Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
I'm writing a research paper and Im having a tough time choosing which side to support. If anybody who is very religious to anyone who is a scientist or does science, your help would be greatly appreciated
Personally I cannot bring myself to believe in creationism, every theory they've come up with has been completely blown out of the water. Wish there were a way I could back and veiw my answers from previous post, I really don't' feel life typing it all again, sigh. oh well, here we go 1_~
Notice the distribution fossils in the sedimentary layers is stratified completely to the predictions of what evolution predicts. Humans are with humans, dinosaurs are with dinosaurs, no exception. There are no humans with prehistoric beast, ect. With creationism, this would not be the case.
Notice we find certain animals in certain geographical locations. Example, fish marsupials are found ONLY in Austrian. This is contraindicated by creationist, however, evolution in fact would predict this, this would be expected. If things were just created, wouldn't you expect to find an even distribution of animals, but you don't.
Humans have genes for making tails(not just a tail bone, but a fully functional tail), birds have genes for making teeth, and whales have genes for making legs. If things just came into existence then I highly doubt this would be the case. And just stating"god just threw in some extra genes" doesn't explain anything, for if that were the case then why wouldn't humans have the genes for making feathers? Why wouldn't humans pneumatic bones(bones basically with air-pockets, they make it easier for flight, however are fairly weaker than solid bones)? All humans mammals have solid bones, even bats, and all birds have pneumatic. Why wouldn't bats have pneumatic bones rather than solid bones and emus, penguins, or ostriches have solid bones rather than pneumatic bones if they just came into being in present form. Again, evaluation predicts and require developments like this, creationism "requires his not be the case".
If creation was the case, if things just came into being, then why would here be transitional forms. There are hundreds. Archaeopteryx(one of the more famous), Pedopenna, Waimanu, Hyrachyus, just to name a few.
Now I'm back to set the record str8-Once more...
Your life, my life, our life, like the planet, it contains the seeds of our evolution, and will take your life to the next level if you'll let it. It requires each of us to release the familiar, maybe even what seems safe, and become the change you want to see by asking better questions like the ones above.. Because the truth is, "God will not have his work made manifest by cowards." But to realize your potential & part we all play, in "Evolution and Creationism."
There's always something trying to be born. The universe isn't neutral; it has a plan, a pattern -- a Big Idea (Divine Intervention & or governing) seeking willing places for Its ever-expanding expression. It is the breakdown of our relationships and body that brings out the emotional, science and spiritual breakthroughs which inspire everything we do today, from "past, present & future." Major systems -- economic, educational, political, environmental -- Are signs of something larger trying to unfold, personally and globally. That to me is creationism & evolution working hand in hand. But we could not have come this far without the help and aid of some higher power... As Einstein said, "You cannot solve a problem from the same level of thinking that caused it." We must, as Gandhi said, "become the change we want to see in the world." Thus looking at evolution from both a spiritual & a scientific aspect.
So unless you approach this sensitive, delicate subject matter with an open-mind. You will forever be claustrophobic to new & wielding ideas that improve & prove, creationism & evolution are indeed one in the same. In other words, we try to change the world but stay at the same. And it never works for long. Because the ideas are so divided. We often resist this "urge to emerge."
They actually work hand in hand together. The thought came first from God and through working every part out, and God is still doing this today, evolved what we see today here on earth and the universe.
I know the Bible says God created the universe in one day, but what is one day to God, is the question. I know as a reality that there is no past or future, only present time, continually. So what is a day. Therefore it comes down to "every thought or concept by God causes an effect". Have you ever gave thought to this. Every-time you think of a concept there is another concept that comes in that requires another concept. And on and on it goes until you finish what you are looking for. That is how I see evolution working. It's always on going, never ends, even to this day.
In some way the universe, this planet, animals and plants, and even us, evolve taking the strongest first to evolve a stronger kind. When things change it is because the week are put aside for the strong to make a stronger future. Always changing to make fit to the circumstances that come about. Or to say to survive. This universe works on the strong survive to lead the future. And because it is always changing the strong always inherit the future, not the week. It is that way with nations, governments, business and even families.
Look at this. Why is it the white man in the US is disappearing. The Black and Brown races are the stronger when it comes to numbers. They will soon with enough education and know how will become the rulers. The White race will be very little or none existent. This is even happening in Europe. That is evolution. And maybe that is Gods plan. His concept or what ever you want to put it. Food from the earth is evolving in the same way. It is all fit to help man stay strong and survive into the future.
"How is it possible that a 3500 years old book states what we know about the earth floating in space?"
That is your interpretation of a quote that we don't know when it was written, nor how many times it has been edited and changed through translation. It might be considered evidence, but to me, not very strong evidence. It doesn't say anything about space, the solar system, the sun, the moon. It sound more like a metaphor than anything.
"How did Isaiah know that the shape of the earth as seen from high above"
The ancients thought the sky over us was a circle, since that is how it appeared to them. It was not referring to the shape of the earth. It was referring to the sky, and what was above it, presumably heaven.
"How did the prophet know the name of the person that would release the israelites from Babylon in order to go and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem, 200 HUNDREDS YEARS BEFORE HE WAS BORN?"
How do you know this WAS written 200 years before he was born? Is there a manuscript that states this and has been dated to 200 years before his birth?
I am not trying to argue with you here. I understand what you believe, and I can respect that (I am married to a believer), but trying to prove the accuracy of the bible with quotes from the bible is not scientific evidence. And I have "checked out" the bible. I was raised christian, went to parochial school for 8 years and church every Sunday. I probably know more about the bible than most self-proclaimed Christians. But as I got older, and learned more about it, I came to the realization that it just simply couldn't be true.
Sorry I missed this when it was fresh, Risa. If I were in your place, I would have reframed the question. Instead of choosing between Evolution and Creationism as the two views, I would have considered the following two propositions and argued for one over the other: 1) Evolution and Creationism are contradictory and mutually exclusive, vs. 2) Evolution and Creationism are compatible.
For one thing, I find that a more interesting argument. But more importantly, schools will very often (at your age, almost always) present you with a certain conceptual framework as though it were neutral, "natural," and without any viable alternative. But that is a deception (often a self-deception on their part). It will be more challenging and far more educationally valuable for you, or for anyone, to develop the ability to recognize and critique these conceptual frameworks, rather than learning only to swim in them expertly, like the fish that remains oblivious to the water in which it is always immersed.
In this case, the assumption that ought to be challenged is that Evo and Crea are counterposed. Even if you ultimately accept that they are, that should be a conclusion based on evidence and argument, not an apriori assumption that truncates the realm of the thinkable.
Well I could never argue the merits of creationism, because it has none. It is not based on factual evidence. It is based on religious belief. Evolution is a proven phenomena. Many claim that it is "just a theory". When people say that, it is clear they do not understand what it takes for something to be considered a scientific theory. It is not just a guess. It is based on years and years of research, experimentation, and analysis. And the experimentation must be repeated many times with the same results, and it then requires a consensus among most scientists that this is the most likely explanation. With evolution, yes it is a theory, but the theory refers to the mechanism of how life actually transforms. In other words HOW evolution occurs, not IF it occurs. It is a proven fact that it has and does occur. The fossil records have proven quite clearly that all life on earth evolved from simple organisms that first appeared 3.8 billion years ago. Now creationists will deny this and claim that the earth is only 6000 years old, but they have absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. The evidence for evolution is completely overwhelming. Even most organized religions, included the world's largest christian church, accept that evolution is real.
Terry, if you are only 18, how "very-well educated" can you be? It is laughable that you call me close-minded, yet you close your mind to real scientific discovery. And just because no one in your church accepts evolution as real, most christians do. The catholic church (the largest christian church), the eastern orthodox church, as well as many protestant churches all accept evolution as real and do not view the story of genesis literally. Actually young earth creationists are a tiny minority. Insult me all you like, I care nt. But if you really want to claim I have been rude or obnoxious, please show me where I said anything nearly as rude or obnoxious as these things you said: "You need to do more research, before you start running off at that mouth- like a "Know It All." All talk - Is all you are." and this: "Fake as_ people, say fake as_ sh_t! & I suppose you believe, in captain kirk, & planet of the apes as well.. Your 50yrs old & still don't have a lick of sense.. That makes you unwise, unintelligible, & very undefined." You are young, and maybe when you grow up you will learn some manners, and maybe even some common sense. Have a nice day...
