Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

a reply to: Raggedyman

I just want to know why you said "God did it, no more needed" when history shows otherwise

Because it's a ploy taken by those who rely upon superstition for the answers to their questions. Particularly when they are given answers which they think conflict with their superstition.

Not you, of course.

a reply to: Noinden

It says life evolved from space dust and space water

Don't be a troll

www.scienceagainstevolution.org...

Teaching abiogenesis is evolution at schools
You loose

a reply to: Raggedyman

"God did it (creation), so say no more (faith, nothing more needed)"

For crying out loud! Now you are inserting your own context to Phage's comment.

See the original context.
Murgatroid: "I did, which is WHY I asked about your sources... "

Marma: "At this point, I would have to say... God!"

Phage: "Yep. God did it."
---------------
The context is sources of information, not sources of creation.


You should read the OP's article.

It supports the notion of a metaphysical solipsist projecting upon others such as:

But many churches support food banks, half way houses, rehab, I am sure you know the score, well maybe not.

Those early universities, hospitals were pad for through charities and people offering to coffers.
Your country, your Benny Hinns and Joyce Meyers, that's a reflection on your people and it's poor education standards. Where I come from we don't have them to the degree you have them.
Creflo Dollar, that is just perfect

Any way. If you like the fact that churches support food banks then why not join the largest non-government provider of community and health services in Australia, the UCA?

Its service network consists of more than 400 agencies, institutions, and parish missions throughout Australia, with areas of service including aged care, hospitals, children, youth and family, disability, employment, emergency relief, drug and alcohol, youth homelessness and suicide.[1] Affiliated agencies include UCA’s community and health service provider network, affiliated schools, the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress, Frontier Services, UnitingWorld, and synods, presbyteries and congregations.
…
Since 1977 over 270,000 poor deceased have had their final cremation at one of the Uniting Churches funeral facilities.
wikipedia: Uniting_Church_in_Australia

a reply to: Phage

Evolution isn't an accident tho. It happens for a reason.

a reply to: strongfp

How do you know this?

a reply to: Phage

Evolution has driving forces. It can't just randomly happen. Even a mutation has a reason for it's beginning.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Phage

Evolution isn't an accident tho. It happens for a reason.

I'll Raise you Two Chickens to that One Egg Boss.............)

a reply to: strongfp

Mutations happen due to various accidents. A random cosmic ray, for example.
Whether or not a mutation aids, or hinders, the ability of the organism to reproduce depends upon the environment.

a reply to: Phage

The mutation happened because of a cosmic ray. That's the reason it happened, and the mutation is the result of what ever it hit to adapt to the outside influence.

I am a firm believer that everything since the big bang (the most plausible theory I accept for the beginning of the universe) set forth the ever changing universe around us, and it was the initial driving force for ALL evolution from then on. That cosmic ray you mentioned it is nothing more than an echo of the beginning, that mutation in say a cancerous cell, or a beneficial genetic trait, is the current result.

a reply to: pthena

I did insert my context, in brackets
To make it abundantly clear how I understood those comments, gave phage a chance to correct me if I misunderstood him/her, missed the context
I didn't think the brackets could have been misunderstood, but I stand corrected

The actual comment was " God did it, perfect, say no more" punctuation may not be correct but it's very clear that phage was scoffing and not meaning what was said
and in his her defense it is probably accurate of a minority of Christians

a reply to: strongfp

That's the reason it happened, and the mutation is the result of what ever it hit to adapt to the outside influence.

No. The mutation is the result of the cosmic ray. The mutation would be considered an adaptation only if it enhanced the organism's ability to reproduce. Most often the mutation would have no effect or a detrimental affect.

That cosmic ray you mentioned it is nothing more than an echo of the beginning, that mutation in say a cancerous cell, or a beneficial genetic trait, is the current result.

Yes. Effects have causes. Some people feel a need to attribute purpose to those causes.

a reply to: Phage

Cosmic evolution is a driving force. Just like biological driving forces here on earth, and has just as much power as say bees pollinating flowers.

a reply to: strongfp
What is cosmic evolution?

a reply to: Phage

The change of physics, energy, and matter in the universe. How gases, elements, chemicals, energy has changed since the big bang. We, as humans, and all our technology are a result of it.

a reply to: strongfp

Ok. I agree that everything we deal with is a result of the principles of physics. Of cause and effect. Of course, at the quantum level it gets weird, but none of it requires purpose.

a reply to: Phage

Well, the purpose is to go with the flow I guess. Path of least resistance.

a reply to: Phage

I dismiss superstition. It has done nothing for anyone.

