Creation or Evolution? ( Serious question for Evolutionists....)

[EpiPaul03]

I agree with you. I won;t pretend to be some scientist...but I think many scientists have "faith". Many are religious. "leap of faith"...I mean come on. Ye syes I know...there is the Scietific Method. There is a precise and orderly way to conduct "science". But there is also faith. Faith in Science. Faith in your theory. Faith in a phenoma or observation. THEN proof. Lots of faith all around!

 

 

I agree. Another thing, with science how it is today, I think it's awfully foolish for someone to flat out say there is no God. You can't prove there is a God and at the same time you can't prove there isn't a God. So anyone who says that I just try to ignore it.

[indespise]

But.... but... time only began 6000 years ago... WTF?? So extra-terrestrial activity that we witness millions of light-years away. That ain't really happening. They're just huge, slowly-animated murals that God put out in space for our amusement. Oh... and the Milky Way... is made with real milk.

The beauty of this is that it shoots obvious holes in creationism, and it's hilarious at the same time.

[17 Tubes]

I agree. Another thing, with science how it is today, I think it's awfully foolish for someone to flat out say there is no God. You can't prove there is a God and at the same time you can't prove there isn't a God. So anyone who says that I just try to ignore it.

 

 

 

And there you have it.

 

 

What our world is today.

 

People arguing, fighting, dying for a God that doesn't want to be proved existing.

[grayeyes777]

So....are we saying we DON'T know where God comes from? We don;t WANT to know? We don't care? Comeon...let's imagine this! Where DID God come from?

 

 

I did say that we don't/can't know in my other posting.... but i definitely do care and do want to know where God came from. If we could answer this question then I believe that we would have answered the most asked question in history. The bible puts it like this in 1 corinthians 13....

 

12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

 

That whole chapter also addresses other things that will pass away, spiritual and physical... leaving only faith hope and love. To think that God just "is" is something that I cannot grasp... just like thinking that carbon just is. Something that is clear to me though, is this thought process- that all we experience and whatnot, is not and cannot be a mistake. God wants you to seek the answer as to where He came from. I believe that he's left a "trail of crumbs" so to speak (though those with stronger beliefs will present it much more clearly). The bible also says that the door to the kingdom is narrow. It requires a searching by the individual... and if all questions were answered then it wouldn't also require faith (believing in something that you can't prove or answer).

[Sqish]

It's not just medical advances, but our social structure has insisted on creating laws to protect people from themselves. This means that stupid people, who would normally do stupid things and kill themselves off, are being protected and allowed to procreate. Even more importantly, it is proven that people with low IQ's breed far more rapidly then people with higher IQ's. As a species, we are DEvolving, and have been for at least the last 60 years. I wonder what we'll end up as, or if we'll return to the sea. -W

 

 

Species don't "de-evolve" but I see your point somewhat in first world nations, sure. But that is looking at it too simply. Sexual selection drives evolution sometimes as much or more than natural selection. I often wonder, too, about the effects of sending millions of our strongest, smartest, healthiest young men off to die in the world wars. Evolution and it's effect on humanity is a very complicated subject.

[17 Tubes]

Species don't "de-evolve" but I see your point somewhat in first world nations, sure. But that is looking at it too simply. Sexual selection drives evolution sometimes as much or more than natural selection. I often wonder, too, about the effects of sending millions of our strongest, smartest, healthiest young men off to die in the world wars. Evolution and it's effect on humanity is a very complicated subject.

 

 

Humanity and it's effect on evolution...more likely.

[indespise]

How many of the christians in this thread definte "spiritual" as something exclusively Christian? Reading the responses, I'm left with the impression that a lot of you don't know anything about religions outside of Christianity/Islam/Judaism short of what your church and our predominantly Christian western society has taught you.

Secured limitations, indeed.

