The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the appar

Okay: more specifically. What a person can be aware of using their senses (5). Did you need to use a machine to taste your last meal?

I. The Bible is unique
There is no comparison with any other works of mankind. No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+), nor have any been written over such a long span of time (1,600 years). Yet it is profoundly cohesive in all of its contents.II. The Bible is God's word
In addition to the infinite profundity of the whole, it contains prophecies of many events that are still future in terms of time. These are given with adequate and specific details to be able to unmistakably predict in advance the events recorded.
It is not possible that it is merely human in origin because many of its ramifications are beyond human capabilities.III. Creationism aka 'Intelligent Design' are not scientific disciplines and therefore should not be taught as such in schools.
"The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations."
Any explanation of observed phenomena, that invokes to any extent supernatural influence such as divine motivation, is thus inherently self-disqualified from being a scientific discipline.IV. Evolution is valid
Evolution, however, is the only valid scientific theory which adequately explains the know data. And it has been verified by the correlation of the relevant data corresponding to its testable conclusions.Objectively consider that God may have used evolution to create man. Do not disregard so doing due to bias, dogmatism, or love of argumentation.

Electricity for one thing. We can use instruments (e.g voltmeters, ammeters, oscilloscopes, logic probes) that produce effects that register on our senses. Is electrical voltage unreal because we cannot see it? Is oxygen unreal simply because we cannot detect its presence or absence directly with our five senses.The distinction between direct and indirect interaction is extremely arbitrary. You've chosen a poor analogy for the describing whatever obstacles, if any, prevent us from understanding spiritual things. Perhaps you should try something different.

This kind of nonsense claim is ridiculous. The Bible is an anthology. Let's compare the claim of 39 authors to the number of authors we might find in say, Volume 745 of The Astrophysics Journal. I see more than 39 authors listed in the February issue.Yes the Bible is unique, but your hyperbole is ridiculous.

I needed glasses to see it. I needed utensils to eat it. I needed electricity to cook it. The only meal that doesn't require indirect action is the one you strangle manually and eat raw.Ultimately, everything we do indirectly is based on things that we used to do directly. Why make a distinction between what we can do with our senses and what we can do with the machinery we create with our senses?

You don't need any of those things for it register on our senses. You just have to touch it while making a ground and it'll register nicely.- Oni

What, are you telling that electricity is not magic? What next - nucular bombs and turbochargers have a "scientific" explanation to them?I really cannot comprehend what many believers hope to achieve with pseudo-science and touchy-feely deities. If a believers went on to say that he/she has this feeling that there is something bigger than what we are able to observe, fine. I cannot argue with that - and because of such honesty, have no desire to. However when scientific data is interpreted with a mindset that the Bible is 100% correct and everything else must yield, loathing and ridicule ensues and very rightfully so.This OP is nothing but a re-hash of that touchy-feely stuff that cannot be proven...

Sort of, but not really. There's plenty of works that have had large numbers of contributors. And if you allow collections of works, like the Bible is, then you should include things like the Encyclopdia Britannica, which according to wiki has over 4000 contributors. Have you heard of Man'yōshū?It a collection of Japanese poems and it goes back over 1,600 years.So yeah, the Bible is neat and all, but its hardly as unique as you're trying to make it.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me finally, firmly, and completely clarify my position regarding 'Evolution vs. Creationism, et. al.' :
It is absolutely vain babbling (spiritually speaking) to speculate about man's origins. Such speculation is totally from the wrong tree- the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and as such it is totally incapable of conveying spiritual nourishment and edification.
I have no motive whatsoever to attempt to validate 'Evolution'.
However, I am 100% against any and all persons (regardless of purity of motivation) who in any way make the disbelief in Evolution a tenet of the Christian Faith, a Faith given once to all whom God has chosen to be His people.
I challenge anyone to dispute the following assertion: "It is completely possible to believe in 'Evolution' and to receive Christ as one's personal Savior, becoming genuinely born again."

Okay, challenge accepted. It would depend entirely on how one defines "genuinely born again". If one insists on the literal historical truth of Genesis, then that can not be reconciled with evolution.

The poster's point is that believing in the literal historical truth of Genesis is not a step in receiving salvation. If you want to accept the challenge you need to provide an argument that the poster is wrong about that point.

I know that. I'm just pointing out that his opinion is just an opinion and has no more value than the opposing opinion. The challenge is circular. He can't be proven wrong using his definition of "genuine" because his definition makes him right. He can, however, be proven wrong by using a different definition.

Objectively or subjectively?

Of course his post contained an opinion. But it also contained a challenge to disprove his statement. You claimed to be taking up the challenge, but you actually did not bother to do anything but assert.

Hi PaulGL Curiously I disagree. One of the prime talents of the human race is curiosity, and curiosity about origins ranks high on the list of things to be curious about.Sure we can agree that the oldest fossil bearing rocks that we have found to date had fossils of life already developed. so there is no record of that development that is yet known. We know that life began on earth at least 3 billion years ago. We know that the first life was simple single cellular organisms, prokaryotes, with no nucleus. We know that it took about a billion years for more complex single cellular organisms, eukaryotes, to develop, with a nucleus that may have been another single cell organism swallowed whole and forming a synergistic new type of organism, and that the formation of multicellular life forms occurred shortly after that.We also know that prebiotic molecules abound in space, possibly formed by exploding stars as chunks of gases cooled. See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I).We also know that chemical reactions can create self-replicating molecules and other elements of primal cells. See Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II).We know this because our curiosity has led us to find this information, and we are still finding out things, like the origin of chirality, that lead us further into knowledge of how life may have formed on earth, and possibly elsewhere in the universe.We know that we will keep looking because we are curious. But when it comes down to whether life actually began this way 3.5 billion years ago or whether it was created, I would have to say that at this point in time that we don't know. Yet. Well I agree with you here, and I find no challenge in so thinking. Where I do find challenge is in several specific beliefs of some specific sects or branches of thinking, such as that the earth is young or that a massive world altering flood occurred, that "special creation" was the source of each species of life (including man), or any belief that is at odds with objective empirical evidence.The world is over 4.5 billion years old. There is no evidence of a global inundation of water simultaneously covering the whole earth. There is evidence of species evolving from prior species and that this process is observed in the ancestry of man.The teachings of Jesus do not - imho - require such evidently mistaken beliefs.Enjoy.