Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

Creation or evolution?

  • Creation

    Votes: 20 43.5%

  • Evolution

    Votes: 26 56.5%
  • Total voters
    46
Silverbackman said:
I hope Bandit takes a look at it as well.
Click to expand...

yes, scientifically speaking. i know how we have been 'classified' since 7th grade but thanks again.
i did not choose that classification & would have prefered our own classification and i understand why science did it that way.
apes are also classified as zoo animals, but humans are not. (except on birthdays)
 
Hi All,

Having read this thread and some others on the subject I have come to understand that the primary fear of creationists is that evolution disproves the Bible. But I dont see why it should be so. Sometimes written words are not enough to even express our emotions such as love. I think it is fallible of men to think that all of God's creation can be expressed in a few paragraphs in a human language.

I found some very interesting letters written by Galileo and others which were exchanged during the heliocentric/geocentric debate way back in 1615. Even though that matter is settled now and even though it was nearly 4 centuries ago, yet I find it most interesting that some of the ideas expressed in the letters are so relevant even today, especially on the subject of scripture vs science. I am pasting the links here.

Galileo to Benedetto Castelli (December 21, 1613)
Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615
Robert Bellarmine: Letter on Galileo's Theories, 1615

Also a lecture by J.H. Gladstone way back in 1872 some time after Darwin's Origin of species was published. I found his views interesting as well.

J. H. Gladstone:points of Supposed Collision Between the Scriptures and Natural Science, 1872

Ultimately when a conclusion to this debate would be found many years from now, I would venture a guess that neither science nor the Bible, neither evolution nor creation would be proven false. But it would most certainly become clear that it was just a few MEN (after all) and their interpretations that were wrong.


Regards.
 
I am free said:
Hi All,

Having read this thread and some others on the subject I have come to understand that the primary fear of creationists is that evolution disproves the Bible. But I dont see why it should be so. Sometimes written words are not enough to even express our emotions such as love. I think it is fallible of men to think that all of God's creation can be expressed in a few paragraphs in a human language.


Ultimately when a conclusion to this debate would be found many years from now, I would venture a guess that neither science nor the Bible, neither evolution nor creation would be proven false. But it would most certainly become clear that it was just a few MEN (after all) and their interpretations that were wrong.


Regards.
Click to expand...

yah. but i dont have fear about the bible being proven wrong. fear is not a good word. i see it the other way around where those who do not believe in it & discard it as rubbish are the ones looking for a belief based strictly upon scientific proof. there are way more critics out there who try to prove the bible wrong than the nontheist evolutionist. a stern evolutionist is trying to obtain the knowledge of how life began & that would make him God.
that is never going to happen.
Only God is the giver of life.

it is a silly ferris wheel debate & that is why i never take it serious.

i totally agree with both of your last paragraphs (especially the writing on love)... except for creation nor evolution in the strict sense will ever draw a complete conclusion as to how, & that is where faith does.:)
 
Silverbackman said:
So you know what that means then? That means the image of God is an ape. That might offend a lot but it doesn't change the facts. We are classified as apes, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God did not put us in the same family or superfamily of apes.

Again I think your offended by the name "ape". What is so wrong about being an ape? What is wrong if our image (which maybe the image of God) is an ape?

Also do you also doubt that we are primates, mammals, and vertebrates? Because if you doubt that then something is really wrong here;).

As for my opinion on the Bible having some divine origin, that is my opinion and faith. What I believe does not conflict science. I believe for example Jesus is a Godman, there is no scientific way to prove it right but at the same time there is no scientific way to prove it wrong.

But it is scientific fact that humans are classified as apes, then primates, then mammals, then vertebrates, then Chordata, and then finally Animalia. That is scientific fact and to my knowledge the Bible never disputes this, but never confirms it as well. If it does (dispute it), then you have yourself a flawed book, but the Bible by many is not a flawed book;).
Click to expand...

i am not offended by the word ape or animal. we are an animal in the flesh, but in Gods eyes we are also spirit beings housed in a temporary flesh body that HE MADE after His image & in His likeness... specially for the human spirit & His own spirit to dwell.
While i believe animals do have a spirit, APES do not have the same opportunity to choose to love or discard God like humans do.

i guess we are batting 1000. While i believe Jesus is the Son of God & everything the bible declares him as, i do not believe in any of the Jesus/godman doctrines but i understand why you do.

we made one home run on this is, that what we both believe does not contradict science.
 
