Why is it Evolution versus Creation?

I don't understand this ongoing debate. Christians don't have to debate whether evolution occured or not; let scientists figure out if it happened. I hate that evolutionists are pushing evolution as a fact simply because they don't want to believe in something higher than themselves. It has prevented me from validifying their scientific discoveries because I believe there is alterior motive. Arguing evolution vesus ID is like me arguing reality with my nintendo. Who am I to argue a billion years of evolution didn't occur in a single day when I am restricted by time and he is not. You should be forming mathematical proofs to prove that 0=1 instead of arguing with christians, whom are going to believe in creation whether evolution is fact or not. Why not try arguing why our ancestors evolved instead of arguing if they evolved. The fact that so many evolutionists are still arguing "if" leads me to believe you aren't so confident in your findings.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Unfortunately some religious folk (not just Christians) believe that their deity has told them how the world works so scientists must be wrong. Actually, evolution has shown that we are no higher than anything else. If anything fundamentalists are upset that evolution has shown that rather than the other way around. Their discoveries are documented - you can verify them at your leisure (and expense, unfortunately). It's not a matter of trying to convince people that their deity is wrong. It is a matter of trying to show people that the science is not fuelled by ulterior motives and that ID should not be taught in schools. Nobody is arguing if evolution occurred. That is what is referred to as the historical fact of evolution. Evolutionists are trying to show people that there is significant evidence for this if only they would put their religious beliefs to one side they'd see it. The 'why' is explained by the Theory of Evolution.

Hi Gaetz,You make a couple of very valid points in your OP, that I'd like to answer. If only it were so! Fact is, scientists have aready "figured out that evolution has happened". Nothing to debate, really, if it weren't for that section of the population that presumes to believe that the they can do science better than the scientists, or claims that scientists are liars and frauds. Do you know for a fact that every "evolutionist" pushes evolution for this reason? Have you considered the possibility that they do so because the theory is as correct as present knowledge can make it?Having said that, and being a Christian myself, I hate it when people like Dawkins or Hawking misuse valid scientific results in an attempt to bolster their atheistic world-view. In my opinion, this is just as bad as misusing religion to cast doubt on valid scientific results. Because there's no argument as to the "why": according to the Theory of Evolution, our ancestors survived to pass their genes to us because they were fitted to exploit their environment. The way the theory is stated, the only possible problems are with the details of "how", which is why both sides of the debate focus their attention on this area. No. The reason that so many scientists are still arguing "if" is because so many people are still arguing "ifn't" in the face of all the evidence. There are none so blind as those who will not see, after all.Cheers,

Again you make it seem you only believe science, and therefor creation is wrong. Science can find answers only to what we can percieve or understand, so why do you think that that ID isn't possible? I believe that ID is just as possible as evolution. There is corroborating evidence to support jesus and his miracles(Josephus, Paul's letters, Terullian, Caria), authentic documentary evidence(The Bible), eye witness evidence(thousands of people witnessed his miracles), as well as archaeological confirmation. I'm not going to throw out overwhelming evidence because you believe you've scientifically disproven the first 2 pages of the bible, which science has no right to analyze since god is talking about his perceptions. But more than likely in the grand scheme of things, science is wrong.

We're not. We're arguing that evolution is a fact because evolution is a fact. Why wouldn't we argue for the facts, for the truth? That doesn't make any sense at all, and it makes me think that you're committed to denying evolution no matter what. Surely, if evolutionists retreated from the discussion, and refused to contradict creationists when they said "evolution is false", you'd take that as confirmation that the creationists were right?It doesn't look like it's possible to win with you. If evolutionists put forth their arguments for evolution, it proves creationism. If evolutionists retreat from the debate, it proves creationism. How is that possibly fair?

Nothing of the sort. Creation makes empirical claims about how the world works. Science can show those claims to be wrong. Creationism could be wrong, it could be right. After all, an all powerful deity could have made the earth seem old to scientists, right? ID is possible. And I agree. I believe the best way to decide which one is more likely to be an accurate description of the universe we live in is to investigate the positive evidence for each position. That's what we do here. Thousands of people may have witnessed his miracles - but unfortunately they don't exist now, and they didn't write it down. We have no documentary evidence that is contemporary with Jesus that is relevant, except possibly some Roman records. Not at all. I do believe that the interpretation that is employed by Young Earth Creationists is falsified by the evidence. I can't speak for what God meant in the Bible, nor what his chosen agents meant. I can happily speak about what a significant amount of his believers believe today. Including the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old or so. That depends what you mean by 'more than likely', and 'the grand scheme of things' and 'science' and 'wrong'.I agree that, if history has anything to say about scientific conclusions it is that they are likely to be incomplete right now. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Welcome to EvC, geatz.

quote:

---

Again you make it seem you only believe science, and therefor creation is wrong.

---

No, what people are saying is that they will believe the evidence that is in front of their faces and will give credence to the logical inferences that can be made based on that evidence.The evidence from geology, biology, and astronomy clearly and plainly show that the universe is billions of years old, the earth is billions of years old, and that current life has evolved from a much smaller number of species over those billions of years.There is no evidence in favor of a Genesis type of creation only a few thousand years old or for a single global flood within historical times. In fact, the evidence clearly and plainly contradicts these ideas.-

quote:

---

why do you think that that ID isn't possible?

