P
PantheistsRule
Guest
Ok, I’m not trying to proove evoloution here, necessarily. I’m asking for proof of creationism, guy who posted at the same time as me. Proof against evolution, is not proof of creationism.
- Status
S
spoiltvictorian
Guest
I am so glad to hear that you believe in the message Jesus taught, that He was a sinless sacrifice for our sins who died on the cross and rose again from the dead under His own power, that we should be baptized into His church, take communion, give alms to the poor, and so forth. It’s helpful that you practice that because it’s a lot easier to discuss issues like evolution when there’s common ground.
I cannot prove to you God exists because there is a popular desperate belief among respectable scientists right now that the universe was originated by a “random quantum fluctuation.” It’s random, so there’s no need for it to have an author or a reason to fluctuate. There’s no way to prove this fluctuation didn’t exist, and since the powers of God are suspiciously identical to the random quantum fluctuation there is no way to prove that God exists or that God created the universe.
I assume you are such a person, and therefore I think you’re a silly fundamentalist who will believe anything but what’s right in front of your face. I can’t argue with somebody who would rather blindly believe in an untestable, unfalsifiable phenomenon that has no origin or definition than grapple with serious logical and scientific problems.
Oh, and theories of evolution vs. creationism are just details. Most of the churches who teach correct doctrine, including the Catholic Church, allow their members to believe what they like about the book of Genesis, science, etc., so long as they recognize God as the ultimate Creator.
V
Volus
Guest
There are numerous scientific “concessions” that can be made for some sort of God. But in no way could someone say that the God talked about in Christianity, Catholicism, etc. is wholly compatible with science (or even logic). Correct me if I’m wrong there, but I’m fairly confident in that stance.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
I have a hard time dismissing evolution. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Still, I am Catholic and have total confidence that Christ died on the cross for my sake and was resurrected.
I did some research a while back on the Catholic Church’s official position on the subject. I read an official document that says quite clearly that the Church does not necessarily reject the Theory of Evolution. It states that there is still many holes to be filled. Fair enough. I also Remember the previous Pope said we should consider it and not deny our intellect and ability to reason, which is afterall a gift from God.
The thing is I think the debate is more about vanity. Scientist, just because they can peer into God’s workroom and understand at best partially what they see that somehow it confirms that God does not exist. It’s a like a child peeking thru the keyhole and only catching a glimpse of what’s really going on and drawing conclusions that may or may not be accurate. Creationist decide that just because they have acheived some imperfect understanding of God’s will it renders all Science worthless. I suggest neither side is right. As I look into nature, it does confirm for me the existance of a God far wiser and more powerful than I could ever hope to be. And, I think Science is doing some wonderful work that helps me to better understand God’s handiwork (i.e., the Universe, et al.).
It’s a fun debate for you all I suppose.
God Bless have fun!!
I did some research a while back on the Catholic Church’s official position on the subject. I read an official document that says quite clearly that the Church does not necessarily reject the Theory of Evolution. It states that there is still many holes to be filled. Fair enough. I also Remember the previous Pope said we should consider it and not deny our intellect and ability to reason, which is afterall a gift from God.
The thing is I think the debate is more about vanity. Scientist, just because they can peer into God’s workroom and understand at best partially what they see that somehow it confirms that God does not exist. It’s a like a child peeking thru the keyhole and only catching a glimpse of what’s really going on and drawing conclusions that may or may not be accurate. Creationist decide that just because they have acheived some imperfect understanding of God’s will it renders all Science worthless. I suggest neither side is right. As I look into nature, it does confirm for me the existance of a God far wiser and more powerful than I could ever hope to be. And, I think Science is doing some wonderful work that helps me to better understand God’s handiwork (i.e., the Universe, et al.).
It’s a fun debate for you all I suppose.
God Bless have fun!!
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
God is invisible. I can’t see him in front of my face. By definition God is not in front of my face. That is the point of faith, dear Christian. Science by the way, is proveable, and what’s not proven now, may be proven later. Science finds answers to questions, religion in general makes them up.
I’m going to stop now, because, as you said, “I can’t argue with somebody who would rather blindly believe in an untestable, unfalsifiable phenomenon that has no origin or definition than grapple with serious logical and scientific problems.” And such a phenomenon BY CHRISTIAN DEFINITION God is.
Laters.
I’m going to stop now, because, as you said, “I can’t argue with somebody who would rather blindly believe in an untestable, unfalsifiable phenomenon that has no origin or definition than grapple with serious logical and scientific problems.” And such a phenomenon BY CHRISTIAN DEFINITION God is.
Laters.
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
Big Ro, nice post. As my name suggests, I am a pantheist. I believe in a God as something that in inconscious that we all exist upon. But he does not control us. He’s like the Tao, in the Tao-te-Ching. A metaphor for something inside us.
V
Volus
Guest
Oh, there is no way that science at this point could ever begin to disprove the existence of a God of some sort. We simply have no way of proving that any God does or does not exist, scientifically.
