Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[Melchior]

This could seriously go on for months. I honestly have no problem getting into the more complex areas. Of course I would require external help, but I think most here will admit that (just look at all the links). But, there are not enough hours in the day.

I will leave (I know I tried before) with this. A house with a bad foundation usually falls down. Darwin’s The Origin of Species is that foundation for Evolutionists. I don’t think many really want to defend that book. It is racist and in fact the entire title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. A theory that has been very destructive in the 20th century for the victims of those who bought into it. Now this does not prove evolution one way or the other. But it is interesting that Evolutionists don’t like to talk about the practical implications of Darwinism - Racism. In fact Hitler and Stalin both employed Darwin’s ideas to justify their murderous actions. The “science” in the book is bad enough. But the book itself is a racist book. How about discussing which races are inferior? I didn’t think so.

Anyway, a house built on sand and all that…

Mel

 

[Chris_W]

Bracer:

Um, your first sentence is fine, but you blow it at the finish, because the scientific method makes no claims to finding “absolute truth,” only to developing increasingly accurate models of how the material universe works…)

Precisely my point. Indeed science should not make claims to finding absolute truth. Where I get riled up is when I hear things from evolutionists that seem to claim that very thing.

For example, PhilVaz said “*Yeah, the evidence is on the side of evolution (micro and macro), whether or not one believes in God, the scientific evidence still stands. So its no use for a Christian to attempt to fight against that, as I see some in here doing.” * Did I misinterpret this statement? I jumped into this thread because I took this to mean PhilVaz was asserting that scientific evidence disproves Christianity.

Bracer:

“perhaps God made it that way” doesn’t really explain anything as far as the scientific method is concerned. Supernatural claims are not in any way testable or verifiable, pretty much by definition – “supernatural” = “outside of nature.” The miraculous is, by its very definition, not repeatable, nor testable.

Again we agree. I do not state that there is a God, for the purposes of the scientific method.

Bracer:

And unfortunately, the reverse is also true: if you believe you do

have evidence – physical, verifiable, repeatable and testable evidence – for a supernatural claim, then it categorically ceases to be supernatural, by definition.

Things are looking up…we agree again. In general, the only time I jump into scientific debates between atheists and thiests (which incidentally is almost always evolutionists and creationists…interesting there is such a connetcion bewteen atheism and evolutionism if evolution doesn’t seek to disprove God) is to point out the fact that science can only explain things so far. It is not able to explain the beginning of life. Evolution, although shown in many ways to be possible, is not fact.

When asked why it is impossible for God to have created as described in Genesis, Oolon responded, (having positioned himself as relying purley on empirical data), “Sure, he could have. But he didn’t. He used evolution.”

Is this not attempting to refute Christianity, on the basis of science? Oolon has repeatedly said he only considers evidence that can be observed scientifically. Yet he tries to refute Christianity. Should we have understood that in this one instance, contrary to all his other posts, he was not intending to speak from a scientific perspective? I don’t think so.

So why do I feel like my religion is being attacked on this thread? Because it is being attacked on this thread. Therefore, it makes very good logical sense for creationists (Christians, if you like) to point out the limitations of science and assert that science cannot possibly demonstrate what evolutionists ultimately infer (there is no God, or that Christianity is false).

 

[PhilVaz]

Sorry got my Gentrys mixed up, as if anybody cares

Robert Gentry, young-earth creationist

Kenneth Gentry, Reformed preterist (but perhaps also young-earth)

Robert has the young-earth book on Po halos, Kenneth has the book Before Jerusalem Fell re-dating the book of Revelation to AD 70 or before.

Darn it the evolutionists are losing this poll. Well just like America which is pretty divided on evolution – particularly human evolution…here’s a poll from AnswersInGenesis, and to give creationism “equal time” in the schools would require most of these types of creationism to be taught

Phil P

 

[Meatros]

Melchior:

Jillian,

I will give you a brief answer. I would be willing to bet that most people on this board understood me perfectly.

