Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

As an example of the lack of precision I was mentioning . . . I have never once argued that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Indeed, I don't believe that I have once mentioned in this thread my view on that particular question at all. My answer however, in case you care, is that I have no idea what the current view of geology and astronomy are on the question, but I have no problem accepting whatever the current consensus view is (which last I looked it up was something like 4 or 5 billion years old).

Look, the goal as stated by many here is one of education. I've been to board meeting where curriculum in biology was up for debate, and after the first five minutes the entire thing was a mass insult-fest, with ego-filled idiots on both sides "arguing" (in something resembling a Monte Python sketch) not about science and education but about the validity of belief in, and/or existence of God. It was pointless and futile and neither side was at all interested in actually talking about what was best educationally, it was about if Christianity was evil or not.

It was futile and puerile event. But instead of using an opportunity to garner support from those Christians there who agreed with the science supporters on all points related to science education, the science fundamentalists decided that they wanted to alienate the mainstream Christians as much as possible.

Like it or not, it is a political issue as much as science question. Perhaps more so. If you want to "win" the debate in the sphere where it counts in terms of public life (after all, it's not even a question within the scientific community) then the science supporters need the alliance of Christians. Insulting them through cavalier denunciations of all of Christiandom, and a lack of precision about who one is debating against (not to mention engaging the question of the validity of religious belief in general) hardly furthers the cause. Indeed it is rather counter-productive.

The insult is in the eye of the beholder. If you're not "one of them" then you need to stand up and say so, as you just did, not beat around the burning bush making scholastic arguments about gods and the whichness of why.

The first thing that a Christian who wants to be part of the solution, and not the problem, has to do is to own up to the checkered history of Christianity, just like the first thing a racist has to do to change is to admit that he or she is a racist. I don't really care what you believe or don't believe, people have a right to go to hell in the hand basket of their choice. But the inability of Christians and Muslims and Jew and Hindus to reconcile the contradictory documents the they each see as the revealed word of their god, the absolute most perfect truth, words that they are willing to kill each other over, threatens us all.

 

[Kingpatzer]

But the inability of Christians and Muslims and Jew and Hindus to reconcile the contradictory documents the they each see as the revealed word of their god, . . .

From the Catholic VCII document Nostra Aetate (which as a councilar document has huge weight in Catholic theology):

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

​

Yeah, the whole document isn't perfect, but it's hardly demonstrating an inability to play well with others.

St. Olaf's college, which is affiliated with the ELCA Lutheran Church, has a Hindu man as the head of the department of religious studies. This same fellow has participated in Pontifical councils in Rome.

Popular perception of religious tension tends to be focused on the negative rather than the postive in the same way people's perception about any other issue is. That's not to say there aren't real areas of disagreement, but ecumenical efforts far out-number conflicts.

I'd argue that most conflicts where religious beliefs are used as a wedge issue are about something other than religion. Leaders tend to use whatever they can to motivate people. While some people do kill others over religious issues to be sure, the vast majority of large scale violence in this world is over physical resources and other drivers of daily living conditions of people. If gaza strip was flowing with capital investments, would Hamas really care about Israel? I somehow doubt it.

​

 

[Thalassamania]

From the Catholic VCII document Nostra Aetate (which as a councilar document has huge weight in Catholic theology):

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

​

Yeah, the whole document isn't perfect, but it's hardly demonstrating an inability to play well with others.

St. Olaf's college, which is affiliated with the ELCA Lutheran Church, has a Hindu man as the head of the department of religious studies. This same fellow has participated in Pontifical councils in Rome.

Popular perception of religious tension tends to be focused on the negative rather than the postive in the same way people's perception about any other issue is. That's not to say there aren't real areas of disagreement, but ecumenical efforts far out-number conflicts.

...

And this is all supposed to make up for the Crusades, the Papal Inquisition, and the Spanish Inquisition, the church's passivity in the face of the Holocaust? And that's just a small part of the Catholic church's transgressions. Sure the Pope "apologized" for a raft of things back in 2000 ..., but what's really been done? Just more BS. And we haven't even started on the other Christian sects' transgressions, the Muslims' and the Hindus', etc.

 

[Hank49]

what is needed is for the moderates to find the gumption to stand up and criticize, and actively struggle against their co-religionists.

Yeah, that'll work real well. They just need to talk and work it out and come to an agreement....like that last 4,360 odd posts in this thread have demonstrated is possible.

 

[Thalassamania]

what is needed is for the moderates to find the gumption to stand up and criticize, and actively struggle against their co-religionists.

Yeah, that'll work real well. They just need to talk and work it out and come to an agreement....like that last 4,360 odd posts in this thread have demonstrated is possible.

I guess you missed:

and actively struggle against their co-religionists.

Again, to quote Harris:

"While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t."
​

 

[sheck33]

I would like to refer back to the original threat namely, the question about evolution and creation.

The basic question is who to believe… the evolutionary scientists or the creationary scientists. Herewith a few quotes:

“Evolutionists believe for instance that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere”.

“The fundamental debate is really about the most trustworthy source of information about history. Do we start with the Bible, which God says is true in every detail, including its history, or do we start with the changing theories of imperfect man? God has filled the world with clear evidences that confirm the truth of His Word and the certainty of the Christian faith. The fossil record itself is an incredible testimony to the truth of God’s Word and His promise to “blot out” all land dwelling, air-breathing animals and humans in a worldwide catastrophe”.

“If one were to calculate the average depth of all of the granite that encases our earth, including the mountains and valleys both above and below water, we would end up with a 6 1/2 mile deep granite crust”.

