Who was your daddy? Evolution or Creationism.

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: So
Third, you use the conclusions of science, where Science and religion do not conflict, right? So you accept the philosophies of science, correct? If you use both of these philosophies, how do you pick when they conflict? Since evolution is about the physical world, you'd think that would be the more likely choice. So, my question stands...why, assuming the two were equal, would you choose creationism?
Simple. Many religious people believe that when religion conflicts with science, science is making a mistake. Here's your mistake, the two are NOT equal in the mind of a religious person.

This boils us back down to my original question: why choose religion over science? Why is religion considered better when it offers less solutions?
 

TBone48

Platinum Member
Feb 23, 2005
2,431
0
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: So
Third, you use the conclusions of science, where Science and religion do not conflict, right? So you accept the philosophies of science, correct? If you use both of these philosophies, how do you pick when they conflict? Since evolution is about the physical world, you'd think that would be the more likely choice. So, my question stands...why, assuming the two were equal, would you choose creationism?
Simple. Many religious people believe that when religion conflicts with science, science is making a mistake. Here's your mistake, the two are NOT equal in the mind of a religious person.

This boils us back down to my original question: why choose religion over science? Why is religion considered better when it offers less solutions?


A choice between religion and science doesn't have to be made. Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I reject science. I just don't happen to believe it has sufficiently explained the origin of life on Earth. However, If someone chooses to think otherwise(as many of my friends/family do) I respect that and expect them to do the same towards me.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: TBone48
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: So
Third, you use the conclusions of science, where Science and religion do not conflict, right? So you accept the philosophies of science, correct? If you use both of these philosophies, how do you pick when they conflict? Since evolution is about the physical world, you'd think that would be the more likely choice. So, my question stands...why, assuming the two were equal, would you choose creationism?
Simple. Many religious people believe that when religion conflicts with science, science is making a mistake. Here's your mistake, the two are NOT equal in the mind of a religious person.

This boils us back down to my original question: why choose religion over science? Why is religion considered better when it offers less solutions?

A choice between religion and science doesn't have to be made. Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I reject science. I just don't happen to believe it has sufficiently explained the origin of life on Earth. However, If someone chooses to think otherwise(as many of my friends/family do) I respect that and expect them to do the same towards me.

So, then, what is your response to my question:

If you accept the 'rational philosophy' of science where it does not conflict with religion, what is it that elevates creationism as a better option.

That's all I want to know.
 

Crescent13

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
4,793
1
0
If the world really took all that time to evolve, then at this rate of magnetic decay the earth would be gone right now. :p
 

TBone48

Platinum Member
Feb 23, 2005
2,431
0
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: TBone48
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: So
Third, you use the conclusions of science, where Science and religion do not conflict, right? So you accept the philosophies of science, correct? If you use both of these philosophies, how do you pick when they conflict? Since evolution is about the physical world, you'd think that would be the more likely choice. So, my question stands...why, assuming the two were equal, would you choose creationism?
Simple. Many religious people believe that when religion conflicts with science, science is making a mistake. Here's your mistake, the two are NOT equal in the mind of a religious person.

This boils us back down to my original question: why choose religion over science? Why is religion considered better when it offers less solutions?

A choice between religion and science doesn't have to be made. Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I reject science. I just don't happen to believe it has sufficiently explained the origin of life on Earth. However, If someone chooses to think otherwise(as many of my friends/family do) I respect that and expect them to do the same towards me.

So, then, what is your response to my question:

If you accept the 'rational philosophy' of science where it does not conflict with religion, what is it that elevates creationism as a better option.

That's all I want to know.


I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is Gods' word. That means I accept the information it contains as fact. It states that God created the Earth and everything in it. I believe that. If a (mere) human says no, that's wrong, I'm going to stick with God. It's a matter of faith. I have faith in God over science when science opposes God. I don't know how else to answer your question. If there is so much controversy over the issue of the origin of Man, that says to me the question is still open for study and clarification. Therefor I choose to continue to trust in Gods' word as revealed in the Bible.

I hope that makes my postion more clear. I prefer to let people more inclined to debating and arguing hash out the details.
 

MrToilet

Senior member
Feb 28, 2005
635
0
0
Originally posted by: Crescent13
If the world really took all that time to evolve, then at this rate of magnetic decay the earth would be gone right now. :p


Again, the assumptions behind the half-life of the Earth's magnetic field are faulty and erroneous.

