The Foundations of the Debate

Righteous Skeptic If God is not necessary for the operation of life this could just as well mean that there is no God. You will not consider this as a possibilty though for whatever reason. As a person who is atheist as a matter of choosing to side with the evidence rather than faith,I find that evolution does not make the case for considering the world to be without God since there is nothing in the concept that prevents a God from existing but as you say it is unecessary.I think that the idea of God is an insubstantial one since it seems unreasonable to expect such an entity to exist,if such an entity ,not existing, would not change the understanding we have of the world.
It was once thought that winds were the breath of God , that lightning was an action of God , that life could not be concieved of having a natural origin. But these ideas have all passed and further investigation has consistently taken the power assigned to God{by humans remember} and explained it in natural terms.
And the God of the Gaps has consistenly grown smaller and smaller over time. To me that suggests a pattern of constantly shrinking requirements that would be completely in line with a world where a God does not really exist but irreconcilable, IMHO, with one where God does exist. Well other than stating the obviously simple explanation {no God} , we need ask how can you possibly begin to fathom the motives of God? Well that is too bad for the bible then since those are the works of men and the universe we inhabit is the work of God {playing devil's advocate here, of course.} If, in comparing the creation to the bible, we find that the actual creation contradicts the bible should we not believe the works of God over those of men?The theory of evolution is evidentialy based so your beliefs and mine and everyone else's is irrelevant to the validity of the theory.

---

Dear Mrs Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.Best wishes, Richard Feynman.

A God who can create evolution is a truly awesome God.A god who individually makes one thing after another, with each intended to fix the problems of the prior one, is an incompetent bungling fool who deserves no respect,Theistic evolutionists believe in an awesome God.

Quite right. The ToE just explains how populations change over time. What is up is that the history of life that is recorded by the evidence in the earth, pieced together using various sciences including ToE, contradicts the history of life compiled by just about every religion. Other science theories contradict other histories provided by religions, such as the creation of earth and the cosmos.The problem is that some people have decided to try and argue that the history reported by the evidence is inaccurate compared with the written reports of certain individuals who have been given perfect credibility through faith and that as a result of this faith, children should be taught this (or at least they should be taught that evolution is 'just a theory' with 'lots of holes').It's like holocaust denial, moon landing hoaxes and so on and so forth.This website hopes to help people who genuinely seek to discover the heart of the debate and learn about it. Some (YE) creationists were taught by people they trust without really being taught the real science behind evolution - and this site serves in some way as a place to come learn.

quote:

---

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.

---

I think that this gets close to the real heart of the debate.The truth as uncovered by science is that it is not obvious that God made the Earth. That doesn't prove that God didn't do it - that can't be proven either way - but it does prove that God didn't do what creationists say He did. And that is unbearable to creationists.The heart of creationism, then, is the doctrine of creationist churches - which creationists hold to be the supreme authority, even ruling over God.

Yes, but I think that producing such evidence would be next to impossible, because Genesis gives very little scientific data, it only summarizes events. Therefore, it would be difficult to point to a specific event and say, "That could never have happened". And anyway, that was not the point I was making. The point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the only logical way to take, because it is the only view that is consistent with the rest of the book.

Well, for starters, the whole human race starting from two people in the Garden of Eden could never have happened. And the whole human race starting again from eight people after the flood could never have happened. (For that matter, the flood itself could never have happened.)A lot of this site is concerned with showing that a lot of Genesis could never have happened. But a literal interpretation of Genesis is totally inconsistent with reality.The foundation of the debate is literalists' failure to understand their own Bible and refusal to acknowledge reality.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Does the same hold true for men like Harvard-trained geologist Kurt Wise whose mentor was Stephen J. Gould and is now a non-evolutionist? Or any of the many other scientists trained at secular universities (presumably by people they also trusted) who have since rejected Darwinianism? How do you explain this phenomenon?

quote:

---

"If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." - Kurt Wise."

---

Wise's faith, by his own admission, trumps ANY evidence you can show him. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Sure, but I was making the point that the YeC movement is not just stocked with scientifically-ignorant laypeople accepting the story from people they trust.In fact, the YeCers that are most qualified tend to come from secular universities, often start out as evolutionists, and are mentored by evolutionists - not creationists.The first phenomenon might be classed as mere transmital of a pop-legend.The second is anything but.

Right. And then they find Jesus, or whatever, experience a religious conversion to Christian fundamentalism, and what a surprise! They find the evidence for evolution suddenly "lacking".It never seems to happen in the reverse, does it? That an irreligious atheist evolutionist suddenly wakes up, finds the scientific evidence totally lacking, and becomes a devotee of Intelligent Design, before finally determining that the Intelligent Designer is the God of Abraham?It's a religious-driven movement. Not a science-driven one.

Yes it does, actually. I'm not gonna ask you to take my word on it, though. I recently read of a husband/wife team of biologists who came to conclude that evolution was implausable. I'll link their story as soon as I find it.

quote:

---

In fact, the YeCers that are most qualified tend to come from secular universities, often start out as evolutionists, and are mentored by evolutionists - not creationists.

---

So far as I am aware very few people in the YEC movement fit that description - if any. Wise for instance was a creationist out of religious conviction before he studied under Gould and I understand that he admits that the evidence is against YEC.

No, this website is not geared towards all creationists, just (as I said) some. Kurt Wise would find little utility in using this website and engaging in debate here - though he would be most welcome and hopefully much can be learned from him. As has been mentioned - he denies evolution not because of the evidence but because of his faith. His knowledge of paleontology would be exciting and wonderful to add to our collective, but I don't think he has much to learn from anyone here. Why would it? I was clearly not referring to them, I was referring to creationists who were never taught the real science behind evolution - not those who have. That's why I said

quote:

---

Some (YE) creationists were taught by people they trust without really being taught the real science behind evolution

---

I think it's fairly straightforward. The same question can be asked of Harvard educated David Hoggan, how do we explain how he became a holocaust denying neo-nazi? Clearly his transformation is different from those who have not received such a complete education, and are just taught holocaust denial by others who are either ignorant of history, or who omit discussing important evidence.One would not expect an open web forum to provide the level of debate that will be of any use to Dr Hoggan with regards to history, but it can provide a good zone of information to those who have been fed a cartoon history and strawmen arguments to convince them that no holocaust took place. The same applies to Kurt Wise and to the laymen creationists that clearly do not understand evolution/have a cartoon strawman understanding.

Congratulations. We can now close this thread, because you have just answered your own question.This is the reason there is a debate. The debate is not because there's a scientific dispute. In fact, the debate is not because "evolution denies god." There's a debate because of people like you, whose faith in god relies on the bible being literally true and inerrant.Evolution doesn't deny the existence of god. Science as a whole doesn't deny the existence of god. But, virtually every natural science has made findings inconsistent with a literal, inerrant interpretation of the bible. And, if the only way you can find meaning in the bible is to believe that every word is literally true, you're going to be in a bad way.Here's the thing that I find absolutely hysterical. I can find meaning in the bible. I think there are important truths that it contains, and life lessons that everyone would benefit from if they learned them. However, not only do I not believe the bible is inerrant and literally true, I don't even believe in god.It's apparently inconceivable to you that the bible has any worth if any single word if it is not true. It's incomprehensible to me how anyone can come to that conclusion.Any more questions?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Understood.