evolution or creation? lets talk...

by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hooberus

  TopHat, copy-pasting an url from Answers in Genesis only proves you don't understand evolution nor do you understand science. AiG is not a peer-reviewed, scientific website.

  acsot, even one of your own sources (talkorigins) says: "Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup."

  Anyway, persons desiring a peer-reviewed informed creationist scientific perspective can see the following:

  http://www.creationresearch.org

  http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

  http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers

  http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/24/68/
• 

  whyizit

  This is my very last post on this topic.

  I mainly just want to appologize for the times in which I "lost it". I know that evolutionists have just as much right to their beliefs, as I do in my belief in creation. I don't fault them for that.

  I do want to make very clear, however, that I do not appologize for my belief in creation or the Bible. Some things cannot be explained, and everything does not need an explanation. When Job questioned God, God never answered any of his questions. He doesn't have an obligation to answer us. Some things we are not meant to know.

  That being said, I also want to thank Auld Soul for the manners and composure he has displayed. You are a fine example of how we should behave toward one another, even when we do not agree.

  I admit, I didn't act as civil as I should have. For that, I am sorry. A lot of buttons were being pushed on this discussion. No one likes to be called an idiot, for merely stating their point of view. Both sides were asked to participate.

  I haven't read any more of the posts on this topic for two days, and don't intend to. It appears to be more of a spiritual battle than anything. God doesn't need me to defend His side. I choose to believe Him and His Word. I have that right. My weakness has not been a lack of education on the subject. It has been a lack of love toward those who struck out at me. That is not an excuse, but it is the reason behind some of my remarks. Hope you will forgive me.

  I sincerely wish you all the best, no matter what your beliefs are.

  Whyizit
• 

  freetosee

  Whyizit,

  Thank you and Respect!

  fts
• 

  acsot

  Was wondering when hooberus was going to show up!

  As for AiG, when a website specifically states that it has as an article of faith:

  No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

  then it loses any credibility. You conveniently overlooked that part. When the evidence (fossils, DNA, etc.) overwhelmingly points at an evolutionary progression to what we see around us today, AiG must categorically refuse to even consider such evidence since it contradicts the very purpose of the website.

  And as I mentioned to TopHat elsewhere, I used to think as she does, and as you evidently do, in creation. I used to read the AiG website. And other books. And other websites. Sat myself down at the library and read various encyclopedia articles. And to my great consternation, the evidence pointed to evolution. I didn't actually want it to be that way. I was quite comfortable thinking that there was some god/force/something-or-other out there who would grant me an afterlife. I didn't want to come to terms with the fact that this life was all I was going to get.

  I think that stops many believers from continuing their investigation and questioning about evolution. They can't face the alternative.

  As for me, I am so glad I kept an open mind. Everything makes so much sense now!
• 

  Beardo

  I used to read the AiG website. And other books. And other websites. Sat myself down at the library and read various encyclopedia articles. And to my great consternation, the evidence pointed to evolution. I didn't actually want it to be that way. I was quite comfortable thinking that there was some god/force/something-or-other out there who would grant me an afterlife. I didn't want to come to terms with the fact that this life was all I was going to get.

  I think that stops many believers from continuing their investigation and questioning about evolution. They can't face the alternative.

  Hey Ascot - I don't think its quite ' case closed ' you know. Would you also have issues with a creative sentient force employing a form of evolution to create an ever-moving - ever-changing - ever-adapting system of life? (aside from the idea of an after life).

  For sure, our definition of God we find in parts of the Bible may need looking at, but there really is no need to rule out the concept of a creator completely. Surely?

  I accept that many belief systems are driven by the need to feel safe in the knowledge of an afterlife, but maybe this 'need to believe' has a foundation in truth rather than fear-fueled fantasy. Who can say for sure?
• 

  acsot

  Beardo, thank you for your reply.
  
  As I mentioned in my post, the evidence pointed to evolution. Would you kindly point me to other evidence I can look at which leads you to accept a creative sentient force? How would we know that this "force" is sentient? If a combination of various gases produces amino acids, are those gases sentient?
  
  Before I came to the “place” I’m at now, I liked the idea of a sentient force pervading the universe, sort of a cosmic, universal consciousness, if you will. But my liking the idea doesn’t make it so.
  
