Thread: Evolution vs Bible

Originally Posted by kerux

You too are a buffalo

Matthew 5:22
"But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." According to your own religious book kerux, you are going to burn in hell.

Evolution-vs-Bible

Gravity-vs-Santa Claus

You can't compare a scientific theory (which can be tested) with a book of stories.

The thing about science is that if credible evidence is produced refuting one theory, and and if that evidence can be reproduced again with proper controls, scientists will alter their beliefs.

The thing about religion - especially the Kerux brand - is that no one changes their mind whatever the hell is said.

Two completely different things, and they can't be compared meaningfully.

Originally Posted by stroller

albeit a plausible one.

beats the hell outta religion and I do mean ANY religion. There is no god and has never been one. If I'm totally wrong, then he or she or whatever it is can fork off, because they are doing a lousy job. It's your fellow man and woman that makes this world. Too bad more paople can't grab that concept and just try to live better lives with each other rather than depending on a religion to tell you what to think. ANY religion is only there to keep the masses in control, nothing else.

These kooks happen to be very well educated men with credentials up the kazoo. Stephen C.Meyers is one. I highly recommend his article

The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design:
The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories1
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Ignatius Press)

CSC - The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design:

In this article he convincingly argues that if the theory of creation or more exact, ID, is going to be eliminated from the classroom based on not passing the scientific method test, then so should the theory of evolution.

The idea that these people are 'kooks' is just ridiculous.

Go here for a long list of creationists PhD and MAs in the physcial sciences and their accomplishments and credentials

Scientists in the Physical Sciences - Institute for Creation Research

Just one example among dozens:

Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology (ICR)

He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology. His professional memberships include the Geological Society of America, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Society for Sedimentary Geology, the International Association of Sedimentologists. He has had professional, peer-reviewed projects at Mt. St. Helens and within the Grand Canyon. Current research is being conducted on mass kill of nautiloids within the Redwall limestone of the Grand Canyon, radioisotopes of Grand Canyon rocks, and earthquake destruction of archaeological sites in the Kingdom of Jordan. In 1999, Dr. Austin published research in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review.

Go here for the same in the biological sciences:

Scientists in the Biological Sciences - Institute for Creation Research

I just post one example:

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (ICR)

He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors from Tufts University, a Masters in Biology from Harvard, and the Ph.D. in Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard University. He has been on the faculties at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse, and Western Wisconsin Technological Institute at La Crosse. During this time, he supervised five doctoral dissertations and about twenty-five master's theses on a wide range of biological topics. He spent nineteen years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. Cumming is presently preparing a video which he made on a recent visit to the Galapagos Islands which discusses the diversity of species in relation to the traditional interpretation of speciation.

And these are just the creationists, not ID scientists. And they didn't get their PhDs from Khao San Road.

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.

Keep in mind that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory and is taken by FAITH, just like creationism. What most people don't understand is that evolution and creation are just paradigms that are used to interptret and assist in EXPLAINING the evidence. Both work with the SAME evidence, and each interpret the evidence from their respective paradigms. To say evolution is more scientific than creationism is a fallacy, as Dr. Meyers so aptly explains.

And yes, the universe is marvelous and the Creator even much more so. "The heavens declare the glory of God."

I believe that mainstream science, if we are brave enough to embrace it, offers the most reliable path to knowledge about the physical world.

And I agree with this:

"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, all who follow his precepts have good understanding." Psalm 111:10

Job 15:8
Do you listen in on God's council? Do you limit wisdom to yourself?

What better place to find knowledge of the the physical world than from the One who created it?

Originally Posted by kerux

...
In this article he convincingly argues that if the theory of creation or more exact, ID, is going to be eliminated from the classroom based on not passing the scientific method test, then so should the theory of evolution.
...

I don't know how you organise school subjects in the States, but, I have said it before here - I don't really see a conflict. Why not teach the theory of evolution in science, and intelligent design in religious studies?
Then both could be examined for their underlying belief systems in philosophy.

Keep in mind that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory and is taken by FAITH, just like creationism. What most people don't understand is that evolution and creation are just paradigms that are used to interptret and assist in EXPLAINING the evidence.

Creationism has no place in any scientific subjects, it is revealed in a book supposedly inspired by 'god' - there is no 'evidence' whatsoever to support it, the t.o.e. has been developed based on observation of facts.

Why not teach the theory of evolution in science, and intelligent design in religious studies?

Because they are both methods of interpreting the same evidence. One is no more scientific then the other. For that matter, why not teach both in religious studies? Just teach the facts of science in science classes, then slip over to the the respectively religious paradigm of choice -evolution or creation - and have your respective advocates attempt to interpret or explain the science you just learned?
Damn good idea if you ask me, glad I thought of it.

Creationism has no place in any scientific subjects, it is revealed in a book supposedly inspired by 'god' - there is no 'evidence' whatsoever to support it, the t.o.e. has been developed based on observation of facts.

You still don't get it. The EVIDENCE is all around you. Both theories look at the SAME evidence. You're confusing PROOF with evidence. There is no PROOF for evolution either, only evidence. If there was PROOF, evolution would no longer be a theory, it be a FACT.

And just because creationism is revealed in a book, does that mean it should be rejected on that basis alone? Evolution was also 'revealed' in a book, Origins. Should we reject evolution on the same basis?

Or do you think god made this?

Ge 1:21 -

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Ge 1:24 -

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Ge 1:25 -

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

The dog pictured is still a dog 'kind.' The wolf didn't evolve into a cat. It is still within the canine 'kind.'

Creation EXPLAINS the evidence just as easily.

And remember, evolutionists would have us believe that all life forms evolved from the same source and branched out. Takes more faith to believe that then it does to believe "In the beginning God created...."