Creationism vs. Evolution

That's actually an easy question to answer. Let me give you just one example of what I would expect if the Judeo-Christian definition of God (and there are 1000's of other definitions).

I would expect that radio carbon dating, potassium argon dating, Uranium-lead dating, Samarium-neodymium dating, Rubidium-strontium dating, Uranium-thorium, Fission track, Chlorine-36, and any other radiometric dating methods, as well as thermoluminescence and geological stratification would all agree the Earth is 6000 years old instead of about 4.5 billion years old.

I would also expect some kind of scripture or other message would have been left is that is sublime, perfect, and without error, instead of the hopelessly human document we know as the Bible. Despite it's occasional beauty and sound psychological advice, the Bible is an imperfect, obviously human document.

 

Two fish are in a bowl:

One says to the other "Do you believe in god?"

The other fish replies:"DUH!, who do you think changes the water?"


Now don't rag on me people its a simple joke and nothing more

I don't know which road I take on this situation though.

 

A. I don't understand the 'big bang.'
B. The 'big bang' is just a theory, and a theory that does not have nearly the widespread acceptance among scientists that evolution does.
Therefore, C. I do not accept the 'big bang' on faith.

Astrophysicists are divided on whether the universe came in to being from nothing or whether it has always existed. I favor the latter.
So the universe has always existed? That's like someone asking where did God come from.


Regarding the Bible, I have studied it, carefully. It is not worthy of anyone claiming it was written by god. It is simply too human, has too many errors and contradictions. If the notion that the Bible was directly inspired by or written by 'God' were a theory it would be rejected by more than 99% of credible scientists.

And I can prove that last statement.

We could debate those points also but that is not what this thread is about.

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."

That's less than .15 of 1 percent.

Might makes right?

You are basically arguing that since no one has absolute knowledge [and I agree no one does] that EVERYTHING is based on faith.

I never said EVERYTHING was based on faith. If I fall down the stairs, gravity WILL push me down.

That is discounting the idea of probability.

Have you ever looked at the probability of the universe becoming like it is with us where we are all on it's on?

I also agree that it is possible that we have the theories of gravity and evolution wrong, but I think it is highly unlikely.

Again, we can argue semantics, but I call that faith.

It is disingenuous to claim that since everything is ultimately based on faith, we cannot distinguish levels of probability or certainty.

 

I've heard that there were rocks created by the eruption of Mount Saint Helens that were dated millions of years old even though they were brand new. Never seen one in person and I don't know how to date fossils so take that for what it's worth. I've also seen tree roots that go through several layers of strata that each (layer of strata) dates millions of years apart, the same with soft tissue animals fossilized between layers of rock that each are dated millions of years apart. The size of the sun cannot be explained for how old it supposedly is. There are just as many things in science that cannot be explained as there are in the creation theory. We could go on forever with this because for every website or fact that you or I bring up, there will be a equal and opposite website or fact and it goes on.........and on...............and on. The simple fact is, we just both believe 2 different things and life goes on

 

^^^ Pretty much summarizes my stance in this "debate".

I am trained/educated as a natural scientist (geologist), so you can take a wild guess about my perspective of Creationism as classically described/defined by fundamentalists.

BUT... I also believe that if you boil all matter, physical properties, behavior of energy, etc. down to the most basic, elementary level, there must be something of the divine that makes all physical and temporal "laws" of our natural universe what they are.

To me, the divine is obscured beneath a clutter of our cognitions, conscious and unconscious awareness, and understanding of our internal and external environments here in our Earthly existance...but to me the divine is conspicuous in inconceivable places such as those defined by infinity and nothingness.

What I wrote sounds hokey and airy-fairy, but I really DID mean to write it in just that way.

 

What about the millions and millions of souls who don't believe in God or the big book?

What about the millions and millions of souls who believe in a different God?

It appears that your "observable phenomina" is that other people have faith. In fact your basing this belief on faith, which, by defintion, is belief without proof or facts. So no, millions of people can faith, but that doesn't make what they believe in true!

You cannot say that the big bang theory is false, you only have faith that it is not.

I cannot say the big bang theory is true, but I believe it is based on supporting facts, and scientific observations.

 

In order:

Saying the universe always existed is no different that maintaining god always existed.

Christians say they could debate these points (the contradictions in the Bible), but like you, they don't. Ultimately they make excuses or they just state 'those are not contradictions' or they come up with dopey statements like, 'god did it that way to confuse scientists.' Which is another way of saying the facts argue against what they're saying, but it doesn't matter.


