Why always evolution vs creation?

[lily]

No, you did NOT quote me in context.

I said:

"We shouldn't take questions about our faith - and how it couldn't possibly be based on reason - to heart?"

And you asked me why we shouldn't take questions about our faith... and you think that didn't misrepresent what I was saying? And you wonder why I don't like discussions like this that aren't as honest as people claim?

I am not questioning your faith. I am questioning you on what and how you came to that final conclusion.

Clearly my parents forced religion on me and I don't have the reasoning skills to get past that.

Do you seriously NOT see any insult in your posts? Or do you think simply adding "don't be insulted " negates it?

[DogOnPorch]

Oddly, I thought even the uber-faithful would reassess the world according to God after some study of various scientific discoveries. I naively believed that even the most devout would need to ask a few question after say eyeballing this...or this...or this...etc.

But...alas...nope. Circled the wagons tighter.

[GostHacked]

No, you did NOT quote me in context.

I said:

"We shouldn't take questions about our faith - and how it couldn't possibly be based on reason - to heart?"

And you asked me why we shouldn't take questions about our faith... and you think that didn't misrepresent what I was saying? And you wonder why I don't like discussions like this that aren't as honest as people claim?

Clearly my parents forced religion on me and I don't have the reasoning skills to get past that.

Do you seriously NOT see any insult in your posts? Or do you think simply adding "don't be insulted " negates it?

If you want to see it as an insult, then I can give you insults. Screw you. I am done here.

[M.Dancer]

If you want to see it as an insult, then I can give you insults. Screw you. I am done here.

You call that an insult? Where I come from those are wooing words.

[GostHacked]

You call that an insult? Where I come from those are wooing words.

Well, if that gets you hot under the collar, just WAIT for what I have in store for you

[Cato]

I really do not understand what exactly you are referring to. Are you saying that the leap I mentioned is not existent, it is my invention? If so, then can you detail the transition from believing the existence (or past existence) of a "higher being" and your specific religion?

You stated your opinion and then asked for responses as if your opinion was fact. It isn't.

Your way of obfuscation is frustrating.

What did I state as fact, which you think is only my opinion?

[Bonam]

I lol'ed at the last bit.

My faith is personal and private. I don't like to discuss the "rationale" as it were behind my decisions, because that can come across as trying to force my beliefs on others (see the 3rd or 4th response in the topic)

People try to separate science from religion, as if you can't accept both. I don't understand that. Evolution exists. I don'[t see it conflicting with a creationism theory at all.

People like to point and laugh at the Bible, figuring that everyone takes it literally. It's not. Some is literal, sure, but a lot is allegory, poetry.... some is cryptic enough that no'one can really say for sure what it means. We can only speculate based on what we know... but most average believers don't claim to have all the facts. (neither do scientists!)

I can talk to you about the circumstances surrounding my Granny's death. I can tell you things about my own life. But I don't think you would see that as a "logical" explanation.

Fair enough, and I definitely agree with you that science and religion don't have to conflict. I know quite a few religious people, some of them quite devout, that nevertheless have no problem with evolution or other scientific theories.

[jbg]

You stated your opinion and then asked for responses as if your opinion was fact. It isn't.

Your way of obfuscation is frustrating.

What did I state as fact, which you think is only my opinion?

You join a board 2 days ago and right away are attacking everyone in sight?

[lily]

If you want to see it as an insult, then I can give you insults. Screw you. I am done here.

Yes, you certainly are.

[g_bambino]

Is it because the church likes to deal with absolutes? Science likes to deal with absolutes as well, but having the notion in mind that it may not always be absolute with the discovery of new evidence. Both like to deal in absolutes, the process of getting to those absolutes are quite different. Religion interperets a book and there are many interpretations of the same book. Science tests all evidence and answers for consitancy in the results. They just seem to work opposite of each other.

For the most part, I'd say you're on the mark with your observations. I have, however, seen and heard Christian figures talk about their faith in open terms, even stating that the Bible should not be read literally; they accept science as part of their god's work and thus see so division between one and the other. I'm as agnostic as you, so I don't adhere to these individuals' religious tenets, but I did appreciate their rather unique position; they obviously took time to think about their beliefs, rather than simply parrot what a 2,000 year old book says (and doesn't say).

[FuzzyOnDetails]

Where to begin.

Perhaps with a joke, and then?...

Atheists are all agnostics, because they believe in the uncertainty principal. God, on the other hand is an atheist. If he is all knowing, faith is impossible.

Higher power? Who are you kidding!

Our brain releases endorphins when it comes across information that confirms our belief structure, and supresses them when we come across information that conflicts with it. Words mean different things to different people. If a junkie could get their fix through a choice of interpretation, do you think they would? We are addicted to being right.

The way I see things, the bible has many good teachings, but shouldn't be taken as gospel, if you will excuse the pun.

