Skip to comments.Does evolution contradict creationism?
Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Yeah, I told him it was Pascal's Wager and gave him a link so he could read about it.
| Where exactly did I try to prove or disprove evolution through the use of the Bible?
It pertains to the question presented in the title of this thread. Your defense of the thread's author places you on that side of the debate. If this is not the case, then the first point in my previous post is validated.
Break it down into a syllogism for me so I can see how you come by that statement.
Lets use man's historical quest for the creation of artificial life as an example... In fiction as well as in real life, man has demonstrated both his desire and capacity for creation, but has yet to successfully create something from scratch that equals let alone surpasses his own existence. Only in fiction has man been able to re-create anything remotely comparable to his own being. Man has the capacity to understand that he cannot re-create himself, because he does not have the intelligence nor knowledge to accomplish such a task. Clone? maybe... but not create. This realization once made leads man to the conclusion that there must be an intelligence greater than his own to explain self existence... it is therefore natural and logical for one to seek out that intelligence. Rejection of this conclusion and response leads to the opposite conclusion that man is supreme in the universe by way of natural selection, or whatever you want to call it.
What was that one movie called?... where astronaughts traveled to mars to investigate the facial image anomoly...
If you are familiar with the movie, the astronaughts were forced to demonstrate a certain level of intelligence (they completed the dna sequence of man in a transmission). Once done, the superior intelligence revealed itself and disclosed the mystery of life on earth.
Of course, the conclusion of the movie offered the evolution theory as valid, but re-affirmed the conclusion that the creator (alien dna seed planter) was of superior intelligence to man. Fictitious yes... but the conclusion of a higher intelligence was real in the author's mind.
| Break it down into a syllogism for me so I can see how you come by that statement.
Try this one too... from one of your own
I do know that it becomes anything God haters want it to be. If you want it to be a space-time expansion, an explosion, or a simulation, then it will be that. We do know one thing, no matter what the evidence it will never be allowed to be anything like Creation or ID. Big Bang has never been theory, and doens't even pass itself off well as a hypothesis. It does make for some interesting science fiction. Still you have the problems with Big Bang violating the uncaused cause and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (plus a ton of other things). So if you can write off basic laws of physics, why not invent any explanation that defies the obvious?
"Does evolution contradict creationism?"
It is clear in the Bible that God created all in 6 twenty-four hour days and on the 7th day He rested. We are also NOT in the image of an "ape". God created us in His image so clearly evolution is a contradiction of what God states. Like it or not, it is a FACT that evolution contradicts creation. Ah, Lucifer is laughing his arse off at silly Christians with "itching ears" and atheists that push this trash - evolution.
Methinks thou art a troll. LOL
"why not invent any explanation that defies the obvious?"
You mean like each "kind" was poofed into existance or
dino bones were put in chronological order in the strata to fool us into thinking the Earth is old and forms changed and disappeared over time or
the Earth is only 6000 years old or
the term day in Gen 1 means a 24 hr day and not an indefinite period of time like Gen 2:4 says or
| Re-defining what God says about reality so that it will fit into the confines of what man can comprehend is like a three year old rejecting the laws of physics because he cannot spell 'Apple' yet.
Falsifying a theory is hardly done from ignorance. It would take a lot of knowledge to falsify biological evolution, considering the mountain of evidence that has accumulated supporting the ToE.
Abiogenesis is basically the hypothesis that first life originated from naturally occurring chemicals without any intervention by God or any living entity. You must have heard the arguments against life forming from slime from whatever creationcrapsites you have been getting your information from.
... PP: You have no idea what Pan paniscus is?....
oh big words!! run away!!
worse than that, I couldn't care less what it means.
but your views of a godless creation...
I'll be glad to read it, given time. (which would not be midnight). Spare me the condescenscion, though, if you would. I understand quite well, although unlike the materialists here I am comfortable admitting I don't have all the answers.
You did not address the content, however, while feeling the need to substitute links for a response.
There is always someone to talk to...........and always someone who listens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.