creation and evolution fact or faith?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
this thread is to start a new discussion,off of an old topic already going called, "hasnt evolution been proven?"...it seems to me that people have a hard time accepting that all they have to stand on with evolution, is in fact the same thing that creationists have...faith...both sides have theory and a little science to back them up. Neither of them has the proof that would make the theory fact.i do understand that there are text books that teach both as fact, but when you read closely you find that all they have for a fact, is a theory..so to me it seems in regards to evolution and creation, we have 2 faiths? what do you think??.......




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I think that one of the big barriers to understanding between the sides is the different way the word "theory" is used in scientific texts as opposed to the every day use in English.

In every day use, the word "theory" implies a guess, an untested hypothesis. Something that you believe, but that you don't have enough proof to call fact yet, and thus something open to casual doubt. We have conspiracy theories, and work-related theories and so on.

Science, however, uses the older term of the word. In a scientific context if something is to be considered a "fact" it must be irrefutable. A scientific fact is not subject to change, revision or question, therefore there are very few things in science called "facts." Even the workings of gravity are not referred to as "facts."

Let's take a step back, now, to clarify the scientific process[1]. Science, in its most basic form, is a tool for people to classify and understand the natural world, nothing more. Science can only every be properly used to answer the question "What?"

The scientific process has been summed up in its most basic form by the phrase "Thesis, antithesis, synthesis." In a more expanded way this means that you start out with an idea of how something works, your hypothesis. You come up with this hypothesis through observation of the world. To find out if your hypothesis has any validity, you test it. You first measure what, exactly, is taking place. This gives you a starting place. Now you change things, small things usually, and see how this affects the outcome. Through this process of experimentation, you determine under what, if any, conditions your hypothesis is correct.

A hypothesis that seems to hold up under almost every circumstance is considered a theory. It's not unheard of to question a theory, but there is a large volume of evidence that's been gathered, usually by multiple people over a great amount of time, that backs up the theory. In spite of this, theories are reevaluated all the time. College students often hope to make a name for themselves by showing how some pre-existing theory is incorrect, even a little bit, and then to correct that past mistake.

Unfortunately, science is of absolutely no value when trying to evaluate God or spirituality of any kind. Unless your religion has measurable, quantifiable results, science cannot "see" it. This does not invalidate science as a tool, any more than your inability to fill a tire with air using a hammer invalidates the hammer as a tool. As I said earlier, science is created only to address the "What" of things, God encompasses the "Why."

None of which should serve to make evolution any more correct in your view. It is your faith that God created the world in a total of 144 hours, and quite honestly that's fine. I just want to make sure that you, and others reading the thread, understand what science is and is not. Too often in creation vs evolution "discussions"[2] on the Internet it seems to come down to people yelling either "Science Bad, God Good!" or "God Bad, Science Good!" Me, I find the conflating expressed in either of those slogans as laughable as someone yelling "Words Bad, Calculus Good!" because he can't use advanced math to describe a word.


[1] Not to say, ninki, that you particularly need to have this explained. I just thought it'd be good to define some stuff before the crowd rushes in and dogpiles you. It's easy to get into arguments online when you misunderstand the way someone's using a word.[3]

[2] Read: "arguments"


[3] Yes, I footnote sometimes. I have a Liberal Arts degree, sue me


[edit on 12/16/2004 by Whiskey Jack]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Whisky jack- thank you for that explanation. I like 2 things that you said #1 you called evolution a theory, no one else dares admit that.I also appreciate that you said "it is not unheard of to question a theory". I do question the theory of evolution. I feel that secular culture, likes to ignore the theory of creation. I understand that there have been a great many scientists, who have put in their time and life energy to proove the theory of evolution, but on the other hand we hear far less of the scientists who also devote their lives, to the theory of creation.The scientists who believe in god and creation are out there as well. On another note sometimes god truly does, choose the foolish things (like me). and( the simple faith of believing god is who he said he is,did what he said he did , and will do what he said he will do)..simple things like this, to confound the wise and the learned.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Evolution is a theory. That doesn't mean that the (scientific) evidence for it is shakey, just that if God started the earth abruptly 6000 years ago with fossils intact, or if Satan is playing games with us, or even if we're mistaken about geological processes then the data we have is being processed incorrectly.

That said, I do find the evidence pretty convincing. Of course, I'm not Christian[1] so Biblical testimony doesn't carry the weight with me that it does for you.


