Creationism vs. Evolution

It works both ways. The fact for you could be tomorrows fiction. To say that it is a fact to you is the incorrect use of the word though. To say that your facts are different from mine is wrong. You can say your beliefs are different but not facts.

Fact from dictionary.com

–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

If you can not prove it exists through evidence then it is not a fact.

 

In that case the case for a Creator cannot be construed as fiction since scientists have not been able to disprove the existence by creating life from nothing. Creation does not completely dismiss Evolution....nor has Evolution dismissed the case for a Creator. Until that happens those who believe..believe it to be a fact like those who believed the earth was round despite the fact it was flat at the time and therein lies the great mystery of our time.

 

Just as a quick example (taking the most recent of the scientists you list) of the dishonesty and ignorance of the false attributions regarding men of science, this old canard about Einstein has long been disproved. Einstein did believe in creation and certainly did not share your anthropomorphic view of the orthodox 'god' of traditional theism.

Einstein, when quoted making references to ‘God,’ uses the term other than in the sense of an orthodox god of popular theism, that is, not as a creating god with a personality. In EINSTEIN, Clark refers to Einstein’s use of the word at pp. 19, 340, and 422. Einstein’s sense of the use of ‘god’ is a reference to nature. He famously said, ‘... He does not throw dice,’ a reference to ‘The Old One.’

This was in a letter to Max Born and was his way of objecting to quantum mechanics. His objection was to the chaos that he thought such theories led to. In other words Einstein is using 'god' as a metaphor for nature.

BTW, among later physicists, Einstein is seen as incorrect on this point regarding chaos and quantum theory.

In A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, Stephen Hawking, a more modern scientist, discusses in chapter 8, ‘The Origin and Fate of the Universe’ his paper on the idea that space time had ‘no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of "Creation".‘



He shares this in the context of having just met with Pope Paul in 1981. The Pope had told him it was fine to study the evolution of the universe from the big bang, but he should not study the big bang itself because that was the moment of ‘God’s Creation.’

Hawking goes on to joke that he was glad the Pope did not know about his paper because Hawking was born exactly 300 years after Galileo’s death and did not want to share his fate.

I show you that you have misunderstood Einstein and that more than 99% of geologists and biologists subscribe to evolution and you ignore the point.

You are certainly free to have your opinion based on faith, but please don't confuse that with scientific opinion.

 

You have a profound misunderstanding of the nature of science and the burden of proof. Whether in law or in science the burden of proof is on he who alleges.

If it were otherwise, I could say that since you cannot disprove the existence of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator of all that exists, HIS GREAT PASTANESS is just as likely an explanation of the origin of the universe as your reliance on the god of your choice.

You should show some reverence and restraint the next time you take a forkfull of spaghetti and aim it toward your mouth.

 

I understood Einstien just fine. Not as you explain though. Non believers go though great lengths in their attempts to to explain another's faith away. God forbid a Scientist believes in a Creator. Science BLASPHEMY!! Despite the actual quotations from scientists. Amazing.

99% can subscribe to the theory of evolution They are trying to prove their pre disposed beliefs. Nothing more. Even at that, Evolution does not disprove the existence of intelligent design.
Hawkings has his theory. He is the "supreme being" and the last word to men of no faith in anyone but men. He validates their belief system. He is just another "philosopher" to me. He cannot prove his own words!! It's just his "idea" after all. You believe he is closer to the truth than the Pope.A vast majority believe the Pope is closer to the truth. does that make it so? Does a majority lay claim to the truth by being a majority? Because a majority of Scientists claim man can change the world's climate does that make it so? I think not as long as ALL scientists can create the same data and come to the same exact result every single time. Only then will i accept those results as fact. Gravity is fact every single time.

 

Not at all. I just don't see this scientific proof. Science alleges there is no Creator. I say prove the negative. They are trying desperately to do just that. They won't succeed. I don't have to prove the existence of a Creator. It has been proven to me. That's good enough.