[17 Tubes]

I did say that we don't/can't know in my other posting.... but i definitely do care and do want to know where God came from. If we could answer this question then I believe that we would have answered the most asked question in history. The bible puts it like this in 1 corinthians 13.... 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. That whole chapter also addresses other things that will pass away, spiritual and physical... leaving only faith hope and love. To think that God just "is" is something that I cannot grasp... just like thinking that carbon just is. Something that is clear to me though, is this thought process- that all we experience and whatnot, is not and cannot be a mistake. God wants you to seek the answer as to where He came from. I believe that he's left a "trail of crumbs" so to speak (though those with stronger beliefs will present it much more clearly). The bible also says that the door to the kingdom is narrow. It requires a searching by the individual... and if all questions were answered then it wouldn't also require faith (believing in something that you can't prove or answer).

 

 

 

 

I don't like that passage.

 

 

I'm going to ramble off the top of my head....sounding much like that quote.

 

 

 

"My eyes only see what they see...not the reality but perception. Only a poor imitated thing of that which really is. Were I to really know I would see without my eyes. And there would I know that which my poor eyes cannot."

 

 

I mean come on.

[17 Tubes]

How many of the christians in this thread definte "spiritual" as something exclusively Christian? Reading the responses, I'm left with the impression that a lot of you don't know anything about religions outside of Christianity/Islam/Judaism short of what your church and our predominantly Christian western society has taught you. Secured limitations, indeed.

 

 

They are taught that way.

 

Other religions subjugated. Even, once, murdered.

 

 

Why learn about it when you are taught to subjugate. Ridicule. Condemn. Deny them "heaven".

[grayeyes777]

Paul is the only one of those who has any historical evidence, and he was a gnostic. Suggesting that Jesus existed (and was the son of God) because people were willing to die and suffer for their beliefs would lead me to believe that any God someone has died for is real- which obviously isn't true, certainly not from a Christian (or any other) monotheistic view.

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to make a broad statement by any means (because of this it has to be true). But rather, I was giving some specific examples of people that have been documented historically who also knew Jesus first hand, and how their knowledge of him led them to act in extraordinary ways... even in their deaths. Paul was a Jew and a zealot... a high priest in Jewish law.

 

Wiki has this to say.... "Scholars at the Messina Conference in 1966 failed to arrive at a consensus, and no expert writing on Gnosticism follows precisely the same rules of interpretation."

 

Paul did in no way believe in "pagan" traditions. All of the men's deaths that I mentioned are not documented in the bible... but have been documented from other sources (people seem to automatically dismiss the bible as a historical reference, but it very much is as well). The bible's accounts of Jesus and it's general teachings are remarkably similar (yet not seemingly scripted imo).

[EpiPaul03]

How many of the christians in this thread definte "spiritual" as something exclusively Christian? Reading the responses, I'm left with the impression that a lot of you don't know anything about religions outside of Christianity/Islam/Judaism short of what your church and our predominantly Christian western society has taught you. Secured limitations, indeed.

 

 

 

Not me, and I think you're under the wrong impression. Many catholic schools here even have a mandatory world religions course they go through. Personally I feel your response was irrelevant to anything said in this thread and that you're just looking to start stuff up.

[EpiPaul03]

Paul is the only one of those who has any historical evidence, and he was a gnostic. Suggesting that Jesus existed (and was the son of God) because people were willing to die and suffer for their beliefs would lead me to believe that any God someone has died for is real- which obviously isn't true, certainly not from a Christian (or any other) monotheistic view.

 

 

There are many historical accounts of Jesus' existence from Roman historians. The Gospels were physical tangible pieces of evidence that he existed along with loads upon loads of other texts. Jesus the man did exist, and that's a historical fact. The main question is, was he divine?

[17 Tubes]

There are many historical accounts of Jesus' existence from Roman historians. The Gospels were physical tangible pieces of evidence that he existed along with loads upon loads of other texts. Jesus the man did exist, and that's a historical fact. The main question is, was he divine?

 

 

 

I believe youare correct. The Jewish histories say much the same thing.

 

Are we to ignore those POWERFUL "WE WERE THERE" histories? As opposed to the self-serving Bible?

