Evolution vs Bible

Quote:

---

Creationism reveals the origins of the world, there is nothing which provides any evidence for it in the material world which surrounds us,

---

You still don't get it:

You confuse Proof with Evidence.

Both work with the SAME evidence.

The world around us IS the evidence.

Evolution attempts to EXPLAIN the evidence. As does Creation.

Evolution interprets the evidence of say, the eye, as having evolved down through billions of years. Creation says the eye was created by a Creator.

I look at the eye from my paradigm of creationism and come to the conclusion that the eye was created for a particular pupose in each particular species. You look at the eye from your paradigm of materialistic naturalism and come to the conclusion that the eye evolved through one species to the next, keeping what was advantageous at each step along the way over billions of years. You don't KNOW that for sure, you take your interpretation by FAITH.

Both paradigms or methods of interpretation are taken by faith.

Get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

But to pass the 'test' and become fact, rather than theory, tests need to be repeatable and produce the same results - impossible, I'd say.

---

Facts and theories aren't the same thing.

Facts are data. If I drop this pen it will fall to the floor. It's a fact. I know this because on the millions of occasions when I've dropped things, they've always fallen to the floor. Never once has a thing floated up and sat on the ceiling.

Theories are attempts to explain facts. Why does it fall to the floor? The theory of gravity provides an explanation of the fact, and so far no one has come up with a better explanation. But they might. And if they do, we'll have a new theory. But the pen will still fall to the floor.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

How does evolution EXPLAIN how life forms made it to Hawaii?

---

Sorry, but I have to answer this moronic question. Evolution explains the diversity and complexity of living things on the planet. It doesn't explain other things like wind, waves, logs floating on the ocean. It doesn't attempt to explain those kind of things.

Straw man.

I don't hold a paradigm of materialistic naturalism, kerux.
I have faith in reason and believe that what can be observed has relative truth.

Your comment is interesting, this is the philosophical difference between religion and science I was getting at.

But it's not "get over it", you have not addressed the specific difference in what the faith is about.
This is where science and religion differ - faith in one's observations and veryfying tests, versus faith in what's been revealed in a book supposedly inspired an almighty entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

Creation says the eye was created by a Creator.

---

In what sense is this an intellectually stimulating explanation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benbaaa

(1) The way our DNA replicates when we reproduce is very, very accurate, but but it isn't perfect. The small copying errors lead to variations in the physical and mental attributes of the offspring.

(2) Some of these variations are helpful to the survival of the offspring, some of the variations are neutral, and some may be detrimental.

(3) Variations which are helpful to the survival of the organism stand a greater chance of being replicated, because the organism reaches sexual maturity and reproduces, in turn passing on those helpful variations. These variations will become, over time, more prevalent in the population. Variations which are unhelpful to the survival of the organism won't, because the organism may die before reaching sexual maturity.

---

Very good explanation, thank you. It's nice to have someone with scientific skills who can provide a perfectly good explanation. Btw, what's your specialty ?

Evolution is basically the mutation of our DNA influenced by our environment. Which means the combination of those factors will "influence" or mutate our DNA. Now there is theory that says that all those combinations are actually limited in reality while endless in theory. There is so much environmental influences that our exposed DNA can handle. This leads also to the theory that we might have all "natural" clones, identical DNA combination, which would prove that:

- there is not that many combination possible in our DNA and that would limit the diversity of our species
- that environment influence on our DNA is overrated, that the different factor combination in our environment is not that diverse and hence limit our mutation and even our uniqueness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

How does evolution EXPLAIN how life forms made it to Hawaii?

---

Spaceship ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

How does evolution EXPLAIN how life forms made it to Hawaii?

---

Sorry, but I have to answer this moronic question. Evolution explains the diversity and complexity of living things on the planet. It doesn't explain other things like wind, waves, logs floating on the ocean. It doesn't attempt to explain those kind of things.

---

Creation does both.

Quote:

---

and arrived at the theory by application of reason.

---

And you think creationism doesn't use reason?

