Evolution or Creation?

[the_reverend]

what about people who believe in both creation and evolution

we sit here and argue with everyone. :wink:

 

[JustAsking]

what about people who believe in both creation and evolution

As do I, hindupridemn. I believe God created the Universe, continues to be actitvely involved in it creatively, and will bring it to the kind of wonderful end that he promises.

None of this conflicts with the idea that scientific inquiry into the natural processes of the Universe is an almost sacred activity. In that it helps reduce misery and suffering in the world, scientists, whether they think so or not, are often being the hands and feet of Christ.

Most of the major denominations in the world believe this way too. Way back in this thread I posted links to the position statements of most of those denominations regarding science and particularly the modern Theory of Evolution. Except for the denominations who insist on Biblical innerrancy they all espouse what is called Theistic Evolution.

Most of the world's Christians believe as you do.

By the way, it makes it easier if you understand that Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. It only makes claims about how it became so diverse.

 

[JustAsking]

...In short I believe evolution takes just as much faith to believe as creation does. I could sit here and puncture holes in the theory of evolution all day, but since it takes a leap of faith, in the same way as creation does, nothing I say would change your mind.

Try me.

 

[JustAsking]

RupinX,
It is a common idea that belief in evolution and belief in creationism are both based on faith. In fact, I bet that over 50% of the American public believes that. Being both a Christian and a scientist (well, an ex-scientist, actually. I run a high tech startup these days), its my opinion that there is a huge difference between the two.

I have an idea. It would be much harder on my part, but suppose I could convince you that my belief in the modern theory of evolution is not based on faith? Are you interested in that conversation? I think it is a very worthwhile conversation and I am willing to take the time.

JA

 

[Guy-jin]

Your example is interesting in this thread, but not very interesting to science, Guy-Jin. You picked a "trivial" theory which is nothing more than the conjecture about a fact. By "fact", I mean something that can be confirmed by a single observation. Science would consider a fact like this to be useful but not very interesting. No important scientific theories are in this category.

Actually, I predicted this type of response and already gave an example of the structure of the DNA molecule as an example of an applied, non-trivial, extremely important theory that's subsequently been proven as fact.

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

Here is the Family Guy video:

The Family Guy Reference Archives » Family Guy Creationism Video

The video didn't play for me til it was completely downloaded...

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

Evolution doesn't suspend disbelief like the fantastical stories of the bible do. You can see evidence for evolution, some rhyme and reason to it.

The existence of God is highly unlikely. Do you know how many other deities there are, how many people, past and present, thought THEIR god(s) were real?

 

[the_reverend]

Evolution doesn't suspend disbelief like the fantastical stories of the bible do. You can see evidence for evolution, some rhyme and reason to it.

The existence of God is highly unlikely. Do you know how many other deities there are, how many people, past and present, thought THEIR god(s) were real?

that's like saying because we've had several different models for how the universe and even our own solar system were formed that our current models have no credence whatsoever.

and who's to say that what they were calling God back then isn't what we're calling God now? theology's a BIT more complex than "oh, they believed something we think is stupid now, so therefore all beliefs must be stupid."

 

[RupinX]

Rup,

You seem pretty interesting and well read. Do you have a stance on this subject that I can read (post #?).

I read a tread in another forum about this subject and it confirmed that the big bang had to break the speed of light other "impossible" things had to occur to make the science work. Very interesting.

Creationism always gets shot down easily because of the young earth discussions. What are your view (point to posts if need be).

Thanks.

This subject has always interested me. As far as where I stand, that's a difficult question to answer. I would have to go deeper into my beliefs on "what IS life?" to be able to answer that for you. However, that could end up being a very long thread, and probably wouldn't be to popular here, haha! If you want to know more, PM me.

 

[B_tallbig]

evolution !:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

 

[avg_joe]

Of course, evolution !!! There is no creator.

 

[B_tallbig]

yea a god creator is a human created idea in my opinion to explain with myths why and how life turn to existence

 

[JustAsking]

Here is your chance to see Intelligent Design's butt get kicked all over Judge Jones's courtroom.

Nova is showing a reenactment of the famous Dover trial where a a landmark decision was made about Intelligent Design and public education.

The trial went deep into the subject of whether ID is science, and if it had any place in the science classroom. The cross examination of the ID expert witnesses is such a work of art, that it is now taught in law school as an example something close to perfection.

In the end, the Bush appointed, longtime conservative Republican, church going Judge Jones ends up writing a landmark decision that condemns ID as "stunningly innane", and declares it a religious doctrine rather than a scientific theory. He makes his case almost solely from the testimony of the ID expert witnesses, who hung themselves readily with their nonsense.

 

[the_reverend]

Here is your chance to see Intelligent Design's butt get kicked all over Judge Jones's courtroom.

Nova is showing a reenactment of the famous Dover trial where a a landmark decision was made about Intelligent Design and public education.

The trial went deep into the subject of whether ID is science, and if it had any place in the science classroom. The cross examination of the ID expert witnesses is such a work of art, that it is now taught in law school as an example something close to perfection.

In the end, the Bush appointed, longtime conservative Republican, church going Judge Jones ends up writing a landmark decision that condemns ID as "stunningly innane", and declares it a religious doctrine rather than a scientific theory. He makes his case almost solely from the testimony of the ID expert witnesses, who hung themselves readily with their nonsense.

heh. awesome. i wonder if we can do a double feature of that and Inherit The Wind back to back. :biggrin1: