Evolution vs Creation, Youtube series

[jotun7]

Originally Posted by Oh Yeah! I'm Here

Alright? What you just quoted is exactly as how it should be. And you said so yourself that Christians (Including Catholics) believe in the aforementioned quotes. I really don't see where we think differently?

Catholics think that most of the Bible is true, and that you have to be good to go to heaven...regardless of what the Bible says.

Christians believe every word of the Bible, and believes that you must confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord.....like what the Bible says.

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by jotun7

I don't hate Catholics, I hate the way they think.

At least they do think...

[Hahnarama]

Dear jotard7,

I've got lots of friends here that have MANY different faith beliefs.

• 1 An Evangelical that runs services in a mega church the size of a warehouse
  
  2 A Baptist Minister that I've stayed up drinking straight rum with until 3 in the morning.
  
  3 an agnostics who is one of the most peaceful caring dudes I know

and do on and so on. I get along pretty well with pretty much all belief systems. But you "sir" are, IMO, a religious bigot. If it's not your particular version of Christianity then it's wrong. There is no place for that crap here. Go post your swill on another site.

The system won't let me rep you anymore until I rep 10 more people. The admins have all but said that you are on thin ice here, ie not allowed to start any new threads. If they won't ban you then you're making my ignore list.

-Hahnarama,

Faith, Christian Prime.

[ProtoFury]

jotun7, Catholics are Christians. Are there some disagreements between Catholics and Protestants? Yes. But that doesn't mean that hey aren't Christians.

A few of my best friends are Catholics (I'm Southern Baptist), and we've gotten into it a few times--but always over nitpicky stuf. We believe the same thing, and believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior, which is what counts--above all else.

Do I think that praying to Mary or the Saints is helpful or necessary? Not really, but my friends who are Catholics do. Not something we agree on, but we agree on what counts.

I think you should think about what buttons you're pressing before you go all Dee-Dee from Dexter's lab on everyone.


To go back to the evolution debate--I believe the two can work together. God could very well have used evolution, and you'd be stupid not to believe in evolution in part, just look at bacteria who are resistant to strains of antibodies? That's evolution. However, I believe in microevolution, changes within a species (i.e. bacteria, dog breeding, etc.). I do not believe in macroevolution, the change from one species to another.

I believe science goes a long way to prove that there is a Creator--but there are too many holes in the "straight-up evolution" argument for me. The Precambrian Explosion, for example--doesn't fit with hard-core eviolutionary theory.

[skyknight]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

At least they do think...

Thank ya brother...

But see thats what I am talking about...some people get mad about jotun's sort of tone. It frankly just kinda makes me chuckle at him...kinda like a native worshipping a coke bottle or something and then calling me an idiot for not doing so. Catholics are not liked in a lot of places...even here we were discriminated against, not that I care. Even Martin Luther King's father said he would never vote for a stinking Catholic to which JFK replied...I didn't know Mr. King was a bigot....that kinda shut him up for a while.

I think the holier than thou gibberish is just as funny as the look at the size of my brain pan folks. Thats what I am talking about, a lot of these folks who are arguing here have a lot more in common than not...they just happen to fall on different sides of this discussion.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

Just going to point a few things out...

1) Although the way Science works is that the more people you can convince of your view (with evidence of course, and usually sufficient evidence), just because "almost every scientist believes it" does not mean it is true (as shown with Newton and Gravity). If every scientist believed that... because 2+2=4 and 2x2=4 then that must mean 2/2=4 and 2-2=4... does it make it correct? No, obviously not (What scientist would believe that? But I'm using a simple example)...

Fact is that Science is not definite like Math, if every scientist believed in Creationism, and you still had all of your evidence, would you believe yourself or the scientists?

Your question is hard to answer because it's very Orwellian. If every scientist in our modern US society believed in creationism, then I would believe the scientists. If we were living in North Korea and Kim Jong Ill said that every scientist was a creationist, then I would know that is probably suspect. Creationists are welcome to present evidence for their beliefs. They are not, however, welcome to throw a fit and call for a witch hunt when their theory is proven wrong.