I have long believed the planet is alive as a whole. We are all a tiny piece of "God", if you will.

We are multi-celled organisms. Any single cell can be kept alive separate from the body, if provided with the right environment. Same as we are an overall awareness to a whole bunch of single cells, so are we part of the planet.

[jbg]

The way I see things, the bible has many good teachings, but shouldn't be taken as gospel, if you will excuse the pun.

I see the Bible as a combination of many good teachings, and a rather complete (though not literally correct, always) oral history. I think it gives a very good picture of the way things were.

Admittedly it takes some liberties with literal facts. My son's Bar Mitzvah portion concerned the parting of the Red Sea and the subsequent drowning of the Egyptians. Perhaps the Egyptians could have used better swimming lessons.

More likely, I think they drowned when a wadi, or dry creek bed (in the U.S. those creek beds are called arroyos) suddenly filled with water from a distant storm. That is common in the desert. Yet G-d's hand may well have been in it. I am not one to judge.

My point is, as 'FuzzyOnDetails' states, that it "shouldn't be taken as gospel" but it shouldn't be disregarded either.

[zinc]

I've always wondered how creationists correlate their disbelief of evolution with some of the evolutionary adaptions that things such as bacteria go through. It's sort of like saying you don't believe in gravity despite seeing things fall

[Guest TrueMetis]

I've always wondered how creationists correlate their disbelief of evolution with some of the evolutionary adaptions that things such as bacteria go through. It's sort of like saying you don't believe in gravity despite seeing things fall

According to Creationists a bacteria never changes into a different "kind" (whatever the means) and that the only thing that happens is Micro-Evolution (Variations in a species) but Macro-evolution (Variation between species) doesn't happen. They don't relize the Micro and macro are the same thing and that biologist don't use those words anymore they just say evolution. They also ignore fossils, ignore speciation, and when there forced to see a transitional fossil they say it's only one of the forms it is transitional of even though it has traits of both (see Ida, half the creationists say she's a lemur the other half say she's a monkey even though she clearly a transition between the two).

Funny you should mention them not believing in gravity. There's a video on youtube called

it shows why young earth creationists have to deny gravity (along with many other scientific principles) in order for their belief in a 6000 year old universe to work.

There's a million other ignorant things they do if your interested in seeing some of it go on youtube and watch AronRa's

and look up some of the other guys debunking creationist crap. Edited September 6, 2009 by TrueMetis

[charter.rights]

I see the Bible as a combination of many good teachings, and a rather complete (though not literally correct, always) oral history. I think it gives a very good picture of the way things were.

For those who live in illusion, the Bible is just a story book, full of lessons and history.

However, for those who understand that reality is not someone's delusion, the Bible is a student's guide and is experienced, not read. It confirms the means of breaking out of the world of illusion and provides an opening for what lies beyond.

Those who take the Bible literally or metaphorically are lost to its true power.

[jbg]

For those who live in illusion, the Bible is just a story book, full of lessons and history.

*********

Those who take the Bible literally or metaphorically are lost to its true power.

I partially agree. I think that the Bible is a good oral history, probably largely true but with its share of tall tales, similar to lumberjack legends such as Paul Bunyan. In that regard I'm thinking of the miracles.

For example, regarding the Red Sea closing in around the Egyptians, I learned from a traveler to the Sinai Desert yesterday that the area has plenty of dry creek beds (we call them arroyos, they call them wadis) that suddenly fill with water, often from distant, unseen storms. If the Israelites, for example, crossed them in their normal dry condition, it is highly plausible that a badly (or well depending on your point of view) timed flash flood nailed the pursuing Egyptians. If something like that didn't happen I doubt the Hebrews would have been around long enough to reduce the Torah to writing.

[charter.rights]

I partially agree. I think that the Bible is a good oral history, probably largely true but with its share of tall tales, similar to lumberjack legends such as Paul Bunyan. In that regard I'm thinking of the miracles.

For example, regarding the Red Sea closing in around the Egyptians, I learned from a traveler to the Sinai Desert yesterday that the area has plenty of dry creek beds (we call them arroyos, they call them wadis) that suddenly fill with water, often from distant, unseen storms. If the Israelites, for example, crossed them in their normal dry condition, it is highly plausible that a badly (or well depending on your point of view) timed flash flood nailed the pursuing Egyptians. If something like that didn't happen I doubt the Hebrews would have been around long enough to reduce the Torah to writing.

That is trying to rationalize what you believe to be "a story".

I am talking about something much more palusible IF you didn't believe in the "illusion" of the parting of the Red Sea.

So if God is Omnipotent how is it that Moses (who is fulfilling God's will) would need to escape? In the Judaic teaching God could have easily struck down those in pursuit is some flash and buster way.

But the point is to be made in that story that when one "illusion" simply replaces another they cancel each other out. There is no such thing in being just a little bit insane. So belief in one illusion (or delusion) simply indicates a belief in all.

