Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 212 (108528)
05-16-2004 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
05-15-2004 3:00 PM


CHIROPTERA - This hypothesis you speak of is their belief system. This is what they believe and it requires faith. This classifies as religion because it is a belief system that requires faith. A religion does not have to be something related to God or morals. It can be anything thats a belief system. Yes this includes having a presupposition that no supernaturalism exists. This is what they believe. Since they cannot prove God does not exist how can they proclaim to be fact and not faith?.
KENT - It requires alot of faith actually. As nothing becoming everything is very hard to explain and although against all odds they say it did happen and this involves faith and chance. And like i said religion isnt restricted to just things about God and morals.
BERBERRY - Your confused, Religion does not by definition involve worshipping a God. Yes there is no God associated with evolution that does not mean it is not a religion. Creation is the science of a religion. Evolution is the science of another religion which excludes all supernaturalism.
I am not saying Evolution is not science but a religion. Im saying that it is the science of a religion. A belief system. They have a presupposition and framework. So they build upon that with the evidence they find for evolution. Likewise creationists base there evidnce upon another religion which derives from the Bible therefore the evidence must be built upon that. Its not very difficult to understand this dilemna. It doesnt undermine evolution at all. Since evolutionists do not accept creation evidence (Not because its not evidence they found the same evidence remember just interpreted differently) but because it does not fit there ideology. There belief system. There presupposition. There religion. Its your willingness to refuse to accept it is a belief and a religion. It does not matter how much evidence there is it is still a belief because they werent there when it happened and the past cannot be repeated just the present observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2004 3:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by sidelined, posted 05-16-2004 1:14 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 12 by jar, posted 05-16-2004 1:15 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2004 1:18 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 14 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-16-2004 1:29 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2004 1:37 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2004 1:37 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 19 by Morte, posted 05-16-2004 2:03 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 05-16-2004 7:34 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 24 by Gilgamesh, posted 05-17-2004 6:35 AM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 212 (108738)
05-17-2004 1:12 AM


