|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Foundations of the Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
Apart from the quest for knowledge, why are we discussing this?
(by "this" I mean creation/evolution) I've heard many evolutionists say that there is no reason for arguing about creation and evolution because the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God. Is this claim valid? If it is, why does this website exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5549 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Evolution does not deny the existence of God, but some creationists deny the existence of evolution, hence the debate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I've heard many evolutionists say that there is no reason for arguing about creation and evolution because the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God. Is this claim valid? It is. The ToE says nothing about gods. It neither confirms nor denies the existence of any diety. Why are we discussing it? Well, there are a couple of reasons. The most important one is that creos keep trying to claim that creationism stands on equal footing with the ToE. If scientists don't respond, that increases the danger that the claim might be accepted as accurate. The second reason is to show that the claim that the ToE conflicts with religion is not necessarily true. One would think that this would be self-evident, particularly considering that most scientists in this country are christians. Moreover, since evolution, at most, only conflicts with a literalist reading of the bible, and most people don't read the bible that way, it's difficult to understand why this is any kind of issue for most folk. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I've heard many evolutionists say that there is no reason for arguing about creation and evolution because the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God. Absolutely true. Many of us who also accept that the TOE is the best explanation to date of what is seen are also theists, Christians even. The debate exists because some few do not agree and so try to push Biblical Creationism, Young Earth fables and ID as though they were science. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
My personal dispute with evolution is not that they don't deny the
existence of God, but that they have created a world in which God is not necessary. The TOE is not dependant on God! This conflicts with Biblical Christianity because the Bible indicates that the method with which God created the Earth made it obvious that He created it. Here's a logical question. If God wanted it to be obvious that He created the Earth, why would He create it in a way where He is not necessary for its creation? Theistic evolutionists and intelligent design proponents have put God at the playwright's desk, where he is merely starting the machine, but the Bible puts God at center stage. According to the Bible, human instinct is to want to live in a world where they are not responsible to God. That is exactly what the many contributors to the TOE have done. They may not say it, but the TOE of evolution makes it so they do not have to be accountable to or even believe in God, whether unconciously or consciously done. A smart man once said (summarized)
Arguing Creation or Evolution from a scientific point of view is pointless, because the conflict is spirtual. It is between worldviews and the faith or lack thereof of the person or persons debating According to the Bible only God can change man's heart. Meaning, unless there is a supernatural intervention, Creationists and Evolutionists will never agree. In conclusion, that is why the debate exists, because evolutionists have insisted on creating a world where they do not need God, and creationists have insisted on disagreeing with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Righteous Skeptic writes: If God wanted it to be obvious that He created the Earth, why would He create it in a way where He is not necessary for its creation? What makes you think He wanted it to be obvious?
Theistic evolutionists and intelligent design proponents have put God at the playwright's desk, where he is merely starting the machine, but the Bible puts God at center stage. Hint: Ever hear of Shakespeare? Who played Hamlet on opening night? Center stage or not, mere actors are soon forgotten. It's the playwright who's remembered. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
In conclusion, that is why the debate exists, because evolutionists have insisted on creating a world where they do not need God, and creationists have insisted on disagreeing with them. In fact, "evolutionists" (many of whom believe in God) only read the record that God actually wrote. The fact that it is in disgreement with the interpretation that a small minority of believers give to a book written down my men is not that fault of those reading the record God wrote into the rocks and living things of this world. It is clear that those who insist on a nonsensical, fact-opposing interpretation of the Bible or Q'uran are the ones who create a world where they try to make it impossible for a rational person to believe in a god. You make the mistake of trying to impute motives to those that you know nothing about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
Ringo writes: What makes you think He wanted it to be obvious? David writes: 1 The heavens declare the glory of God;the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Paul writes: 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. He wanted it to be obvious so that those who know him will praise him and those who don't will have no excuse for not praising him.
Ringo writes: Hint: Ever hear of Shakespeare? Who played Hamlet on opening night? Center stage or not, mere actors are soon forgotten. It's the playwright who's remembered You're reading too much into my illustration. What I meant was that in the TOE, God, if he exists takes the back seat to natural selection and abiogenesis, while in the Bible, he is the Creator, orchestrating every part of his creation. I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis by-the-way. Why? Because context counts when you're studying the Bible. If Genesis was poetry or prophecy, or some other type of writing which used a lot of symbolism, then I would be inclined to a less literal interpretation, but because Genesis is entirely styled in the historical narrative, I take Creation literally as much as I take the fact that Methuselah lived n nearly 1000 years, or that Jacob had 12 sons literally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis by-the-way. Why? Because context counts when you're studying the Bible. If Genesis was poetry or prophecy, or some other type of writing which used a lot of symbolism, then I would be inclined to a less literal interpretation, but because Genesis is entirely styled in the historical narrative, I take Creation literally as much as I take the fact that Methuselah lived nearly 1000 years, or that Jacob had 12 sons literally. Does that mean that if incontrovertable evidence were found that showed that some part of Genesis is impossible, you would lose all faith in god? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5549 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
In conclusion, that is why the That makes no sense. Evolutionists are not creating worlds. They are just investigating the nature of this world and going wherever the evidence takes them. that's the hallmark of a good science.debate exists, because evolutionists have insisted on creating a world where they do not need God, and creationists have insisted on disagreeing with them. You reasonson's to dislike evolution seem to be all filosophical in nature and completely irrelevant to whether the theory is true or not. I't important to keep in mind that disliking a theory is not a reason good enough to dimiss that theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Righteous Skeptic writes: What I meant was that in the TOE, God, if he exists takes the back seat to natural selection and abiogenesis, while in the Bible, he is the Creator, orchestrating every part of his creation. On the contrary. In your interpretation of the Bible, God is a mere engineer who made some badly-designed machines. In theistic evolution, God created machines that can reproduce themselves and adapt to changing conditions in their environment. That's a far greater accomplishment than your lame-assed version.
I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis by-the-way. That won't be held against you in this thread. They try to keep the topics pretty narrowly focused, so you can believe in fuzzy pink unicorns for all it matters here. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5549 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
He wanted it to be obvious so that those who know him will praise him If S/he wanted it to be obvious then explain to me how come it isn't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Righteous Skeptic: If Genesis was poetry or prophecy, or some other type of writing which used a lot of symbolism, then I would be inclined to a less literal interpretation, but because Genesis is entirely styled in the historical narrative, I take Creation literally If I showed you a story in which the Wright Brothers get their ideas about powered flight from a talking iguana that lives on the Cliffs of Insanity, would you understand the story as 'a type of writing which uses a lot of symbolism' or as a story 'entirely styled in the manner of historical narrative'? The question is not rhetorical. I want to know how you would decide this. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
a story in which the Wright Brothers get their ideas about powered flight from a talking iguana that lives on the Cliffs of Insanity I saw that the other day at Waldenbooks. I'm waiting for the movie. Word is that they're trying to get Bruce Willis to play Orville, but I understand he's holding out for Wilber. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024