I see an assembled automobile sitting in my garage. Never before in all of man's experience has such a complex machine been known to put itself to together all by itself and by chance. Experience over many many years has taught us that an intelligent being, in fact, many intelligent beings, are needed to put as complex a piece of machinery together.

By reason, we come to the conclusion that the complex automobile sitting in my garage was not only designed put put together by an intelligent being.

We creationists use the same reasoning method to come to the conclusion that the eye did not happen by chance over millions of years all by itself.

So far, the Bible has not been mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

btw: did anyone ever answer the question:

How does evolution EXPLAIN how life forms made it to Hawaii?

---

The wisdom of believing or disbelieving is in itself questionable. Whilst belief implies an act of faith, which may or may not be warranted, people through time have often been prepared to kill, or sacrifice, in the name of their belief, or faith. But disbelief is another, reverse form of belief; for example, to deny belief in ghosts, flying saucers or astrology, is as much an act of faith as believing in them.

Why does the belief in God and the theory of evolution have to be mutually exclusive?
Why can't the mechanism of evolution (which is miraculous) have been God's work?
Please don't come back with "because the bible says....."

Why shouldn't I come back with, ""because the bible says.....""

Because it is proven the bible was written by man and has been edited many times. If anything the Muslims could claim their book the Koran is more reliable as it's the direct word of God as related to Mohammed and has not been edited.

Forget the above.

Tell me why you don't think evolution can be God's chosen mechanism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Because it is proven the bible was written by man and has been edited many times. If anything the Muslims could claim their book the Koran is more reliable as it's the direct word of God as related to Mohammed and has not been edited.

Forget the above.

Tell me why you don't think evolution can be God's chosen mechanism?

---

i asked him the same question a number of pages back... or anohter thread i loose track of all his evasions.

his reply was to have a go at Catholocism.....

so what is the Bible saying about evolution ? I haven't seen quotes that disagree with evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

I see an assembled automobile sitting in my garage. Never before in all of man's experience has such a complex machine been known to put itself to together all by itself and by chance. Experience over many many years has taught us that an intelligent being, in fact, many intelligent beings, are needed to put as complex a piece of machinery together.

---

Utter bullshit from a man who clearly has no idea what evolution really is.

Your car may be a complex thing, but is nowhere - I mean absolutely nowhere - as complicated as most living things. Does your car know when it's run out of gas? Can it drive itself to the petrol station and fill itself up? Does it repair all its own dents and scrapes? Can it warm itself up when it's cold and cool itself down when it's hot? Does it avoid dangerous situations? Can it fuck another car and make a copy of itself? In case you and your pea-brain are struggling for an answer, the answer is no. It can't do any of the basic things that the simplest creature can do.

Cars are just lumbering hunks of inanimate metal and rubber. So that's my first point - you might think they are complex but they aren't anything like as complex as you and me.

And here's my second point. Look what biology, physics and chemistry can do: over time, and given the right sort of environment, they can turn a single living cell into a fully functioning racehorse. All without your or my help. Or without your god's help.

So don't tell me you need god to put together complex things. If that was true, who put together god?

:1st: BB, Hit the nail on the coffin with that comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

so what is the Bible saying about evolution ? I haven't seen quotes that disagree with evolution

---

Didn't Pope John Paul II say something to the effect "there's something to this evolution stuff, it can't be discounted" ?

I thought that was a reasonable, modern stance for him to take. And a surprising one considering his Vicotrian era stance on other issues.

So Catholics are not to discount 'evolution', that's a start.

Now we'll just need the Bishop of Canterbury to agree and we'll have covered a large section of Christians, with the notable exception of some fundamentalist sects which fester unchecked in the US.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's worth repeating here:

Quote:

---

I believe that mainstream science, if we are brave enough to embrace it, offers the most reliable path to knowledge about the physical world. I am certainly not saying that scientists are infallible, and neither am I suggesting that science should be turned into a latter-day religion. But I do think that if religion is to make real progress it cannot ignore the scientific culture; nor should it be afraid to do so, for as I have argued, science reveals just what a marvel the universe is.

---

Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address - Paul Davies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

So Catholics are not to discount 'evolution', that's a start.