You’d be betting wrong then. I’m a layman, I’ve had no training in evolutionary biology and I know the little that I know from an interest in the subject.

What you seem to be doing is obfuscating and handwaving. You were asked what would constitute ‘evidence’ and you have hemmed and hawed about it. You’ve also confused the terms ‘theory’ and ‘proof’ several times, despite being told that they have different meanings then how you are using them.

Melchior:

If the topic of transitional stages cannnot be discussed in a way that an intelligent non-scientist can understand it then I honestly don’t consider it worth discussing.

I’m a non-scientist too and I think transitional stages have been presented perfectly. You haven’t brought up any objections to Oolon’s posts, and I think that’s very telling.

I think you weren’t counting on people to show up and to be able to easily refute you-that’s where this obfuscation of ‘evidence’ and what amounts to a basic ignoring of Vindex Urvogel’s posts.

Melchior:

All I am getting is Clintonesque answers to a simple question. Depends what “is” is.

Funny, you seem to be the one who is having problems defining your terms, or have you listed what would constitute evidence/proof yet?

Melchior:

Are there transitional stages of primate to human?

Yes and you’ve been shown them, via the link you utterly ignored from Oolon.

Melchior:

Are there large groups of of a transitional species anywhere to be found?

Technically every sucessful species is a transitional species-evolution doesn’t stop.

Melchior:

I have yet to see any “villages” of skeletal remains of sub human species that have been found.

Why would there be villages? I mean, do you know how rare fossils are? Besides, the fact remains, one transitional fossil would be enough-and we have found a lot more then one.

Melchior:

You would think their would be lots of these things around. How about two or three in the same area? How about one?

Why would there be lots of these things around? Again, fossilization is a very rare event. In any event, we have actually found loads of fossils, so I have to wonder if you’ve actually ever checked into the matter.

Melchior:

Honestly people with a high school education know what I am asking for.

I have a little more then a high school education, but I am definitely not specialized in science, and I don’t know what you are asking for.

How about you just say what you are looking for?

Melchior:

Any topic can be broken down to laymen terms.

Unfortunately you are the one failing to break down what your terms-therefore the progress is grinding to a halt.

 

[PhilVaz]

ChrisW << I jumped into this thread because I took this to mean PhilVaz was asserting that scientific evidence disproves Christianity. >>

Hello, I’ve been defending the Catholic faith online since 1994, so No. All I was saying is that the scientific evidence stands apart from the Bible, apart from revelation, apart from theology, apart from the supernatural. In other words, the scientific evidence can be evaluated properly on its own merits whether one is an atheist or a theist. It stands on its own, but I do not believe it contradicts theology (whether Genesis, the Catholic faith, or any of the monotheistic religions). There is no “proof” or “disproof” in science, unless you mean mathematics. Science is always “tentative” and constantly improving itself by the “scientific method.” This doesn’t mean we can’t have well established theories: like the earth is round, rotates and goes around the sun, is ancient at 4.5 billion years old, and macroevolution is how we got here (with God starting the universe rolling, and perhaps providing the first cell).

However, I do believe there are good theological objections to evolution (for example, the whole bodily immortality of Adam/Eve idea), but no good scientific ones. I need to work on those theological objections since the evolutionists in here have done well answering the “scientific” (i.e. creationist) ones.

Phil P

 

[Meatros]

Melchior:

This could seriously go on for months. I honestly have no problem getting into the more complex areas. Of course I would require external help, but I think most here will admit that (just look at all the links). But, there are not enough hours in the day.

Yes it could go on for months.

Melchior:

I will leave (I know I tried before) with this. A house with a bad foundation usually falls down. Darwin’s The Origin of Species is that foundation for Evolutionists.

Creationists have been saying this for a century and a half, and the evidence for evolution just keeps getting stronger.

Melchior:

I don’t think many really want to defend that book. It is racist and in fact the entire title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. A theory that has been very destructive in the 20th century for the victims of those who bought into it.

Uh-huh, leaving aside your ‘pathos’ argument, you even have to admit that just because groups of people pervert the truth for their own means does not mean that the truth is any less true-right? After all, some neo-nazi’s use the Bible (and the mark of Cain references) to justify racism.

Melchior:

Now this does not prove evolution one way or the other. But it is interesting that Evolutionists don’t like to talk about the practical implications of Darwinism - Racism.

Please explain how this is so.

Melchior:

In fact Hitler and Stalin both employed Darwin’s ideas to justify their murderous actions.

Actually this is untrue. They employed ‘social darwinism’, which wasn’t Darwin’s theory at all.

Melchior:

The “science” in the book is bad enough.

Have you actually read it? What ‘science’ is bad, IYO, in the book?

Melchior:

But the book itself is a racist book. How about discussing which races are inferior?

Well, considering that there are more differences in individual races then between them, I’d have to say that your assertion is rather baseless-but last ditched appeals to emotion, rather then fact, tend to cull the credulous.

Melchior:

Anyway, a house built on sand and all that…

The only thing that’s built on sand around here is your anti-evolutionist rhetoric.

 

[Melchior]

Meatros:

You’d be betting wrong then. I’m a layman, I’ve had no training in evolutionary biology and I know the little that I know from an interest in the subject.

What you seem to be doing is obfuscating and handwaving. You were asked what would constitute ‘evidence’ and you have hemmed and hawed about it. You’ve also confused the terms ‘theory’ and ‘proof’ several times, despite being told that they have different meanings then how you are using them.

I’m a non-scientist too and I think transitional stages have been presented perfectly. You haven’t brought up any objections to Oolon’s posts, and I think that’s very telling.

I think you weren’t counting on people to show up and to be able to easily refute you-that’s where this obfuscation of ‘evidence’ and what amounts to a basic ignoring of Vindex Urvogel’s posts.

Funny, you seem to be the one who is having problems defining your terms, or have you listed what would constitute evidence/proof yet?

Yes and you’ve been shown them, via the link you utterly ignored from Oolon.

Technically every sucessful species is a transitional species-evolution doesn’t stop.

Why would there be villages? I mean, do you know how rare fossils are? Besides, the fact remains, one transitional fossil would be enough-and we have found a lot more then one.

Why would there be lots of these things around? Again, fossilization is a very rare event. In any event, we have actually found loads of fossils, so I have to wonder if you’ve actually ever checked into the matter.

I have a little more then a high school education, but I am definitely not specialized in science, and I don’t know what you are asking for.

How about you just say what you are looking for?

Unfortunately you are the one failing to break down what your terms-therefore the progress is grinding to a halt.

I never confused “Proof” and “Theory”. I asked one question using several different words in the same sentence to make my meaning clear. I am writing in english. If people choose to split hairs instead of answer my question that is fine. And the links that I saw provided no observable evidence, Or anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. I could find you several sites that toss some very convincing “evidence” out against these supposed “proofs”.

Technically every sucessful species is a transitional species-evolution doesn’t stop.

So you believe in Punctuated Equilibrium? No need to answer.

Peace,

Mel

 

[Meatros]

Chris W:

Precisely my point. Indeed science should not make claims to finding absolute truth. Where I get riled up is when I hear things from evolutionists that seem to claim that very thing.

Science doesn’t make claims about ‘absolute’ truth-in fact, no one has stated such-even though you keep fighting that windmill.
Chris W:

For example, PhilVaz said “*Yeah, the evidence is on the side of evolution (micro and macro), whether or not one believes in God, the scientific evidence still stands. So its no use for a Christian to attempt to fight against that, as I see some in here doing.” *Did I misinterpret this statement? I jumped into this thread because I took this to mean PhilVaz was asserting that scientific evidence disproves Christianity.

