Is evolution or creation science?

[nChrist]

All the TRUTH and the only TRUTH about the CREATION OF MAN:

Genesis 1:26-28 KJV And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Any other explanation is SILLY and based on hoaxes, frauds, and deception. I repeat again that man did NOT evolve from monkeys. Man was created in the image of God - perfect from the start. The missing link is missing because it doesn't exist.

[Exaeus]

Apples and Oranges. The Japanese did not have a "Racial Purity Science" that they used. The Nazis did however and it worked against them. What I stated did indeed happen. It was a different situation in China. Matter of fact one of the only hero's of the rape of Dan king was a German Nazi diplomat. Also not everyone who "Blended in" was a traitor, they did the bare minimum they needed to survive and then worked to help others escape. So no this is not about traitors, the Japanese were not gassing thousands of Chinese people in an attempt to make a master race. This argument does not hold.

So what exactly are you proposing then as a measure of "blending in", Isaiah? I could point out the fact that the Nazis committed numerous war crimes against blond-haired, blue-eyed people as well (marched into a village and started killing people, in many cases), but I suspect you'd also reject that as well. What is the set of objective criteria you are using to say with such confidence that it was a fact I was so full of "pure ignorance" that my debating opponent gave up and walked away?

Again, it is a different viewpoint on the same evidence. You do not belive it address the problem, they belive it does, its a "he said she said" battle and yet no one on either side is willing to really look into the other side and say "Hmm they may be right"

Isaiah, do you even understand what science is saying about ERVs, and have you read your own link at all? How does the arguments presented in the article refute what science says about ERVs or use ERVs to bolster creationist claims in the slightest? They do not. All the article does is describe a totally irrelevant argument, claims that it nullifies what ERVs means to evolutionary biology, and then chalks it up as a win for creationism. Like the majority of other creationist pseudoscience out there it's utterly dishonest, ignorant, and so obvious to the extreme that it was meant to mislead scientifically illiterate Christians, but here you are, burying your head in the sand with your raggedly adamant replies that the article represents an "alternate viewpoint".

Please read your own link, and explain to us how exactly does the article refute science or bolster creationism with regards to ERVs. Until you demonstrate to us that you actually understand what you posted, I think it's quite futile for me to try any further to get a sensible response from you.

Yet I have not seen any. Sure I have seen mountains of facts, but they are all filtered through a world view, and are all tainted ether by creationism or evolution. Nothing objective have I seen that stands alone and proclaims one way or the other. All I see is a pile of old/young women paintings and not a single one of just one or the other.

I'll name you one: Adam and Eve and/or Noah's Ark is falsified by genetics.

I'll name you another: the order in which God allegedly created the universe is falsified by cosmology and nuclear physics.

Yet another: Paleontology and geology tells us which fossils appeared when, and the alleged sequence in which God created the species is quite out of order.

And so on and so forth, as well as other absurd creationist claims such as the earth existed before the sky, vegetation existing before the sun and moon, etc. Isaiah, I'm not sure why you're putting forward the argument that you haven't seen any evidence as though it's supposed to mean something. To the best of my knowledge, openly advertising how ignorant one is doesn't quite count as a sensible debating strategy. Besides, if you're going to count on this alleged lack of evidence for evolution as a strike against it, are you willing to say the same for creationism, which not only has no data in favor of it but mountains against?

Well yes and no however this is getting off topic but I shall simplify. Either life evolved, or was created by some being somewhere. That could be the God of the Bible or any other god from other religions, or aliens. You see yes I stand by biblical creation of course, however I think its still evolution or creation at the core.

The fact that this is an argument from ignorance notwithstanding, there are many non-creationist alternatives to evolution, or significant parts of it, which are possible and have received serious attention in the past. These include but are not limited to orthogenesis, neo-Lamarckianism, process structuralism, saltationism, spontaneous generation, etc. There is nothing to say that an alternative theory that also adequately explains the data cannot possibly arise as a competitor to evolution in future, or perhaps even replace it.