You would have to go way beyond your simple explanations in order to see how simple reality (at least in the form of illusion) really is. The trick is to recognize the delusions for what they are....and of course within insanity that is not possible alone.

[zinc]

According to Creationists a bacteria never changes into a different "kind" (whatever the means) and that the only thing that happens is Micro-Evolution (Variations in a species) but Macro-evolution (Variation between species) doesn't happen. They don't relize the Micro and macro are the same thing and that biologist don't use those words anymore they just say evolution. They also ignore fossils, ignore speciation, and when there forced to see a transitional fossil they say it's only one of the forms it is transitional of even though it has traits of both (see Ida, half the creationists say she's a lemur the other half say she's a monkey even though she clearly a transition between the two).

lol

Exactly, it's different words describing the same thing

[Oleg Bach]

On and on they go. Any idiot knows that creation and evolution is the same thing - there is no time! Those that want to debate this are always in two camps - the haters and the fanatics...Those that hate the thought of goodness or God being in charge..cos' it's bad for buisness and the bottom line - and those that think they talk to God and he talks back. those are the nut bars. Keep it simple - existance always was - and creation took a long time.

[Guest TrueMetis]

On and on they go. Any idiot knows that creation and evolution is the same thing - there is no time! Those that want to debate this are always in two camps - the haters and the fanatics...Those that hate the thought of goodness or God being in charge..cos' it's bad for buisness and the bottom line - and those that think they talk to God and he talks back. those are the nut bars. Keep it simple - existance always was - and creation took a long time.

Every thing having been created in it's current form is the same as things changing over time to fit new enviroments? You relize that some 70% of evolutionary biologists are religous right? The Debate over creation is over and has been over for a long time, scientists don't even bother with creationists anymore i'st the science advocates who do it now and we only do it because it's entertaining.

[ToadBrother]

I partially agree. I think that the Bible is a good oral history, probably largely true but with its share of tall tales, similar to lumberjack legends such as Paul Bunyan. In that regard I'm thinking of the miracles.

For example, regarding the Red Sea closing in around the Egyptians, I learned from a traveler to the Sinai Desert yesterday that the area has plenty of dry creek beds (we call them arroyos, they call them wadis) that suddenly fill with water, often from distant, unseen storms. If the Israelites, for example, crossed them in their normal dry condition, it is highly plausible that a badly (or well depending on your point of view) timed flash flood nailed the pursuing Egyptians. If something like that didn't happen I doubt the Hebrews would have been around long enough to reduce the Torah to writing.

And if there was any evidence of an Egyptian Captivity, you might have a point. But all the archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites were simply Canaanite tribes who began worshipping a tribal deity Yahweh and began obeying what would become the food laws in situ (that is, in Canaan/Palestine).

There is no Egyptian record of any large number of Canaanite/Hebrews living in their heartland. There is no record of the death of a Pharoah and his troops in this fashion. There is no physical evidence of a 40 year wandering through the Sinai by a large group of people. The Egyptian Captivity and the Exodus were simply a story, perhaps to justify the notion of the Hebrew tribes conquering their polytheistic brethren (remember here Ancient Hebrew was simply a dialect of the West Semitic language spoken by most, if not all Canaanites and the Phoenecians).

[Bonam]

The Egyptian Captivity and the Exodus were simply a story, perhaps to justify the notion of the Hebrew tribes conquering their polytheistic brethren

That makes no sense, as it is a projection of current values and ideas back into a time when such things were utterly different. You do realize that in that time period no justification was needed to conquer one's neighbors besides the will and power to do so?

[Oleg Bach]

The Egyptians were a civlized society. The Aberew or so-called wandering Jews ...messed the place up after abusing the hospitality of the Egyptians - we seem to forget ----Moses took off out of there not because he was a nice guy..chanting "set my people free." He murdered a man and was on the run -- and dragged a bunch of rag tag hooligans along with him. It's revisionism to say that the Jews were slaves...they are exactly as they are today - They hate good kingship - cramps their style - The dispised Solomon - but loved David the corrupt murdering leaher..They sucked up to the Roman occupiers and betrayed their own king - Jesus. As for creationism - Yes thing did come into being because of some power - as for evolution of man - I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLUTION WHAT SO EVER.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLUTION WHAT SO EVER.

Then your not looking or your ignoring what you found.

[Oleg Bach]

Then your not looking or your ignoring what you found.

We just do things in a cleaner and supposedly more civil manner. Yes we have evolved - into more skilled liars..deception is animalistic - and we are still animals...there maybe a few angels amongst us, but not many. We still murder..we still steal ...we still inslave - sure it's not opium or rot gut liquior - Now it's pharma product and cleanly distilled booze - but we still dupe and posion each other for supremacy - need I go on.?