Anti-Evolutionists Wanted !!!! (page 3)

Crazy151drinker

I fail to see how the Bible conflicts with evolution. If anything they support each other. In the bible, you have the plants, then the fish, then the animals, and then Man. Isnt this the same view as evolution?

You could take this one step further: science also agree's with the bible creation story. First we have darkness then light (big bang), then there was the earth, then the oceans, and air yada yada yada. This sequence of Biblical creation matches the scientific creation theory. The only thing science cannot answer is 'If the big bang was the beginning of everything, how did it start?" God started it :)

It seems that people fight over the little things and cant see the bigger picture. 'Oh the earth is 6000 years old so evolution cant be right' This is very silly. Or 'No one has seen God so he isnt real', has anyone here seen the Big Bang??

In the big picture, science and religion support each other- just one calls a chicken a chicken and the other calls it Gallus domesticus .

Francois

IW - Nice way of putting it. I just don't believe that any such artistic tinkering was necessary along the way. I mean if we're dealing with a god at all, we're dealing with a perfect one or none IMHO. I think the entire purpose of evolution is to evolve spirit beings who continue to evolve through an ages long process lived throughout a vast galaxy. Beats the hell out of the ridiculous concept that we would be forever marooned on this puny little planet - perfect or not.

NewWay - I've gotta go out for awhile, but I'd interested in considering your points and responding when I get back. Hang in and thanks for your post.

Francois

hannibal

The Big Bang?

this is hard for me to beleive, how does an exsposion create

something? No one exsplodes something to create but to

distroy.Nothing in life has come about this way. Is there any

other examples were we exsplain something coming about

this way?

IslandWoman

Hi Larc,

IW, I don't quite understand your comment about scientists saying they are right and others are wrong. Scientists as a group are more tentative in their thinking. They tend to use phrases like, based on current facts, or, it is probably true that.

I was referring to the personal influence science has on people's lives. Don't get me wrong, I love science and I admire those who devote their lives to science. I am not anti science but FOR keeping an open mind. Science is great but it is an exploration and along the path there will always be new things discovered that will either contradict previous views or shed greater light on them.

For instance, when my mother was pregnant with me it was the accepted view among doctors that x-raying the unborn child was a good way to keep track of its growth etc. So my Mom every month went to the clinic and had her belly x-rayed. Thirty years later when I was in my last trimester of pregnancy with my second child a dentist refused to care for a toothache I had because to take a dental x-ray of that one tooth (even while wearing a shield) might be harmful to my unborn child.

It is these practical applications of science in people's lives that I was referring to when I said that science always claims to be right. For my mother to refuse the x-ray was to go against the prevailing wisdom of science and therefore risking harm to her child, for me to insist on having one tooth x-rayed was also to go against the prevailing wisdom of science and therefore risking harm to my child. Neither was correct but both had the stamp of approval from at least some segment of the scientific community and for a "small" person to question the wisdom of these practices based on science was foolhardy.

There are many examples where people trusted science only to be harmed afterwards. This is not the fault of science, what is wrong is that in their personal lives people are pressured to trust and accept scientific discoveries as the best up to the minute understanding of what is and is not true or beneficial for them, and if they do not then they risk being branded ignorant or worse, harming another person.

It is the same with evolution. Social pressure is put upon people to accept evolution as a fact, even though so much is unknown and yet to be discovered. I believe the truth of the matter is neither with the evolutionists or the creationists but somewhere in between.

IW

TheContagion

Crazy151drinker

In the bible, you have the plants, then the fish, then the animals, and then Man. Isnt this the same view as evolution?

It's not that simple. You are right that plants, fish, animals, man came in that order, but it is a fact that the bible is wrong that fruit, birds and whales came before land animals.

The bible is also wrong that there was a global flood at any point in history. The bible is also wrong that most languages came from the tower of babel. Actually langauge evolved throught variation and selective retention or what we call evolution.

Francois

New Way - OK I'm back from the DeKalb County Farmer's Market (Atlantan's will know what I mean. That place is irresistable.)

Apes? Branches on the evolutionary tree that led to a stable life form. And it's still there. Just like alligators and other saurians. No big deal.

I'm very afraid that your comments about, presumably, Piltdown Man, and perhaps Peking Man, are old as the hills, as is the "carbon 14 dating error." Carbon 14 isn't the only dating technique available.

As for real evidence, I'm sorry to say that I'm challenged to believe that you've actually looked for any.

I've noticed a sort of Heisenberg uncertainty at work in these posts. If you ask an evolutionist an evolution question you get an evolution answer; if you ask a creationist an evolution question you get a creationist answer.

I'd be really interested in knowing how you react to the observation that science has always, ALWAYS, won each and every debate with religion. Think of that. Every one. It's going to win this one too. But I don't see anyone acknowledging that fact and incorporating it into their thinking about evolution. I've come to think that creationists WANT to believe it didn't happen that way. But in order for that to be true, evidence for evolution must be abandonded. As a science-oriented person of spiritual persuasion, I can't do that.

I think that I offer the "middle way" that has been referenced here as the ultimate answer; neither a scientific bigot on the one hand, nor a religious one on the other. But I don't see anyone recognizing that fact. In order for it to be in the middle, the model would have to incorporate both sides of the argument in some degree wouldn't it? Here it is.

Francois

Edited by - Francois on 5 July 2002 14:19:0

Crazy151drinker

Contagion,

So they got the fruit wrong :) But in the overall view they are the same :) Would old testament people understand anything different? What would Adam think if God told him he came from mold? If you think of it, we are made from the earth, so God is perfectly ok saying that he made Adam from clay :) Maybe its a little Lawyer like, but God can do whatever he wants :)

When it comes to the flood, what if the flood was only in their area?? They would assume that it was everywhere else also! Common, we are taking 5-6 thousand years ago, people had very little knowledge. Which brings me to the point of people saying "if the Bible was true, God would have put stars+dna+physics .etc.etc.etc. in it......"

Lets use some common sense. If Jesus started telling people about nuclear fission/ physics/ chemistry/ dna etc etc they would have thought he was nuts!!! Its like people expect to find passages in the bible reflecting AIDS, gas mileage, PC repair, abortion, the environment, styrofoam, home stereo equipment, the latest dvds, britney's new outfit...etc...etc.....

These are all new problems that where not around in Biblical times and yet people assume that they should be there. Then you have other religious groups making their own 'new' books to address these problems (mormons). Maybe people should not pick the Bible apart piece by piece and just accept its MEANING, and its TEACHINGS about GOD's love. It is not some guide to wash your laundry nor is it some encylopedia of world knowledge.

Fredhall

AlanF,

You for got to use these words. They are: "The THEORY Of Evolution."

SYN

IW: What scientists are doing now with genes is more like rearranging than engineering!

SYN

Another really interesting, although somewhat controversial and not really terribly well-proven theory, is the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, which states that many of the distinguishing features of humans (e.g. virtually hairless skin, babies that hold their breath when placed underwater, increased lung capacity and very diluted urine) formed as a result of our ancestors having spent a very considerable period of their time in the water. This is an interesting theorem, and I personally find it fascinating. But one must always look at these things carefully, I guess. Anybody else care to add something about that while we're at it?

Anti-Evolutionists Wanted !!!!

Share this