  I'm sure that most atheists would love to find evidence of sentience in the universe, but lacking that, we can only go on what we know, don’t you think?
• 

  hooberus

  Was wondering when hooberus was going to show up!

  As for AiG, when a website specifically states that it has as an article of faith:

  No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

  then it loses any credibility. You conveniently overlooked that part. When the evidence (fossils, DNA, etc.) overwhelmingly points at an evolutionary progression to what we see around us today, AiG must categorically refuse to even consider such evidence since it contradicts the very purpose of the website.

  My previous comments were clearly dealing specifically with the issue of peer-review, and not as a total response to everything that you posted.

  Regarding the AiG statement that "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record", interested persons can see the following on this also from them:

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_25March2002.asp

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/rules.asp

  Anyway, talkorigins (which you have used) is (in addition to not being peer-reviewed) itself heavily biased. You find statemets such as:

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301_1.html

  "We cannot observe the supernatural, so the only way we could reach the supernatural explanation would be to eliminate all natural explanations. But we can never know that we have eliminated all possibilities. Even if a supernatural explanation is correct, we can never reach it."
  
  "If we do miss a supernatural explanation, so what? Supernatural explanations cannot be generalized, so the explanation does not matter anywhere else. The usefulness of science comes from the ability to apply findings to different areas. Any supernatural explanation would be useless."
• 

  acsot

  hooberus, how're you doing?

  I took a look at the links you provided; tell me, is the following scientific in your opinion?

  "He also warned us that our thoughts are corrupted by sin. Therefore, we know that thoughts are not to be trusted when they disagree with Scripture."

  This is the chemist Safarti speaking about God. I suppose you already knew that. So please respond to my post concerning the above. Fossils, DNA and other evidence points to evolution as to the way in which life as we know it exists in the forms we see around us. But, you would have to reject said evidence merely because it disagrees with the Bible, wouldn’t you?

  BTW, are you a young earth creationist? an ID-er? You've probably been thoroughly thrashed in other threads on your views but I'd rather just hear about your beliefs from you.

  (I may only be able to respond to any other posts tomorrow since I'm at work right now)
• 

  Vormek 4.20

  Dido,

  hillary_step- how thick can you get, do you think that ONLY royalty go to those schools?

  For the record, my lack of education was at a public boarding school, similar to the ones that royalty go to, so jog on mate

  It doesn't matter what school you attended. George W. Bush attended Yale. John Fenn also attended Yale. Fenn won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2002. Should Bush have the same opportunity to teach chemistry on the basis that he attended the same school as a Nobel Laureate? Or perhaps you'd go to a random Harvard business grad for surgery on the basis that they attended an institution that also has a top medical school?
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus, how're you doing?

  I took a look at the links you provided; tell me, is the following scientific in your opinion?

  "He also warned us that our thoughts are corrupted by sin. Therefore, we know that thoughts are not to be trusted when they disagree with Scripture."

  This is the chemist Safarti speaking about God. I suppose you already knew that.

  Dr. Sarfati was responding to a feedback letter (other persons comments in red) in which the other person initiated the subject of God and rational thought. He then went on to discuss the subject of evolution and thought processes.

  _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0902.asp

  God gave us a brain with the ability for rational thought.

  He also warned us that our thoughts are corrupted by sin. Therefore, we know that thoughts are not to be trusted when they disagree with Scripture.

  ‘ For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ’ (Hebrews 4:12)

  However, evolution cannot coherently explain rational thought, because Darwinian processes select only for survival advantage, not rationality. See my explanation to another critic.

  __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  So please respond to my post concerning the above. Fossils, DNA and other evidence points to evolution as to the way in which life as we know it exists in the forms we see around us.

  For a response to this claim I'll leave reader with the following brief arcticle (see also arcticles in previous links): Creation and Evolution: A Look at the Evidence: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/evol/gibson/default.html

  But, you would have to reject said evidence merely because it disagrees with the Bible, wouldn’t you?

  Yes, because* evolution makes my mind reject evidence if it disagrees with the DNA/environmental programming in my brain (the same as it causes you and all other evolutionists to reject evidence if it disagrees with the DNA/environmental programming in your brain).

  *according to evolutionists

  BTW, are you a young earth creationist? an ID-er? You've probably been thoroughly thrashed in other threads on your views but I'd rather just hear about your beliefs from you.

  young earth creationist, and yourself? materialist evolutionist? theistic evolutionist?