Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[derheimwill]

Subject "science."
Someone can learn enough geology to get rich in the oil business,
or enough medicine to run a hospital,
or enough astrophysics to be an astronaut

without being an evolutionist.

[sayfer bullets]

But does he dare?

Thanks!

[derheimwill]

But does he dare?
He'll never make dean;)

[balrog666]

that is so incredibly pathetic... just because certain members of the Socialist German workers party were religious, does in no way imply that their leader was. [snip] Yes, not only was the Third Reich entirely secular, they burned down churches, massacred Christians, and some (including Der fuhrer himself) actually became pagans during the war. Okay, sure, maybe being pagan doesn't meet your definition of "secular" but I am allowed to define my own terms. so here I define secular for myself so that you can understand it.

[quote] that is so incredibly pathetic stupid ...[unquote]

Secular- 1.)having nothing to do with the God of Abraham. 2.) being violently opposed to the God of Abraham.

Pick another god then. Say, how about Thor, or Zeus, or Shiva, or The Trickster Coyote, or The Great Green Arkleseizure or ...

The Third Reich meets that definition. And you don't even try to refute the point that killing is not a sin.

Define "Third Reich" then.

And define "sin" for me.

Oh, let's go for the trifecta: define "killing".

I label you: "A terrible excuse for a debater."

I label you: Buffoon. Gee, isn't this fun?

[Radix]

"Nothing can be "proved" wrong except a mathematics formula."

Tautologies are generally proved to be logically true by demonstrating via a detailed process that they are not false.

There is a lot "wrong" in this world, but not all of it that is wrong is mathematically compliant, and not everything can be proved.

Hebrews11:1

[conservative_crusader]

I find it interesting that so much of your arguments are semantic. Ok sure... the word "secular" was a poor choice of a word. However, I redefined the term secular for the sake of debate, and you refuse to operate within those parameters, no you'd much rather use a semantic argument that focuses on a poor choice of a word.

" Pick another god then. Say, how about Thor, or Zeus, or Shiva, or The Trickster Coyote, or The Great Green Arkleseizure or ..."

Yet another example of how semantic this is. I redefine the term to replace the mischosen word, and you come up with a string of sentences that is entirely non-sequiter

" Define "Third Reich" then."

Third Reich- The Regime of Germany during the years leading up to World War II and ending at the end of World War II.

Like I said it meets *my* given definition of "secular" because it was actually violently opposed to Christianity, and Judaism in particular.

" And define "sin" for me."

Sin- something that is wrong. (in this case it is something that is wrong as per God's commandment, i.e. the slaughter of millions of God-fearing people who are innocent of any crime).

" Oh, let's go for the trifecta: define "killing"."

Killing- The ending of a life by another living thing.

And because I know how semantic your arguments are, I will also define murder.

Murder- The intentional taking of a human life, that is not involved with killing an enemy in military service, or when fulfilling one's duty's as an executioner.


Let me continue, I said your argument was pathetic, and it is. It is a fallacy called post hoc ergo proctor hoc. literally "This therefore because of this."

The point that your fun little medallion had the phrase in German: "Gott mit uns" or "God with us," does not mean that the entire Reich was affiliated with Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Quite the contrary, it is quite well documented that the Nazis would terrorize those affiliated with religion just because they did not adhere to Der Fuhrer's absolute rule.

So tell me, are you ready to refute what I've said with logical analysis, or are you going to go with asking me to define things for you, and use semantic arguments forever?

[Radix]

"The technology of the time could not have successfully accomplished what Noah was credited with."

Genesis 7:16

Technology was apparently different in those days!

 

[Safrguns]

Do you want to tell us what an allele is or the definition of mutation? Anyone who knows anything about genetics should be able to recognize that a single strand of DNA (composed of genes and their variations {alleles}) represents the largest combination lock known to man, which in and of itself should be proof enough that it was created AND MANIPULATED by design and not by chance. Mutation... ah yes... Here's what I found when I looked that one up...

[sayfer bullets]

LOL!

[shubi]

You need to support your arguments with some data or facts. So far, all you have done is assertion.

[shubi]

Creation is not "proveable" and The Theory of Evolution does not contain Creation.

[shubi]

"Anyone who knows anything about genetics should be able to recognize that a single strand of DNA (composed of genes and their variations {alleles}"

Pretty much. You must understand that at a single loci (place where a gene exists), there may be hundreds of possible alleles in the population, but only a maximum of two in any individual. This is why the TOE must be discussed in terms of allele frequency changes in populations. The tendency of the ID and CS critics is to start talking about populations and make analogies to individuals. This is a purposeful conflation to make biology look ridiculous and it works for the uneducated.

However, it is not honest and it certainly doesn't gain anything for science or the furtherance of the Gospel.

[sayfer bullets]

No,...

I don't. Your demand proves my point. You believe.

[shubi]

I think yall are getting a little off the subject. The only thing evolution has to do with Hitler, is Hitler's adherence to social darwinism in the form of eugenics etc.

Social darwinism has nothing to do with the TOE. The arguments used for it are as misconstrued as the arguments for creationutism.

[conservative_crusader]

check post #126 creation is provable. And yes the theory of evolution can contain creation.

[shubi]

Logically true and true are two different things.
That is why the strawman arguments of the creationuts are so despicable. They hide wrongheaded premises behind a logical sounding argument.

[shubi]

Nope it is not "proveable". Like I said, in science only math is proveable.

Evolution can contain creation, but the THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN CREATION!!!!!

Can we all agree on this so we can move the debate to substance.

[shubi]

Huh?

[Safrguns]

What is not honest nor fruitful for furthurance of the Gospel is the adoption of evolution into a creation based faith. The two terms are mutually exclusive. You apparently are not familiar with either one.

[shubi]

OK, you win. I won't argue with you anymore.
But don't ever think that you have made any points in this debate. You are just being stubborn.