You claimed my belief in evolution was based on faith, so it is no different than your faith in god. I thought I made my point clearly that there are varying degrees of probability, and evolution and gravity are highly probably, whereas the idea that god had some kind of mysterious magical sex with a human and created a son who is fully god and fully human and died and rose from the dead and flew into heaven is much, much less likely.

As for Have you ever looked at the probability of the universe becoming like it is with us where we are all on it's on?

Perhaps you could restate your question with more clarity.


Again, we can argue semantics, but I call that faith.

No, it's not semantics. 'Semantics' is when we disagree about the meaning of a word. I don't think we do. We agree that 'faith' means belief in something without sufficient scientific proof. When I say I believe something because the scientific evidence is overwhelming, you argue that is the same as 'faith.' I think we agree that it is not.

I agree you have faith in god even though you agree you do not have scientific evidence for the existence of god. You have faith. Fine. But that is not the same as me saying the evidence is that such and such is probable to the odds of 100 to 1.

Faith is fine, just don't claim it is based on probability or science.

 

No IMO, it is a fact that millions of human beings have faith in God. That is phenominal in my opinion.
Does that mean we cannot be friends?

 

This is indeed a problem. There is a great deal of misinformation out there. THere are many Christian websites that perpetuate much of this false information. The problem is that when people hear some that pets their prejudices they believe it without investigation. They do not know how to judge a biased website from a neutral one. They say silly things like 'I can post any kind of nonsense on Wikipedia and they will publish it.' Rubbish. If some kind of nonsense makes it on to Wikipedia, it is removed very quickly.

You can find any number of Christian websites who will make the old claim that Hitler and Stalin were atheists and blame atheism for their actions. They are either ignorant of or purposely choose to ignore that Stalin was raised in a Christian home, and spent years studying for the Priesthood; that Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, and in a speech in 1922 he remarked, "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter..." In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1.2), Hitler stated:

'Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.'

I don't know if I know any greater source of false information, lying and deceit than that promulgated by religion.

It is not enough to quote some website. That is why I favor the scientific method and clarity of thought. Simply repeating some nonsense that has been already repeated for a 1000 years, does not make a lie the truth.

Instead, if you want to debate the issues, I will give you chapter and verse on New Testament contradictions. Then you can debate as to why they are not contradictions, but you will have to defend your arguments without resorting to some website simply saying 'tain't so.'

 

About 1.3 billion people are muslims. Phenomenal! Does that make them correct in their belief that Jesus was just a prophet and not the divine Son of God?

I'm much more impressed that over 99% of respected scientists do not believe in creationism, whereas 50% of Tacoma drivers who've taken the poll believe in creationism.

I'm sorry, but being a truck driver is not as persuasive on this issue as the overwhelming opinion of scientists.

 

There are many "Scientific" Sites out there that dont get things right either. I love science. But I am a Christian too. Nothing wrong with being both. I know where I came from, and I know where I am going. I dont believe that God created us then let us evolve in the sense that dinos turn to birds. Yes there are people around the world who believe in other gods, and I respect them and enjoy learning about what they believe in turn I will tell them about what I believe. My bible says in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Therefore I believe that my God was here first, and created those people. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to listen. That's fine, but dont get offended when I stand up for my beliefs.

 

Its funny that my bible says something different. Gen 1:11 says " And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

Gen 2:5 says "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

 

Did I say that my faith was based on probability or science? No. Again, you don't have proof of your beliefs either, you base them on what others have told you are facts.

 

again, go ahead. i will do my best.

 

Science. It works.

 

...because God made scientists. He also made DanT.
Why are scientists' hair always jacked up?

 

I wrote: 'Instead, if you want to debate the issues, I will give you chapter and verse on New Testament contradictions. Then you can debate as to why they are not contradictions, but you will have to defend your arguments without resorting to some website simply saying 'tain't so.'

Let’s start with the resurrection narratives in the Gospels. There is little debate among scholars that the final twelve verses of Mark's Gospel are not original to Mark's Gospel but were added by a scribe in a later generation. Mark ended his Gospel 16:8, with the women fleeing the tomb and not telling anyone what they had seen.

As I recall, my old RSV has those verses in italics with a footnote indicating ‘some scholars add ....’ in reference to those vereses

If we look at where the gospels agree and disagree on this part of the narrtive we see many contradictions:

All four agree that on the third day after Jesus' crucifixion and burial, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and found it empty. But on virtually every detail they disagree.
Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene. Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem—possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "other women" (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)?

Had the stone already been rolled away from the tomb (as in Mark 16:4) or was it rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28:2)? Whom or what did they see there? An angel (Matthew 28:5)? A young man (Mark 16:5)? Two men (Luke 24:4)? Or nothing and no one (John)? And what were they told? To tell the disciples to "go to Galilee," where Jesus will meet them (Mark 16:7)? Or to remember what Jesus had told them "while he was in Galilee," that he had to die and rise again (Luke 24:7)? Then, do the women tell the disciples what they saw and heard (Matthew 28:8), or do they not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? If they tell someone, whom do they tell? The eleven disciples (Matthew 28:8)? The eleven disciples and other people (Luke 24:8)? Simon Peter and another unnamed disciple (John 20:2)?

What do the disciples do in response? Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appears to them (Matthew 20:9)? Or do they not believe the women because it seems to be "an idle tale" (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:3)?

If the gospels are the inspired word of god, why do they disagree with each other?


Here is another attempt at looking at the various gospel references to the post crucifixtion events:

SUNDAY, APRIL 9, 30 C.E.: THE JERUSALEM AREA
MORNING
1. Jesus rises from the dead early in the morning (Mark 16:9). Mary Magdalene, alone or with other women, discovers the open tomb. Either she informs Peter and another disciple, who visit the tomb and find it empty (John 20:1-10); or she and the others meet one or two angels inside, who announce the resurrection (Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-6).
2. Later, outside the tomb, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone, who at first mistakes him for a gardener. He tells her to inform the disciples that he is ascending at that moment to his Father (John 20:17; Mark 16:9).
3. Jesus also appears to Mary Magdalene and another Mary, who grasp his feet and worship. Jesus tells them to send the brethren to Galilee, where they will see him (Matthew 28: 10).
4. Sometime during the day Jesus appears to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34).
AFTERNOON AND EARLY EVENING
5. Jesus walks incognito through the countryside for almost seven miles with two disciples. He starts to eat dinner with them in Emmaus but disappears as soon as they recognize who he is (Luke 24:13-31; Mark 16:12-13).
EVENING
6. Back in Jerusalem, Jesus appears to the disciples in a room even though the doors are locked. He tries to overcome their doubts by showing them his wounds and by eating broiled fish and honeycomb. He either gives them the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins (John) or does not (Luke), and either sends them out into the whole world (Mark) or tells them to stay in Jerusalem for a while (Luke). The disciple Thomas either is present (Luke and Mark, by implication) or is not (John). (Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-18).
7. Jesus ascends into heaven that night from Bethany (Luke 24:51; Mark 16:19).
SUNDAY, APRIL 16, 30 C.E.: STILL IN JERUSALEM
8. Jesus appears again to the disciples behind locked doors, and invites Thomas, who now is present, to put his fingers and hands into the wounds (John 20:26-29).
OVER THE NEXT WEEKS
9. Jesus offers the disciples many other proofs and signs, not all of which are recorded in the Gospels (John 20:30).

97
LATE APRIL OR EARLY MAY, 30 C.E.: GALILEE
10. Early one morning Jesus makes his "third appearance" (sic, John 21:14), this time to Simon and six others on the shore of Lake Galilee. He miraculously arranges for them to catch 153 large fish and invites them ashore for a breakfast of broiled fish and bread, which he has prepared. Jesus instructs Simon, "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep," and discusses how Simon and the Beloved Disciple will die (John 21:1-23).
11. Jesus appears to the eleven disciples on a mountain, but some still doubt. He commissions them to baptize all nations and assures them, "I am with you always, to the close of the age." He does not ascend into heaven (Matthew 28:16-20)
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 30 C.E.: BACK IN THE JERUSALEM AREA
12. Jesus appears again and tells the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirit (even though, according to John, they had already received the Spirit on April 9: John 20:22). Then he ascends into heaven from Mount Olivet, just west of Jerusalem (Acts 1:1-12).
SUNDAY, MAY 27, 30 C.E.: JERUSALEM
13. God sends the Holy Spirit upon the twelve disciples, Mary the mother of Jesus, and about 107 other people (Acts 2:1-4; cf 1:13-15, 26).

It is clear that the scriptural stories about this six-week period contradict one another egregiously with regard to the number and places of Jesus' appearances, the people who were on hand for such events, and even the date and the location of the ascension into heaven. The gospel accounts of Jesus' post mortem activities in fact cannot be harmonized into a consistent "Easter chronology."