So We all began in some primordial soup recipe based on the chance happenstance of the perfect alignment of planets on a razor's edge, gravity atmosphere, moon and tides, Water, fertile land, on and on.....all by accident....Boom and everything was PERFECT for life as we know it....by some random accident in space.....Now that is something that would indeed take a huge leap of faith to believe. I want to see the proof of that chance event. Science has not been able to prove that. That is just as rediculous to me as the Spaghetti Monster to you.

 

You are simply saying you believe in faith or divine revelation as the ultimate way of knowing; that that method is superior to scientific inquiry or empirical tests.

That is your choice. Fine. We cannot communicate rationally since I do not accept your subjective, personal way of 'knowing' and you do not accept empirical data and scientific research if it conflicts with your faith. That is fine, but it leads to the conclusion that we cannot have meaningful discourse.

 

Your insistence on anyone doing the impossible, proving a negative, only substantiates my assertion that your ignorance of and rejection of science precludes rational discussion.

Essentially you are saying your subjective faith trumps all science and rational knowledge. You can say that about anything no matter the rational evidence. So there is no point in further discussion.

... unless you can prove the nonexistence of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster....

 

Yes that is the definition of faith....Believing in that which is unseen and cannot be proven in a laboratory.

When science proves the impossible I will give it it's due credit.
To non believers ALL such beliefs of a Supreme being, God, Creator, is not rational, fantasy, imaginary...on and on. I get it. There is no room for faith in science. I have no faith in science yes reject it unless the results can be repeated without fail over and over again by all scientists using the same methodology and evidence. Not 97% not 99% Irrefutable result is the only science I accept. Not some "idea" of a physicist regarding space and time...or another's theory of evolution....or big bang and wham here we are....Is there a scientist who claims gravity does not exist? The sun is not hot? The moon does not control the tides? the earth is round...... That is irrefutable and good science I believe in. Facts that cannot be and are not disputed.

Hey some people believe in Flying saucers and Martians.....I completely understand how you view believers.

We are not the first nor the last to agree to disagree on this subject...LOL

 

I'm gonna leave you two lovebirds alone

Unsubbed

 

If life is found off this planet what would that mean to you? How would you view that discovery?

 

these are interesting...........sorry for just links, can't seem to get them to post ready to play.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man-video.htm

http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-species-video.htm

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-video.htm

 

Whereas those of faith don't. They do the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "lalalalal!" to avoid hearing what they don't want to.

BTW, I like how all your great minds were born prior to 1900. I'm sure their views are skewed- evolution hadn't been invented for almost all of them!

As I've already pointed out, this is an unwinnable argument. Enjoy your faith. I'll enjoy my version of it.

 

The word 'fact' has already been defined. You cannot just create your own definition for a word and then try to use it in an argument.

My thoughts exactly.


And didn't Einstein create/support the 'theory' of relativity? Well, according to some in this thread, theories hold no bearing. So Einsteins credibility can be argued.

 

Hey good afternoon all, Some interesting reading for thought: 1st corinthians, 1: 18-27. Hey Andrew, not to be condescending, but to evoke the antichrist one must accept that there is a Christ. Even satan himself dosn't deny the existence of Christ the King ! Have great day, God bless

 

I'm not THE Anti-Christ...I am ANTI-christ. Big difference.

 

With doubt.

I will go one better...IF science ever creates life from nothing. My belief system will come into question. That would be the only thjing that would cause me some doubt. Other than that the "Spaghetti Monster" exists...as irrefutable fact for me. Isee it all around me and have seen God work wonders in my life though pain and pleasure. I have lttle reason to belive He is just an opinion.

 

So is Osama Bin Laden...and? LOL

 

I'm quite sure somewhere along the line there was a dude names Jesus Christ. He might even have been a big deal.

But the "resource" you are quoting to prove that Christ exists is just as accurate and authoritative as any other religious text....
Just saying.