Bandit said:
creation nor evolution in the strict sense will ever draw a complete conclusion as to how, & that is where faith does.:)
Click to expand...

I can see your point and I agree.
 
Kindest Regards, Silverbackman!

But it is scientific fact that humans are classified as apes, then primates, then mammals, then vertebrates, then Chordata, and then finally Animalia. That is scientific fact and to my knowledge the Bible never disputes this, but never confirms it as well. If it does (dispute it), then you have yourself a flawed book, but the Bible by many is not a flawed book.
Click to expand...

Who did the classifying, God or man? Then again, how does science support or refute the Bible, let alone the existence of God? How many science texts have been written through the years that later are shown, definitively, to be flawed?

(answers: man, only circumstantially if at all, and many, very many.)

This is the very point that Stephen J. Gould was addressing with his concept of "non-overlapping magisteria." Science and religion are looking at entirely different things, and using fundamentally different paradigms to do so. Or, as others have stated many times here, science looks at "how," religion looks at "why."

Science cannot adequately address issues of religion, and religion cannot adequately address issues of science.

The only points I have discovered that seem to flirt with the edges between the two are the issues of morality, and possibly emotion. In these two things can I see genuine opportunity to harmonize religion and science. Beyond that, issues like evolution are brick walls that cannot be surmounted.

Science does not address "God." It can't. If one's primary religion is science, then one must of necessity be an agnostic. If one's religion incorporates science as a chief component, then one must again be uncertain (if one is truthful to oneself) concerning the existence of God. If one's religion supports the existence of "God" in some form, then one cannot provide "scientific" proof of God's existence. The two paradigms do not work in the same way. Belief is not proof. Today's facts are tomorrows superstitions. Science has its value, it provides a means for us to develop technologies that enhance our life. Religion gives us reason to go on living that life.

To ask religion to answer scientifically, or to ask science to answer religiously, is to entirely miss the point of both disciplines. It makes a fundamental and critical error in judgement and understanding of either one.

I have heard some say that science agrees with their religion. To which I have to ask, what do you do when the science makes a paradigm shift in its understanding and "proof" of "facts?" Does your religion change to suit the new facts? If God could somehow be proved, scientifically, would it change your religion? Even if that view of God was radically different from what you have grown comfortable with? How did your religion react to the shift from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics? How will it change with quantum physics? Will you change your religious views as science changes its own views?

That is why this argument is pointless. It cannot be resolved using what we have to argue / debate from. If one prefers to look to inadequacies or discrepencies, then both science and religion have their faults. Seems to me that such a person is then "up a creek without a paddle."
 
Hi Andre.:)

I am like a Garbologist, not in the literal sense. I pick up the things that others discard as a possibility. I had a teacher who spent an entire semester forcing his theory of evolution on the class & it was taught like an absolute religion. I knew his theory scientifically did not add up with the scriptures & that is where I got my head start on all of this.


Here are some of my thoughts, in theory of course. I know there are errors & I do not claim to have all the answers nor do I wish to prove or debate it as an absolute claim.





By decomposing I am speaking of any flesh & blood species. I don’t mean man- made atomic & chemical waste. As the body goes back to dust we can see macro evolution happen, but it is different from a flesh & blood species coming into existence. A given species is going to come into existence the same way every time & there are requirements for it to happen. (excluding phenomona)

When it dies, the requirements can vary as it decomposes & it can degrade differently depending on how it dies, the conditions & elements surrounding it, say fire, water or going back into the ground naturally can change how it decomposes.

A body left in the sun will literally start to evolve into maggots & sulphide gas within a day or two. I see this as an absolute proven macro- evolution as the organs rapidily change into another life form. Yet it is consistent in what it changes into & we can see it.

If a species does not remain in a consistent environment that it was created to be in, in its order of life & as it grows from conception/birth, it will die. (extinction)

We can see a new seed begin under the microscope & where it came from, but not how it got there in the first place.

Macro evolution cannot be proven as life enters as for new species shooting of an old species because God himself says what will exist & what will not exist & how it will exist & when it will exist. This is why I feel each species started on its own & gets its own tree. I see a forest of trees, not just one tree. Or, I should say for most species. I know I cannot prove it for life coming in, but for me it is proven for life going out. (reference to flesh & blood species)

If you plant corn you will always get corn though each crop will be unique.

