the case that evolution argues for God. An incredibly weak case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 An incredibly weak case. I didn't say it was a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I didn't say it was a good one. Did you see the video that plays after that clip? It seems to be a BRUTALLY long, rambling version of the classic "the odds are so low that there must be something behind it" logical fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Now, accepting that evolution is real does not mean that you have to be an atheist. I think it makes a certain reading of the bible (i.e. earth is 6k years old) fairly untenable, but it doesn't mean a thing to other parts that are frankly more important to what it means to be a Christian. Bottom line, to deny evolution is pretty silly. Do you hold evolution to the same standard as you do creationism? That if one factor (6k yrs) is false the whole ideal is? The one word evolution encompasses a great deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 God created the universe and everything in it, and set the process in motion that led to us today, including evolution. Well that is a convenient argument now isn't it? Now there is no way that I can prove that God created the universe and then set everything in motion. There is no way that I can prove that he did either. This is where the whole argument of faith comes into play. Some people's faith is stronger than others. Another thing that I can't really grasp is the beginning of the universe. If there was a "big bang", what happened before that? This is a point that some will attribute to a fault in the scientific/evolutionist theory. Those people will claim that God was the creating force behind the big bang. That is something that can't be proven or refuted by any sort of science. Since the big bang can't be proven or refuted in any scientific or religious manner I don't believe any of the theories out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Since the big bang can't be proven or refuted in any scientific or religious manner I don't believe any of the theories out there. Good thing it is not critical that you do,in the end does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Did you see the video that plays after that clip? It seems to be a BRUTALLY long, rambling version of the classic "the odds are so low that there must be something behind it" logical fallacy. It's not a fallacy, properly expressed, but it's not really on-topic for this thread. We had a long discussion of this in the thread PeterMP referenced earlier. Now there is no way that I can prove that God created the universe and then set everything in motion. As you know, I happen to think that there is good evidence for the existenence of God (and by extension His creation of everything), but that's not really the point, is it? You asked how Genesis could align with evolution. I told you. Another thing that I can't really grasp is the beginning of the universe. If there was a "big bang", what happened before that? That question is actually meaningless as stated, because time came into existence at the Big Bang, so there was no "before". Since the big bang can't be proven or refuted in any scientific or religious manner I don't believe any of the theories out there. Oh, the Big Bang is pretty solidly established scientifically, through testable data like the red shift of galaxies and cosmic background radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Good thing it is not critical that you do,in the end does it matter? In the grand scheme of things, the big bang doesn't matter. Evolution and creationism don't matter. There are much more pressing things that matter more than bickering about science vs. religion. I do wonder though. I wonder what was going on in the universe before the big bang (if it really happened that way). Given the consensus that the universe is expanding (meaning that it had to come from one finite point), I'd like to know what happened before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.