You claim that both creationism and evolution are only beliefs, but here you state that one or the other must be true since you are of the position that they are the only two possible options. I'll simply speculate on the reasons for this, and let others draw their own conclusions.

Isaiah, I assume you know that evolution really did happen over hundreds of millions of years, because that's how long ago that the earliest fossils have been dated to. "Invoking time" is not a magic wand, it's what the data tells us. In all seriousness, what do you expect scientists to say? That we've only been around for about 7 thousand years or so, when that flies against the face of all evidence?

yes I understand that. However again I keep seeing people say , well we don't know how it happens, but it did happen somehow over millions of years of mutations. I challenge you to watch any program on the discovery channel or the like about evolution, and notice when they say words like, "We think, We speculate, it must have or" etc followed by some sort of "it happened over millions of years"

again much speculation, little science.

Actually this is a huge hole in evolution. Tell me how is it possible, for working reproductive organs to simultaneously sprout in equal but opposite fashion and then work perfectly to continue the species. You see the whole idea of that fly's in the face of "Millions of years" It can not happen, there are no real explanations of this. Not one. Just guesses. No good answers and yet, we are taught that it did some how happen, over time, because if not none of us would be here. This does not make any logical sense to me.

This is an example of the magic of time. We have no proof, but we have lots of time and we have evidence that something happened but we don't know what, we just assume it had to happen over time as we have no evidence to the contrary.

Isaiah, you apparently don't understand the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

Let me give you an example. We know that gravity is a fact. We have tons of empirical data to prove it conclusively, and we can observe it happening. It's called the fact of gravity. What we are not completely sure of, on the other hand, is why gravity exists. There has been a variety of proposed explanations, from LeSage's fluid-based theory to Weber-Gauss electrodynamics to general relativity (space-time disturbance caused by mass) and quantum field theory (gravitons). These attempts to explain the fact of gravity are collectively known as the theory of gravity. Do we dismiss and profess a disbelief in gravity because we don't know exactly how and why it happens? No, we do not.

Back to evolution. We know that evolution happened. We have tons of empirical data to prove it conclusively, and we can observe it happening. It's called the fact of evolution. Just because we're unclear on some evolutionary pathways does not mean we reject all the facts that are staring at us in the face, the same way we do not reject gravity.

As for how the evolution of sexual reproduction is possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Also how to you test such a thing according to the scientific method? This is one you can likely run odds on, but I don't do the big math things, so I'll let that one be!

When it progresses from a hypothesis to a scientific theory due to sufficient data supporting it, then it'll be falsifiable depending on the nature of supporting data.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I found an interesting article about the subject

http://www.npr.org/2...of-adam-and-eve

looks like evangelical Christian scientists are also starting to acknowledge the truth of evolution.

Ciao

- viole

NPR is not a good source of info. They have a bias, and it leans against what Christianity teaches. I used to listen to the station for years as they do have a nice jazz/classical music they play but outside of that, they are very, very biased.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I suspect you don't accept it, but scientists can accurately date things here on Earth for literally billions and billions of years.

Unless, of course, scientists who say that the rate of atom's decay and the speed of light are constant, are also pushing an atheistic agenda

Isn't that strange that many unrelated findings of science seem to push an atheistic agenda? What is more likely: that all scientists are conspiring to prove that God does not exist, or that what they independently find collides with theistic teachings?

Ciao

- viole

Viole, This is not about a "God vs Atheism" thread. Its about evolution, so unless you have something to say with the topic, can you please not try to derail? thanks.

[Exaeus]

NPR is not a good source of info. They have a bias, and it leans against what Christianity teaches. I used to listen to the station for years as they do have a nice jazz/classical music they play but outside of that, they are very, very biased.

Why not hear the story right from the horse's mouth, then?