I’m not going to attempt to speak for Phil, but I’d say yes, you misinterpreted that statement. Phil wasn’t saying that Christianity was wrong, what he was saying that Christians shouldn’t fight against the obviousness of evolution-because it’s primarily Christians who do, in fact, fight against evolution (that, and fundamentalist Muslims).
Chris W:

Things are looking up…we agree again. In general, the only time I jump into scientific debates between atheists and thiests (which incidentally is almost always evolutionists and creationists…interesting there is such a connetcion bewteen atheism and evolutionism if evolution doesn’t seek to disprove God) is to point out the fact that science can only explain things so far. It is not able to explain the beginning of life. Evolution, although shown in many ways to be possible, is not fact.

Actually your ‘interesting’ tidbit is only because the primary groups that argue against evolution are Christian groups. The fact is A LOT of Christians world wide are evolutionists.

By the way, what is the ‘evolutionism’ you are talking about? Made up a new word have you?

Why can’t science explain the beginning of life (which is abiogenesis BTW)?

Evolution is fact, and you’ve been shown that. You continue to ignore the relevant links and evidence, which is bizarre quite frankly.
Chris W:

When asked why it is impossible for God to have created as described in Genesis, Oolon responded, (having positioned himself as relying purley on empirical data), “Sure, he could have. But he didn’t. He used evolution.”

Well, Oolon was wrong, it is impossible for God to have created as described in Genesis, as there are two contradictory accounts. For God to have done both would require mental gymnastics.
Chris W:

Is this not attempting to refute Christianity, on the basis of science?

No, it’s not actually. Only if you are in the minority of Christians worldwide would you consider Genesis as historically accurate.
Chris W:

Oolon has repeatedly said he only considers evidence that can be observed scientifically. Yet he tries to refute Christianity.

No, actually he hasn’t. Apparently though, you are confusing your own special version of Christianity with what Christians believe world wide.

That’s hardly Oolon’s fault.
Chris W:

So why do I feel like my religion is being attacked on this thread?

Because you, for some reason, view Genesis as a literal account.
Chris W:

Because it is being attacked on this thread.

Only if you consider Genesis to be literally accurate-and if that’s the case then you should really look into logic before you tackle science.
Chris W:

Therefore, it makes very good logical sense for creationists (Christians, if you like) to point out the limitations of science and assert that science cannot possibly demonstrate what evolutionists ultimately infer (there is no God, or that Christianity is false).

Actually most Christians do not believe Genesis is literally accurate, so your version of ‘Christianity’ is one of many, and it’s in the minority. As for modern science/evolution, it doesn’t ultimately infer that there is no God-unless you’d like to demonstrate how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Meatros]

Melchior:

I never confused “Proof” and “Theory”. I asked one question using several different words in the same sentence to make my meaning clear. I am writing in english. If people choose to split hairs instead of answer my question that is fine. And the links that I saw provided no observable evidence, Or anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. I could find you several sites that toss some very convincing “evidence” out against these supposed “proofs”.

In order to answer your question you need to give us an answer to what you would consider evidence.

You have not, you continue to evade. What do those links show you, IYO? What do you make of them? How do you explain them?

Again though, you are misusing the term ‘proof’ and it’s getting down right dishonest fo you to continue doing so. As for counter evidence, let’s see what you can bring forth.

Melchior:

So you believe in Punctuated Equilibrium? No need to answer.

Why no need to answer? Personally I’m more of a gradualist then a punk-eeker.

But I’m curious, what do you think Punctuated Equilibrium is?

BTW-here’s a link to the position of major Christian denominations stances on a literal Genesis (among other things): cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Melchior:

I never confused “Proof” and “Theory”. I asked one question using several different words in the same sentence to make my meaning clear. I am writing in english. If people choose to split hairs instead of answer my question that is fine. And the links that I saw provided no observable evidence, Or anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. I could find you several sites that toss some very convincing “evidence” out against these supposed “proofs”.