Now we'll just need the Bishop of Canterbury to agree and we'll have covered a large section of Christians, with the notable exception of some fundamentalist sects which fester unchecked in the US.

---

thats been the case for quite awhile. the only ppl who take the bible literally are modern day bible nutters...

unfortunately they have some control over some of the state educational systems where they argue that theirs is a science and therefore should be given equal time in science lessons as oppossed to religious lessons - which i got no prblem with. (its abt honesty in advertising really aibnt it?)

Evolution is a theory used to explain the evidence we see in the world around us.

Creation is a theory used to explain the evidence we see in the world around us.

Neither are scientific. They are merely methods by which we attempt to EXPLAIN the world around us.

Both are taken by faith.

For example, take the evidence of the eye.

Both theories use the same evidence - the eye.

Evolution tries to explain how the eye came to be. The evolution paradigm explains the eye as having evolved piecemeal by chance through various species to come to exist in the form we see today over billions of years.

Creation explains that the eye is too complex to have evolved and through reasoning we conclude that an Intelligence of some sort must have been at work. [please notice there has been no mention of the Bible].

Let's take another example: the evidence being a car in a garage. Both are examining the same evidence the car.

Creationism says that no complex machinery of this nature as ever been known to assemble itself by chance. Ever. Every example we have when we examine similar complex examples, say a train, an airplance, a boat, etc. we know that it was only through the workings of an intelligent agent that these pieces of complex machines were built. So, by reason, when we look at the evidence, the car, train, lane, boat, etc, using reason and logic and experience, we conclude that an intelligent agent was the cause of the car we see in the garage. [notice again, no mention of the Bible]

An evolutionist looks at the car in the garage and postulates that, given the parts already, [never mind where the parts came from, that's a whole 'nother problem dealing with origins] that the car assembled itself over billions of years by chance.

Takes more faith to believe the latter theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

Evolution is blah blah blah ......

Takes more faith to believe the latter theory.

---

there are so many holes and previously answered arguements in that post i am not even gonna bother......


BTW did you notice that your post count is 666 ! ? :dev+ang:

Oh, my, you're using an objectionable smiley in reply to my post.

Should I report you?

btw: arguements is spelled arguments.

^ haha - whateva!


BTW - that would be another evasion.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

An evolutionist looks at the car in the garage and postulates that, given the parts already, [never mind where the parts came from, that's a whole 'nother problem dealing with origins] that the car assembled itself over billions of years by chance.

---

Straw man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

Evolution tries to explain how the eye came to be. The evolution paradigm explains the eye as having evolved piecemeal by chance through various species to come to exist in the form we see today over billions of years.

---

Either you are simply parading your total ignorance of the theory of evolution, or you are deliberately misrepresenting evolution as a theory of chance so as to mislead others. In simple language, you are either stupid or you're lying. Possibly both. :)

Write this out 100 times. Evolution is not a theory of chance.

Chance only enters the evolutionary theory when DNA is replicating itself. Only the mutation of an organism due to copying errors is random. The subsequent survival or premature death of that organism is absolutely not random.

The eye didn't come about by chance - the odds against that happening are phenominally large. The eye came about because the earliest, most primitive "eyes" (perhaps a randomly produced patch of darker-pigmented skin we wouldn't even call an eye) was somehow useful to the organism that had it. It somehow helped the organism to survive to sexual maturity, and was inherited by its offspring. The offspring also survived, but with a very slight mutation to the patch of skin which just happened to make it a tiny bit more useful in surviving. And so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benbaaa

[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerux

Evolution tries to explain how the eye came to be. The evolution paradigm explains the eye as having evolved piecemeal by chance through various species to come to exist in the form we see today over billions of years.

---

Either you are simply parading your total ignorance of the theory of evolution, or you are deliberately misrepresenting evolution as a theory of chance so as to mislead others. In simple language, you are either stupid or you're lying. Possibly both. :)

Write this out 100 times. Evolution is not a theory of chance.

---

actually that point was answered pretty well either earlier in this thread or one of the others on roughly the same topic by someone... i forget who know. But Kerux is able to convieniently ignore that......

along with most other things that refute his outlandish claims.