"It is important for Evangelicals to know that science is silent on the historicity of two people named Adam and Eve, just as it is silent on the existence of persons named Abraham, Isaac, and Moses. Adam and Eve may well have been two real people, who through the grace of God entered into a paradisiacal relationship with him, until—tragedy of tragedies— they allowed their own self-centered desires to reign in their hearts, instead of their love for God. Although genetics convincingly shows that there was never a time when there were just two persons, the Bible itself may even provide hints of the existence of other people—likely we’ve all wondered about those hints since we were children. “Did Cain marry his sister?” we want to know. “Who were the people that Cain was afraid of as he wandered the earth after killing Abel? If they were his brothers or nephews, why didn’t the author refer to them that way?” The author doesn’t seem to be as puzzled by this as we are. We’ve always known about those little pointers—in fact, ancient interpreters wrestled with them too, long before Darwin or modern genetics appeared on the scene. So it ought not to necessarily surprise us for genetics to come along and confirm that, sure enough, there were others around at the time of Adam and Eve."

- http://biologos.org/blog/nprs-adam-and-eve-story

However one may choose to interpret it, it appears that the BioLogos Foundation does indeed agree that no, Adam and Eve weren't the only humans around in the beginning.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Why not hear the story right from the horse's mouth, then?

- http://biologos.org/...m-and-eve-story

However one may choose to interpret it, it appears that the BioLogos Foundation does indeed agree that no, Adam and Eve weren't the only humans around in the beginning.

Ah yes a Theistic Evolutionist website. They have a bias, so it is a biased article placed on a biased website, and Viole does not live in the states so I know that she does not or did not know that NPR had a bias.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I found an interesting article about the subject

http://www.npr.org/2...of-adam-and-eve

looks like evangelical Christian scientists are also starting to acknowledge the truth of evolution.

Ciao

- viole

NPR is not a good source of info. They have a bias, and it leans against what Christianity teaches. I used to listen to the station for years as they do have a nice jazz/classical music they play but outside of that, they are very, very biased.

oops, sorry.

To be honest, I did not have a clue about npr. Just had a look at the web site and looked pretty neutral.

Ciao

- viole

I know, its an American thing, there bias is very strong, so strong as they fired someone that was not liberal enough, but very liberal anyway.

[Exaeus]

Ah yes a Theistic Evolutionist website. They have a bias, so it is a biased article placed on a biased website, and Viole does not live in the states so I know that she does not or did not know that NPR had a bias.

Well, Isaiah, given how theism is a belief, I don't quite see how any theistic websites can possibly be unbiased.

You're right that the site is biased, of course, but that's pretty much a given for anything regarding theism, so I wonder what pointing out the obvious is meant to achieve. Theistic creationist websites are equally biased as well, and I say that without trying to attach a positive or negative connotation to the term out of recognition that it's an unavoidable fact.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I am not sure I am derailing.

What you said among other things, trying to make this about Science disproving God. Not about the subject at had for I started this debate with a theistic evolutionist, who sees a way to make both fit together. This thread has nothing to do with atheism. You tried to make it so. Case in point.

Isn't that strange that many unrelated findings of science seem to push an atheistic agenda?

Viole you are making this thread about the existence of God or not, and are bringing in lot of other fields, matter of fact this thread is about biological evolution, and I have kept it to that in respect of D-9 who this thread was opened for.

So please keep on topic on this one.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Ah yes a Theistic Evolutionist website. They have a bias, so it is a biased article placed on a biased website, and Viole does not live in the states so I know that she does not or did not know that NPR had a bias.

Well, Isaiah, given how theism is a belief, I don't quite see how any theistic websites can possibly be unbiased.

You're right that the site is biased, of course, but that's pretty much a given for anything regarding theism, so I wonder what pointing out the obvious is meant to achieve. Theistic creationist websites are equally biased as well, and I say that without trying to attach a positive or negative connotation to the term out of recognition that it's an unavoidable fact.

I mean that that website has a bias to prove that Evolution and Christianity work together, and quoting a biased website to prove that what the website says is true does not work. It would be like saying quoting a Dog lovers website saying that cats lovers were in declined. You would not belive it because the source was biased.

Viole even admitted she thought she was quoting an unbiased source. That was the point.