Your argumentation has in fact been philosophically challenged, and has invoked numerous logical fallacies the most recent of which was argumentum ad populum. The fact that you asked for formal proof, when this is restriced to Logic and Mathematics, is suspect enough. You continue to claim that no one has answered your questions, but reality itself disputes you, as you were answered several times over. If you can produce evidence to refute the data Oolon has presented for hominid sister-group relationships, then please, by all means do so. We would love to discuss the data. On a tangential note, besides the usage of the proper Latin designations for logical fallacies (and the usage of Latin/Greek binomials of course), are we not all of us using the English language?

So you believe in Punctuated Equilibrium? No need to answer.

Would you care to define what, exactly, you think punctuated equilibrium is?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[usherMike]

Oolon Colluphid:

If it’s so “rediculous”, you’ll be able to tell me what it is, won’t you?

Abiogenesis has nothing whatever to do with evolution, so its improbability or otherwise is completely irrelevant. I, a scientific rationalist (what you’d call an atheist, I expect) here state for the record that some god or other could have created the first life. There.

Evolution is what you get, automatically and inevitably, once you have life.

You can’t have chemistry till you’ve got elements, yes? Suppose we had no idea where atoms came from. Would this make us unable to study chemistry?

We can study the course of life’s history even if we do not know how it started. And that is what evolution is concerned with. So your DNA point is irrelevant.

Cite references.

Again, you reveal your unfamiliarity with the facts. Start here:

wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Irreducible_Complexity

Oh, and you should note that the arch-Irreducible-Complexity proponent Michael Behe agrees with most of evolution, specifically shared common ancestry of life. See eg: wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Michael_Behe

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/unsupported_assertion.jpg

Not only that: your claim is plain false. Natural selection has been observed. Look up Peter and Rosemary Grant’s work on the Daphne Major (Galapagos) finches, rat resistance to Warfarin, mosquito resistance to DDT, Plasmodium resistance to chloroquinine, and nylon-oligomer digesting bacteria, for starters. Then move on to Observed instances of speciation.

Please substantiate that claim.

And note that hundreds of thousands of scientists have published findings over the last hundred and fifty years that do nothing but support evolution.

While I wait to see your substantiation of that, I’ll raise you an awful lot of Steves. Their names are here.

Enough! Let’s see this evidence!

What, like what the Pope said? Oh I see, you mean the medieval church…

No, it does not. You’ll be telling us next you believe in Noah’s ark!
Actually 2or 3 years ago in Time Mag. there was a artical saying “there was a flood of biblical proportions at the time of Noah, but they couldnt say whether it’s the flood Noah talked about”. Exactly how many floods like that were there at that time. It was talked about in the bible and discovered recently to have happened.Science seems to prove the bible.

TTFN, Oolon

 

[Jillian]

Melchior:

Jillian,

[bits snipped for gratutitious fallacies and irrelevancies]

Are there transitional stages of primate to human? Are there large groups of of a transitional species anywhere to be found?
Mel

Melchior, how are we supposed to answer this question to your satisfaction if you cannot give us an explanation of what a “transitional stage” would look like? Throw us a bone here - maybe one or two salient characteristics?

Honestly, I don’t see why you’re having such a hard time with this concept. If I denied that Flurbs existed, wouldn’t you feel justified in asking me what the heck a Flurb was? And if I couldn’t tell you, in fairly clear, simple, and plain English what I thought a Flurb was, wouldn’t you be justified in thinking I was a bit daft for denying they exist when I so obviously don’t even know what they are?

Work with me here, Mel. I’m not a scientist. I’m a humble layperson myself. I haven’t used any difficult big words with you - I’ll leave that to the actual scientists. What I really want to understand is how you can say that there are no transitional fossils when you can’t even explain to a fellow layperson like me what a transitional fossil is, and how one would recognize one.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Jillian:

Throw us a bone here - maybe one or two salient characteristics?

