Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Only a complete fool says in their heart that there is no God. Most evolutionists know they're wrong deep down. I used to be a big believer in evolution but I knew deep down it was garbage and I finally admitted it. Only a total fool says in their heart that there is no God.

You do realise that the existence and belief of any god and Darwinian evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts?

 

[Daniel1611]

You do realise that the existence and belief of any god and Darwinian evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts?

I'm aware but theistic evolution seems to be a rare belief.

 

[Daniel1611]

My experience was the mirror image of yours. I was raised in a strong religious home, and I was fervent in my beliefs. But ultimately I saw weaknesses in religion that I could no longer countenance.

We do differ inasmuch as I don’t feel a need to demonize those who differ with me. Having been on both sides, I can understand why there can be completely sincere people in both camps.

I understand the other side. There's propaganda that says you're stupid if you don't believe in evolution. You get shutdown as an imbecile if you question it. Most debates have good points on either side.

 

[alwight]

I'm aware but theistic evolution seems to be a rare belief.

I don't know about that, there is clearly no rejection of Darwinian evolution by the RCC while most Anglicans are not creationists

 

[Daniel1611]

I don't know about that, there is clearly no rejection of Darwinian evolution by the RCC while most Anglicans are not creationists

The rcc is a bunch of heretics. I believe the bible is literally true. Truth be told, aside from my religious belief in creationism, I am interested in theories that are different from the mainstream. Even before I was a fundamental bible believing Christian, I doubted evolution.

There are other theories I'm interested that are not biblically based but are different than the main stream.

 

[alwight]

The rcc is a bunch of heretics. I believe the bible is literally true. Truth be told, aside from my religious belief in creationism, I am interested in theories that are different from the mainstream. Even before I was a fundamental bible believing Christian, I doubted evolution.

There are other theories I'm interested that are not biblically based but are different than the main stream.

You may become rich by winning the Nobel Prize perhaps?
Science could be in for a shake up?

 

[StanJ]

Doesn’t putting someone on ignore effectively blind you to what arguments they are putting forth? If they make a clear and obvious error, I would think it would be to your benefit to see that.

I think your prediction of noguru’s departure is mostly wishful thinking. You will have to stick around yourself for more than a decade to just match how long noguru has been here already.

I only see them when OTHERS comment on their posts by quoting them.

Well it's not a prediction, just a hope. I've been here before, over two years ago, and did get my fill back then, when I left. It's been slow on the other forums I'm on so came back here. Don't know how long I'll stick around, but so far it's worth it.

 

[Daniel1611]

You may become rich by winning the Nobel Prize perhaps?
Science could be in for a shake up?

I'm not dedicated to many unconventional theories bc I don't know for a fact that they're true. But look at Math Boylan, who is not a Christian, and his ideas about flat earth theory. He makes interesting points. I'm interested in alternate theories. Boylan doesn't use scripture as evidence bc he isn't Christian, but he has intriguing ideas.

 

[DavisBJ]

I understand the other side. There's propaganda that says you're stupid if you don't believe in evolution. You get shutdown as an imbecile if you question it. Most debates have good points on either side.

You have softened your stance rather dramatically. Before you pretty clearly claimed that most evolutionists were intrinsically dishonest, inasmuch as (according to you) they “know they're wrong deep down.” I find quite the opposite, that most “evolutionists” sincerely feel, as I do, that evolution is a credible explanation.

As to whether or not there is a God, I have often been presented with evidence that purports to show that God exists. But I am not only not convinced, but I have watched as many explanations for God have been shown to be fallacious.

 

[Daniel1611]

You have softened your stance rather dramatically. Before you pretty clearly claimed that most evolutionists were intrinsically dishonest, inasmuch as (according to you) they “know they're wrong deep down.” I find quite the opposite, that most “evolutionists” sincerely feel, as I do, that evolution is a credible explanation.