If it is true that there are 4 chromosome changes that appear in each generation, based on mutation & Y chromosome never reverts back, they might have a case. This is what makes every individual unique, not necessarily macro- evolution. It still seems like all that will prove is mutation. I suppose after 100 years of experimenting with humans, they may draw conclusions faster with a shorter lived species but I know humans are what they want to prove.

God only had to create one of each species, male & female with the ability to reproduce on its own.



I think this may be the final conclusion that many will draw from Caldisitcs. I suppose we will just have to watch the annual reviews of anthropology & see where it leads.

My hypothesis for creation & macro evolution is simple. But from something simple God made it complex.
I am sure it is flawed & I do not expect very many to agree with me.


For what I know, no one has proven how the atoms & neutrons stay together. We can divide elements & put them together & we can alter them. This is where I see the possibility of the spirit of God touching & interacting within the physical world constantly creating what we call evolution.



I think God has a literal attachment to the physical world holding everything in place & He alone is the breath & giver of life & we can see it as life goes back to dust. We can see it as electrons rotate around atoms.

At the same time He is able to attach & detach himself from our spirit & that is where the true void or fulfillment is. (dependance on who truly loves Him)



As for Tipler, I think he sees some things on a wider futuristic scale by using the computer scenario & how we each would live by spirit in the future as an integral part of computer or some form of technology. It is a good argument because I have had the same argument with my web lacky at work who is very smart in all of this & has a similar view of how man will take on an abode. (like a future type of human within a technological world) He literally believes humans will take on some type of immortality through a technical world.

That would be some incomprehensible form of evolution for sure & is a bit of a stretch for me. But if you look at the way they are seeing it, it really is like a heaven, just a different perception from a scientific/techy POV.

I look at electro magnetics as a possibility in our future, manipulating things we never thought of & using it for energy. At the same time, I have to question how far God will allow man to go before the tower collapses by our own devices.

BTW, I do see a collapse of the earth more due to mans neglect for life. Not a collapse of the universe, but of the earth & a restoration of it as well.







I have always had metaphoric thoughts about life on earth & how they compare to eternal life in heaven & how the two literally meet but all that is very difficult to explain. Since I have been talking to you they have become a bit clearer. I do see some kind of meeting between the elements of earth & the afterlife as to where heaven & earth will literally meet. (I cant explain it except for some type of quantum physics)

So this has been a blessing for me. I think one reason we hit it off on this is because we both have a respectful & honest approach about things.



Here is the link to Question of Origins. You can watch the video in segments if you don’t have time to watch the whole thing at once. Enjoy.

http://christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html


I am putting the video up in the Christian forum for discussion also.:)
 
But it is scientific fact that humans are classified as apes, then primates, then mammals, then vertebrates, then Chordata, and then finally Animalia. That is scientific fact and to my knowledge the Bible never disputes this, but never confirms it as well. If it does (dispute it), then you have yourself a flawed book, but the Bible by many is not a flawed book.
Click to expand...

The fact is that humans are classified as apes. The truth however, is a whole different ball of wax.

Look, there was a lady that spent 30 years of her life trying to get Gorillas to show human like potential intelligence, and the best she got was dog like intelligence, loyalty beyond all recognition, and dead (by poachers). No ape jumped in front of a bullet for her, for all she did for them.

There is another group of people trying to show that Chimps have what it takes to communicate like us. We already know how to communicate like them, so saying we are the stupid ones doesn't cut it. We can get any animal to work with us (as it was in the beginning). They can't comprehend our "theory of mind".