<< Throws Jillian a frontal onto which the temporal musculature has extended >> You asked for a bone…

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

/offtopic but short

Me too …

Wow this verse struck me so hard when I read your confession. It’s as if Jesus was talking to you directly.

“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Well we could quibble over ‘humble’, but “like” children in what way? Credulous, open to believing any old nonsense uncritically, lacking much knowledge, more interested in the box the toy comes in than the toy itself…?

A quick Dawkins quote on the matter:

“When a child is young, for good Darwinian reasons, it would be valuable if the child believed everything it’s told. A child needs to learn a language, it needs to learn the social customs of its people, it needs to learn all sorts of rules – like don’t put your finger in the fire, and don’t pick up snakes, and don’t eat red berries. There are lots of things that for good survival reasons a child needs to learn. So it’s understandable that Darwinian natural selection would have built into the child’s brain the rule of thumb, “Be fantastically gullible; believe everything you’re told by your elders and betters.”

Not everyone grows out of this stage. Part of our neotenic nature, I guess…

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

I’m guessing you meant this bit of reply when you reposted my post… but thanks for doing so anyway Mike!

usherMike:

Actually 2or 3 years ago in Time Mag.

I’m pleased to see you see you get your science from good solid reliable peer-reviewed sources… wasn’t it Time that slapped Archaeoraptor on its cover a while back without checking with the experts?

there was a artical saying "there was a flood of biblical proportions at the time of Noah

Then they (or your memory of it) are familiar with neither Ryan and Pitman’s idea (which I suspect is what this is about) nor the Bible.

R&P put the Black Sea flood at around 7150BP, which is before the world was made, according to most YECs. (I’ve been told, after much pushing, that Noah was about 4000BP by the couple I’ve managed to get to answer the question.)

And the flood may have seemed of Biblical proportions to anyone there at the time, but it came nowhere near – by several orders of magnitude – covering the entire planet.

but they couldnt say whether it’s the flood Noah talked about".

See Why the Black Sea is not the Site of Noah’s Flood

Exactly how many floods like that were there at that time.

Like what, and at what time?

It was talked about in the bible

Yep, repeating common Mesopotamian flood myths…

and discovered recently to have happened.

Wow, somewhere flooded at some time in the past. Break out the champers, folks!

Science seems to prove the bible.

Yep. Whatever you say…

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz - Thank you for your response. Indeed, it appears I mis-judged your statement about how Christianity might as well not try to argue against evolution.

Meatros - You stated that evolution is a fact. I disagree with you on that statement. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, and has been admitted to by evolutionists, all science can do is provide data that seems to show evolution is possible. If science cannot show that something is false, (therefore it is possible) it does not mean it is in fact not false…it just means science has not shown it to be false.

I still have a question about evolution and the beginning of life. Oolon stated that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I guess this is one of the areas that causes me to be so opposed to the theory of evolution. Perhaps others on this thread can help clarify this issue and settle part of my discomfort with evolution:

Abiogensis, as I understand it is a theory that attempts to explain how life came from non-living matter without the involvement of God. Now, as is clearly evident by my posts in this thread, I am not a scientist, so bear with me as I try to describe how I understand the theory of abiogenesis: The idea is that very small lifless particles or molecules could have, over time, gradually learned how to extract from its surroundings, the things necessary for it so sustain itself. Then, gradually this learning could have developed into the metobolic motor that a cell needs to have in order to be called alive.

Hopefully that description, although obviously over simplified, captures the basic concept presented in the theory of abiogenesis. If so, then I have a hard time seeing how the theory of abiogenesis is not included in the theory of evolution, which fundamentally asserts that organisms developed over time without intelligent design.

If then, the concept of abiogenesis does fall within the realm of the theory of evolution, then how can someone say that the theory of evolution does not seek to disprove the existance of God?

