Creation vs. Evolution

[mdb]

String Theory says there are 11 dimensions. I haven't decided whether or not I accept string theory. There are definitely at least 4 dimensions, perhaps 5, but what you and I are defining as dimensions are probably different.
I agree.

Soggy: I do not know my string theory all that well. I do know that a very wise Buddhist monk recently said to me at dinner: "Do you think we here tonight by accident?"-not likely.

 

[JeffG]

Soggy: I do not know my string theory all that well. I do know that, not that long ago, a very wise buddhist monk said to us at dinner: "Do you think we are all here by accident?"-not likely.

No accident at all.

Had to have the right sized sun. The planet had to be just the right distance away. A lot of things had to line up to be here now.

 

[Soggy]

Soggy: I do not know my string theory all that well. I do know that, not that long ago, a very wise buddhist monk said to us at dinner: "Do you think we are all here by accident?"-not likely.

I've enjoyed some of the Dalai Lama's works, specifically Ethics for a New Millenium. Buddhists seem to have a way of looking at the world that works both religiously and scientifically.

That being said, I do not agree with your buddhist monk friend. Nor do I agree with my Franciscan Nun friend whom I grew up with. However, I know that she is doing good work in the world and helping a lot of people and I imagine your buddhist monk friend is as well.

 

[Cacia]

I've enjoyed some of the Dalai Lama's works, specifically Ethics for a New Millenium. Buddhists seem to have a way of looking at the world that works both religiously and scientifically.

okay..now you have my attention. I have been blown away by some of his fresh thought. especially in bioethics and war.

 

[adza]

stezby,

Your opinion is fine. What you posted was not an opinion, it was garbage parading as fact. It's just plain wrong. Not in the sense that I 'disagree' with it. It is *factually* wrong.

What disagreement amongst scientists do you speak of? Evolutionary Science has a pretty good following and quite a bit of consensus. If you are going to use evolution as a reason for looking for something else, at least have your facts straight. They are not.

Soggy,

Please don't take this as a personal attack - I just want to use your post as an example of many posts I've seen here in this thread. Where do you get your evidence that Stezby was factually wrong?

I have seen disagreements amongst scientists too - and many who show flaws in Evolutionary Science. What I seem to see in this thread are those (on both sides of the fence) who have their belief first - and then look for scientific evidence to back up this belief, in many cases - ignoring any other evidence that may go against their belief, and class it as being 'made up', or 'fiction', or 'inaccurate' without considering that it may be legitimate.

The same has been used with evolution. Only those dating methods that meet their requirements (like argon dating) are considered for review - which has been proven to be inaccurate over and over again - ignoring evidence of a 'young' earth.

I know I'm not going to convince people here who are solid evolutionists of anything else - their decision is made up and they won't be deterred, but that's not my point to this post. My point is to show how evolutionary science is just as much a closed box when it comes to thinking as anything else - including religion / creation / etc.

On another note - I do have one question (seriously) that I can't understand from an evolutionist point of view. Why do evolutionists push so hard to have their point of view believed?

I mean - Christians, sure - I can understand. They want people 'saved' from hell - which is why they share their views, but evolutionists? What's the point? It doesn't matter what people believe - it won't matter anyway. We're all going to die, and then that's it? What motivates the passion of evolutionists?

Cheers

 

[Soggy]

okay..now you have my attention. I have been blown away by some of his fresh thought. especially in bioethics and war.

I like that he collects watches.

 

[adza]

Why is it so hard to believe that evolution maybe one of God's creations?

It all depends on how you view God. If you view God from a Jewish or Christian point of view - if evolution was true - it makes God out to be a liar, and if God is a liar - then you can't trust anything he says - which makes a relationship with Him pointless.

Cheers

 

[Cacia]

Why do evolutionists push so hard to have their point of view believed?

evolution is not the issue really. They use evolution to represent science and logic competing with Blind Faith based on fundamental religous beliefs, which they are invested in so that society doesn't become a voo-doo culture.
That is the rub. Science, reason VS Chaos and religous persecution as zealots try and advance the agenda of a given religion.

basically, you can see this in any PTA meeting.

Adza...that is what I mean by deductive logic going off course. Just because man might have gotten a detail wrong, or the language changed, doesn't mean I plan to toss a huge concept like God out the window. ..based on what some men wrote? Guess I am not a fundamentalist.

 

[adza]

I think your math is a little off. See my question above. Are you saying that god is only 4-8 thousand years old? What about the rocks and skeletons that are millions of years old? How do we just throw that out the window?

My understanding is that God isn't 4-8 thousand years old, but the Earth / Universe may be. (I believe God exists out side of the space/time dimension - but that's another discussion).

How do you know about rocks and skeletons being millions of years old? Are you sure that the dating method of this are accurate, or are these particular dating methods chosen above others because they support a particular viewpoint that the original scientist has in the first place?

Cheers

Adza

 

[Soggy]

Please don't take this as a personal attack - I just want to use your post as an example of many posts I've seen here in this thread. Where do you get your evidence that Stezby was factually wrong?

I would prefer not to waste my time going though each 'point' one by one, but one that comes to mind is the point about the Mississippi delta emptying into the Gulf of Mexico and filling it up. Absolute silliness. Has this person never heard of plate tectonics, and a changing face of the earth?

I have seen disagreements amongst scientists too - and many who show flaws in Evolutionary Science. What I seem to see in this thread are those (on both sides of the fence) who have their belief first - and then look for scientific evidence to back up this belief, in many cases - ignoring any other evidence that may go against their belief, and class it as being 'made up', or 'fiction', or 'inaccurate' without considering that it may be legitimate.

What evidence in there is legitimate?

The same has been used with evolution. Only those dating methods that meet their requirements (like argon dating) are considered for review - which has been proven to be inaccurate over and over again - ignoring evidence of a 'young' earth.

Pray tell, what evidence of a young earth is there?

I know I'm not going to convince people here who are solid evolutionists of anything else - their decision is made up and they won't be deterred, but that's not my point to this post. My point is to show how evolutionary science is just as much a closed box when it comes to thinking as anything else - including religion / creation / etc.

But evolution is not a closed box. Find the evidence. If you can find the evidence, you can change the theory. Good luck.

On another note - I do have one question (seriously) that I can't understand from an evolutionist point of view. Why do evolutionists push so hard to have their point of view believed?

Because we have people wanting creationism taught in school, brainwashing our children with ideas that not only don't fit the world we know around us, but isn't even a majority belief in the world. Creationism is like the anti-science and, as has been proven over and over and over and over again in this thread, is a view based primarily on misinformation.