[indespise]

I wasn't trying to make a broad statement by any means (because of this it has to be true). But rather, I was giving some specific examples of people that have been documented historically who also knew Jesus first hand, and how their knowledge of him led them to act in extraordinary ways... even in their deaths. Paul was a Jew and a zealot... a high priest in Jewish law. Wiki has this to say.... "Scholars at the Messina Conference in 1966 failed to arrive at a consensus, and no expert writing on Gnosticism follows precisely the same rules of interpretation." Paul did in no way believe in "pagan" traditions. All of the men's deaths that I mentioned are not documented in the bible... but have been documented from other sources (people seem to automatically dismiss the bible as a historical reference, but it very much is as well). The bible's accounts of Jesus and it's general teachings are remarkably similar (yet not seemingly scripted imo).

 

 

First, gnosticism is a fluid system, mythology was understood as allegorical, and different schools disagreed on certain things. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the "rules" would vary.

 

On Paul, I suggest reading The Jesus Mysteries- see if that makes you question whether or not Paul was a gnostic. Remember who had a stranglehold on western society for a long time- editing according to their own needs certainly isn't something I'd put past them. Written history is in the hands of he who controls the books and pen- archeology and of can dig up history beyond what has been handed down (along with close, suspicious inspection of accepted history).

[grayeyes777]

I don't like that passage. I'm going to ramble off the top of my head....sounding much like that quote. "My eyes only see what they see...not the reality but perception. Only a poor imitated thing of that which really is. Were I to really know I would see without my eyes. And there would I know that which my poor eyes cannot." I mean come on.

 

 

First off... we haven't really talked about likes and dislikes so far... but i get where you're going with your explanation....

 

but I don't think that you caught what he was trying to say in it's entirety. He's saying that no one can answer the question that we've been asking thus far (how can something come from nothing?). He was also trying to find the things in "this" life that mattered and that would help him answer the question. With the things that remain in him (faith hope and love), he could only see a blurred picture of God. But with the things that he possesses (faith hope and love), he has confidence that he will see God face to face one day. My point = answer to your question... we can't examine the orgin of God or "something out of nothing" to it's fullest, because we can only comprehend (see) so much. Even if we could see it, we couldn't grasp it cause it makes no sense (something from nothing... God or matter).

[indespise]

Not me, and I think you're under the wrong impression. Many catholic schools here even have a mandatory world religions course they go through. Personally I feel your response was irrelevant to anything said in this thread and that you're just looking to start stuff up.

 

 

Catholic schools- of course they would teach about other religions- they want to put them in their own context before people can learn about them in an enviroment devoid of their spin. I went to a Christian school myself, I've experienced these things firsthand- that is why I framed my question the way I did.

It is a bit of a rabbit trail from the original discussion, but it's something I always wonder about when reading these threads. At the same time, I have to argue that it isn't entirely off topic because the creationist side here paints a very finite, specifically Christian picture of the creator/origin.

[niceguy]

 

This isn't to troll, not to necessarily start an arguement either. (although it's inevitable). But can someone who believes in the theory of evolution explain to me this question: How does non-living matter become living matter? Has this ever been witnessed as a fact, or is it just assumed it happened that way? You see, we can see species adapt and change over time, but have we ever seen an instance where non-living matter has developed into living matter?

 

I'm a scientist---I have advanced degrees in biology/chemistry and medicine.

 

There is no such thing as living matter. The matter that makes up your body (mostly carbon) is not living. The matter that is your body is not different from the matter that is your dining table.

 

The basics of life---organic chemistry---is not a matter of opinion or of God versus science. It is fact. It is fact that the very basic reactions that create the basic building blocks of life (amino acids, and thus DNA) can be reproduced in a lab. This is not a theory---I myself have done it.

 

Now, the big unknown is how these basic reactions lead up to ant colonies, bacteria, blue whales, oak trees, and religious zealots (j/k). But seriously, it's the process of moving from basic reactions to functioning organisms that we're trying to decipher in science.

 

In my experience, it's only a matter of 100 years or so until we've got it figured out completely.

 

The problem is that the average person is not a scientist, so much of natural phenomena looks like "magic" to the average person. Religion is just a form of using "magic" to explain the inexplicable. Science is the method of turning the inexplicable into the explicable, and then exploiting those facts for use.

 

BTW, gravity is technically a theory, just like evolution. Why don't we have to teach the Biblical alternative to the theory of gravity?