I think it's hard for lay people to grasp "geological time." I mean, you see 300 million years, and it doesn't sink in that the entirety of recorded human existence (~30,000 years) is less than 0.01% of that span of time.

Scientists found the first fossils (primitive unicellular prokaryotic bacteria) around 3 billion years ago in the fossil record. The first "true cells" (eukaryotes are noticed around 1.5 billion years ago, with larger organisms appearing ~500 million years ago. That's a heck of a long time- really hard to fathom.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
About time. :p

I'm not gonna read it all. All I'm going to say is that I dont see how anyone with a brain can truely deny the concept of evolution after taking a introductory biology class.

I had a funny experience the other day sitting in class, when the teacher began to teach evolution. Well. Very well. So well, that the girl in front of me nearly had a nervous breakdown. She was shaking her head throughout the entire class when the teacher went through one piece of evidence after another as to why it is impossible not to believe that life was formed through the process of evolution. Genetic homologies, transitional fossils, gene transplants, you name it. She realized as much as anyone after learning what she learned that there just isnt any room for a shortsighted view that the world was created in 6 days.

This of course says nothing about whether god set the hands in motion, and of course that will always be up for debate. But thats also why these debates always end up talking about the big bang, because thats what any reasonably intelligent person realizes it all comes down to nowadays.

I.D. is the new fad, but looking at it, its pretty obvious that there are some very stupid designs in nature. You would think if a perfect being created us, that such things wouldnt exist.
 

fuzzynavel

Senior member
Sep 10, 2004
629
0
0
Originally posted by: Firsttime
Creation, because from what ive seen there is more scientific support for it then any other theory. Mainly because I can't find any way of explaining irreducible complexity without a God.



Here's a fvcker for you......if there is a God(s) then who or what created him/her/them.....My grandfather is a Minister but I am just a non-believer(scientist) don't like things that can't be proven!

Why does there have to be a higher power.....are we so shallow as to think we were created for the amusement of an omnipotent being.....I don't think so..!!

I haven't been struck by lightening as I've typed this :)

Evolution looks more likely from my point of view...

As I have said in many forums apart from this one.....Show me irrefutable proof and I will believe.....nobody has managed it yet..

 
Aug 16, 2001
22,505
4
81
These debates are always funny.

Creationists:
They never ever provide proof or any kind of research backing up their side. It always boils down to 'God created it, no need to prove it. I have faith'. Then put down more time and effort in trying to debunk evolution than being constructive and come up with actual conclusions to show their side of the story.

Evolutionists:
There is always new research going on in genetics, archeology, geology, astronomy and so on. All this together increases humanitys understanding of nature using scientific methods. New material is out every day.
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
Originally posted by: TBone48
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: TBone48
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: So
Third, you use the conclusions of science, where Science and religion do not conflict, right? So you accept the philosophies of science, correct? If you use both of these philosophies, how do you pick when they conflict? Since evolution is about the physical world, you'd think that would be the more likely choice. So, my question stands...why, assuming the two were equal, would you choose creationism?
Simple. Many religious people believe that when religion conflicts with science, science is making a mistake. Here's your mistake, the two are NOT equal in the mind of a religious person.

This boils us back down to my original question: why choose religion over science? Why is religion considered better when it offers less solutions?

A choice between religion and science doesn't have to be made. Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I reject science. I just don't happen to believe it has sufficiently explained the origin of life on Earth. However, If someone chooses to think otherwise(as many of my friends/family do) I respect that and expect them to do the same towards me.

So, then, what is your response to my question:

If you accept the 'rational philosophy' of science where it does not conflict with religion, what is it that elevates creationism as a better option.

That's all I want to know.


I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is Gods' word. That means I accept the information it contains as fact. It states that God created the Earth and everything in it. I believe that. If a (mere) human says no, that's wrong, I'm going to stick with God. It's a matter of faith. I have faith in God over science when science opposes God. I don't know how else to answer your question. If there is so much controversy over the issue of the origin of Man, that says to me the question is still open for study and clarification. Therefor I choose to continue to trust in Gods' word as revealed in the Bible.

I hope that makes my postion more clear. I prefer to let people more inclined to debating and arguing hash out the details.
Interesting. So I guess you also believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns and giant dragons then, huh? Hey, it's in the Bible. :roll:
 

DAGTA

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,172
1
0
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Interesting. So I guess you also believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns and giant dragons then, huh? Hey, it's in the Bible. :roll:
Please cite books and chapters.