My take on the whole Creationism v. Evolution debates is that they're, in the end, pretty useless. The fact that someone believes that the Bible uses metaphors should detract from the truth of their faith. Metaphors are a common technique used to teach and convey important ideas at the time the Jews were still keeping an oral history. In the end, we can argue until we're blue in the face about what is Fact™ and what is Fiction™[2]. What matters is how we comport ourselves in this world. If there is a kind and loving God, he will know. And if not, we've made things just a little easier for the rest of the folks on this ball.

[1] Though I do have a lot of respect for most Christians. By and large they're good people trying to make the world a better place.

[2] Remind me sometime to go on a rant about how just because I call a story a myth, it doesn't mean that I'm saying it's untrue or worthless.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I wanted to separate this from my previous post to keep that one's message clear. I apologize for the double posting.


Originally posted by ninki
but on the other hand we hear far less of the scientists who also devote their lives, to the theory of creation.


The thing I see with this is that...well...the Biblical account of Creation isn't scientific. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's something beyond the ability of us limited humans to measure. A lot of the folks out there who are applying scientific techniques to Biblical Young Earth Creationism[1] are misusing science. As I said, God's not something that we can measure. We can't fit Him into a flask and find out His molarity. We can't divide Him by 2 to see if He's even or odd (though from the state of the world, my vote's for the latter
). He can't be " . . . pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."


The scientists who believe in god and creation are out there as well.


Mostly those who do hold out Young Earth Creationist ideals, are in fields unrelated to the fields evolution touches.


On another note sometimes god truly does, choose the foolish things (like me). and( the simple faith of believing god is who he said he is,did what he said he did , and will do what he said he will do)..simple things like this, to confound the wise and the learned.


And whether His name is YHWH, Jesus, Allah, or Zimbodingy I'm quite thankful that He does such things. The world would be an awfully dull place if everything fit easily into categories.


[1] To differentiate it from other faith's Creationist teachings, as well as Biblical Old Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
both sides have theory and a little science to back them up.

Not true. The bible is not scientific evidence.. and there is alot not just a little amount of evidence supporting evoltution.
The aboriginies have 'dream time' as their creation story.. just as christianity has one. Neither are scientific theories.
..unless you can provide scientific evidence as to why the bible should be considered more seriously/valid than other religious doctrine? Should ALL creationalist theories be taught instead of science? Why not? Dreamtime? Adam, Eve and Lilith? Ralean? Hindu?

[edit on 16-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I think it comes down to this, science provides abundant evidence to back its claim of evolution process. Faith has no such evidence excepting words in a book that say God created the earth in 7 days. Ninki, IF you beleive God created the earth, why eliminate the process of evolution as "creation"? If you eliminate evolution process as "creation" because the bible says it took 7 days, then please provide evidence, even the vaguest skerrik of evidence that this could be so, by way of physicall aspects of the earth or its creatures. You cant? of course you cant, for this reason alone the theory of evolution is more beleivable to me.
A simple question is why evidence of fossil plants which no longer exist today are fact. where did they go? why are not still growing in our world? (exception the wollemi pine) If you cite climate change , explain wooly mammoths. Did god create them(out of dirt) for a special occasion during cold weather? Not according to faith, God finished creating things 6000 yrs ago (fact that mammoths lived 20, 0000 yrs ago is a problem, no?) Why no fossils of modern animals?

I say the evidence of evolution is overwhelmingly supporting it as Fact!

[edit on 113131p://451211 by instar]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:57 AM
link   
dont forget, ninki does believe in evolution, just inside of a species



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Ok, I am going to post a set of questions that I posted somewhere else, but change a few things so they fit this thread.

Ninki, Answer these questions please...(note to everyone else reading this that she will jump around it...i predict it)

1) Did your child carry on traits from you and your father? Fact or Faith..

2) Did your child bear traits unique to itself? Fact or Faith..

3) If you were unable to survive because of a trait, lets say your height, and therefore died before reproducing, would you have had a child...who would bear the genes given by you? Fact or Faith..

4) If certain genes made it less likely for you to survive long enough to reproduce, would you BE LESS LIKELY TO DO SO? Fact or Faith..

5) If you were more likely to survive given a certain genetic trait, would you be more likely to then reproduce? Fact or Faith..

6) Given the answers to these questions above, would a certain trait then by necessity diminish from the gene pool if it made you less likely to reproduce, and would a gene strengthen if it did the opposite? Fact or Faith..

7) Therefore is it not possible FOR HUMANS TO CHANGE JUST AS THE CRAB DID? Fact or Faith..

8) Assuming that we were created as humans, and will stay as humans, as you believe, could we not have a completely different appearance and lifestyle 5 thousand years from now based on these scenerios? Fact or Faith..