However, if anyone has evidence to prove otherwise...I'm all ears.

v/r

Q
 
juantoo3 said:
I have heard some say that science agrees with their religion. To which I have to ask, what do you do when the science makes a paradigm shift in its understanding and "proof" of "facts?" Does your religion change to suit the new facts? If God could somehow be proved, scientifically, would it change your religion? Even if that view of God was radically different from what you have grown comfortable with? How did your religion react to the shift from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics? How will it change with quantum physics? Will you change your religious views as science changes its own views?
Click to expand...

of course, Juan, if ones religion teaches that all things change, then this is precisely what we'd expect to have happening. ;)

metta,

~v
 
HI Bandit, thanks again for replying in such consideration to my questions. I just wanted to reply to you because I have been unbelieveabley busy lately and just have no time. I read your response and REALLY liked what you had to say about macroevolution and there are some points I want to emphasize and get more detailed in if you like to. Also, thanks for the forward on the video. I can't view it for some reason, it won't play, but I orderd it and should be receiving it at the latest Friday. Hope you are doing well. I will get back to you soon

Take care and God Bless
 
"If you plant corn you will always get corn though each crop will be unique."Bandit, are you aware that the corn plant is an artificial species of recent origin? Ecuadorians made it be breeding the teosinte grass to retain certain mutated traits which expanded the size of the ears.
 
bob x said:
"If you plant corn you will always get corn though each crop will be unique."Bandit, are you aware that the corn plant is an artificial species of recent origin? Ecuadorians made it be breeding the teosinte grass to retain certain mutated traits which expanded the size of the ears.
Click to expand...

that is nice & thank you for sharing if you read earlier you will know that mutation & manipulation....etc etc etc, does not qualify as macro & plant species are quite different from flesh & blood.

did you know that some corn does NOT pop?

here is nice site to fill your ears with corn:)

http://maize.agron.iastate.edu/general.html

btw- I am not ignoring anyone, i am just not interested in the topic at the moment so i wont be posting on it any more.
 
Andre' said:
HI Bandit, thanks again for replying in such consideration to my questions. I just wanted to reply to you because I have been unbelieveabley busy lately and just have no time. I read your response and REALLY liked what you had to say about macroevolution and there are some points I want to emphasize and get more detailed in if you like to. Also, thanks for the forward on the video. I can't view it for some reason, it won't play, but I orderd it and should be receiving it at the latest Friday. Hope you are doing well. I will get back to you soon

Take care and God Bless
Click to expand...

Hi Andre.
i am not going to be posting on this for awhile but thanks. I found a real neat site on some of this that i think you will really like. as soon as i find it again i will send it over to you by PM there was a little bit on cladisitcs & it exposes a lot of the myths that people get confused by. (including me):)

sorry the vid did not play & i never thought of ordering it.
God bless you too.
 
HI, Bandit, thanks for the reply again, please send that site, I know a lot about cladistics and would love to talk about it. Take care

God Bless
 
"mutation & manipulation....etc etc etc, does not qualify as macro"One change followed by another change followed by another change... and eventually the cumulative result is quite "macro". Living things don't "remember" where they started from and say, ooops, can't change any more, gone too far.

"plant species are quite different from flesh & blood"
Not in these respects they aren't. New animal species also arise (the dog and the goldfish are the best-known species to have arisen since humans have been around), and one speciation after another eventually leads to a quite "macro" change from what was before.
 
bob x said:
"mutation & manipulation....etc etc etc, does not qualify as macro"One change followed by another change followed by another change... and eventually the cumulative result is quite "macro". Living things don't "remember" where they started from and say, ooops, can't change any more, gone too far.

"plant species are quite different from flesh & blood"
Not in these respects they aren't. New animal species also arise (the dog and the goldfish are the best-known species to have arisen since humans have been around), and one speciation after another eventually leads to a quite "macro" change from what was before.
Click to expand...

& blah blah blah:rolleyes:
 
"& blah blah blah:rolleyes:"

Well, if you're not interested in the truth of the matter, then don't discuss the subject. American Christians seem to have an obsession with spreading falsehoods about subjects they do not take the trouble to learn anything about.
 
bob x said:
"& blah blah blah:rolleyes:"

Well, if you're not interested in the truth of the matter, then don't discuss the subject. American Christians seem to have an obsession with spreading falsehoods about subjects they do not take the trouble to learn anything about.
Click to expand...

sure. blame the falsehood on american christians. atheist evolutionists have an obsession of spreading falsehoods about subjects & expect everyone to just believe the theories that pop out of their heads...
...the fossil record is incomplete. is that the one you are talking about?
Your goldfish theory is just a theory Bob.

i am an american & i am a christian, you got that part right. spreading falsehoods> i dont think so.
thanks for jabbing at american christians & trying to make us look stupid...that is exactly why i do not discuss it with certain individuals.
hint hint
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top