There's the reference to the snake in the Garden of Eden. Other than that, I dont' recall ever reading about talking creatures, except perhaps in a passage that was related a DREAM.
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: fuzzynavel
Originally posted by: Firsttime
Creation, because from what ive seen there is more scientific support for it then any other theory. Mainly because I can't find any way of explaining irreducible complexity without a God.



Here's a fvcker for you......if there is a God(s) then who or what created him/her/them.....My grandfather is a Minister but I am just a non-believer(scientist) don't like things that can't be proven!

Why does there have to be a higher power.....are we so shallow as to think we were created for the amusement of an omnipotent being.....I don't think so..!!

I haven't been struck by lightening as I've typed this :)

Evolution looks more likely from my point of view...

As I have said in many forums apart from this one.....Show me irrefutable proof and I will believe.....nobody has managed it yet..

how do you expect something rooted in FAITH to do that? :confused:
 

fuzzynavel

Senior member
Sep 10, 2004
629
0
0
lol....so there is nothing about feeding thousands with a few morsels of food or even walking on water?? Or maybe where some important dead guy rose from the dead in a cave?? little far fetched without any sort of proof!!

Dude the bible was created from here'say passed down a few generations!! ever heard of the game "chinese whispers" where people pass on a message and it changes every time it is opassed on because people forget/elaborate on little details...in the end the message is virtually unrecognisable to the original
 

fuzzynavel

Senior member
Sep 10, 2004
629
0
0
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: fuzzynavel
Originally posted by: Firsttime
Creation, because from what ive seen there is more scientific support for it then any other theory. Mainly because I can't find any way of explaining irreducible complexity without a God.



Here's a fvcker for you......if there is a God(s) then who or what created him/her/them.....My grandfather is a Minister but I am just a non-believer(scientist) don't like things that can't be proven!

Why does there have to be a higher power.....are we so shallow as to think we were created for the amusement of an omnipotent being.....I don't think so..!!

I haven't been struck by lightening as I've typed this :)

Evolution looks more likely from my point of view...

As I have said in many forums apart from this one.....Show me irrefutable proof and I will believe.....nobody has managed it yet..

how do you expect something rooted in FAITH to do that? :confused:



Sorry but I don't know what you are trying to say.... something rooted in faith does what?? get struck by lightening...??

so if I don't have any faith then I won't get struck down by lightening....but if I did have faith and blasphemed in some way (Like by shouting "Jehovah" monty python style)then I am open to the magical lightening attack?? is that what you meant??

Also to the creationists who don't believe in evolution...how do you explain things like the difference between Britons 2 centuries ago and britons now?? they were a lot shorter than us...proven by old buildings with 4.5 foot high doorways!!!
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
Originally posted by: DAGTA
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Interesting. So I guess you also believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns and giant dragons then, huh? Hey, it's in the Bible. :roll:
Please cite books and chapters.

There's the reference to the snake in the Garden of Eden. Other than that, I dont' recall ever reading about talking creatures, except perhaps in a passage that was related a DREAM.

The Bible : King James Version-

Talking donkey - Numbers 22:28
And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have smitten me these three times?

What's even crazier is, Balaam answers back as if talking donkeys are normal...

Numbers 22:29
And Balaam said to the ass, Because you have mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand, for now would I kill you.

Unicorn - Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn

Dragon - Revelations 12:3
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns on his heads.
Revelations 12:4
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Hmmm, they never really go over that stuff in church, do they?

But hey, let's end this with a loving rule from your loving God...

Exodus 21:17
And he that curses his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Let us pray...

:)
 

DAGTA

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,172
1
0
Originally posted by: JackBurton
The Bible : King James Version-

Talking donkey - Numbers 22:28
And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have smitten me these three times?

What's even crazier is, Balaam answers back as if talking donkeys are normal...

Numbers 22:29
And Balaam said to the ass, Because you have mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand, for now would I kill you.

Unicorn - Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn

Dragon - Revelations 12:4
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Hmmm, they never really go over that stuff in church, do they?


I haven't spent as much time in church as other people so I couldn't tell you if it's covered there or not.

I had forgotten about Balaam and the talking ass. Thanks for posting the source.