As to whether or not there is a God, I have often been presented with evidence that purports to show that God exists. But I am not only not convinced, but I have watched as many explanations for God have been shown to be fallacious.

I don't think the run of the mill evolutionist is a liar. J think they're misled and in their heart they know it. I think those on academia are outright liars. Or maybe some just are that fooled by it as evidenced by their fanaticism for evolution that they promote with religious zeal.

 

[StanJ]

Clearly you are a Presuppositionalist Stan.

Did I not admit to that Alwight?

I make no apology for using another Wiki page here as a reference.
You may not have come across another poster here called Hilston, who to my knowledge hasn't posted here recently btw, who, like you simply presupposes that the Bible must be the one and only possible source for a religious belief and that no greater explanation, verification or rationality is necessary.
For Presuppositionists it is simply irrational not to accept the Bible and everything it says as literally God's word.
Hilston btw was/is a very articulate wordsmith but for me an utterly baffling person requiring no empirical rationality at all, just an apparently mindless presupposition.

Didn't expect you to Alwight. Just made my own observation. I may look for something to see how accurate Wiki actually is on stuff it publishes?

Oh come on, it's hardly cricket to surprise people in the street, shove a microphone up their nose and then try to bamboozle them with nonsensical reasons to doubt evolution, based apparently on not actually being able to see it happening.

How so? There were some very knowledgeable people on there who were kinda lost. The point was to show how much faith those people actually use that THEY themselves cannot support, yet we as Christians are always asked to support our faith with so-called facts. I wonder how you would have done had you been approached in this video?
The point is people like you and I have our minds set on what we believe, but MANY, as is indicated in this video, don't really know why they believe how they do yet evolutionary apologetics will use stats that say MOST educated people believe in Evolution. They sure didn't look very educated, if to me. :crackup:

Why exactly must Darwinian evolution actually be observed to be an accurate explanation of the evidence anyway?
Darwinian evolution is what it is, a naturalistic explanation of the evidence, which btw convinces me rather more than an un-observed supposed miraculous creation event a few thousand years ago.
Do we look at just some of the evidence, say rock strata or the geological column, perhaps containing specific marine fossils in one layer and terrestrial ones in another and not reasonably conclude that this is chronological evidence of past events simply because we didn't actually observe it happening?
Why should we not reasonably conclude the great age of the Earth at least from such evidence, and more, even if we didn't actually witness it happened. It's entirely reasonable imo to make rational intelligent deductions using more than one of our limited senses.

I don't know because I am NOT of that opinion. I'm NOT God and I do NOT purport to even be anywhere near understanding Him other than what His Written Word tells me. I can tell you that as He did create a man and woman that would have been considered in their late teens but were only a few minutes old, and a universe that was a day old but obviously appeared much older, I'll leave the details as to HOW He did it to Him. Man's attempt in trying to understand through his own very limited abilities, is just plain arrogance.

You are a Presuppositionist Stan, I don't think I'll ever understand that.
Otoh I am not, I want to see reasonably convincing rational evidence before I believe. Ancient scripture is not something I personally find convincing while apparently it makes no difference to you because you have simply presupposed your belief in it regardless.

Yes Alwight, charged and accepted, and I've dealt with the scriptural issue as well.

If you could rationally demonstrate with perhaps rather less bias the clear rationality that other beliefs lack then that might help here, but all you have is the usual bald assertions it seems.
Clearly to hope that you would ever allow yourself to have any doubts now after all these years that you have invested in it, would probably be futile.
You have presupposed your religious beliefs and built a barrier to deflect any science that might just dent your shiny YEC armour of belief.

According to who's rational? I have doubted many thing in my life, but God has proved Himself always regardless of how unfaithful I have been. Can you say the same about your faith in this science?

