Dawinists standing on the panic button.

#426
#426
rjd970 said:
You said this:



And I'm saying the pro-evolution crowd are looking at the total body of evidence and drawing a conclusion. Feel free to go back and scan anyone of those 7000 academic journal articles and tell me which ones linking chimpanzees to the evolutionary chain of humans is coming to their conclusions not based entirely on observable evidence. If they are biased, it is biased to the evidential results of the research, not personal agendas.

Also feel free to show me one piece of evidence put forth by theologians that don't have a personal or religious agendas attached to them.
Click to expand...

To pretend that all researchers are not looking through evidence with a bias is pretty naive don't you think? I would even venture that many of those research papers were written or influenced by very biased researchers. I;m sure some were written by people who openly seek out and wish to discredit religion.
 
#427
#427
So if God created man, in his image, then realized he messed up and sent Jesus to die for our inevitable sins... wouldn't that make God fallible?

I guess it depends on your interpretation. I was told God was infallible by a Baptist. I countered with the fallible argument, and was promptly asked to leave their house. I never saw their daughter again.
 
#428
#428
rjd970 said:
And I'm saying the pro-evolution crowd are looking at the total body of evidence and drawing a conclusion. Feel free to go back and scan anyone of those 7000 academic journal articles and tell me which ones linking chimpanzees to the evolutionary chain of humans is coming to their conclusions not based entirely on observable evidence. If they are biased, it is biased to the evidential results of the research, not personal agendas.
Click to expand...

I would bet that if another researcher came behind them and proved them wrong, thier pride and ego would get in the way of admitting their research and belief system was wrong.
 
#429
#429
BigPapaVol said:
the first is really weak evidence of macro evolution / evidence of transitional fossils and the second is simply an example of micro evolution.

The location argument is atrocious in helping explain the assumption that they must have existed but weren't well preserved.
Click to expand...

The archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a transitional fossile between a bird and a reptile.

But even that is beside the point. Because once one does show a transitional fossil, they can't prove conclusively that it is part of any one organisms evolutionary chain. It could always be a part of side branch that died out and had nothing to do with what we see today. And on top of that, when a transitional fossil is found, then the creationist crowd want a transitional fossil formed between the two gaps just created by that fossil. If those two are filled, they create 4 more...etc. It's a useless enterprise and proves nothing to the creationist position on macroevolution.

A true, beyond doubt transitional fossil found would mean nothing for either side of this debate. It wouldn't prove anything, it would just be a strong evidentiary indication, which is mainly what science is about anyway. Even with the fossil record being incomplete, it is still strongly suggestive of evolution, macro and micro.
 
#430
#430
red butler said:
I don't want to speak for BPV, but I think it's safe to assume that if a person believes in creation and does not take the Old Testament literally... there is nothing that says they believe all living beings were created at the same time.
Click to expand...

So we are talking about punctuated creationism?
 
#431
#431
DC Vol said:
So if God created man, in his image, then realized he messed up and sent Jesus to die for our inevitable sins... wouldn't that make God fallible?

I guess it depends on your interpretation. I was told God was infallible by a Baptist. I countered with the fallible argument, and was promptly asked to leave their house. I never saw their daughter again.
Click to expand...

Who says he messed up?
 
#432
#432
What does Jesus Christ have to do with evolution vs creation, anyway?

I am not sure why creationism and evolution are being treated like they are mutually exclusive, either.
 
#433
#433
red butler said:
I would bet that if another researcher came behind them and proved them wrong, thier pride and ego would get in the way of admitting their research and belief system was wrong.
Click to expand...

I bet it wouldn't. And in fact, with evolution let's say...and unlike the other way to look at this issue...it would be trivially easy to prove it wrong conclusively. J. B. S. Haldane famously said all it would take for him to stop believing in evolution would be for somebody to find a fossil of a rabbit in the precambrian layer. Given the claims of creationist, and the amount of rabbits we see in the world today, you would think we could find at least one.

There are many ways to disprove evoutionary theory, conclusively, that would cause scientist to start over from scratch or start believing Genesis as fact.
 
#435
#435
JZVOL said:
Who says he messed up?
Click to expand...

Genesis 1:27
"And God created man to his own image"

John 1:29
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"



If we're created in God's own image, and we sin... what does that mean for God? Either God messed up with Man (making him fallible), or he created a sinful species on purpose.



Again, there are a plethora of interpretations of the Bible. This is asking for a rational explanation.
 
#436
#436
IPorange said:
What does Jesus Christ have to do with evolution vs creation, anyway?

I am not sure why creationism and evolution are being treated like they are mutually exclusive, either.
Click to expand...

Because we're created in God's own image. That's why. Evolution is directly contradictory to creation... concerning Man, at least that's my take.
 
#437
#437
KB5252 said:
To pretend that all researchers are not looking through evidence with a bias is pretty naive don't you think? I would even venture that many of those research papers were written or influenced by very biased researchers. I;m sure some were written by people who openly seek out and wish to discredit religion.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure the overwhelming majority were written with no bone to pick here. Not only that, I bet there are some scientists that have very strong religious beliefs and still see the scientific merit in evolutionary theory.

Read the writings of Kenneth R Miller ( Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) who is a devout Christian and biology professor. I bet he wouldn't disagree with the fundamental premise of most academic papers on evolutionary theory, unless the evidence is lacking.
 
#439
#439
DC Vol said:
Genesis 1:27
"And God created man to his own image"

John 1:29
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"



If we're created in God's own image, and we sin... what does that mean for God? Either God messed up with Man (making him fallible), or he created a sinful species on purpose.