“Scientists have traditionally taught us that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They make this claim based on the half-life (the amount of time that it takes for an inert substance to lose half of its mass) of Uranium 238 that is found in granite ore samples. This observation concludes that by the time that our earth becomes 9 billion years old, it will disintegrate and become cosmic dust”.

“It is a fact the Helium 3 naturally occurs in our upper atmosphere. It is equally true that Helium 4 is also found at the same atmospheric level. However, H-4 is a direct by-product of the dying off of the U-238 found in the granite. This decaying process produces the alpha particles that ascend into our upper atmosphere, which in turn produces the H-4. By again equating the half-life of U-238 (4.5 billion years) with the volume of H-4 found in our upper atmosphere, we now know that the earth is only around 6600 years old. This equation has been academically verified and is now fully accepted by many experts in the field”.

I am not a scientist but I am merely quoting what the experts are saying. These quotes confirm what I believe in: God created everything in six glorious days and the world is not as old as many unfounded theories are indicating. Did you know that many evolutionary scientists now embrace creationary science?

First lets get one thing straight, 'creationary science' is an oxymoron, creation is not science, period.

Now for the rest of your post, you are either trolling here or you have absolutely no clue. The bible is not a trustworthy source at all when it comes to scientifically verifyable fact. But of course creationists simply distort or ignore facts that contradict their point of view, nothing new here.

“Scientists have traditionally taught us that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They make this claim based on the half-life (the amount of time that it takes for an inert substance to lose half of its mass) of Uranium 238 that is found in granite ore samples. This observation concludes that by the time that our earth becomes 9 billion years old, it will disintegrate and become cosmic dust”.

You are mis quoting and distorting what scientists say. You obviously don't know what 'half life' means. There is no question that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old. The Earth will be destroyed in a few billion years but not for the reason mentioned in your post.

It is equally true that Helium 4 is also found at the same atmospheric level. However, H-4 is a direct by-product of the dying off of the U-238 found in the granite. This decaying process produces the alpha particles that ascend into our upper atmosphere, which in turn produces the H-4. By again equating the half-life of U-238 (4.5 billion years) with the volume of H-4 found in our upper atmosphere, we now know that the earth is only around 6600 years old. This equation has been academically verified and is now fully accepted by many experts in the field”.

This is almost too comical to comment on but I will anyway. He4 is the way U238 decays into Th234, the decay chain doesn't end there, there are many more decay products, some of which decay by emitting alpha radiation. Alpha particles produce He4?? Alpha particles ARE He4. Linking the amount of He4 in the atmosphere with the half life of U238 to conclude the Earth is 6000 years old is beyond nonsensical.

having said that, I am pretty sure you are trolling here

 

[Thalassamania]

I would like to refer back to the original threat namely, the question about evolution and creation.

The basic question is who to believe… the evolutionary scientists or the creationary scientists. Herewith a few quotes:

“Evolutionists believe for instance that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere”.

Just to deal with the biological end of Theunis' claptrap: Reptiles are not descended from modern-day amphibians, rather the two groups arose from a common amphibian like ancestor sometime during the late Devonian or early Carboniferous. There is no reason why transition fossils should be abundant, but the evidence is in the current species DNAs and immunological distances anyway, making the need for a "hard copy" passe. As with your geochemical statements your biological statements evidence a yawning chasm of knowledge and a propensity for twisted misstatement. The problem with amphibian/reptile transnationals is not that they don't exist, its that they are ancestral not transitional and are, quite frankly, difficult to sort into amphibian or reptile.

“The fundamental debate is really about the most trustworthy source of information about history. Do we start with the Bible, which God says is true in every detail, including its history, or do we start with the changing theories of imperfect man? God has filled the world with clear evidences that confirm the truth of His Word and the certainty of the Christian faith. The fossil record itself is an incredible testimony to the truth of God’s Word and His promise to “blot out” all land dwelling, air-breathing animals and humans in a worldwide catastrophe”.

A good question, since the bible is a patchwork quilt of unattributable and mistranslated legends, I'll go with the "imperfect" empirical science.

...

I am not a scientist but I am merely quoting what the experts are saying. These quotes confirm what I believe in: God created everything in six glorious days and the world is not as old as many unfounded theories are indicating. Did you know that many evolutionary scientists now embrace creationary science?

Clearly, you're not a scientist, if you were you'd know enough to not confuse idiots with experts. I'd venture to say that your scientific studies did not result in a basic middle school grasp of the subject, my 12 year old knows better.

 

[nereas]

Going back to the original question, in its most original form, as to "whom to believe?"

I believe that you need to believe yourself, and do your own investigation.

This method of personal inquiry was, of course, like most everything else, invented by the ancient Greeks.

Namely, Thales. He lived and died like any other mortal man. But he also changed the world's way of thinking, although it took awhile for it to catch on.

 

[coachpill]

I'm asking for published scientists that adhere to a biblical account that are published in journals that do not have a creationist slant and peer reviewed by scientists that do not have a creationist bias. Without that, their research has no value, as it does not hold up to scrutiny.

Just got back home...
To answer the first part, I don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could search as easily as you and find them.

Why would you think that THE SCIENCE someone published in a peer reviewed creationist journal would not hold up to scrutiny?

 

[sheck33]

Just got back home...
To answer the first part, I don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could search as easily as you and find them.

Why would you think that THE SCIENCE someone published in a peer reviewed creationist journal would not hold up to scrutiny?

because creationism is NOT science. It is an opinion, nothing more.