Morton's Demon:
"When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell’s demon did for thermodynamics. Morton’s demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn’t looking."
(Glenn Morton)

I think quoting Glenn Morton here is very disingenuous, given he became apostate and fell off ALL his beliefs. If his own cognitive dissonance got the better of him so be it. I'm not to worried about one so-called believer that turned out NOT to be. So called Empirical rationalists are also surprised at how bad his flip flop was or is. In any event do the right thing for the wrong reasons is always wrong for the person doing it, not for the cause he is committed to. Many false Christians have used God's word to preach, but look at what God says in Is 55:11 (NIV)

 

[DavisBJ]

I don't think the run of the mill evolutionist is a liar. J think they're misled and in their heart they know it. I think those on academia are outright liars. ...

Maybe you have a different understanding of lying than I do, but if someone is “misled and in their heart they know it”, then that qualifies as lying in my mind.

I get the feeling you are mostly just venting against people who believe in evolution. When you rail that “those on (in) academia are outright liars”, are you referring to academics of all sorts that support evolution, or just those who teach and research in evolution-related subjects? (And my experience is that people in academia often are the most qualified to understand evolution, and thus to judge whether or not it is a viable theory.)

 

[Daniel1611]

Maybe you have a different understanding of lying than I do, but if someone is “misled and in their heart they know it”, then that qualifies as lying in my mind.

I get the feeling you are mostly just venting against people who believe in evolution. When you rail that “those on (in) academia are outright liars”, are you referring to academics of all sorts that support evolution, or just those who teach and research in evolution-related subjects? (And my experience is that people in academia often are the most qualified to understand evolution, and thus to judge whether or not it is a viable theory.)

They're all full of it. They teach kids garbage and pass it off as science. They get defensive when you point it out, but essentially they teach that everything came from nothing by itself once upon a time. It's a stupid idea and they know it's stupid. The academics that study evolution specifically are mostly just a bunch of Trekkie's promoting their religion of evolution.

 

[DavisBJ]

They're all full of it. They teach kids garbage and pass it off as science. They get defensive when you point it out, but essentially they teach that everything came from nothing by itself once upon a time. It's a stupid idea and they know it's stupid. The academics that study evolution specifically are mostly just a bunch of Trekkie's promoting their religion of evolution.

Yup, just as I suspected, you are just generally venting. For example: “… they teach that everything came from nothing by itself once upon a time…”. Do you really not see a difference between cosmology and evolution?

 

[Daniel1611]

.
Yup, just as I suspected, you are just generally venting. For example: “… they teach that everything came from nothing by itself once upon a time…”. Do you really not see a difference between cosmology and evolution?

No. Because there isn't one. Everything had to evolve from something else until you go back to the nothingness before the big bang.

 

[Daniel1611]

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/chaisson.cfm

It says that simply put "hydrogen is a light, colorless, odorless gas that eventually turns into people."

 

[DavisBJ]

No. Because there isn't one. Everything had to evolve from something else until you go back to the nothingness before the big bang.

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/chaisson.cfm

It says that simply put "hydrogen is a light, colorless, odorless gas that eventually turns into people."

My apologies. All this time I presumed (erroneously) that when you used the word “evolution”, you were speaking of what is sometimes called Darwinian Evolution – the explanation for how the diversity of life forms we see today arose from a far more simple form of life long ago.

What you are really upset with is some ideas in cosmology.

 

[Daniel1611]

My apologies. All this time I presumed (erroneously) that when you used the word “evolution”, you were speaking of what is sometimes called Darwinian Evolution – the explanation for how the diversity of life forms we see today arose from a far more simple form of life long ago.

What you are really upset with is some ideas in cosmology.

I don't believe in any of it. I'm not upset with it either. I just think its stupid.

 

[Daniel1611]

I mean academics literally say that hydrogen turned into people. In those words.
Now that's stupid.

 

[DavisBJ]

I don't believe in any of it. I'm not upset with it either. I just think its (sic) stupid.

For not being upset with it, you sure unleash a bunch of invectives against those who believe in it.

I mean academics literally say that hydrogen turned into people. In those words.
Now that's stupid.

Why is that stupid?