Clearly you’ve never seen Major League or Tin Cup. Or Weekend at Bernie's.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

The laws of thermodynamics are based on a Universe where we have nice linear time which allows for smooth cause and effect relationships and sequential events. But that is not how time works.

a reply to: Noinden

Not much. I think the current consensus is: from a soup of amino-acids and proteins, something just "clicked". A bit like a puzzle that assembled itself by random attempts. I'm not a big fan of this theory either, but I address that in my article, if you care to read it.

a reply to: Marma

First as you have seen the minute you mention Evolution and Creation in the same title you have attracted a vast number of believers of both opinion's that see your attempt to find common ground as Heretical to both there belief system's.

But your basic principle is perfectly acceptable, evolution as a tool of a creator or creating force.

In laboratory conditions adaptation has been seen and proven many time's in everything from bacteria to fruit flies and the real world is filled with examples such as isolated populations on distant island's having developed unique SHARED trait's as a result of there inbreeding and isolation or as a direct result of the stress of there environment favouring one set of ability's over another.

Where Evolutionist's will take offence is if you threaten there monkey to man belief system and were creationists will take offence is if you try to prove such a monkey to man belief system so in essence you have stepped into a minefield between these two opposing camp's that 'each' see the other as utter idiot's.

Myself I am a creationist but NOT averse to the idea that my God as the ultimate true scientists and inventor has also used this process of natural selection and adaptation as a mean's to an end - but in my view I believe he also directly intervenes and shapes some form's of life on occasion such as ourselves.

On the one side you DO have many religious people whom are in no way less intelligent than there atheist counterpart's but whom will reject scientific interpretation out of hand often even not giving it any consideration.
On the other hand you have a group whom claim to be scientific but in fact are so unscientific that they will deny evidence that is contrary to there world view (belief system) and so they are every bit as religious as the Deist's whom they deny.

Real science is never on one side of the other but remains' completely impartial, a scientist will never deny the existence of God or of Creation unless he has empirical data to prove it and he would then merely say it was his THEORY that it came about in such and such a way.

So when you get a pseudo scientist that DENY's creation and God no matter how well qualified he is then he is literally letting his own belief system take precedent over any true scientific impartiality and therefore his interpretation of science is tainted as a result.

Scientific Tenet, a tenet is a Latin Derived word which is spelled TENET but pronounced DENED.

A Theory can be supported but - NEVER - Proven.

ANY Theory if faced with evidence that disproves it is proven wrong - this is not interpretation of evidence but actual repeatable empirical evidence.

Note how few of the supposed scientific rational crowd on this site actually stick to these tenet's of science but instead use science as a quasi religiosity that they themselves believe in usually driven by there own innate atheist view of there local reality which they then wish to impose upon others while claiming to be rational in there own delusion while obviously they are patently irrational.

Both sides are guilty of Genuine scientific Heresy which is the denial and often even destruction or direct disregard of inconvenient evidence.
In the case of the Atheists (not all atheists just the true believers - an atheist is NOT an agnostic and agnostic science is the best) crowd it is often down to the destruction or deliberate discrediting of professional's in fields of science that have proffered evidence that throw's there precious monkey theory's into doubt, there are innumerable report's of such cases.
In the religious case not so much career's being sabotaged as in the past people being burned at the stake.

But I am pretty certain the same crowd that once burned scientific discoverers at the stake are now the one's using Science as there crutch and trying to beat religious Believers around the head with it - they have just switched team's or something (metaphorically speaking).


One scientist, he was not a religious guy made this point.

Evolution break's the law's of conservation, it is like water flowing up a hill or in reverse up a waterfall to get from a pool of simple chemical's to the first single celled organism which is many magnitudes more complex than that pool and then to become the advanced life form's we see today and to believe that this actually happened without proof in some random fashion against all the almost infinite astronomical odd's is itself a religious belief.

But then you are met with the other argument, were did God come from then - of course this is a cyclic argument based inside our view of linear time and many of our religion's place God firmly outside of time.