It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution and Creationism go hand in hand ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MisTicaL
To say or even think that such ideas can go hand-in-hand means to say "I know absolutely nothing about either one".


Did you bother to read my first reply to this topic? i would think that if you had, you would have been more specific in refuting how contentions one and two are incompatible. this is an assertion for which you provide no evidence, and amounts to simple, trite ad hominim.


Furthermore you can't just take someones idea/theory/creed/doctrine and say it goes hand-in-hand with something that somebody else came up with.


Why not, exactly? another assertion.


In addition to that, the many obvious, Creation/Evolution, contradictions make such assertions even more absurd.


Again, referring to my earlier post on this topic, there are an infinite number of ways to combine god and science... very few people leave out one or the other entirely. Just believing in omnipotent beings does not require you to believe in divine creation at all, and certainly does not require that you believe that an omnipotent being intervened at any one particular time... "creationism" can involve very little input from a god, or he can actually sit there and control the movement of every atom, etc... some versions of creationism have very few, if any contradictions with evolution. for instance, if you believe that gods simply set everything in motion, created the general laws and let it go... well, how does that defy evolution? not very much, Mr. Mistical.


And to top it off you have both sides, Athiests and Christians (for my part), telling you that they don't want these associations being made.


So we should just listen to these other people, and not validate the claims that are proposed, and determine the truth? Are you deferring to popular views here? Come on, Mistical... when trying to determine what is true or not, listening to populist rhetoric has no bearing.

As for myself, and my strong atheistic views, well... i don't demand that any associations between god and science be severred... simply that any amount of god or creationism that is defended is done so on reasonable, rational grounds. Just because some people believe in gods does not mean that they are not responsible for providing coherent, defensible thoughts on the subject.

Several others have done pretty well with this... perhaps you could learn from Xeven or others...

So, Mystical... who is it that "knows nothing about either one"? Really, who?


Oh, and Kenshiro, thanks for the info on BYE. That is the very type of fallacy i would encourage theists to look into before they present thier views as "facts".

[edit on 12-6-2005 by TheeStateMachine]




posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
To say or think that the theories presented can go hand-in-hand means to say "I know absolutely nothing about the fundamental and essential meanings of either one".



Originally posted by TheeStateMachine


Furthermore you can't just take someones idea/theory/creed/doctrine and say it goes hand-in-hand with something that somebody else came up with.


Why not, exactly? another assertion.


Why not you ask ? Think about it and go with the obvious. Ideas/theories/creeds/whatever when made/created by two different ideological sides usually, and in this case, differ impressively when it comes to Purpose. And thats the main issue. If not the only one. Get it ?



Originally posted by TheeStateMachine

In addition to that, the many obvious, Creation/Evolution, contradictions make such assertions even more absurd.


Again, referring to my earlier post on this topic, there are an infinite number of ways to combine god and science...


Seriously, are you purposely trying to make me puke by displaying your lack of knowledge for my ability to use my inteligence to coherently make those combinations ? This thread isn't about God and science.
You're getting off target (much as you did in your first post). I am presenting the theories, from both Evolution and Genesis, as unavoidably incompatible. Yes, God does not refute science nor science God. The theories, however, are interpretations of both science and theism and very conflicting they are. Those interpertations are based usually on faith. Especially when trying to figure out the past. The inconsistencies, are then, more a matter of faith than that of "evidence" . That is however another argument.



Originally posted by TheeStateMachine
As for myself, and my strong atheistic views, well... i don't demand that any associations between god and science be severred...

Several others have done pretty well with this... perhaps you could learn from Xeven or others...



The thread doesn't say "Science and God go hand in hand?" It says something else. Thus my claim. I read reread Xeven and found little or nothing to learn. No offence intended. However you could learn a little something from Whiskey Jack.



Originally posted by TheeStateMachine

So, Mystical... who is it that "knows nothing about either one"? Really, who?




Good to see a sense of humor.


[edit on 13-6-2005 by MisTicaL]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Why not you ask ? Think about it and go with the obvious. Ideas/theories/creeds/whatever when made/created by two different ideological sides usually, and in this case, differ impressively when it comes to Purpose. ... Get it ?


The purpose of ID, Creationism and Evolution are quite similair: to explain the origins of the species. What's not to get?


Seriously, are you purposely trying to make me puke by displaying your lack of knowledge for my ability to use my inteligence to coherently make those combinations ?


Well, yes... actually. except for the puking part. and my lack of understanding your inabilities. So, yes, i'm

purposely trying to make me
...

use my inteligence to coherently make those combinations ?



This thread isn't about God and science. You're getting off target (much as you did in your first post). I am presenting the theories, from both Evolution and Genesis, as unavoidably incompatible.


And the crux of this matter is... ? God + Science. Hence, it is topical. Also, i decided to vary "God vs Science" with "Creationism vs Evolution" just to make things less repetitive... indeed, until we get to very specific issues, the discussions are idedical and identical. differentiation of the two subjects has yet to occur, except in your assertions.


Yes, God does not refute science nor science God. The theories, however, are interpretations of both science and theism and very conflicting they are. Those interpertations are based usually on faith. Especially when trying to figure out the past.