We (as humans) do, however, have a good amount of logic. Enough logic, I would hope, that we are capable of realizing not only that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God, but that the “version” of a God presented by the “popular” religions of the world is ridiculously detailed. It’s one thing to say that there is a God. It’s another thing altogether to say that there is a God, who created the Earth and everything else in six days, is all-knowing and all-seeing, and is invisible, among other things.
We don’t need science to see the insanity of believing in this ridiculously detailed version of God.
S
spoiltvictorian
Guest
Just to make clear (for others, since you will not reply) the errors in this post:
- In Christianity, faith is admirable when it believes things which can’t be seen or proven, but faith and science have the same end.
- To believe in something because it will shortly be proven is blind faith. Christianity does not engage in this.
- God has a definition and contains His origin within himself. Belief in a random quantum fluctuation as a creator, by contrast, is sustained by refusing to define or give origin to it, as it cannot exist by itself.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
Even Richard Dawkins says that you might a signiture from a designer of some sort when you look at the gonome. Though he’ll never admit it’s God. 
youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
V
Volus
Guest
It’s one thing to believe in a deity. It’s something else altogether to believe in the Christian God, or the Catholic God.Even Richard Dawkins says that you might a signiture from a designer of some sort when you look at the gonome. Though he’ll never admit it’s God.
youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
B
BryanS1976
Guest
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
I’m… pretty sure the Christian God and the Catholic God are the same one. Check this out. youtube.com/watch?v=dfDdbxMKZRw
D
DOShea
Guest
Amazing how we blaze right past the declaration that evolution has been proven, almost proven, all but proven, etc.
Has it?
Please provide your proof that one “something” living long ago gave birth to one offspring that was an animal, and another one gave birth to a plant. If you disagree with that scenario, offer your proof of separate spontaneous coming into being of both animal and plant. Any kind of each will do. Plant structures will not support animal life at the cellular level, neither will animal cells support plant life. So, where is this transitional form between one or the other?
Survival of the fittest might be valid in some scenarios, but as an overall, even Stephen J. Gould discounted it as something not always observed. SOTF also assumes you have a living life form (from where or what?) and that no additional genetic information comes about, only, perhaps, the elimination of weaker traits. All this does is build a more robust tiger, it doesn’t make a tiger become something else.
How do you explain a straight time line back to the pre-Cambrian, where the fossil record shows a sudden, widely diverse collection of forms, some with very advanced structures, but from that time to this there are no fossils that demonstrate a complete change from one living thing to another?
At least twice in history fossils that serve as dating keys, that is, their appearance was restricted to the rocks of one era but not the next, have been found still alive today. Certainly that has to be considered as casting doubt on the validity of any other rock found apart from its original strata. No one could possibly know how old it is based only on the presence of that fossil form.
Evolution has a LONG way to go before being able to claim itself anything more than a theory.
Has it?
Please provide your proof that one “something” living long ago gave birth to one offspring that was an animal, and another one gave birth to a plant. If you disagree with that scenario, offer your proof of separate spontaneous coming into being of both animal and plant. Any kind of each will do. Plant structures will not support animal life at the cellular level, neither will animal cells support plant life. So, where is this transitional form between one or the other?
Survival of the fittest might be valid in some scenarios, but as an overall, even Stephen J. Gould discounted it as something not always observed. SOTF also assumes you have a living life form (from where or what?) and that no additional genetic information comes about, only, perhaps, the elimination of weaker traits. All this does is build a more robust tiger, it doesn’t make a tiger become something else.
How do you explain a straight time line back to the pre-Cambrian, where the fossil record shows a sudden, widely diverse collection of forms, some with very advanced structures, but from that time to this there are no fossils that demonstrate a complete change from one living thing to another?
At least twice in history fossils that serve as dating keys, that is, their appearance was restricted to the rocks of one era but not the next, have been found still alive today. Certainly that has to be considered as casting doubt on the validity of any other rock found apart from its original strata. No one could possibly know how old it is based only on the presence of that fossil form.
Evolution has a LONG way to go before being able to claim itself anything more than a theory.
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
I didn’t want to do this… this was SUPPOSED to be a thread where people tried to prove creationism, but let me explain/prove evolution, at least microevolution…
Sigh.
Basically, when stars explode, or die, they form nebulae filled with various elements. These elements form into new stars. The remaining materials form planets. Life as we know it is carbon-based. Carbon can form into amino acids, which can form proteins. Proteins are needed for life. Conditions on Earth were just right for this to happen (please don’t say that’s proof for God… it’s just a coincidence. A billion other planets that could support life don’t…) The proteins formed into DNA , which allowed for basic life to form, all around the Earth, in various different forms, mostly in tidal pools and such. This life reproduced and mutated, and over billions of years, became complex. There are plants and animals because of mutations, natural selection, and the fact that life began all over Earth, not at one spot. Life continues to become more complex. It is slightly observable, but not very due to the length of time it takes for old outdated genes in a species to die out, and new ones to be formed by mutations. This has been observed by scientists (through fossils, etc.) and the results of studies into micro-evolution are generally consistent. The framework is something like that, allowing for a few new facts to be added, and small variations made.
