Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?

You are applying one particular religious belief (out of tens of thousands of differing religious beliefs) to a scientific question.The problem seems to be a lack of empirical evidence to evaluate one belief over another. (I'm partial to Old Man Coyote stories, for which the evidence is every bit as good as for any other creation stories--i.e., there is none.)If believers can't agree among themselves, and can't produce empirical evidence in support of their beliefs, why should their beliefs be considered in any manner in scientific discussions?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Yes, unfortunately for those who hold your worldview.All of it.There is as of yet no empirical evidence for the existence of deities.And the "humans have only reproduced humans" works only as far as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, prior to which there are non-human ancestors. And if you go back far enough there are ape-like ancestors, then monkey-like ancestors (more accurately, ape-toothed monkeys). That's what the fossil record and genetic studies have shown, supported by a myriad of other sciences."Same with livestock" runs into the same problem. You go back a ways and you find different species, then different genera. This too is supported by the fossil record and genetic studies.Unfortunately your worldview, essentially a religious belief, is not supported by empirical evidence.In fact, it is contradicted by many other religious beliefs, of which there are perhaps some 4,000 (with up to 40,000 subdivisions).If you are unable to agree among yourselves on the specific tenets of religious belief--and have no empirical evidence with which to iron out your differences, why should scientists--or anyone else--accept your beliefs as accurate?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nice try, but we saw you palm that card.Your definition of "empirical" includes both observation and experiment, but you're trying to hide the observation part, presenting only the strawman of experiment in your second paragraph.Of course we don't have an experiment whereby monkeys produce humans! Its idiotic to even think such a thing, which is why only creation "scientists" include such references in their writings. But we don't need such an experiment; "empirical" includes both observation and experiment.And we do have observations covering the time period from geology, paleontology, and genetics, as well as a host of other related fields. And they all show the same overall pattern of relationships that I described.Now, apparently you don't accept that evidence. So, do you have any evidence to show that the progression from ape-tooth monkeys, to ape-like critters to non-human ancestors, then to early Homo species, then to modern man, didn't occur about as I described?Evidence--not religious belief! Not strawman arguments culled from creationist websites. Not logic that would flunk a freshman course. Scientific evidence!And don't forget, we all saw you palm that card. We expect your argument to be more honest next time.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nothing of what you write, though seemingly elegant, contradicts what I said in my post.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry, your comments still do not alter the accuracy of what I posted. And I don't need you to tell me about evolution and fossil man. I studied the subject in grad school--half of my six years there. I've seen the empirical evidence. Nor does your definition of "science," designed to exclude any evolutionary sciences, have any meaning in the real world. It is as false as your attempt to paint evolutionary theory as a religion. In fact science is the opposite of religion.You're not doing too well. If you have any empirical evidence, now would be a good time to post it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Just to address some of your baseless comments: You paint yourself as a zealot with such comments. Science is not a cult; don't know if we can say the same about you and your co-believers. You are presenting an argument that would probably not be accepted by the vast majority of Christians. The evidence would take up the whole website and many more. It takes up whole floors in libraries, and many museums around the world. And any summaries I post you would just hand-wave away. Where did you get the mistaken idea that all of science has to be "proven" under laboratory conditions? That is nonsense. Or creation "science." More nonsense. The theory of evolution is a well-tested theory supported by massive amounts of evidence--evidence to which you have deliberately blinded yourself.But to return to my original post: there is no empirical evidence for deities. None, nada, zip. Edited by Coyote, : Correct boo-booEdited by Coyote, : And can't spell today either

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Perhaps it was your questions, and your way of thinking, that were the farce in a science class.You certainly have provided nothing here of scientific merit. All you can do is post articles from creationist websites or literature, and expound on your worldview--one which most likely is shared by very few Christians.But none of that addresses the topic. And that topic, in turn, hinges on the existence of deities--for which there is absolutely no evidence.And you claim that the theory of evolution is on shaky ground?Heinlein was right:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You reject the scientific method, and yet claim you are pro-science?You just pick and choose the results you like, and reject the results you disagree with because of religious belief, and claim to be pro-science?Sorry, it doesn't work like that.Science is what follows the scientific method, whether you like the results or not. Religion seems to be just the opposite; religion is a system where you acquire a belief somehow and then seek to justify it by picking and choosing whatever fits with that belief, while avoiding, at all costs, empirical evidence and anything else that might contradict that belief. You have been doing a fine job in that regard.But back to the original topic (again).If one wants to propose that god/God/gods created evolution, shouldn't there be some evidence presented that such deities even exist?The fact that there are some 4,000 world religions, with probably in excess of 40,000 subdivisions or sects, suggests that there is no empirical evidence anywhere in the religious realm.But if you want to present some empirical evidence feel free to do so.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Corrected it for you: Seriously, you are obviously an adherent of a particular religious belief. Such beliefs are substantiated by no empirical evidence of any kind, and yet you poke fun at the theory of evolution for having "a foundation of quick sand????"It would seem that you have little to point fingers at.Care to get back to the original topic? Remember, dealing with deities and it/they being responsible for evolution? Have you any empirical evidence that there are any deities? Any empirical evidence for any supposed deities at all? Or are you going to keep ducking the question?Edited by Coyote, : Punctuation

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I'm familiar with the RATE group and its work.They set out to show that the radioactive decay constant wasn't a constant. They failed, instead confirming what scientists had said all along. They refused to believe their own data.But that's off topic here. Start a new thread if you want to debate the RATE group's findings. I have a couple of good reviews I could cite for you.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Creationists are against the theory of evolution for religious reasons.They accept revelation and scripture as being higher forms of knowledge than knowledge derived from evidence and theory (science).This, at times, brings the two into conflict. Creationists will accept revelation and scripture over evidence and theory in those cases. That is anti-science, as revelation and scripture are the antithesis of science.To relate this to the topic: this is a major reason why many will not accept that God could have used evolution as a method. It is also why many will claim Noah's flood was real, as described, the earth is less than about 10,000 years in age, and some even go so far as to claim the earth is the center of the universe.For example, the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith begins:

quote:

---

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. Source

---

The Creation Research Society has a similar code which all members must adhere to:

quote:

---

CRS Statement of Belief

​

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

​

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

​

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

​

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

​

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. Source

---

Now, where is there room in these creationists' statements of belief for science?The scientific method is a tool. You can't do science if you pick and choose the answers you like and reject the answers you don't like. By rejecting the results of science because of revelation or scripture one would be inherently anti-science.Perhaps you could look over your own statements on this thread and see where this might apply.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.