---

No one is saying that ID isn't possible. Just that there is no evidence to show that any intelligence was responsible for what we see in the biology or geology. And, in fact, what we see in geology and biology are consistent with the operation of blind, non-intelligent forces. Why bring in a construct that is not necessary?-

quote:

---

There is corroborating evidence to support jesus and his miracles(Josephus, Paul's letters, Terullian, Caria), authentic documentary evidence(The Bible), eye witness evidence(thousands of people witnessed his miracles),

---

What does this have to do with biology or geology?-

quote:

---

as well as archaeological confirmation.

---

As well as archaeological refutation, as Brian would no doubt love to explain to you.-

quote:

---

But more than likely in the grand scheme of things, science is wrong.

---

Perhaps. But I wouldn't want to bet on it.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Sorry, laddie, you've got it turned around. It is "creationism" (more specifically, "creation science") that is on the offensive against science and that is opposing science. All most of the "evolutionists" (just what does that term mean, anyway? Most creation-science proponents I've asked absolutely refuse to offer any substantive definition, just as they refuse to define "evolutionISM" substantively) are doing is to defend science from creationists' false claims, ie to defend the truth.I first encountered "creation science" circa 1970, very shortly after its own creation in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968, in which four decades of anti-evolution "monkey laws" were struck down as unconstitutional. Specifically, from fundamentalist friends I heard: 1) there's scientific evidence supporting Noah's Flood, 2) radiodating is false since a living clam had been dated as thousands of years old, and 3) a NASA computer predicting the moon's orbit was run back through time and discovered Isaiah's Lost Day (ie, from when he command the sun to stand still). Fresh from high school and full of hubris, I dismissed the whole idea out of hand as ridiculous, especially that NASA computer claim (which, even back in those pre-Microsoft Dark Ages, I knew to be absolutely false because no computer could do what the claims said ... and I was absolutely right). Also at that time, my fundamentalist friend would get Chick Pubs tracts which I would read for fun, so I read the original, non-Hovind "Big Daddy?", which I gave no more credance than that other Chick-Pubs nonsense.Then a decade later, in 1981, I heard of creation science for the second time when I saw flyers at the local university advertising a presentation to be given by some professional creationists from the ICR (Gish, I think it was). I was older now and more interested in open inquiry, so my reaction this time was, "Wow, they're still around. That must mean that there must be something to their claims after all." So I decided to read up on their claims and to check it out.What I discovered was that the claims of creation science are false. Not only did they make unsupported claims, but they also regularly misquoted and misrepresented scientific sources, completely ignored any evidence that contradicted their claims (their claims of lack of fossil evidence being a classic example), and even fabricated evidence (bullfrog proteins, anyone?).What really nailed it for me and revealed precisely what kind of people these professional creationists are was a televised debate on CBN. The creationist had stated that hominid fossils were "100% ape, nothing human about them." So the scientist displayed photographs of human, ape, and hominid fossils, all of which showed definite human and ape characteristics so that you could tell immediately which you were looking at, and then the hominid fossils whose characteristics were either obviously intermediate between ape and human or else had both human and ape characteristics. The example of the latter case was the pelvis, which was viewed from two angles (all three pelvises were so viewed, BTW): from the one angle the hominid pelvis had the distinctly human characteristic and from the other angle the distinctly ape characteristic. The creationist's rebuttal was to focus only on the ape characteristic and completely ignore the human characteristic and loudly proclaim the hominid pelvis to be "100% ape, nothing human about at at all!" That was when I realized what "creation science" is all about. And everything I've seen come out of "creation science" since then only confirms what I had observed.So what do I argue for? That if someone really believes that they must oppose evolution, then they need to do so honestly and truthfully. That the use of lies and deception to defend and support Christianity is morally wrong, counter-productive, and destructive. And in response to my arguing for truthfulness and honesty, creationists absolutely oppose me and villify me unmercilessly. And, I believe, that also demonstrates clearly what "creation science" is all about.

Thousands of people may have witnessed his miracles - but unfortunately they don't exist now, and they didn't write it down. We have no documentary evidence that is contemporary with Jesus that is relevant, except possibly some Roman records.

The Gospel of John was written by the disiciple John(a witness to his miricles and it was written down). There is plenty of Documentary evidence to jesus's existance I mentioned some authors before.The historian Josephus author of, The Jewish War, The Jewish Antiquities, Life, and Against Apion. He wrote
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, "if indeed one out to call him man"(possible interpolation in my opinion). For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladely. He won over many jews and many greeks. "He was the christ"(possible interpolation again). When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life"(again I believe this may have been added later but that's my opinion), for the prophets of God had prophesied these countless other marvoulous things about him. And the tribe of Christians , so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.Tacticus author of, annals of Rome, he wrote"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it's origin, suffered the extreme penelty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, pontious Pilatus, and a most mishievous superstition, thus checked for the moment again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as hated against mankind."Pliny the Younger, author of Epistulae, he writes:"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If the persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubborneness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished....They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternatly amongst themselves in honor of christ as if to a god, and also to blind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery....This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom the called deaconesses. I found nothing but degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagent lengths"Thallus, whom wrote a history of the eastern mediterranean world since the Trojan War in A.D. 52. His works were lost but he was quoted by Julius Africanus in about A.D. 221. He writes, "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me.(refrencing the darkness after the crufication)You can look up the authors I posted earlier for more documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus and him as a miricle worker.