[grayeyes777]

First, gnosticism is a fluid system, mythology was understood as allegorical, and different schools disagreed on certain things. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the "rules" would vary. On Paul, I suggest reading The Jesus Mysteries - see if that makes you question whether or not Paul was a gnostic. Remember who had a stranglehold on western society for a long time- editing according to their own needs certainly isn't something I'd put past them. Written history is in the hands of he who controls the books and pen- archeology and of can dig up history beyond what has been handed down (along with close, suspicious inspection of accepted history).

To be honest, I know very little (none) about gnosticissim... but I know that wiki couldn't give me a clear answer as to what exactly it is, or the beliefs that lie therein. I will definitely try to find the jesus mysteries as my new years resolution consists of reading more...

I agree that it is definitely posible to alter information that has been handed down... but the finding of the dead sea scrolls did away with much of that historical skepticism in relation to the bible as we know it.

[indespise]

There are many historical accounts of Jesus' existence from Roman historians. The Gospels were physical tangible pieces of evidence that he existed along with loads upon loads of other texts. Jesus the man did exist, and that's a historical fact. The main question is, was he divine?

 

 

No, there weren't. What is always fallen back on is Josephus' writing (one that isn't really that specific to begin with), and quite a few people are convinced that it is a forgery, along with a lot of other texts handed down by the oh-so selective Roman Catholic editors. Read The Jesus Mysteries so you can at least be a bit more familiar with the theory you're arguing against.

Furthermore, if you wish to discuss the historical accuracy of the Bible, the books of the Torah, along with the rest of the Old Testament are chock full of historical inaccuracies.

Again, this might look like a rabbit trail, but of the topic is creationism vs. science, then it only makes sense that knocking the legs (the historical accuracy) out from under the book which creationists base their conclusions would be relevant.

[23miles]

This isn't to troll, not to necessarily start an arguement either. (although it's inevitable). But can someone who believes in the theory of evolution explain to me this question: How does non-living matter become living matter? Has this ever been witnessed as a fact, or is it just assumed it happened that way? You see, we can see species adapt and change over time, but have we ever seen an instance where non-living matter has developed into living matter?

 

 

That is one of the most fundamental questions in all of science. The fact of the matter is nobody can explain this. There is no indisputable model or scientific mechanism for the creation of life. That is the major void in evolutionary theory. However, the rest of evolutionary theory has been tested thoroughly and , in its current state, is almost universally accepted as true in the scientific community.

Evolutionary theory predicts that all the present life on Earth descended from a common ancestor. How that ancestor came into being is a mystery. We simply can' texplain it. Science can offer reasonable (i.e. testable) hypotheses, and it has. Religion can not do this, because it relies on the assumption of (a) supernatural being(s) - i.e. our God. Since that God is undetectable (presumably by his design) he is beyond science. Religion and science must be reconciled by each individual because they cover different aspects of our existence.

Similarly cosmology tells us that we backtrack the current expansion of the Universe to arrive at some timepoint when the Universe was created. How that Creation occurred is not known, and may in fact be unknowable. Our science tells us now that the Earth and, in fact, the entire universe has undergone continuous changes since their creation. They are not static and "peaceful." A particularly graphic example is the global climate (i.e. warming) change ithat s occurring even now - and at an alarmingly increasing rate.

As a Christian and a scientist, I rely on my God and my faith in Him to explain the unexplainable, and science to explain that which can be known. Personally, I view evolution as God's mechanism for insuring that the life He created would endure in His changing Universe.

Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Many if not most scientists actually use science to understand God's works. As Einstein put it, "I want to know is God's thoughts, the rest arei details."

[indespise]

To be honest, I know very little (none) about gnosticissim... but I know that wiki couldn't give me a clear answer as to what exactly it is, or the beliefs that lie therein. I will definitely try to find the jesus mysteries as my new years resolution consists of reading more... I agree that it is definitely posible to alter information that has been handed down... but the finding of the dead sea scrolls did away with much of that historical skepticism in relation to the bible as we know it.

 

Wiki's articles on gnosticism have became quite a heated topic, obviously certain people have a lot at stake in it's historical place.

