Evolution versus Creationism

[Ameishell B]

Hence why I pretty much stopped discussing that subject here. I agree the most surefire way of making a creationist no longer a creationist is for them to examine the evidence. The problem is you can bring the horse to water, but you can't make it drink. For many creationists, they simply refuse to 'drink.' You can show them all the evidence in the world, but it doesn't matter.



True. For the truly diehard, there's no point in discussing anything of the nature at all with them as they simply don't want to examine their belief. They believe it is true because they want it to be true. Facts don't matter. And there's no point in examination and trying to prove it is true because that isn't what they care about.



I don't doubt that some creationists use logic and reason, but the vast majority of literals are dead to the concepts.



Except when logic and reason contradict their beliefs. Good Christians follow the word of Christ, that the morals and ethics take precedent. Literal Creationists do something entirely different, where they worship the Bible as a God, and thereby any attack on its validity is a attack on God.

Like you said before, the fastest way to make a Christian not a Christian is for them to academically study the bible. The same goes for Creationism. The problem is actually having them do it.

[Emily1005]

There ya go, play dumb; plead ignorance. After all you do it so well. I notice though that in all of your claims of my ignorance you haven't answered any of my direct and valid questions at all. And what you have contributed has been of no value at all in adding to the debate. So although you may be a legend in your own mind, you haven't challenged me at all. And until you stop evading my questions and either answer them or refute them, I guarantee that you wont impress anyone other than the other atheists around here who need all the help they can get.

OH, and by the way, there is an ignore button. Feel free to use it as I probably will if you don't show you can debate the facts and issues. But you already know there is one. But you just can't help but lie some more to protect your cover.

[hahah]

IOW, blind faith.

[Do what]

Everyone has heard the tired old hypothetical of a infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters eventually producing Shakespeare.

It seems pertinent here because, from what I gather, the foundation of Creationism is that this world and its various processes are far to intricate, to systematic, to perfect, to have been created by an inanimate, unintelligent, unsentient non-being.

What I have never heard fully addressed from a Creationist perspective is the fact that if God created Earth, then what do I make of the billions of imploded stars, the failed solar systems, the cold, lifeless galaxies which, as far as we know proceed into infinity.

Yes, we live on a magnificent, uncannily perfect planet. But if some intelligent being created it, and we are the end result, then this intelligent being failed horribly billions of time before finally creating a planet and a system that harbors life on some of its surface some of the time.

How does Creationism reconcile intelligent design (the operative word being intelligent) with the fact that the tiniest percentage of the solar system harbors any life at all? This is brute force methodology. If you try a hundred billion times and fail before getting it right, how omnicient and omnipresent does that make you?

[buzzn94]

do all animals have the ability to think and reason?? NO. do all animals have a conscience? NO do animals have the ability to study or read? NO . how are we animals? explain to me your ignorance of the fact that we were created!

[Pythagoras]

Come again? Animals have no spirits? The Native Americans would disagree with you right there. They believe that man, like all creatures inhabits the same spiritual world, that nature itself is above all, not that man is spiritual above the rest. The grand thing is that their belief is no more provable then your's is. Thereby, both are equally true and equally false, meaning you cannot assert your belief as truth without first disproving theirs. And seeing how neither are provable, you're completely out of luck. I notice that you, like most creationists simply run away like cowarRAB when the issue of other religion/spiritual beliefs is added to the mix of creation vs. evolution. Instead of a two entity fight, it becomes far, far more. I recently had a discussion about arguments theists should not use, and discussing more then one religion is one of them. I noticed my thread about Norse vs Genesis got little to no attention from the creationist sect here.



Huh? Where has anyone argued that the spiritual world can be proven scientifically? Last time I checked, people argued both cannot be proven scientifically. Science is the study of the natural world. Spirituality and supernatural both lie outside the jurisdiction and study of science. I cannot study natural geology with marketing as geology is outside the scope of what marketing studies. Likewise, science cannot prove either.



No it is not evident that the world was created by a intelligent being. You cannot prove this.



I'm sorry we don't share your "openness"



I was a Christian until several years ago. So much for your argument.



Blah, blah, blah, blah thanks for proving you believe because you are a coward

[lilpistol72]

Mea culpa. Are there a lot of people like Archangel here?

[Shandy]

i'd like to hear some examples (at least one) of physical and observable evidence of god's love. you'll also have to provide instances or god interacting with believers. finally, what miracles within your community are you talking about?


this is where we differ. how am i to determine whether god has forsaken me or not, if i never experience favorable conditions? what is the point of believing god's presence is in my life if my condition is identical to if he wasnt in my life? if the righteous suffer problems and see successes, and the unrighteous suffer problems and see success, then where is the advantage of god being with me over him not being with me?


like i said before, both the sinner and believer go through temptations and overcome them. both the sinner and believer learn from their unpleasant experiences. both the sinner and believer feel strengthened to face life after being through harRABhips. sometimes sinners fall into temptations are suffer for it, and sometimes they are wise and evade it. same with the believers.

so whats the difference? how could the believer's position be superior to the sinner's?


the only person that defines god for me is me. and i came up with my beliefs about god at a time when i believed in god


you'd have to help me grasp the concept and significance of god "seeing us through" situations. if god is simply monitoring man's dilemas and observing silently as we blunder and develop, then what good is that to us? whether god is watching or not, wouldnt the effect be the same? how does the belief that god is only keeping an eye on things benefit anybody?

[iwontrest]

No contest really, Creationism contradicts my own observations, so believing in it would require me to disbelieve my own senses. Frankly it belongs with Flat Earthism and Geocentrism.
It does make an intresting comment on peoples openness to persusion by unqualified sources, as the creationists are so fond of saying; "You need an open mind" though and open mind is like a fortess, with its gate unbarred and unguarded.

[Rabid Fishie]

First, for the most part, bacteria reproduce asexually.

Whether asexually or through gene transfer of some kind, where do the drug resistant genes come from? In a population of bacteria that has no genes for antibiotic resistance, where do you think this brand new gene comes from?

Genes are transferred from parent to oRABpring. In sexual reproduction, the genes get mixed around, but no new genes are formed. Unless...