Again, there are a plethora of interpretations of the Bible. This is asking for a rational explanation.
Click to expand...


Careful with scriptures around here, what they actually say doesn't mean near as much as what one wants them to say.
 
#441
#441
rjd970 said:
Careful with scriptures around here, what they actually say doesn't mean near as much as what one wants them to say.
Click to expand...

We all get it. You are an expert in the science field and an expert at interpreting the Bible. Bravo.
 
#442
#442
rjd970 said:
And I'm sure the overwhelming majority were written with no bone to pick here. Not only that, I bet there are some scientists that have very strong religious beliefs and still see the scientific merit in evolutionary theory.

Read the writings of Kenneth R Miller ( Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) who is a devout Christian and biology professor. I bet he wouldn't disagree with the fundamental premise of most academic papers on evolutionary theory, unless the evidence is lacking.
Click to expand...

I didn't imply most had agendas, just that to make a sweeping generalization that these papers were not written with any agenda is simply false, there is without a doubt some that are. I agree that there are many researches, who also happen to be Christian, who find merit in evolution. I would happen to fall into that category, I unlike you just don't feel that evolution in and of itself conflicts with my views of religion and Christianity. In many ways I don't see that evolution is at odds with the book of Genisis, unless you interpret it literally, which I do not.
 
#443
#443
DC Vol said:
So if God created man, in his image, then realized he messed up and sent Jesus to die for our inevitable sins... wouldn't that make God fallible?

I guess it depends on your interpretation. I was told God was infallible by a Baptist. I countered with the fallible argument, and was promptly asked to leave their house. I never saw their daughter again.
Click to expand...

Don't follow?

The choice to sin was not God's.

He gave us the freedom to choose.
 
#444
#444
KB5252 said:
I didn't imply most had agendas, just that to make a sweeping generalization that these papers were not written with any agenda is simply false, there is without a doubt some that are. I agree that there are many researches, who also happen to be Christian, who find merit in evolution. I would happen to fall into that category, I unlike you just don't feel that evolution in and of itself conflicts with my views of religion and Christianity. In many ways I don't see that evolution is at odds with the book of Genisis, unless you interpret it literally, which I do not.
Click to expand...

Good call...
 
#445
#445
DC Vol said:
Because we're created in God's own image. That's why. Evolution is directly contradictory to creation... concerning Man, at least that's my take.
Click to expand...

I was taught that the "own image" thing referred to man's higher intellect, and all of its facets. But I guess if one takes the whole sentence literally, evolution would be a problem.
 
#446
#446
DC Vol said:
Genesis 1:27
"And God created man to his own image"

John 1:29
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"



If we're created in God's own image, and we sin... what does that mean for God? Either God messed up with Man (making him fallible), or he created a sinful species on purpose.



Again, there are a plethora of interpretations of the Bible. This is asking for a rational explanation.
Click to expand...

First I would need to go find the original translation of the word image in its original text.
Do you really think God looks exactly like we do? It's possible but I would doubt it.

I would think more likely it means created with a soul, the ability to tell right and wrong etc.

God created (Adam and Eve) a sinless species with the ability of free will. He did not create Adam and Eve sinful on purpose. You are leaving out large chunks of the story.

The sin He saved the world from was the original sin of Adam and Eve, not His (God's) own sin.
 
#447
#447
rjd970 said:
Read the writings of Kenneth R Miller ( Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) who is a devout Christian and biology professor. I bet he wouldn't disagree with the fundamental premise of most academic papers on evolutionary theory, unless the evidence is lacking.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

In layman's terms, if you heat a cup of coffee and you allow it to come to room temperature. The amount of energy required to reheat it, is more then the energy disipated when it came to room temperature. Whatever method you choose, microwave, stove, etc you will lose some of the heat used to heat the coffee to the surrounding air, the stove, etc. It's not 100% efficient. It's not reversible.

Every process known to man, creates entropy. So how did the process that created the universe, create it with zero entropy? It's physically impossible.
 
#448
#448
oklavol said:
Are you familiar with entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

In layman's terms, if you heat a cup of coffee and you allow it to come to room temperature. The amount of energy required to reheat it, is more then the energy disipated when it came to room temperature. Whatever method you choose, microwave, stove, etc you will lose some of the heat used to heat the coffee to the surrounding air, the stove, etc. It's not 100% efficient. It's not reversible.

Every process known to man, creates entropy. So how did the process that created the universe, create it with zero entropy? It's physically impossible.
Click to expand...

You and rdj need to get a room.

Surely you have stats to prove this!
 
#449
#449
OrangeEmpire said:
Don't follow?

The choice to sin was not God's.

He gave us the freedom to choose.
Click to expand...

Again. If God was infallible, he'd have known that Man would have eaten the fruit at the behest of a talking serpent.

So it was a setup the whole time? He knew beforehand that we would sin in that case. He is omniscient, correct?

To me, that dooms Man to nothing but an ignorant and frivolous existence. More of a pity that God has kept us around than anything else. Nothing like a life filled with sin to bring out the guilt and empty the coffers.


If God did create the Universe (I'm arguing against the presentation in the Bible, not at the possibility of God), I honestly doubt he'd tell humans the secret of creation if he knew beforehand that we'd just fark it all up.
 
#450
#450
I am familiar with entropy, but i feel like I am missing what you are applying it to in terms of the process that created the universe. How is their demonstrated to be no entropy?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top