"Evolution and Creationism can not be taught officially in school just like religion."
Not true in the US. Evolution is taught in schools because it is a proven science. Creationism is not because it is religion and we have separation of church and state.
"Neither can be proven to the 100%"
It depends on what you mean by proven. Evolution has been proven through fossil records that show all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms that first appeared 3.8 billion years ago. What is a theory is how it happens, not if it happened. There is no doubt it did. Just because we didn't witness something does not mean it can't be proven. We have proof dinosaurs existed, even though we have never seen one. And evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is science and has nothing to do with anything supernatural. Creationist try and paint evolution as a religion, but they are frankly uniformed and ignorant of the subject matter. Anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old is either crazy or stupid.
My point of view is that while sure there is information backing up the science, we have no official way of determining it, like we cant see it for ourselves. I mean I can go out and say that we can from fish and that may not be true but if I find bones or a fossilized fish person then I have evidence, even if that evidence could just be a genetic defect.
I personally choose to believe in creationism more because while I am religious, it seems more likely to me that there is an outside force that created us. I mean we supposedly came from bacteria of some sort when the earth was first began? And yet even if it was true how could that have come to be? Somewhere along the line science can't explain things because not everything can be proven, sometimes it's better to just believe and not always challenge things. It's less of a headache and less of a worry. Just like enjoy life guys, and don't worry about it:)
You just want to keep coming with the lip service. Let me start by saying this; If you've hijacked this question-Then I'm here to tell you that- I Do Not give way to t.e.r.r.o.r.i.s.t threats.. I expose & then pick them a part, piece by piece.. Here it you are 50yrs old & still relying on all your information from out dated, out of circulation comic books.. Well, I'm here to tell you mister, I've been blessed with intelligence for a reason. & thats more than likely to deal with skeptics like you. Trust me, I'm just getting started, Mr. Talk, talk, talk... What you fail to realize, Is that your dealing with, is an individual, who isn't even in his prime., Yet, I will obliterate you with my wisdom, crush you like relish with my intelligence, & grind you into dust with my well defined essence. I may be young- But I'm old enough to know the difference between a "horse & a donkey." No pun intended....
I am convinced that both are correct. *Evolution suggests that humans came from a species similar to apes. Not that they came from apes, but they came from a common ancestor. This for example, does not rule out that humans were made in God's image, but does suggest that that image has either evoled with time or is meant in a an abstract way. *Since the earth does change over time, it is safe to assume that days were either longer or shorter billions of years ago as opposed to how it is today. So when the bible says that the earth was created in seven days, seven days could mean billions of years. For such reasons, i'm not going to rule out either. Ancient texts, such as the Bible, i think are worth consitering since those who wrote it lived during that time. The authinticity of the content is yours to decide, but the time period it was written in is pretty concrete.
I am not the manners police for funadvice- but maybe you should put that in there suggestion box. I am fully grown & very well educated. You see things one sided & I see them from all sides; That my uneducated friend makes me non-biased. So the only ignorant person I see, is the one who is close-minded. That would be you. & since you don't believe in God-why would you try to speak for the church? I have never attended a church where any member has said "We evolved from a common ancestor." Your absolutely right about one thing " there are still many people who prefer to stay ignorant about facts that challenge their beliefs. So you just let me know when you be come un-ignorant. & stop insulting what others believe in & what their belief's are..
Whether they are counter-posed or not depends on ones definition of creationism. Young earth creationism, (where the the earth is only 6000 years old, and all humans are descended from Adam and Eve) is absolutely counter-posed to evolution. Now if your view of creation accepts that the earth is 4.5 billion years, and that evolution was simply the means a creator used to create the world and all life on it, then that view would not be counter-posed to evolutionary theory. It really boils down to not whether a higher power created the universe, but rather is evolution a real natural phenomena. They can both be true as long as you don't dismiss the overwhelming scientific evidence. I can't see how young earth creationism can ever be taken seriously.
I didn't bring sports into this.. I just made note that he is wearing a new york mets mascot costume.. & he said that I needed glasses; Well, I can clearly see that he is wearing a silly new york mets costume. & I was simply stating, that my eyes are fine, since he is dressed as yogi the bear.. I have 20/20.. Why would you even comment? If jimahl, would quit shadowing me every time I make a comment. Then we wouldn't have this problem.. Now would we? & if my comments are sports related- o'well. It's my comment.. I can comment how I want to.. No one has to like it. Just like he is condescending on every one else's comments, I just return the favor... I'm not trying to help a 15 day old question. Not At All.....
Terry, are you the manners police for FunAdvice? I was not rude or obnoxious. Certainly no where near as rude as you have been towards me. But that's ok, I am a big boy and can take it. Your problem seems to be more with what I say, rather than how I say it. As I already stated, man did not evolve from monkey or apes. We evolved from a common ancestor. I really don't care if you refuse to believe what science has discovered through an overwhelming amount of evidence. Evidence even most christian churches accept. But there are still many people who prefer to stay ignorant about facts that challenge their beliefs. Maybe when you grow up you will see things differently. Good luck...
You need to do more research, before you start running off at that mouth- like a "Know It All." All talk - Is all you are. Neither you or your scientists have been able to prove evolution or explain it to where it is factual. You don't want to get me started-that's why you hide behind an anonymous face. Fake as_ people, say fake as_ sh_t! & I suppose you believe, in captain kirk, & planet of the apes as well.. Your 50yrs old & still don't have a lick of sense.. That makes you unwise, unintelligible, & very undefined. I see that you like throwing stones- So I'm going to throw a few back & obliterate that glass house you live in.. Your the ignorant one..
For some odd reason, you must think that I must have just gotten off the bus. Trust me, I am somewhat of an intellect to know that man "Did not evolve from apes or monkeys, or a meteor smashing into the planet & that aliens did not create us & leave us here to fend for ourselves..
That is why I chose not to give any input on this subject matter. As I so states above.. But After, I read through some of your comments., I felt that they were rather biased, rude & obnoxious, towards,some of the other replies that were made. It's like you added your, 2cents & tried to make it into a nickel.. That just doesn't make sense.
In a nutshell evolution, like gravity, electricity, and magnetism are not disputed by mainstream scientists. We do not know everything about how evolution works but we also don't know everything about how any phenomenon works. Creationism is thinly veiled religion taught as if it was valid science. There are biologists who accept young Earth creationism over evolution but these folks are ignoring physical evidence and only accept what agrees with their religious views. Theories that make science subservient to politics, economic ideology, or religion are considered pseudoscience. Young earth creationism falls into this category.
Thank's lady & gentlemen. It's true, It's either one side or the other. But what ever you say; often turns into an all out war fare & in this instance a "Holy war." For instance: If I were to comment on creationism, I am almost certain, people would want to hail me as a Martyr & would want to burn me at the stake. If a person gives his view on evolution in the name of science & doesn't it word it right; then I am again, almost certain, that people would want to burn the very books where he or she received that info from. Giving us all a stale mate.. There is no logical answer to this question on this site. I'm 100% sure of it!
Ok Terry, this is THE last time I am going to direct any comment at you. I really could care less what you think of me. You are immature and ill-equipped to debate me, and I have no desire to "shadow" you. I have never once made a comment to anything you posted unless it was a direct reply to one of my posts. Look back and see if you don't believe me. Tell me, am I the only person who has a funny or even silly avatar? How many other people have you commented on the picture like you have mine. You seem to be obsessed with me, and frankly I find it rather creepy. So please ignore me, and I will do the same to you.
Suppose we were to take the position that there is no Creator. Then we would be obliged to say that the universe has always existed, that the matter in it is eternal. Yet clear evidence shows that matter has not always existed. For example, we know that some elements of the earth are unstable, that is, they are radioactive. Uranium, for example, keeps giving off radioactive particles until it eventually turns into lead. But if matter had always existed there would be no radioactive elements left today. The radioactivity would have all ‘run out’ long ago, even as water eventually runs completely out of a leaking barrel
Kent, what you describe is not creationism. Creationism is the belief that the story of genesis is literally true, that the world was created only 6000 years ago, and that there really was an adam and eve, and all human beings are descended from them. And what you describe as far as races go is not evolution. Evolutionary changes are biological and occur over tens of thousands of years. They are not something we can see happen in real time. What you believe is what most people believe, including the catholic church, that the story of genesis is allegorical, and that evolution is a real natural phenomena.
You're writing Risa's paper for her. {:^) I more or less agree, with two caveats: There are obviously more than a few folks - some of them quite intelligent and well-educated - who do take young-earth crea seriously. Your inability to grasp how that is possible seems to me to be a failure of imagination on your part. It would also be necessary, in such a paper, to discuss and reject not only young-earth creationism for its anti-scientific denial of evolutionary theory, but also to discuss and reject the anti-spiritual scientism that denies the viability of even evolutionary creationism.
Alejandro, Many people hypothesize that the universe has always existed. There is no evidence that matter has not always existed. Matter can not be created nor destroyed. It can be changed however, which is what you describe with uranium changing into lead.. And scientists today have pretty much confirmed that the current universe we see today started from a singularity that rapidly began expanding, and is still expanding today. They know nothing about what existed before, but there is no evidence that time/space did not exist before, so there is no reason to think it didn't.
But if you go through the archives of Funadvice you will find plenty of previous answers to your question, from both sides of the spectrum.. & Risa, you don't have to apologize. But when you ask this question on this site- thats all your going to get is an argument.. Trust me, this question is often asked.. & people will continue to answer your question. Hopefully, they can be mature about the subject matter & try not to offend any one in the process. & give you some logical feedback. Instead of going back & fourth throwing rocks.
Good luck!
How about both sides? Do you know how to print a page in word? You click file and print. But a real Computer Programmer/Technician can actually write a book on how it is actually done using command codes, electronic circuitry and other very very very confusing equipment and procedures to get to the "point and click" version. What i am really saying is that because scientist have figured out many things that were never explained to you religiously doesn't mean that there was not a God that just "point and click". Its as easy as that.
I have yet to meet a young earth creationist who I would consider informed and intelligent. They might be intelligent, but they are not informed. And judging by the amount of people I know (by no means an accurate measure), I only know of three people whom I consider young earth creationists. Anti-spiritual scientism? What does that mean? Science should only accept or reject something based on facts and data. Science does not reject the viability of evolutionary creationism. It just claims there is no evidence for it.
Terry, not sure what your problem is, but you need to calm down. I haven't thrown any stones. We are only having a discussion here. there is no need for that type of crap. Evolution has been proven. If you would take the time to do some research, you would see the evidence yourself. I am not going to get into a flame war with you, because frankly I have much better ways to occupy my time. If you dispute what I say, then give your argument, not ad hominem attacks.
Some scientist hypothesize that the the time and space are infinite, and they say that the big bang was just part of a cycle of expansion and retraction of all matter. Right now all matter is expanding following the big bang. Eventually all matter will begin retracting and condensing until it is back to a singularity that eventual collapses like a black hole, and then it all starts again with another big bang. Until there is evidence of a "cause", it remains unknown.
You should probably narrow it down to evolution vs. young earth creationists. Most Christians have no problem with evolution. They do not read the Bible like a science book. They read the Biblical account of creation as a symbolic and allegorical rather than a brass tacks description. They refer to the Bible for spiritual truths and to science for physical truths. The Bible and science do not have to say the same thing because they answer different questions.
Just something to think about: In 1947 a Bedouin shepherd found what we know today as death sea scrolls, dated as of 2nd. Century before common era, which included a complete copy of the book of Isaiah, which i quoted before (visitors at Jerusalem can see a copy of it at Israe museum)When they compared it with the oldest copy they had handy back then (dated as of 10th century common era) they found almost no differences.Does this answer part of your question?
Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this beginning is known as the Big Bang. But, as astrophysicist John Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and large, to be able to describe in great detail what happened after this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all."
