Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

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 ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 1,041-1,048 next last
Comment #481 Removed by Moderator

To: Pan Paniscus

Placemarker


482 posted on 12/09/2004 5:56:16 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus

Yeah, I told him it was Pascal's Wager and gave him a link so he could read about it.


483 posted on 12/09/2004 5:59:29 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
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.


484 posted on 12/09/2004 6:15:44 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
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
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1298027/posts


485 posted on 12/09/2004 6:44:28 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: stremba
You do know that the big bang is an expansion of space-time and is not an explosion, don't you?

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?

486 posted on 12/09/2004 6:56:22 PM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: shubi

"Does evolution contradict creationism?"

Absolutely.

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.


487 posted on 12/09/2004 6:59:30 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Methinks thou art a troll. LOL


488 posted on 12/09/2004 7:38:17 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Define Troll


489 posted on 12/09/2004 7:41:32 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

"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

What?


490 posted on 12/09/2004 7:41:38 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: shubi
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.


491 posted on 12/09/2004 7:50:29 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: shubi
"No one has been able to falsify the TOE, since its inception."

Argumentum Ad Ignorantium. Just because we are ignorant of anyway to disprove TOE, does not make it so. I am not denying TOE, I am merely saying that it is neither absolute, nor neccesarily "scientific fact."


"However, that is an argument of abiogenesis which is not in the TOE. You also run the danger that if science discovers that abiogenesis did create the first life form, you are left without a god."

I'd like you to forgive me, but I'm not sure exactly what abiogenesis is. Please enlighten me. From the context of the sentence, it would seem that you are suggesting that the original organism (if there was one) spontaneously generated. But then again I don't know what it is.
492 posted on 12/09/2004 8:09:17 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

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.


493 posted on 12/09/2004 8:58:14 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: shubi
"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."

I didn't "falsify" it per se, rather I claimed that just because we can't disprove it, does not make it true.

"You must have heard the arguments against life forming from slime from whatever creationcrapsites you have been getting your information from."

Okay, this is yet another fun argument, even if abiogenesis is accurate you cannot say, that God or a god did not cause these "chemicals" to meet and cause the reaction creating life. The idea of abiogenesis does not contradict creationism.
494 posted on 12/09/2004 9:24:58 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: shubi
sorry, I didn't catch the part of the definition that says "without God," thats my mistake. Let me rephrase that. The Idea of those natural chemicals reacting to create life, does not necessarily contradict creationism.
495 posted on 12/09/2004 9:34:59 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus

... 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...


496 posted on 12/09/2004 9:45:45 PM PST by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus; Safrguns

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.

interesting.


497 posted on 12/09/2004 9:52:51 PM PST by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: gdc61
isn't the term "godless creation" an oxymoron?
If a being -creates- another being, is not the creator -god- of that created being? (whether the being believes it or not)

If a being comes into existence without a creator, how can it be said that it was created at all?

This seems to be central to the question at hand.
498 posted on 12/09/2004 9:59:33 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
Well, I wish you the best. Perhaps we'll run into each other on other threads later on.
499 posted on 12/09/2004 11:14:08 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus

There is always someone to talk to...........and always someone who listens.


500 posted on 12/10/2004 12:25:19 AM PST by kipita (Rebel the proletariat response to Aristocracy and Exploitation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 1,041-1,048 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson