The Foundations of the Debate

Please do. Dollars to donuts, though, that their sudden "conclusion" postdates a religious committment.

Creating worlds is a poor choice of words on my part. The worldview evolution is a part of does not depend on God. That is all I meant.

Maybe I should make a whole new thread based on the obviousness of creation, but if I tried to do it justice here, it would go completely off-topic (the topic is by-the-way why we argue about creation/evolution). And God is clearly referred to as male in the Bible, though, as a spirit, he technically has no gender.

I'd like to see that story, it sound very intruiging. I don't meanthat as a challenge to whether or not the story is true, by-the-way,it really does sound like an interesting story. As for yourquestion, I really don't know how I would classify the analogy oftwo geniuses to powered flight. What's your point?

You are missing the point of my argument. I am merely representingthe Creationist viewpoint in which the possibility of a worldwithout God is a very serious matter indeed. I never said that Iwill not consider the possibility that God does not exist. I am justsaying that the reason that there is a debate because Christianshave a very hard time accepting the TOE because it does not need Godto work. From a Biblical Christian's point of view, that is not anoption, God must have been necessary for the creation of the Earth. Take your doubts about the validity of the Bible to The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum.

True. A God who doesn't need evolution is even more awesome.Aren't you glad I didn't use the word awesomer?

quote:

---

Evolution does not deny the existence of God, but some creationists deny the existence of evolution, hence the debate

---

Rather, evolution does not deny the existence of God, but some creationists claim that it does, hence the debateAnd also because so many of their "creation science" claims prove to be false and deceptive.

That depends on the opionion of the person you are talking to. Somepeople think that the "truth as uncovered by science" is evidence ofthe existence of God.

Or, as I said earlier, the problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it denies the existence of God, but that evolution does not need God. Hence the debate.

Does lightning need God?How about gravity?How about the flu?Or maybe thunderstorms or earthquakes?What about rain?The Biblical Creationists simply worship a picayune little goddlet and miss the glory and awesomeness of GOD. It is sad.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Answers in Genesis posts a interview with Dr. Kurt Wise (been a long time, so don't have the URL handy). He was raised a fundamentalist. One day, he took a pair of scissors to the Bible ([cringe] why must they forsake Jewish tradition so?), cutting out all the parts that, in his judgement, would have to go if evolution were true. He found that there was so little left, that he would not be able to admit that evolution is true and keep his faith. So he explicitly based his decision on that, while at the same time admitting that based on the scientific evidence alone it certainly does overwhelmingly look like evolution is true (that admission was made either in that interview or in his presentation at one of the International Conferences on Creation).So it wasn't that he had been an "evolutionist" and then converted, but rather that he had been a YEC all along.

quote:

---

Or, as I said earlier, the problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it denies the existence of God, but that evolution does not need God. Hence the debate.

---

Jar beat me to it.None of the sciences need God to study the natural universe nor to develop explanations of the natural processes involved in the observed phenomena of the natural universe. Nor could they make use of "God did it", because to do so not only explain absolutely nothing but would also destroy scientific inquiry. So then they should oppose all of the sciences?There is absolutely nothing in evolution to preclude a supernatural entity of sufficient potency from creating the natural processes through which the Creation would be brought into being. It is the creationists who create a conflict by insisting that such natural processes could not possibly have been used and, if it should be found that such natural processes had been used, then there is no God. And it should be noted that many non-creationists have taken the creationists' claims at face value and have accepted that the evidence means that there is no God. It is not evolution that teaches that, but rather "creation science".Now, if there is a philosophy that claims that science and evolution deny the existence of God (apparently, this is what is meant by "evolutionISM"), then creationists would certainly have a legitimate beef with that philosophy and so they should address that philosophy instead of wasting their time making contrary-to-fact claims that attack science and evolution and that simply end up being counter-productive to their cause and to their faith.

"Some people say' i.e those already biased in favour of the conclusion. Which proves my point - it is NOT obvious that God made the Earth.

quote:

---

Maybe I should make a whole new thread based on the obviousness of creation, but if I tried to do it justice here, it would go completely off-topic (the topic is by-the-way why we argue about creation/evolution).

---

But if it really as as obvious as you say it has to be then you wouldn't need to explain it. Everyone was at all interested would already know. So the reason there is an argument is that creationists cannot accept that their doctrine is false - just as you are refusing to accept it right now.

Nobody has suggested that God needs evolution. Rather, the claim is tha God chose to create evolution.There is nothing awesome about the kind of petty tyrant that YECs take their god to be.