Your three options for truth value leave out the actual status of most truth claims, which is that they are partially true, true from a certain perspective, and conditionally true. That is to say (at least in part), you omit its irreducibly subjective aspect. It appears to me (perhaps I am misreading) that you not only omit it; you also denigrate it, when you say "the other is completely subjective" as though "completely" meant "merely."
I understand that is what you believe, and you might be right. But I tend to be a pragmatist, and need to see evidence before I will simply "believe" something. I have not seen any evidence of anything supernatural in this universe, and I just can't accept something just because others tell me I should. There has to be facts and evidence to support it, and I see none to support the existence of a deity or any other supernatural power.
it just comes to this everytime.. evolution is proven but not proven to be the beginning. u can say it came from a big bang but where did the space come from well it came from that well where did that come from. it goes on nd on.. religion has a beginnig. we dont no it all. i believe everything is the way God planned for it to be. we no only wat we are meant to know. i think its is this confusing just so He knows who really has faith.
“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing."Isaiah 40:26 Since God has an "abundance of dynamic energy" He can very easyly be the source of all matter in the universe, converting some of that into this.
Terry, Science does not say we evolved from monkeys. It says that monkeys and humans, and all primates for that matter, evolved from a common ancestor. We took one evolutionary path from the common ancestor, and monkeys and other primates took another path. Some people refer to the big bang as part of evolution. But that is not Darwinian evolution, or biological evolution. The big bang describes cosmological evolution.
"the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’"(Isaiah 44:28) How did the prophet know the name of the person that would release the israelites from Babylon in order to go and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem, 200 HUNDREDS YEARS BEFORE HE WAS BORN?
Look Terry, I am not sure what your problem with me is, other than the fact that I don't believe what you believe. I have only posted my opinions on the subject, which is the purpose of this forum. You were the one who was commenting nastily about my posts and about me and my intelligence, not the other way around. I suggest you go back and re-read my posts, and then read your comments to them. I am done...
No, I am not denigrating it, I was trying to show how there really is no way, or at least is very difficult to, compare something subjective with something objective. Truth is truth to me. If something is partially true than it is untrue. If the claim has multiple components to it, I guess it could be said the entire claim is partially true, but when broken down by component, each is either true or not.
I'm sorry guys, I don't mean to get personal or cause arguements but my assignment is to research controversial issues and mine happened to be Creationism vs Evolutionism and it's arguement based so I have to choose one side and support it throughout the essay while explaining why the other is false and then support that one at the end. I know, sounds pretty complicated and dumb but I have to do it.
Ok that's enough. Seriously. You guys are not talking about this question anymore thus you are no help to me or anybody else who is interested in this topic. You are argueing about how you are smarter than the other and it is just pure non-sense and immature on both your parts. Thank you, you guys helped by stating your opinions now please stop and let others freely state theirs.
hah thx :) it's all so overwheling to think about both sides and what is involved in both, we're learning about evolution in school, but because the same problem you were talking about earlier comes up we cannot involve the religeous side. which i can totally understand, but it'd be nice to dicuss both for a better understanding...know what i mean?
Well so far you have not impressed me with either your wisdom nor your intelligence. And what the hell is your "well defined essence"? The only thing I hear from you is male teenage bravado telling me how you are going to obliterate me. Maybe when you grow up you will learn to have manners and an open mind. But we can only hope...
i have one word for jimahl- "condescend." Let me use that word in a sentence: That jimahl charcater acts condescendingly on other people's views.. Now I hope you guys realize what I have had to deal with for the last couple of weeks, A charles darwin "knock-off.." & even that's giving the impostor too much credit..
evolution is more than likely true, although i would love to believe that "god" created things. Dont get me wrong i still believe there is a afterlife in heaven, but it just makes so much more sense that it took millions of years, and a lot of luck to evolutionize a single cell of something to get to what we have today
"There is One who is dwelling above the CIRCLE of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers"(Isaiah 40:22)How did Isaiah know that the shape of the earth as seen from high above (in order to se men as insects)is a circle? Of course the only geometrical body seen as a circle from every angle is a sphere....
i'll try to make it as simple as possible: Did the Universe have a begginning? Cientists talking on the Big Bang would answer affirmatively. Was there a CAUSE for that Big Bang? In case there was, was that CAUSE "something" or "someone". If you got this far let me know if you want to proceed any further...
