Creation or Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian_Millar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We do NOT separate in Darwinists or other “…ists” but are bretheren in Jesus Christ. It really doesn’t matter who’s theory we favour, as long as we believe in the word of Jesus Christ.
We jolly well know, that science, whether medicine, physics or whatever, at all times said: In former times unto rather previously, it was thought that this was such and such. Now we know however, it’s quite different from what we where convinced of, and we now know for sure and probatively that this is of course such.
Did not science claim for thousands of years the earth was a plate. What a laugh generations in the year 3000 will have at us, as we believed in… (whatsoever) apart of course the word of Jesus Christ which St. Paul warned us to convert in any way: Gal 1,8: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

If anyone says: “I have my beliefs and you have yours“ then I’m afraid he is wrong. We can’t have a private believe, for there is but one truth; the truth of God, put down in the Holy Bible. Millions of things of our daily life we can conclude out of the Bible – if we want to and nod relay on our selfish mind, and crown this as the one and only unfailing truth. In case of doubt we always have the church for final word – she talks with the authorisation of Jesus Christ, even though in history, there where times people who where not appointed by God to lead the church, but led her by misuse of power.

The first and very serious sign of prove, that the Darwinian theory can’t be kept upright is „the missing link“. Of course Darwin is absolutely right as far as humanoides (manlike creatures) are concerned or animals, plants etc. But this doesn’t concern „Adam“.
In fact, the „missing link“ is Adam, the by God created Human. To nonbelievers, the “missing link” will be missed forever.
And as this “link” is missing to people who don’t believe in the Genesis, the are talking about a thing that’s inexistent. So, what are those talking about, if they don’t believe that the missing link is Adam?
Actually, it’s terribly uncomplicated, and what we fail to understand, we’ll see anyhow one day (in heaven). So, why be at odds with the matter…
 
beeliner said:
  1. Feel free.
  2. But ric, with all due respect, which you deserve for trying to keep the discussion on an intelligent level, there is no ‘evolutionist side’. There is the side of scientific fact, established beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming validation, and there is the side of the cranks who UNreasonably attack science simply because it is at odds with some system of folklore and superstition around which they order their lives. By referring to ‘Darwinians’ and ‘non-Darwinians’, you attempt to give both sides equal status, but youse can’t do dat.
That is like saying that we should teach our school children about our moon missions but also that it is made of green cheese, and teach them about human reproduction but also that storks bring babies, and let them take their choice.
  1. Nonsense! That is not an accurate appraisal at all, and I think you know that. If you believe 99%, you probably believe more than most biologists. Biological research continues and its findings will no doubt change what is known throughout the coming years and centuries. It is very unlikely that ANY new discoveries will point in the direction of ‘creationism’.
  2. I don’t see that. I see mostly the opposite, ‘creationists’ stridently insisting that they are right while refusing to give any supporting facts or documentation whatever, and the rest of us simply acknowledging and accepting the consensus of scientific orthodoxy. That’s what I do. I know very little - virtually nothing above high-school level - about biology, nor am I trying to ‘convert’ anyone. But the choice between scientific fact and religious fanaticism is not a difficult choice for most people to make. That’s why ‘creationism’ has been shot down as nonsense wherever it has attempted to establish a foothold, except, of course, in the so-called ‘Christian’ schools of the fundamentalist Protestants, who invoke religious freedom while teaching religion and claiming that it is science.
  3. Science is ALWAYS open to that possibility - I earlier cited the rotation of Mercury as an example. Religious fanaticism is never open to anything but self-perpetuation.
Click to expand...
You seem to be arguing with a young earth creationist here. I’m not a young earth creationist. (Didn’t I already say that somewhere?)

And oh yes, my item 3 is true and accurate. I’ve been called even worse by the 100% pure Darwinists (if you have a better term, let me know).
 
We do NOT separate in Darwinists or other “…ists” but are bretheren in Jesus Christ. It really doesn’t matter who’s theory we favour, as long as we believe in the word of Jesus Christ.
We jolly well know, that science, whether medicine, physics or whatever, at all times said: In former times unto rather previously, it was thought that this was such and such. Now we know however, it’s quite different from what we where convinced of, and we now know for sure and probatively that this is of course such.
Did not science claim for thousands of years the earth was a plate. What a laugh generations in the year 3000 will have at us, as we believed in… (whatsoever) apart of course the word of Jesus Christ which St. Paul warned us to convert in any way: Gal 1,8: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

If anyone says: “I have my beliefs and you have yours“ then I’m afraid he is wrong. We can’t have a private believe, for there is but one truth; the truth of God, put down in the Holy Bible. Millions of things of our daily life we can conclude out of the Bible – if we want to and nod relay on our selfish mind, and crown this as the one and only unfailing truth. In case of doubt we always have the church for final word – she talks with the authorisation of Jesus Christ, even though in history, there where times people who where not appointed by God to lead the church, but led her by misuse of power.

The first and very serious sign of prove, that the Darwinian theory can’t be kept upright is „the missing link“. Of course Darwin is absolutely right as far as humanoides (manlike creatures) are concerned or animals, plants etc. But this doesn’t concern „Adam“.
In fact, the „missing link“ is Adam, the by God created Human. To nonbelievers, the “missing link” will be missed forever.
And as this “link” is missing to people who don’t believe in the Genesis, the are talking about a thing that’s inexistent. So, what are those talking about, if they don’t believe that the missing link is Adam?
Actually, it’s terribly uncomplicated, and what we fail to understand, we’ll see anyhow one day (in heaven). So, why be at odds with the matter…
 
beeliner said:
Tell a biologist that - a real biologist, not a crackpot - and see what s/he says.
Click to expand...
I can provide quotes from real biologists about how Darwinian theory is not essential to the work of biology itself. We had a number of biological discoveries before Darwin was born.
‘“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor (of BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000) wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word “evolution” in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organized 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution-as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.’
Click to expand...
beeliner said:
If the knowledge we have acquired to date about how species evolve were somehow shown to be seriously flawed, then they evolve some other way. That they evolve is not in question, and that is the central fact of ALL of modern biology, based on generations of research.

If you doubt or deny that, where is your evidence?
Click to expand...
I fully support that species show minor changes over time as they adaptat to their environment. If that’s what you mean by “evolution” then I think you have won the argument. Although, I don’t think it was much of an argument in the first place because I haven’t seen anyone opposing that idea either.
 
milde said:
No doubt many of those theories of quantum mechanics are wrong.
Click to expand...
Therefore, it will be good when someone points out that the theories were wrong.

I find the same thing to be true of evolution.
There is a much more widespread criticism of Darwinian theory in academic circles today. Far more than even 10 years ago.
 
beeliner said:
  1. But ric, with all due respect, which you deserve for trying to keep the discussion on an intelligent level, there is no ‘evolutionist side’. There is the side of scientific fact, established beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming validation, and there is the side of the cranks who UNreasonably attack science simply because it is at odds with some system of folklore and superstition around which they order their lives…
Click to expand...
What do you mean by a system of folklore and superstition in the context of this discussion. Are you talking about Catholicism?
That is like saying that we should teach our school children about our moon missions but also that it is made of green cheese, and teach them about human reproduction but also that storks bring babies, and let them take their choice.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Biological research continues and its findings will no doubt change what is known throughout the coming years and centuries. It is very unlikely that ANY new discoveries will point in the direction of ‘creationism’.
Click to expand...
Again, this means that criticizing and questioning evolutionary theory is appropriate and necessary – since the results will change and be refuted over time.

How unlikely is it that new discoveries will show support for creationism? What is the probability in terms of “percent likely to support creationism”? How did you determine what new discoveries will show?
But the choice between scientific fact and religious fanaticism is not a difficult choice for most people to make. That’s why ‘creationism’ has been shot down as nonsense wherever it has attempted to establish a foothold, except, of course, in the so-called ‘Christian’ schools of the fundamentalist Protestants, who invoke religious freedom while teaching religion and claiming that it is science.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by religious fanaticism in this context? Do you think that people who question the claims of Darwinian theory are “religious fanatics”?
 
reggieM said:
Therefore, it will be good when someone points out that the theories were wrong.

I find the same thing to be true of evolution.
There is a much more widespread criticism of Darwinian theory in academic circles today. Far more than even 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
It’s called science. You create theories, you question, you examine evidence, and you have a rigged requirement for support. These are the very things that just might unseat evolution theory as it currently exists, but you wouldn’t be willing to accept all that thinking and questioning, would you?
 
I won’t just say yes to evolution. Obviously, it is the most important thing in the world to some who post here, but why? Is it about science? No. Is it about education? No.

It is about ideology. "You must look at these “facts”! You must! To ignore them would be heresy against science!

No. This is all about atheism. It’s all about everything alive got here without God. Trust us. That’s the truth. No god. Just a pitiless, indifferent universe that just happened to mix things together and produce man. You are just like a salt crystal. Nothing special. Just a cosmic accident on a little ball of dirt and rock.

I don’t think so. The Church doesn’t think so.

God bless,
Ed
 
milde said:
These are the very things that just might unseat evolution theory as it currently exists, but you wouldn’t be willing to accept all that thinking and questioning, would you?
Click to expand...
On the contrary. I think I’ve been offering a number of things that question Darwinian orthodoxy. What I perceive is that the defenders of evolution tend to claim that there is no possiblity that evolutionary theory is false.
 
reggieM said:
On the contrary. I think I’ve been offering a number of things that question Darwinian orthodoxy. What I perceive is that the defenders of evolution tend to claim that there is no possiblity that evolutionary theory is false.
Click to expand...
I don’t think any credible scientist has told you there is no possibility evolutionary theory is wrong. Science is all about questioning, searching for evidence, and refining theories.

On the other hand, I know many Christians that tell me there is no possibility what the church teaches them is wrong.
 
milde said:
I don’t think any credible scientist has told you there is no possibility evolutionary theory is wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t really discuss these matters with credible scientists. I’m just talking about the people here on CAF who join the evolutionary threads. I’ve heard some remarkable claims about how there’s no possibility that evolution is wrong. But I fully agree that true scientists wouldn’t say that.

As for people who say that there’s no possibility that their religion is wrong, I can understand that in many ways. We could take for example, the great miracle workers of the Catholic Faith. When someone came to them who was extremely sick, for example, the Saint would pray and heal the person. This has happened very many times.

I don’t know how a person like that, who saw himself working those miracles after receiving the power of God to do so – how that person could ever think that his religion was “wrong”.

Like St. Paul, for example. When we look at his life and what he went through – I can’t imagine how, or on what basis he could have any reason to doubt that his religion was true.
 
So, the real issue is stated plainly:

Hey Catholics, what you believe could be wrong.

Which should tell all Catholics that this was never a discussion about science or evolution but about replacing God with science.

God bless,
Ed
 
Well, this was after all a discussion about science or evolution, even when you’re right about some, trying to replace God with science. It didn’t work. And besides, - as science commits the missing of that so called MISSING LINK, which doesn’t mean anything else than the committment of science: WE DON’T KNOW but don’t believe in God, and as there’s no God, it simply must be evolution.
A terribly narrowmindet opinion - but declared as SCIENCE 😃
 
Being the OP, I think I can interpret the intentions about my own thread. It was about discussing both sides of this debate, within the context of it, and it alone. You can elaborate upon the matter and make it seem like I had another intention, but I did not, I just happen to believe in creation, other Christians believe in evolution, both sides in this particular thread still believe in God. If I wanted it to be about God (or) evolution, I would not have made the request for the athiests to not participate. I want this to be a place we can discuss the matter and not go off topic because this topic keeps leaking into other threads, pushing them off topic. I got rather tired of that debate always leaking in, so I figured, might as well create a thread about it alone and get it over with.

Think about it this way, if you misinterpret a part of the bible, or follow your religious leaders views along the misinterpretation, yet still live in line, in accordance to the teachings of Christ, will you go to hell over your misunderstanding?
 
No! No one will go to hell for his misinterpretation. There’s a very simple explanation for that statement: We all misinterpret God, as we will never understand God and secondly, because we are not to mace a picture of God neither in our minds nor in art. I myself being a sculptor, refused orders for sculptures of the Holy Trinity (copies of Michelangelo).

Yes, it’s not “God (or) evolution“ but all the same we must be aware of the harsh temptation of refusing creation. It means more, that just not understanding this “little” point and therefore covering and replacing it with evolution. Don’t we trust God to be able to create us as we are. Indeed we are not so much more than humanoids, but the incredible difference is not at all the volume of our brain, but the ownership of the god-given soul (Genesis 2:7) – the knowing of God. Gods own Adam (we) are the only one to know about God and know Him through Jesus Christ (Joh 14:9).

Through all dissimilarity (I looked up that word and hope it’s right) of conviction we must (not should but must) remember that God requires love from us. Without love to our next, we are not allowed to love God. So, we are not entitled to say, he or she doesn’t believe in God which the gospel underlines in Math 5:22
We are asked to evangelize and testify our firm believe in God, but do so in honest love.
 
edwest2 said:
So, the real issue is stated plainly:

Hey Catholics, what you believe could be wrong.

Which should tell all Catholics that this was never a discussion about science or evolution but about replacing God with science.
Click to expand...
Maybe for you, but for me it’s about dishonest attacks on both science and scientists; and people who insist that I replace science with their interpretation of my religion.

If you don’t want to accept evolution, I really don’t care. However, when people make outright dishonest claims (those made by Wells, for example) or slander us with claims that we’re motivated by some desire to crush religion, I’m going to pipe up and counter that nonsense. Honesty matters.
 
tonyl said:
However, when people make outright dishonest claims (those made by Wells, for example) or slander us with claims that we’re motivated by some desire to crush religion, I’m going to pipe up and counter that nonsense. Honesty matters.
Click to expand...
I think PZ Myers made it clear in his interview in Expelled that he is hoping that science will destroy religion. There are many who use Darwinian theory for that purpose.

Wouldn’t you agree that supporters of Darwinian evolution can make false claims?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top