 

As for The Jesus Mysteries, I'm sure you will find it interesting, even if you don't agree with it's conclusions at all. At the very lest I think it will give you a different picture of the times of antiquity. The Dead Sea Scrolls play quite a massive role in the book's thesis as well.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mysteries-Was-Original-Pagan/dp/0609807986/sr=8-1/qid=1168909908/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1691440-9971957?ie=UTF8&s=books

[niceguy]

Exactly. In all of my scientific studies, I have gone with the goal of understanding the universe--and yes, understanding "God"--through the use of science.

 

However, as a species, we must accept that science will always chip away at what religion used to explain. Lightning is God throwing down magic heat at us? Nope, science took care of that. God put the Earth at the center of the universe? Uh uh. And so on and so forth, until a century from now, yet even more of religion's "intellectual property" will be commandeered by science. And that's the way I like it.

[duodecim]

 

This isn't to troll, not to necessarily start an arguement either. (although it's inevitable). But can someone who believes in the theory of evolution explain to me this question: How does non-living matter become living matter? Has this ever been witnessed as a fact, or is it just assumed it happened that way? You see, we can see species adapt and change over time, but have we ever seen an instance where non-living matter has developed into living matter?

 

 

Read one of Richard Dawkins' books. They are accessible to non-scientists like you and me. For instance:

 

 

We do not know what chemical raw meterials were abundant on earth before the coming of life, but among the plausible possibilities are water, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia: all simple compounds known to be present on at least some of the other planets in our solar system. Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks

[grayeyes777]

I'm a scientist---I have advanced degrees in biology/chemistry and medicine. There is no such thing as living matter. The matter that makes up your body (mostly carbon) is not living. The matter that is your body is not different from the matter that is your dining table. The basics of life---organic chemistry---is not a matter of opinion or of God versus science. It is fact. It is fact that the very basic reactions that create the basic building blocks of life (amino acids, and thus DNA) can be reproduced in a lab. This is not a theory---I myself have done it. Now, the big unknown is how these basic reactions lead up to ant colonies, bacteria, blue whales, oak trees, and religious zealots (j/k). But seriously, it's the process of moving from basic reactions to functioning organisms that we're trying to decipher in science. In my experience, it's only a matter of 100 years or so until we've got it figured out completely. The problem is that the average person is not a scientist, so much of natural phenomena looks like "magic" to the average person. Religion is just a form of using "magic" to explain the inexplicable. Science is the method of turning the inexplicable into the explicable, and then exploiting those facts for use. BTW, gravity is technically a theory, just like evolution. Why don't we have to teach the Biblical alternative to the theory of gravity?

 

 

 

I'm definitely not a scientist so I won't attempt to go there with you, but I am a reasonable thinker... so I have this question.... did you create your lab experiment that re-created amino acids with nothing??? Everything has a begining and either something came from nothing... or God came from nothing. Religion is historical as well and not just magic... just like a judge will take an eye-witness testmony, religious miracles have been documented. smith wigglesworth is a man as of late that had many "magic" things happen in, to and through his life. Hospitals have many cases that can never be explained... aids disappearing... limbs growing back... cancer disappearing etc. I believe that facts should be taught at school... teaching how the universe started because you believe that we'll prove it in 100 years is not acceptable. God could be taught as a theory along with gravity. I'd rather my children learn about God from me personally and in church rather than school. But if something is unknown, it should be presented that way in an educational system, and not as absolute truth.

[grayeyes777]

Exactly. In all of my scientific studies, I have gone with the goal of understanding the universe--and yes, understanding "God"--through the use of science. However, as a species, we must accept that science will always chip away at what religion used to explain. Lightning is God throwing down magic heat at us? Nope, science took care of that. God put the Earth at the center of the universe? Uh uh. And so on and so forth, until a century from now, yet even more of religion's "intellectual property" will be commandeered by science. And that's the way I like it.

 

 

 

I don't think that the bible ever explained lightning as magic heat or earth being at the center of the universe. I do believe that many of the authors of the bible used symbolism though. I think it's all in the context of the specific example.