Newton did great work. When he was corrected, it wasn't as if Einstein discovered that instead of gravity it was magic (which is what the Creationists are saying). Newton was on the right path, and he did the best he could do considering he was dealing with the Model-T version of modern science.

This is nearly the equivalent of saying, "Most scientists used to be the Earth was flat!" Science even now is only a few hundred years old, and half that time was spent before modern technology was around, much less computers. Yet, it's still the best way to examine the world. When scientists are wrong these days, it's never some drastic change where they say, "We thought the world was ~13,700,000,000 years old, but it turns out that it's only 6,000 years old."

Abomination, I don't have a problem with you believing whatever you want to believe. From what I've seen, parents seem to tell their children, "the world is 6000 years old and humans lived with dinos" and they never seem ready to finish that statement and say, "But that's our faith. The experts have a completely different opinion." Most of that is probably due to the fact that many fundamentalists are not aware of how much evidence there is for evolution.

White Noise:
What do you want to know? It's all going to be answered here. List of Creationist Claims.

Skyknight, I'm not going to disagree that we can get snarky from time to time (just like the creationists). We're not the ones telling nearly all the scientists in the world that they're wrong. Scientists have mountains of evidence. They've done the work. Nothing proves it wrong. On the other side, we have people with no evidence for their claims. They want to claim science, but they don't want to play by the rules of science. They ask questions like "What about the Cambrian Explosion?" but they never seem to be willing to do a simple Google search to see if the scientists have a reasonable, plausible explanation. It's sad that there's such mistrust because even though every person in the world has the capacity to lie, scientists are one of the few groups in the world whose job description involves actively trying to prove themselves wrong for the sake of the harsh truth.

"An atheist's desire to be right"? I feel just as passionate about evolution as others feel about their religion. Evolution is the way I learn more about who I am and where I came from. And the best part is that it's the best candidate for being the truth, so I can base my personal discovery on facts rather than faith.

[Oh Yeah! I'm Here]

Originally Posted by jotun7

Catholics think that most of the Bible is true, and that you have to be good to go to heaven...regardless of what the Bible says.

Christians believe every word of the Bible, and believes that you must confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord.....like what the Bible says.

Dude, what you're saying is making no sense. Earlier you stated that Catholics AND Christians both take the quoted lines to heart.

Look at the bold, look at what you're saying. Damn, they are the same thing almost. We have saints and pray to Mary is our only real difference. We do good things and Christians do good things. There is nothing in the bible that expressly says to only do certain good things. What are you thinking, man?

[ProtoFury]

Times like this I wish I had Internet access and wasn't just on my phone, Gulp. I've got quite a bit to say about your arguments (in a polite and respectful manner, of course), but I'll be sure and get to that when I have computer access.

[Grungebob]

What I love? That our world with all of its mysteries is like a pandora's box. Each discovery leads to new mysteries that need solving. Our world teeming with people all of whom carry within themselves a unique interpretation of life and death, its meaning, and effect on our actions while here.

What I hate: When anybody steps up and makes any claim that they know anything about what I am supposed to believe, or how I am supposed to act, or what is going to happen to me when I die.

I am thankful we haven't already killed each other off. Arrogance and narrow mindedness are the real enemies that should be confronted and eliminated using love and understanding and resolve.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

there are too many holes in the "straight-up evolution" argument for me. The Precambrian Explosion, for example--doesn't fit with hard-core eviolutionary theory.

A gap is an explanation that may be filled before the year is out or it may be filled in 5, 10, 15+ years. It does not mean that scientists are baffled. It also does not advance the creationist side at all. There have been plenty of "gaps" that have since been filled. Gaps exist in nearly every single murder investigation that detectives face, unless they actually have clear video footage of the crime or a genuine confession. The DNA evidence alone is enough to prove evolution. A chimpanzee is equivalent to a 1st edition copy of For Whom the Bell Tolls and a human is equivalent to an 8th edition copy of the same book. It's hard to look at the two books and say they are not related. Our genomes look nearly identical. If God directed evolution, then he copied and pasted almost all of his work with chimpanzees into us.

And they don't really distinguish between micro and macro. Micro + time = macro.

The experts don't see the conflict regarding the Cambrian Explosion that you do. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Proto, I appreciate your enthusiasm about the debate to be willing to try using your phone.

[SpartanNinja]

Originally Posted by Gulp

If every scientist in our modern US society believed in creationism, then I would believe the scientists.

So what you're saying is that the evidence doesn't matter to you? You wouldn't attempt to "revolutionize" the way scientists think? That all you are is a sheep?

I know that's not really what you intended to say...

Originally Posted by Gulp

Newton did great work. When he was corrected, it wasn't as if Einstein discovered that instead of gravity it was magic (which is what the Creationists are saying). Newton was on the right path, and he did the best he could do considering he was dealing with the Model-T version of modern science.

This is nearly the equivalent of saying, "Most scientists used to be the Earth was flat!" Science even now is only a few hundred years old, and half that time was spent before modern technology was around, much less computers. Yet, it's still the best way to examine the world. When scientists are wrong these days, it's never some drastic change where they say, "We thought the world was ~13,700,000,000 years old, but it turns out that it's only 6,000 years old."

I don't know where any Creationist said anything of this sort at all...

This is all true (except for the bolded part, that's more than questionable). Science is much more advanced than it has ever been, and is advancing exponentially. But this does not mean that Science cannot be wrong, usually scientists are very good at fixing mistakes in their theories quite quickly. Does this mean that it is impossible to have made a big mistake? No. To err is human. Like I pointed out in the remainder of my previous post, there are enough logical holes in the Theory of Evolution that call its basis into question, alongside every piece of evidence that corroborates it.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

So what you're saying is that the evidence doesn't matter to you? You wouldn't attempt to "revolutionize" the way scientists think? That all you are is a sheep?

I know that's not really what you intended to say...

Before I start a revolution, I would assume that if I'm at odds with all the scientists in the world, then maybe it's ME that is incorrect. I don't have a degree in biology or evolution or any of the other related fields. Ultimately, I HAVE to trust the scientists. Considering I am not qualified to do the research, and I don't have access to the equipment or the resources, the best I can do is read what the scientists have published. If all the other scientists (who can financially gain from proving someone wrong) look at the evidence and conclude that they don't have an argument against it, then I am really in an awkward spot if I declare all of them wrong, without actually truly understanding their evidence on a deep, molecular level.

If they have evidence, then that's what matters.

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

I don't know where any Creationist said anything of this sort at all...

This is all true (except for the bolded part, that's more than questionable). Science is much more advanced than it has ever been, and is advancing exponentially. But this does not mean that Science cannot be wrong, usually scientists are very good at fixing mistakes in their theories quite quickly. Does this mean that it is impossible to have made a big mistake? No. To err is human. Like I pointed out in the remainder of my previous post, there are enough logical holes in the Theory of Evolution that call its basis into question, alongside every piece of evidence that corroborates it.

My point about the bold part is that if it turns out that evolution is incorrect, then the the right answer is not going to be creationism. If anything it would be something like, it turns out that evolution is not driven by the genes but instead by the brain's adaptive capacity to affect the hypothalamus and regulate the body.

The problem with your hole hypothesis is that it doesn't actually amount to enough to propel that questioning forward. To start that forward progression ID/creationism proponents are going to need more than just pointing to areas of evolution that have not yet been funded for research. This is the problem with ID proponent Michael Behe (who was the main witness for the ID side in the Dover trial). A few years ago he made a list of 10 areas that evolution cannot explain. Within 2-3 years scientists had explained 5 of the 10 'unexplainables'. At this point, Behe should have said, "Wow, I was apparently wrong. Based on this, it's likely that the other 5 will eventually be explained." But he didn't.

It takes more than just pointing out areas that need to be researched to see if they follow the theory of evolution. You need to have actual positive irrefutable evidence for your position or you need to have evidence that contradicts evolution. The Theory of Evolution has been around for 150 years. At times it has been wrong about specific points, but the newly corrected aspect never contradicts evolution. It just clarifies it with better evidence.