I don't think anyone will benefit from another 50 paragraphs from you and i on this subject just now... we'll leave that to the threads of the near future!


The inconsistencies, are then, more a matter of faith than that of "evidence" .


No. Unequivocably not. We'll even leave "faith" in science alone just now, and concentrate on faith in theism. My respect for theistic friends, and theological philosophers from the last 200 years will not let me leave this one alone...

Faith in any specific god or gods is (at least since civilization began) informed by evidence, reason *and* faith; for many christians, the old and new testament count as *some* of the evidence to explain matters within the natural world. Other religions have other texts and, thus, "evidence". but for contemporary christians, as well as most other religious folk, there is plenty of "evidence" out there in the world ready to be studied as well... not just faith.

There was a famous case in which a scientist broke very slightly with church tradition and explained the solar system as revolving about a central sun. His work was even backed by at least one renowned theologian. The church, long after his death, decided with Galileo... Now, of course, you may not be a member of *that* church, or agree with *that* particular position, but perhaps the next example will help.

Darwin was a very devout christian. He never intended to supplant his god with his theory... There were great debates, threats of excommunication, etc... but when it came down to it, the christian god was still the "prime mover" in Chuck's theory. So no schizm. No excommunication. no row at all... (until later in the u.s.!).



The thread doesn't say "Science and God go hand in hand?" It says something else. Thus my claim. I read [and] reread Xeven and found little or nothing to learn.


Try Byrd's then. I don't doubt how many times you've read Xeven's post, but only your understanding of it. Byrd's is pretty detailed, yet concise.

Good to see a sense of humor.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheeStateMachine


Why not you ask ? Think about it and go with the obvious. Ideas/theories/creeds/whatever when made/created by two different ideological sides usually, and in this case, differ impressively when it comes to Purpose. ... Get it ?


The purpose of ID Creationism and Evolution are quite similair: to explain the origins of the species. What's not to get?


Wait a second, I thought that when TruthisoutThere said Creationisim he/she was reffering to Genesis. If you were mentioning ID-Evolution in your previous posts, then you'd be making more sense. There's actually little difference. ID holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process, as was thought. Simple as that.

You've left me puzzled. Intelligent Design, is actually an update of the theory of Evolution not Genesis. Its a very New Age scientific research and has in fact nothing to do with Genesis. So if you knew I was talking about Genesis why did you bother answering me ?


Let me clarify this one :


The inconsistencies in the THEORIES, both scientific as well as theistic disiplines, are then, more a matter of faith than that of "evidence" .


I'm talking to you about how the outcome of the theory, regardless of the evidence, can be shifted by the amount of faith of the one that finds it.


Originally posted by TheeStateMachine
Faith in any specific god or gods is (at least since civilization began) informed by evidence, reason *and* faith; for many christians, the old and new testament count as *some* of the evidence to explain matters within the natural world. Other religions have other texts and, thus, "evidence". but for contemporary christians, as well as most other religious folk, there is plenty of "evidence" out there in the world ready to be studied as well... not just faith.


Again, I'm not talking about faith in a specific god. I know the dictionary says:
Faith... a particular belief and trust in God

But I meant:
Faith... The substance (fossils) of things hoped for (answers), the evidence (more fossils?) of things not seen (Billions of Years).
(Heb11:1)


Originally posted by TheeStateMachine
Good to see a sense of humor.



Are you shifting sides
Or lacking Originality ?




[edit on 14-6-2005 by MisTicaL]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I think it's agreed across the board that it's very difficult to prove either. Both have supporting facts but nothing concrete, with respect to ID and the theory of evolution as taught in our schools.

The School angle was a good mention in this thread. I happen to have gone to a few different private and public school systems and I found it to be very interesting.

The Public Schools that I happen to attend were very opposed to any mention of creation. I really didn't think much of it. I just accepted the fact that it was not to be discussed at a public school. Even if the teacher may have been religous or not.

On the contrary the private schools that I attended openly discussed both theories. Obviously focussing on ID. But they always accepted questions and replied from both angles. That was from two different faiths in the private sector. I would have to say the supporting evidence has surely grown in a positive way with ID in the last twenty years or so. When I attended they didn't have very much supporting evidence at all. Not that it wasn't there already, but at that time before the internet it made comparitive and continuity research almost impossible except for a few universities abroad. Now there is so much out there about creationism challenging evolution and very easily at times debunking.

Because of the timimg Techonlogy has helped in supporting evidence for ID. Because of this Many Scientists through scientific research in the last 50 years have crossed over to believing in God the creator. Prior to that most of them were stonch agnostics. I have started researching into the lives of these Scientists about their beliefs and why ? And of course they always have to give some scientific evidence of their beliefs and that is just as interesting to find what was the final supporting fact or evidence that supports their own change of ideologies.

The more I research in a scientific manner the more I understand the seperation and the continuity. Like someone had mentioned so clearly before that evolution is nothing more than change. If we can accept that principle, it's much easier to even accept the ID theory. All we have to do is research that part on our own and look at the supporting and non supporting evidence. Because Frankly the other theory is a very far stretch of ones imagination to create and maintain a view that was conceived to oppose the theory of creation in the first place.


Truth




top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join