But of course, that’s all fake… an invisible guy on a throne in a cloud wants us to believe that, so he can send us all to a lake of fire when we die for being heretic infidels who did’t believe in him… and that’s all because he loves us…
Naturally…
Nothin’ against God, only the idiot’s God, who replaces Science, and is simply too particular to be real.
Sigh.
Basically, when stars explode, or die, they form nebulae filled with various elements. These elements form into new stars. The remaining materials form planets. Life as we know it is carbon-based. Carbon can form into amino acids, which can form proteins. Proteins are needed for life. Conditions on Earth were just right for this to happen (please don’t say that’s proof for God… it’s just a coincidence. A billion other planets that could support life don’t…) The proteins formed into DNA , which allowed for basic life to form, all around the Earth, in various different forms, mostly in tidal pools and such. This life reproduced and mutated, and over billions of years, became complex. There are plants and animals because of mutations, natural selection, and the fact that life began all over Earth, not at one spot. Life continues to become more complex. It is slightly observable, but not very due to the length of time it takes for old outdated genes in a species to die out, and new ones to be formed by mutations. This has been observed by scientists (through fossils, etc.) and the results of studies into micro-evolution are generally consistent. The framework is something like that, allowing for a few new facts to be added, and small variations made.
But of course, that’s all fake… an invisible guy on a throne in a cloud wants us to believe that, so he can send us all to a lake of fire when we die for being heretic infidels who did’t believe in him… and that’s all because he loves us…
Naturally…
Nothin’ against God, only the idiot’s God, who replaces Science, and is simply too particular to be real.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
I don’t see why evolution and creation can’t go hand in hand. The Bible says for God athousand years are like a day, and a day like a thousand years. Why fundamentalists insist the genesis account HAS to be translated as six literal days is beyond me. Especially considering the sun, moon, and stars weren’t set to govern the days, nights, and seasons until the third day. And man was the last creation (as in evolution,) so it must be a day that is according to God. And fundamentalists say the constant use of the phrase “after their own kind” abolishes evolution. Why? I heard Richard Dawkins say that animals of the same kind, such as squirrls and rats, share similar DNA and ancestory. Also, to fit 4 billion animal species on the Ark of Noah, the Ark would have to be the size of Alaska! (unless, of course, micro-evolution works.)
P
PantheistsRule
Guest
I agree with that. As long as God doesn’t interfere with science, I have no problem with him 
I just choose not to believe in him, based on my opinions and feelings.
I just choose not to believe in him, based on my opinions and feelings.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
Oh, well… That isn’t any better at all!I agree with that. As long as God doesn’t interfere with science, I have no problem with him
A
Andrew1983
Guest
[Yoda Voice] That, is why you fail [/Yoda Voice]
Because you have created for yourself, a god that can be easily disproven, you have restricted yourself to understanding God as a mere human with supernatural powers, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though I believe the latter was invited to the Last Supper fulfilling the role of “Main Course”. I could be mistaken. I haven’t read the New Testament in some time.
If you’re really interested in understanding God from a philosophical and theological perspective, you’re going to have to go beyond a family Bible, and study the ideas from the saints, study bibles, and linguistics of three to four different languages along with truly understanding how words were used and the cultural mindset of people back then.
V
Volus
Guest
It is not I that have created this incredibly specific God - you can thank the writer of the Bible for that. I have no problem with people that view the Bible as a purely philosophical and non-literal text. However, in my experience, the majority of churchgoers take the Bible quite literally.
My comments are largely directed at anyone who would argue with my statement that the picture of God that the Bible paints is an unrealistically detailed and fantastical one.
R
ralphinal
Guest
This is really the wrong board for this discussion. Catholics can have an understanding of the Bible that allows for evolution. There is no issue with us. This type of thread would work better on a fundamentalist website, though they would not play by the rules.
The problem with macro evolution is that we have not seen or found proof of one species children (eggs, whatever) being of a different species completely. It is just not there. Sure, we can see how this species seems like an early form of that one, but it is the missing links that are the problem. We can see how one species changes over time due to environmental stresses.
Basically, I have no issue with the science of it. I have an issue with the ability of science to pronounce that there is no God when they have no means to test for one.
The problem with macro evolution is that we have not seen or found proof of one species children (eggs, whatever) being of a different species completely. It is just not there. Sure, we can see how this species seems like an early form of that one, but it is the missing links that are the problem. We can see how one species changes over time due to environmental stresses.
Basically, I have no issue with the science of it. I have an issue with the ability of science to pronounce that there is no God when they have no means to test for one.
- Status