SIDELINED -
quote:
Faith is the maintenance of a position regardless of the lack of evidence.
Actually this is blind faith. Your getting the two mixed up. Evolution is blind faith as they cannot explain or repeat the so called big bang origin. Creation is well passed all this as they are basing it on Gods word. And you say how can it be faith if you can abandon it? Well that isnt neccesarily true. I religion/belief system can be abandoned anytime you want there are no rules saying you must not abandon your faith no matter what evidence there is. I and all other creation scientist would no doubt drop creation if it was not making sense and evolution was fact and had overwhelming evidence. Unfortunately the fossil record has all but hindered evolutions attempts at calling there theory fact. So once again there is faith involved. It is a religion that evolutionary scientist have adopted. It is a form of historical science where the world is a natural world therefore things have evolved. This is their belief their supposition their theology their framework. They use the evidence to build upon there belief. Just as creation build upon there belief. It is not science vs religion it is one form of science vs another form of science.
JAR - Yes you are right science does not require faith. Particularly practical science. Unfortunately evolution is not general science but a form of historical science. Where evolutionary scientist must observe the present and give hypothesis,theories,opinions,evidence interpretation and discover what an evolutionary world would have been in the past and how could it have evolved, is there evidence for it etc. This is there belief and it requires faith because it is not all based on emperical evidence (As puntuated equilibrium has shown)and several other evolutionary opinions which are still just theory & based on assumptions & opinions of evolutionary scientist. Yes of course it is based on observation. Observation of the present that is. For example - Evolution (not general science but evolution, a form of historical science) suggests life evolved from a primordial soup at some point in time billions/millions of yrs ago. But such an event is beyond scientific proof. Scientist believe making life evolve from non life would prove evolution but this would only prove that intelligence is needed to make life. So in essence the theory of evolution has yet to leave the first stage. It has yet to make such an advancement. Once life has evolved it is very simple to progress using natural selection and evolution. So it is very clear that at the "very least" the origin of evolution is still shrouded in mystery therefore requires blind faith and chance against all odds.
CRASHFROG - I can almost promise you that no matter what evidence evolution finds it will never abandon the theory of evolution. It is the backbone of humanism and humanistic philosophy. This theory has given the world an alternative to God sets the rules. It has taken over our schools,universities,media etc. And any alternative is outlawed by the rules. This is just my opinion of course but i do not believe evolution will ever be abandoned no matter what the evidence. The fossil record was a problem well now we have puntuacted equilibrium etc. Many evolutionists today and there theories "breakdown" darwins original theory and other evolutionary ideas in order to make some form of evolution fit the facts. Evolution is a foundation to many people as the Bible is for christians this again is more evidence for the religious nature of evolution (Again not undermining the theory of evolution). This foundation becomes the only foundation for ideas about theology,philosophy,ethics. And although evolution may not be directly responsible for this is a different issue. Humanist and evolutionists adopt the theory as there own belief and religion. You say religion by definition is supernatural but this is definately not true.
quote:
Science isn't a part of the supernatural debate. That's why it can't ever be religion
Only your willingness to refuse to accept the religious nature of evolution will stop you from calling it a religion as it is not true that religion has only things to do with God but is anything in which you believe. Evolution speaks on origins,history etc. Therefore is a foundation to the belief of an evolutionist,humanist,athiest etc.
KENT -
quote:
The theory that we all evolved from a common ancestor, is in itself scientific, because it is potentially falsifiable, and lends itself to testing.
Again, no faith required, only trust in the scientific method.
The evidence for this theory is ample, and again, I require no faith to accept this as evidence, only trust in science
If this has not been proven. If the missing link is still missing how can you not require faith?. Since its not proven what are you basing your belief on? The evolutionists who says dont worry one day we will find the proof?. This is faith! More over it may even be blind faith. Evolution is a theory but you are getting it confused with modern practical science that we can use in the present using our 5 senses. Evolution is a theory about the past. If these theories have so much evidence that would not be theory but fact. So to this point you may have some evidence but not all. Your comment on gravity again you are confused with practical operational science. We can jump of cliffs in the present to prove our theory to be fact. Can we make nothing become everything in the present? Can we see animals evolving into different kinds? can we observe the missing link? All this is based on the theory of evolution. Your evolutionary theory requires faith and your willingness to accept it into your life as your belief. If you are an athiest than this is your religion this is what you believe. Evolution is your foundation and only foundation to back up your claim that the world is natural and no supernatural exists. (Yes there are christian evolutionists but this is a whole other story).
quote:
The closest I can come to this "Nothing Becoming Something" you speak of is the Big Bang, and the Big Bang has no connection to the theory of evolution whatsoever.
So again, no faith required for evolution. We could of course discuss the possibility that believing in the Big Bang is a religion, but that's a whole other topic alltogether
The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution? Without it evolution cannot occur!.How can your theory survive when the big bang or origins have not yet been established or proven? You have jumped ahead a little bit here and saying it has no connection to evolution is very illogical in my mind as it is just as important for the theory of evolution than anything else. You mention the possiblity of big bang being a religion well you are getting very close to the truth.