As well as archaeological refutation, as Brian would no doubt love to explain to you.

I would like to hear the archaeological refutation as to the existance of Jesus. Here is what I know. The Bible's historical inaccuracies every year are becoming accurate.Luke author of about 1/4 of the new testament is very accurate as an historian. Archeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.Luke 3:1 he refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. For years scholars pointed to this as evidence Luke didn't know what he was talking about since everybody knew that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but rather the ruler of Chalcis a half century earlier. However Archaeology had later found an inscription which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near damascus.Acts 17:6 references "politarchs" which translates to "city officals" by the NIV, in the city of Thessalonica. For a long time people thought Luke was mistaken because no evidence of the term politarchs had been found in any ancient Roman documents. However an inscription on a first century arch was later found that begins "In the time of the politarchs"(You can go to the british Museum and see it for yourself.)There are many more examples of this throughout the Bible so please bring Brian. I'd like to know what parts of the NT were disproven.

What does this have to do with biology or geology?

Nothing, if all that mattered in a court case was DNA evidence we'd have many criminals in the street and innocent people in jail. You can't look at evolution as only science, there are many other factors that need to be looked at and I think this where most evolutionists fall short. Evolutionists have to much faith in science more faith than I do in being a Christian.

No, what people are saying is that they will believe the evidence that is in front of their faces and will give credence to the logical inferences that can be made based on that evidence.

What about the historical evidence for Jesus I just pointed out. Why do you choose to ignore that. I look at all the evidence, historical archaelogical, scientific, mathematical...And Evolution to me just doesn't add up. Even if I assumed evolution were possible, to think that all the different creatures in this world came from evolution would be a mathematical improbobability (in my opinion) even if the world were a trillion years old.(I have my undergrade in Mathematics, I'm not a mathematical genius, but I know what is an accepted mathemtical improbability.) I'm not saying you should believe ID, either you do or you don't, it has nothing to do ith science, it has to do with faith, but I think there might be better scientific evidence for other theories if someone bothered to look.If you all think ID may be true, then why do you think it shouldn't be taught in schools? Wouldn't learning all the theories help us to find the truth. Why do evolutionists attack those that look for holes in their theory? Without these attacks, science would be meaningless. It's people like the creationalists that help us to find the real truth because they question that which is believed to be true. The idea that man came from beast is an old belief dating back well before the time of christianity, it just got a great publicist in the 1800s. Edited by geatz, : No reason given.Edited by geatz, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What about the historical evidence for Jesus I just pointed out. Why do you choose to ignore that.

---

I ignore it because it is not on topic for this thread.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

sure it is. If scientists are going to overlook evidence for Jesus then why should people not overlook the holes in evolution. How can someone believe in evidence as to one subject and then ignore it on another. Edited by geatz, : No reason given.

No, it wasn't. John wasn't writted until 100-120 AD. How could it have been written by an eyewitness? Josephus largely copied the Bible. He had no independant knowledge of the bible events, and again, wasn't even writing until decades after Jesus was said to have lived. Tacitus recounted nothing but what the Christians at the time had told him. He represents no independant confirmation of the bible stories. None of your authors provide any kind of evidence; they're simply recounting what the Christians told them.Maybe you simply don't understand how stories are corroborated. If I come up and tell you a story about seeing a UFO, and then you tell your friends "Crash says he saw a UFO", your version of the story doesn't corroborate mine. That's the same deal with all your authors. They're simply repeating what they were told; the original source of their information is still the stories that eventually formed the Bible. ...wha? That may be, but so what? Just because he was right about some things doesn't mean we can just take his word on everything. What evidence? Authors who all heard the same story? Bibles written a century after the fact by persons unknown? Really? Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble at all performing that calculation. Be sure to show your work.We're waiting... Well, we don't. We simply explain how they're wrong about the holes. I'm sure that makes you feel better but it's simply untrue. Creationists have never, ever advanced scientific thinking. Rather, science has always been advanced by scientists employing the tools of the scientific method to advance knowledge.

Wow are you gonna backup anything you say, where are you getting this information, off a google search lol. I've read these texts. The Gospel of John was written by John and not in 100-120 AD I believe what you are refering to is probobly the earliest found COPY of the Gospel of John which is not the original document. I could go into depth about every single one of your posts as to how absolutely false they are but I'm hoping that the rest of the community can see where you are getting your information from. The internet is a bad source for information. Edited by geatz, : said only when i meant earliest

This statement needs to go up on some quote board around here.Just how do scientist overlook the evidence of Jesus? Are scientist also overlooking the evidence of Muhammad? Are they overlooking the evidence for the book of Mormon? And what the heck does that have to do with overlooking the "holes in evolution" Edited by iceage, : No reason given.