Go ahead Ninki, please answer these questions.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Seapeople i already answered that one 1-8 are yes. does not change the fact that we were and always will be human.
Instar- all you have is the same as me a theory. and yes i do believe that the earth is much different today than post flood.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Instar- all you have is the same as me a theory. and yes i do believe that the earth is much different today than post flood.


On the contrary Ninki, I have physical evidence in the form of vestigal appendages on so many creatures its not funny. Why are they vestigal and useless if they have always been the same. What do you to back your "theory"? how do you explain this?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
INSTAR- nice how you have decided what a species needs and does not need who are you?where did the plants you speak of go? i already told you the earth is changing....winding down...they are now extinct.
you want me to explain wooly mammoths to you? explain what? extinction?
There are fossils of modern animals in present state, and in a much bigger state than present date...its like what would happen to a lizzard if you put him in an o2 tent, and let him live 500 years? he be lookin like a dino....



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki


There are fossils of modern animals in present state, and in a much bigger state than present date...its like what would happen to a lizzard if you put him in an o2 tent, and let him live 500 years? he be lookin like a dino....


Fossils of modern animals? Where? can you tell exactly what you just said above, im not sure I understand it? Are you saying that a modern lizard looked like t-rex because there was more oxygen in the atmosphere pre flood? How long ago was the flood? can you provide evidence of a oxygen enriched atmosphere 6000 yrs ago? and are you saying dinosaurs were about 6000 yrs ago and carbon dating is wrong? I think youll find oxygen levels dont give immortality, genes affect lifespan, cells stop regenerating etc, thats science fact. No lizard will live 500 yrs. You realise you cant back up any of these claims? Your claiming modern animals were just larger because of more oxygen in the atmosphere? Skeletal reconstruction shows animals that were nothing like today.

[edit on 023131p://07122 by instar]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
INSTAR- look up the crinoid or (sealilly)..also look up the colelacanths or (latimeria chalumnae) both are fossils both are alive and well today i can give you more but why? google it for yourself.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Yes im aware of both of these, however you said lizards, show me a t-rex thats just smaller, you cant. Even if modern animals were dinosaurs that shrunk, what do you call this shrinkage process if not evolution. Surely they didnt shrink because they got wet during the flood? By your own say so, the flood changed the world/climate and they shrunk in response. Again thats adaption/evolution, just like the useless appendages you refuse to discuss!



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
On this topic, someone tell me where the Bible mentions Dinosaurs, since the earth is supposedly only 6000 years old. I know all about leviathen and bohemeth in Job. They are not Dinosaurs, nor descriptions of them.

There is no way in the world, that people forgot to mention the dinosaurs chasing them around and eating them. 10000 pound lizards do not go unnoticed. And they certainly wouldnt have been left out of a book with as much detail as the bible.

So where are they? Has anyone in here ever seen an actual skeleton of T-Rex? I have. Let me assure you of this, that SOB did not go unnoticed.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
i never said i wouldent discuss them i said 2 things about these appendages...#1 who says they are useless?
#2 the earth has changed if the earth changed and they dont need them anymore..why do they still have them? because they were made that way.
in answer to your last question i call it A SHORTER LIFE SPAN WITH BAD 02.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Your saying God made a creature with eyes that bare function if at all and lives in total darkness? why?
your saying a lizard with tiny hind lega barely there was made that way? why?
Thats just silly refusal to see logic. Your arguments dont even stand up to common sense Ninki, im sorry.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
INSTAR- i am sorry as well it, sorry for you. seems you have lots of questions for your maker..try asking him..SEAPEOPLE-actually i dont think that genisis talks too much about pre-flood history its a couple chapters....did they mention everything that was created by name? i dont think they did..just the basics..just what we need to know.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
INSTAR- nice how you have decided what a species needs and does not need who are you?where did the plants you speak of go? i already told you the earth is changing....winding down...they are now extinct.
you want me to explain wooly mammoths to you? explain what? extinction?
There are fossils of modern animals in present state, and in a much bigger state than present date...its like what would happen to a lizzard if you put him in an o2 tent, and let him live 500 years? he be lookin like a dino....


www.spacedaily.com...


Recent evidence suggests that oxygen levels were suppressed worldwide 175 million to 275 million years ago and fell to precipitously low levels compared with today's atmosphere, low enough to make breathing the air at sea level feel like respiration at high altitude.


it seems that for a time in the mesozoic era, that during the triassic and jurassic period there where low levels of oxygen. Looks like your O2 theory is wrong.
The information indicates that lizzards lived with low oxygen levels, yet, they where big.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join