I am not trying to twist words here. Rather I am trying to understand something that concerns me. Many Christians seem to be at ease with believing in both Christianity and the theory of evolution…I still am uncomfortable with saying the two are compatable.

 

[Chris_W]

Since it has been said that I have misunderstood the intentions of some of the evolutionists on this thread, I would like to ask a question that could set my mind more at ease:

Is there any scientific evidence (empirical data) that can falsify the fundamental statement of faith by Catholics (as follows)?

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontious Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He decended into hell and on the third day, He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again, in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Churh, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Obviously, there are many things stated in this creed that must necessarily fall outside the realm of scientific explanation, but is there anything contained therein which can infact be disputed by science? What I mean is, I am not challenging anyone to prove what oviously science cannot prove, but rather, trying to determine whether the Catholic faith and evolution are indeed comapable, if they do not contradict each other.

I hope this is a fair question. We are, after all, on a Catholic web-site.

 

[Chris_W]

Oolon Colluphid:

“Be fantastically gullible; believe everything you’re told by your elders and betters.”

Not everyone grows out of this stage. Part of our neotenic nature, I guess…

I find this an interesting statement, considering it has been recommended to me by evolutionists on this thread that I should in fact believe elders and betters. Many times so far, I have been told that I should believe the assertions of certain evolutionists, because they are to be considered experts, and their opinion is therefore better.

It seems on one hand you are recommending we question the “elders and betters”, but on the other hand we should not question evolutionary scientists, lest we be characterized as constantly throwing stones at scientific theories.

Being like children is indeed to accept authority. Catholics do it with regard to the Church. Evolutionists do it with regard to other evolutionists. We all have reasons why we accept the authorities we do. It is unfair, and not in the least productive to characterize those who disagree with you as gullible.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

/offtopic still
Oolon Colluphid:

Credulous, open to believing any old nonsense uncritically

Scripture is interpretive. Humility is truth I have been told. That seems a good definition. The child is not self - conscious and so the child is receptive to the Word. This relates to the idea of kenosis, I think, and agape. Your description of the child tends toward the idea of child as “childish” whereas I think “child-like” would be better exegesis. In any event the idea of gullibility is antithetical to Christianity so that is clearly not what Christ meant: Be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

peace

 

[wildlifer]

Chris W:

Meatros - You stated that evolution is a fact. I disagree with you on that statement. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, and has been admitted to by evolutionists, all science can do is provide data that seems to show evolution is possible. If science cannot show that something is false, (therefore it is possible) it does not mean it is in fact not false…it just means science has not shown it to be false.

All the evidence shows Evolution is a fact. But it is the Theory, ie the mechanisms of evolution, that is not “fact.”

Abiogensis, as I understand it is a theory that attempts to explain how life came from non-living matter without the involvement of God. Now, as is clearly evident by my posts in this thread, I am not a scientist, so bear with me as I try to describe how I understand the theory of abiogenesis: The idea is that very small lifless particles or molecules could have, over time, gradually learned how to extract from its surroundings, the things necessary for it so sustain itself. Then, gradually this learning could have developed into the metobolic motor that a cell needs to have in order to be called alive.

Hopefully that description, although obviously over simplified, captures the basic concept presented in the theory of abiogenesis. If so, then I have a hard time seeing how the theory of abiogenesis is not included in the theory of evolution, which fundamentally asserts that organisms developed over time without intelligent design.

The problem here is that you assume since scientists seek natural explanations of phenomena, they are anti-God.
Would you rather they did not inquire into life’s origins? And if you require they search for deital influences on origins, just exactly what do you suggest they look for? Do *poofs" leave any evidence?
For a better understanding of the many, as there is more than one, theories of abiogenesis you might look here.

If then, the concept of abiogenesis does fall within the realm of the theory of evolution, then how can someone say that the theory of evolution does not seek to disprove the existance of God?

Because seeking natural explanations for life’s origins has nothing to do with gods, but is the only investigative route available.