NOSYNED - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" <<< There it is!. Thats what ive been trying to say. Since so many evolutionary opinion and theories are still unproven they classify as a religion. Once again this does not undermine your theory just proves that it is a belief system which one can continue to build his evidence upon. No different to creation scientist (same credentials same degrees same Phds same science) Just different frameworks. Unfortuantely the majority has now very much evolutionized and therefore it is played to the full extent as fact,pure general science,creation is not science. All this simply is not true. "THEY" is evolutionists. You asked what the presupposition is? Well its the fact that the world is natural therefore evolved somehow. This is the foundation to build upon. No supernaturalism exists. Species gave rise by natural selection, survival of the fittest,evolution etc. This is there theory and belief. This is the framework they begin with. Creation start with a different framework. Exactly no difference between the 2. Except for the biased man who accepts only evolution as real science and creation as just religion. When they are both science and both are religious. Creationists do not accept evolutionary ideas as evolutionary scientist do not accept creationists ideas. They are both very biased. But we must understand that EVOLUTION HAS NOT PROVED CREATION WRONG. Even with the billions of yrs compared to the 6,000yrs creation still stands tall among evolution. As evolution also stands tall. But why are they so inline when there theories totally contradicting each other? Well the truth is the both found the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE! All they did was interpret it to there framework as i explained before. The advantage creation has is they are already passed origins and they also have Gods word on it. So it really is a matter on which one is truth. Not is creation science is evolution religion bla bla bla. We all should be way passed this stage. You asked who was there for the flood. Well we have Gods word on it. We have the countless great flood stories around the world and of course we have the overwhelming flood evidence from real scientist using real science just a different framework. This evidence must not be proved wrong because of what evolution has proven they are both theories. Except one is basing it on opinion while the other is Gods word.
MORTE - The theory of gravity is not a religion (unless someone out there really really belives in this as there religion???) because it can be tested in the present. Millions of people have experience the power of gravity. It can be proven fact. Evolution which is based on assumptions about the past cannot be proven therefore to some degree (Yes they have evidence but it is not fact) must rely on faith. There is no limit to what a religion can be..Nosyneds example>> belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) :firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs". You dont think this plays a little relevance to the theory of evolution????.And you say creation evidence is not accepted as it does not fit the scientific criteria. Actually it does not fit the evolutionary criteria which is today the only theory to the origins of the world in todays mainstream. Every child is now indoctrinated through school and university in evolution is fact, it is the only science, creation is not science & cannot be proven & does not fit the criteria. These rules have risen from evolution and the rules of the game.NO SUPERNATURALISM! not the rules of science.
quote:
By the way, I don't think that it's the theory of evolution that requires that something arose from nothing - it simply explains how, once something was there, it became another something.
Yes and if the big bang did not happen would evolution have happened? probably not and if the chances of life arising from nothing are slim and the evidence for big bang speculative? Well then it makes theory of evolution very very unstable. Therefore again requires faith."Something that is believed especially with strong conviction = Evolution. "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof = Evolution (Yes there is proof but it is a theory only.
CHIROPTERA - Technically yes all those things can be religion. Its an individual choice. Noone is going to tell you what your religion or belief must be. Star wars is a religion to some people. As is a sport. There really is no limit. It can get riduculous of course but its an individual choice to make what to believe in. And i dont know why we have the word. Its just a word.
quote:
Science is the study of the natural world through the verification of hypotheses by comparing predictions of the hypotheses with observations made in the real world. Is it possible to study the supernatural with this method? What do you mean by the supernatural? I have some more question in this regard, but I need you to clarify before I ask them
This is the science of evolution not the general science. Creation scientist can use the evidence and check if it is consistant with what God says. If it is (for example evidence of a flood,animals stay in there own kind,design in nature and animals,no evolutionary heritage evidence etc etc etc) consistant with what God says we can say yes just like God said therefore we can trust in God inwhatever he says. This is science using the supernatural. It does not prove his existence but if it proves we can trust every word he says than its proof we can trust in God. This is the science of creation. Its normal real science observing the present using Gods word as a bases. Any theory about science only dealing with natural worlds has derived from the rules of evolution which rules almost all scientific communities and education systems worldwide. If evolution is fact this can very strongly contradict Gods word. If the earth evolved on its own there is no need for God or his rules. The theory of evolution can prove god does not exist to a degree. You asked who uses evolution to prove god does not exist. Well we can start with humanism. They believe man is just a continuation of biological evolution. Theres also athiest who believe no god exists. There is any other belief that uses evolution as a foundation and say proudly that there is no deity!.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-17-2004 1:47 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2004 3:44 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 25 by MonkeyBoy, posted 05-17-2004 8:11 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-17-2004 11:58 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 05-17-2004 1:44 PM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 212 (108771)
05-17-2004 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Gilgamesh
05-17-2004 6:35 AM


A religion can be defined as a worldview. And a world view is any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement that provides an understanding of the world, God, mans understanding of the world etc. This also applies for worldviews that understand that the world is natural and no God exists. For the naturalist, evolutionist, athiest, humanist etc. Evolution is the ultimate means of perception so therefore the means of gaining knowledge is in the theory of origins, why are we here, what purpose, social and moral issues etc. Evolution is the foundation of the religion of the people involved with such thinking. Why has modern day scientific communities ruled out creation? The truth is what many of you have already said. Science cannot observe or measure the supernatural and therefore is incapable of obtaining any knowledge about it. But by this definition science cannot render judgement on the theory of evolution either. One time only historical events that seem impossible in the present fall outside the parameters of scientific methods then they cannot be observed, tested, or falsified. So accordingly neither creation or evolution is strictly "scientific". They are both forms of historical science which weve discussed are based heavily on presuppositions about the past,biasness and a theology or framework to build upon. Still many of you continue to call evolution science and creation just religion. All evolutionists who believe evolution is fact and science have clinged dogmatically to a numberof ideas and theories that are not grounded in scientific fact (spontaneous generation, natural selection, puntuacted equilibrium, big bang, mutations & adaptations etc). All these falls into the hands of a belief system. A religion. Alot of you seem willing to refuse to accept the religous nature of evolution. (And you said science can only be taught in school well since evolution is natural and since there is no other alternative then supernaturalism creation cannot be taught). And evolution is taught frequently as fact & the only form of historical science which is just not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Gilgamesh, posted 05-17-2004 6:35 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mark24, posted 05-17-2004 8:41 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 05-17-2004 8:43 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2004 9:09 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 32 by Unseul, posted 05-17-2004 6:24 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 05-17-2004 6:56 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 34 by Loudmouth, posted 05-17-2004 7:07 PM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 212 (109169)
05-19-2004 12:02 AM


CRASHFROG -
quote:
Again, nonsense. There are plenty of scientific alternatives to evolution. We just don't what they are, yet.
Now whos talking nonsense Crashfrog?. There is no alternative. It is either evolution or design by a creator. Evolutionists, humanists etc will not drop this theory at any cost. It is the only foundation to their theories, beliefs and religion. And again the dictionary does not specifically say JUST supernatural but a wide variety of examples such as strong beliefs, believing without proof etc. Several of the examples posted before had relevance to the theory of evolution.
PAUL K -
1. Yes but this has come from compromising, changing, interpreting Gods word. Moreover if you do not agree with Gods words how can you call yourself a christian?. I certainly would not be in this religion if i could not trust God with whatever he says. I am not a christian evolutionist so i am in no position to answer to this question but one thing i do know is that Gods Genesis contradicts evolution and therefore are not compatable. If the world came about naturally just when, why and how did God intervene?. So many other problems with theistic evolution that is a whole other topic. Once we cannot trust God with what ever he says one cannot trust him in anything he says. Luckily for us evolution is still a theory and creation scientist give us evidence for a literal Genesis.
2. Evolution does rely on the big bang or any other origins theory at it is the only way the universe could have came into existence hence making it possible for life to evolve. If the origins theory is shaky and unreliable then this must also include the theory of evolution because without a solid foundation the rest of the theory cannot stand. What happens when the foundations are removed from a house? DOWN IT COMES!.
3. Yes i do believe God has the capacity to produce the first cell. But this is not from the God of the Bible. Genesis clearly spells out how God made the world. And it does not give any indication of such an evolutionary coming of life. So once again such theories arise from reinterpretation, outside biblical influences etc.
4. Evolution is not the foundation of humanism and never was???. Thats a very peculiar remark there. Humanist believe that science tells them that we are products of chance and have evolved over billions of yrs. Therefore humanistic thinking must act on that knowledge and formulate a worldview consistent with it. What other proof do humanist have for a natural world with no deity but the the "fact" of evolution?. Belief in evolution is as crucial to humanism as its athiestic and naturalistic philosophy. Without evolution humanist would have to rely on God as the only explanation for life. Which would naturally destroy there atheism and their humanism. For the humanist atheistic evolution is not just any option but the only option compatible with their worldview. The Humanist Manifesto 1 states "Humanism belives that man is a part of nature and that he emerged as the result of a continuous process. While Humanist Manifesto 2 states "Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces". Humanist rely on evolution for much more than a theory about the origins but a foundation worthy of use towards many ideas theology, philosophy, ethics, social & political ideals. In conclusion humanism belives human history is just biological evolution in a different form. The result of a purposeless and natural process.
MONKEY BOY - You are the same person who has not yet found God. And are still searching. Evolution brings about a natural world with no deity needed. Just where does God fit in to this? Besides inthe imagination of people looking for purpose in life?. And for your fossil question im sure fossilization requires rapid burial in minerals. Just as the flood suggests. Creation geologists throughout the world have shown clearly that the fossil record is more consistent with the castastrophic proccesses of the flood. Than with slow processes over millions of yrs. But yes you are right i am not an expert in this field. You asked what is a natural/supernatural world. A natural world is an evolutionary worldview. Things came to being through natural processes (evolution). Supernatural is the complete opposite. God/creator created the world,universe,life etc. These are the two frameworks evolutionists and creationists build upon. Same science, same evidence, different interpretation. You asked about forms of science. Well when it comes to historical science one can make assumptions (Natural processes made all, God made all, aliens made all etc) These are the different forms. One can then build upon this assumption and check if evidence is consistent which is what evolution and creationists do. This is what i mean by forms. I do not mean practical science i am talking about historical science which is based on theories about what might or could have happened in the past.
CRASHFROG -
quote:
For the same reason we've been telling you we rule it out - it's not true. It's false. We know that because it's contradicted by the evidence.
But evolution is not fact. Why? Because its based on the opinions and interpretations of evolutionary scientist. The evidence that disproves creation is evidence for evolution that is not fact. They both contradict each other but neither is fact. Evolution is the only one acceptable because it relates to a natural world without supernatural therefore only this can be taught. But again this does not prove evolution anymore. You asked what would make me refute creation? Well my only foundation is the Bible so you must attack my foundation as i try to disprove evolutions origins/theories.
CHIROPTERA -
quote:
It is a theory of origins, but that is it. It is an attempt to answer the question: how did all the species of animals and plants (and fungi and bacteria and so forth) come about? We seem to see patterns, like the heirarchical classification of life - how did these patterns come about? That is what evolution does - it is an attempt to explain a certain set of observed phenomena in nature.
But these questions is what religion answers too!. Why are we here, theory of origins, the science of the bible 'creation' answers the other questions, is the evidence consistent with what God says etc. This is a religion. Evolution also answers these questions and gives a strong foundation to a belief/religion. This is clearly seen by athiest, humanist, ardent evolutionists. It is there belief and religion. It is the religion of origins in a natural no deity way. Once again religion is not classed as supernatural beliefs only. You talked about historical accounts. People were alive when Washington was here. He is in the history books we can be sure he existed by the evidence. He was a president for gods sake!. What i am talking about is events where no human was there and no historical record accounts. Evolution! No one was there to see it happen . It is based on theory and opinion. There is no emperical evidence the prove life evolved billions of yrs ago. There is only an assumption and presupposition to hold on to. This is their belief. This is what they believe happened. This is their religion. To be consistent with your view christians are not a religious as Jesus who was an historical figure did exist therefore we do not need to believe? But i bet you do not agree with this or maybe you do. Usually its just a bias that refuses people to believe in the religous nature of evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 05-19-2004 1:30 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2004 1:38 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 05-19-2004 4:11 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 05-19-2004 5:15 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 48 by MonkeyBoy, posted 05-21-2004 8:27 AM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 212 (109200)
05-19-2004 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
05-19-2004 1:38 AM


quote:
Ok, that's a start. What would falsify the Bible? What would it take for you to stop believing in the Bible? What evidence would I have to show you? Be honest, please.
Evolution becoming fact! would no doubt disprove the Bible. But evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale in the imagination of evolutionary scientist. I would like the missing link found, i would like to see the geologic stratums full of intermediate links (no bogus puntuated equilibrium theories), i would like to know how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules including amino acids & the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating system, proof of the age of the earth, reliable dating methods (not each layer equals 1millions yrs), radiometric dating is just not accurate, i do not want theories that continue to change and prove that there will never be truth, how did nothing become everything?These are just the ones in my mind atm that i can think of. I used to be a evolutionist for many yrs until i realised what a dead end it really is. Lucky for me im saved through God and his creation scientists showed me that his word is truth.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-19-2004 02:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2004 1:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2004 3:14 AM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 212 (109202)
05-19-2004 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NosyNed
05-19-2004 1:30 AM


NosyNed you hit me with very hard to answer questions there but the point of the thread was the religous nature of evolution and i want to know your opinion of this as i made the religous nature of evolution very clear. In my mind at least. Because i resigned from a previous thread as this issue had not yet been settled and this thread i hoped we could resolve before we continued to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 05-19-2004 1:30 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 05-19-2004 3:42 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 212 (109203)
05-19-2004 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
05-19-2004 3:14 AM


It disproves the Bible because it does not need God at all in the creation process. I dont care what theistic evolutionists believe it is my belief that evolution contradicts what God says and did. Therefore if evolution was fact i would no longer need Gods word as it is not relevant. Moreover God does not even exist!. He is not needed and i dont need some imaginary Higher being telling me what to do when to do it.
But dont you see that creation is more right because it doesnt change!. Creation magazine and AiG shows all the wonderful discoveries as time changes on but it is always consistent with what God says. Its confirming Gods word in a great way. More over again it shows us the terrible flaws in the theory of evolution. Its not the change i hate, well it might be but the fact that evolution will always change and you will never have truth just the opinion of the current living evolutionary scientist. Nothing more. If i can trust God with what he says then i can trust someone whos worthy. Because his word changes not and the award for obedience is eternal life.
I was an evolutionists. I was not an ardent one but i believed there was no God, evolution was true. Everything about religion was utterly stupid. But when i discovered that i could trust the Bible to give me a reliable account of what really happened in the beginning. When i saw that real science could be used to prove the Bible. Exactly how evolution does but without anything to base on just there own ideas. This is when i made my decision.
No it is not consistent because it is not what God said. At least not what the God of the Bible said. Im not an evolutionary christian and will never be. I will only be a literal christian or a literal evolutionist (a literal evolutionist says no deity,just natural processes).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2004 3:14 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2004 3:51 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 212 (109831)
05-22-2004 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by MonkeyBoy
05-21-2004 8:27 AM


Science does not exclusively deal with naturalism. Evolution does. Which is a form of historical science & belief about the past that states that the world has evolved on its own. Supernaturalism is confirmed by evidence fitting in the biblical framework and fitting in with Gods word. This "supernatural" science is used to confirm, affirm & reinforce faith and trust in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by MonkeyBoy, posted 05-21-2004 8:27 AM MonkeyBoy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2004 5:28 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 05-22-2004 10:51 AM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 212 (109857)
05-22-2004 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
05-22-2004 5:28 AM


I dont think you understand. If God says there was a flood. The scientist can test for it. This is using real science in the present using your 5 senses right?. God says to look at the heavens and earth and see his design and creation. We can check for design,complexity,diversity,genetics. Real science in the present right?. The chronology of the Bible gives us a younger earth. We can check for a young earth right? Using dating methods etc just like evolutionary scientist. Real science right?. All this is real science. Science in the present. Creation scientist have got the same PhDs!, same acheivements. JUST DIFFERENT PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-22-2004 07:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2004 5:28 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2004 8:04 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2004 8:11 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 56 by jar, posted 05-22-2004 9:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 212 (109889)
05-22-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mark24
05-22-2004 10:51 AM


I never said anything about invoking the supernatural. What i said was that if the evidence around the world fits within Gods word and the biblical framework and is consistent then we can have real trust and faith in God. Whereas evolutionists have nothing but their own opinions that will always continue to change, this is blind faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 05-22-2004 10:51 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-22-2004 12:17 PM almeyda has replied
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 05-22-2004 12:40 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 05-22-2004 4:44 PM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 212 (109892)
05-22-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
05-22-2004 12:17 PM


What about the origins of evolution on how non-life became life?. Are you saying theres no faith involved in this theory?. Since they say it happened by chance over billions of yrs then they must rely on a accident through chance. Their theories will always continue to change therefore how can they ever trust their own ideas? ever?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-22-2004 12:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 05-22-2004 12:52 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2004 2:33 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2004 11:42 PM almeyda has replied
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 05-23-2004 6:06 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 212 (110052)
05-23-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by DarkStar
05-23-2004 10:21 PM


Re: Evolution a Religion?
If you want a taco as your religion then fine by me. But its unlikely its your whole belief system on origins of life and the universe. Or that it answers the questions of how, why, when did you get here. I doubt you can build evidence of the universe upon your religion of a taco. I doubt that men have joined your faith to help with their own philosophical theories as people have done with the Bible, or as evolutionary athiestic philosophies have done to the theory of evolution. I doubt any evidence can be accepted to your taco as a subject with the credentials of a real religion/ belief system as evolution claim with science and as creationists claim with science and the Bible. You can make whatever you want as your religion but like someone said on another post, this will just reduce the word religion to nothing and meaningless.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-23-2004 10:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DarkStar, posted 05-23-2004 10:21 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by zephyr, posted 05-23-2004 11:43 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 05-24-2004 4:39 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 74 by Chiroptera, posted 05-24-2004 8:58 PM almeyda has replied
 Message 92 by DarkStar, posted 05-26-2004 9:33 PM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 212 (110053)
05-23-2004 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
05-22-2004 11:42 PM


Crashfrog what dramatic advancement has evolution made since its inception?. Ive already told you how its hindered progress with useless/left over organs and junk DNA. Now your turn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2004 11:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2004 11:43 PM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 212 (110261)
05-24-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by mark24
05-22-2004 4:44 PM


Your age of rocks is not accurate as much as you want it to be. All it is is a bunch of numbers calculating pretending to be able to mark an age of millions of yrs. This is not true. There is no such dating method without adding your own opinion to the fact that can add a date of millions/billions of yrs. (I dont have anything to add to your link question. I disagree because i believe historical science is very different to practical science. You however believe they are on the same wave length).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 05-22-2004 4:44 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by mark24, posted 05-25-2004 5:16 AM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 212 (110265)
05-25-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Chiroptera
05-24-2004 8:58 PM


The theory of evolution does directly or indirectly answer these questions. The truth is for evolutionists that man by himself can determine truth. Independent of a creator, independant of absolutes. And as for purpose well their is no purpose we are an accident and just another evolved animal. So you see evolution does answer the questions. Just because there is no absolutes and no purpose does not mean evolution gives no answer to these questions. When man accepts the theory of evolution he builds his thinking (his religion)upon this theory that there is no god and i can determine my own destiny, rules , and purpose. Which is what many anti-god, athiest, humanist, evolutionists etc have done. So it does qualify as a religion. just as much as buddism, new age, and all other religions of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Chiroptera, posted 05-24-2004 8:58 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 05-25-2004 12:29 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 05-25-2004 2:11 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 89 by Chiroptera, posted 05-26-2004 12:41 PM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024