Unicorn - I haven't read the King James version all the way through. I've read the NIV version several times and I don't recall it having the word 'unicorn' in it. I do know of evidence in the King James version that shows some of it was altered during it's translation from older texts. That's interesting. Thanks for citing it.

Dragon - The book of Revelation is a record of a dream. All of it is imagery that is intentionally vague in many parts. This is the reason it's one of the most controversal books.

Thank you for citing! One of the few to actually do so.
 

fuzzynavel

Senior member
Sep 10, 2004
629
0
0
Nice quotes there JackBurton

"And Balaam said to the ass, Because you have mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand, for now would I kill you. "

Is this advocating murder?? Or does balaam just want to ram his weapon in the ass?? dirty person!
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
Originally posted by: DAGTA
Originally posted by: JackBurton
The Bible : King James Version-

Talking donkey - Numbers 22:28
And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have smitten me these three times?

What's even crazier is, Balaam answers back as if talking donkeys are normal...

Numbers 22:29
And Balaam said to the ass, Because you have mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand, for now would I kill you.

Unicorn - Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn

Dragon - Revelations 12:4
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Hmmm, they never really go over that stuff in church, do they?


I haven't spent as much time in church as other people so I couldn't tell you if it's covered there or not.

I had forgotten about Balaam and the talking ass. Thanks for posting the source.

Unicorn - I haven't read the King James version all the way through. I've read the NIV version several times and I don't recall it having the word 'unicorn' in it. I do know of evidence in the King James version that shows some of it was altered during it's translation from older texts. That's interesting. Thanks for citing it.

Dragon - The book of Revelation is a record of a dream. All of it is imagery that is intentionally vague in many parts. This is the reason it's one of the most controversal books.

Thank you for citing! One of the few to actually do so.
I'm always happy to oblige. ;)
 

fuzzynavel

Senior member
Sep 10, 2004
629
0
0
Taken from http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040109.htm

Unicorns
The English word unicorn, which is derived from the Latin words meaning one horn, was used by the King James translators (and others) for the original Hebrew word of the Scriptures, pronounced reh-ame, which means a wild bull. The best-known "unicorn" of the animal world, at least in the modern era, is the rhinoceros - a very strong, single-horned animal that seems to fit the literal description of the Biblical unicorn (see below) as a powerful wild animal that was not easily domesticated (although it's quite likely that it was some other animal that existed at that time - the rhinoceros is used merely as an example to illustrate that powerful one-horned animals did, and do, exist). "Unicorn" is also used symbolically, the one "horn" of Joseph consisting of the two single, or independent, "horns" of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

Unicorns

Coat of Arms With A Lion and Unicorn Unicorn is used to translate the Hebrew word meaning some species of wild bull - a powerful, not easily tamed creature:

"the strength of an unicorn." (Numbers 23:22 KJV)

"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?" (Job 39:9-11 KJV)

King David used horn and unicorn as an analogy of the power given to him by God:

"But thou, Lord, art most high for evermore. For, lo, thine enemies, O Lord, for, lo, thine enemies shall perish; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered. But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil. Mine eye also shall see my desire on mine enemies, and mine ears shall hear my desire of the wicked that rise up against me." (Psalm 92:8-11 KJV)

In both Bible History and Prophecy, the single "horn" (tribe) of Joseph existed, and exists, as two independent tribes:

"And of Joseph he said, Blessed of The Lord be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." (Deuteronomy 33:13-17 KJV)
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
The Bible : King James Version-

Talking donkey - Numbers 22:28
And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have smitten me these three times?

What's even crazier is, Balaam answers back as if talking donkeys are normal...

Numbers 22:29
And Balaam said to the ass, Because you have mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand, for now would I kill you.

Unicorn - Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn

Dragon - Revelations 12:4
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Hmmm, they never really go over that stuff in church, do they?
As far as the unicorn quote, it is innacurate. If you were to read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, you would see that the word that is translated to mean unicorn is "R'Eim". The word R'Eim can have a few meanings. There is indeed a definition of the word that means some kind of animal, though almost certainly not a unicorn. The word has no English translation, for we do not know which animal it refers to, I don't know which translater decided on Unicorn, or why. In the context of the verse you quoted however, it is not referring to an animal, the word means "loftiness" or similiar. The translation is innacurate as it is in many other places that I've come across in the past (no, I don't remember them off the top of my head). The verse should read something like " It is God who brought them out of Egypt, according to the power of his loftiness" or something to that effect. It doesn't always go over in English well. :)