I'm glad you said this, jimahl, because the justified frustration you express at the obtuse claim that something lacks truth value because it is "just" a scientific theory is very much how I feel when you deny the truth value of something on the grounds that it is "just" myth, metaphor, or allegory.
Well and another thing is; The separation of church & state.. In other words, the schools can not, or aren't supposed to teach the religious aspects of it. But I think you understand it as well as any body else does, or at least you have a pretty good grasp on the two matters...
I understand how you feel. I am not a believer but my wife is, and she believes as you do. But it is not creationism. Creationism is an extreme belief, and there are relatively few people who actually believe in it. But there seems to be a large percentage of them on FA.
TrentH, I am not sure what you mean by "truth value". Something is either true, not true, or unknown. Trying to compare the truth of science and the truth of myth, metaphor or allegory is apples and oranges. One is objective, the other is completely subjective.
Hayyim, (you changed your name?) Evidence is either true or false. Young earth creationists claim the evidence of radio metric dating used to date fossils is false. Science claims it is true. The veracity of the evidence determines the accuracy of the theory.
Both creationism and evolution can not be true. Creationism is the belief that the world was created 6000, and adam and eve were created by god, and are the descendants of every single human being. Science shows us that that can not possibly be true.
ummm i pretty sure they would only burn you if you were Wiccan.....or claimed to be a witch....which in case you didnt know is REALLY bad if your a witch..cause witches practice the dark arts and believe in NO conciquences unlike wiccans
With all due respect, so does you moot posting. I'm merely answering a question asked, and out of everyone else here you fancy mine a ramble. Do tel, how does this humor you? And if you wish rebuttal, please use actual scientific facts
Yeah I really wasn't. Come on guys, this is just for my English paper. Please keep this civil. We're all human beings in this world& all have the right to believe how you as an individual came to the world. Freedom of Speech.
"He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing"(jOB 26:7) How is it possible that a 3500 years old book states what we know about the earth floating in space?
"Example, fish marsupials are found ONLY in Austrian." Meant "Example, marsupials are found ONLY in Austrian." was beginning to type something else but changed my thought in the middle of it
I have 20/20 vision., Best to mind your p's and q's.. & Right about now; You look quite silly dressed up in that mascot costume.. & One more thing- I hate the mets! Go Yankees!
Yes, I got it. But I believe they both go hand in hand. God plays a great deal in the creation of life, but that it evolves over time, not in one day, as the Bible says.
Sorry for hijacking your question Risa. But you certainly should have seen both sides of this argument. And hopefully you can see which side makes more sense.
Terryc, no one was talking to you, so why are you butting in just to insult me? Please stop, I am done with you, and will not engage in you childish games.
On account of all that: Shouldn't the Bible be a book worth of cheking if it was really inspired by a superhuman (and not supernatural as you said) person?
That's the best & smartest thing you've said thus far.. But I see your still lacking in the manner's department.. I just call it how I see it...
No-just logical dichotomy., Is all.. God had the thought & put it onto action. Thus creating life & the world as we know it...
Absolutely not. Scientific theory based on scientific evidence that is true. The theory is an interpretation of those truths.
Evidence is neither true nor false; it just is. Only statements about that evidence - i.e., theory - can be true or false.
Not so Tana it all depends on the practitioner, trust me, I should know I've been a practicing pagan for the past 9 years
I was done with this question 6 days ago. But apparently, someone ( no names mentioned ) had a delayed reaction.
yeah, like, god and goddess made the... whatever came first, and that turned into a person eventually.
yeah that's what i'm thinking haha, was trying to explain it that way, but had a hard time lol...thx
P.S. In fact, something only becomes evidence by virtue of a theory that claims it as such.
By your criteria we would have to say that pretty much all scientific theories are untrue.
yeah, and its all so facinating to think about it....kinda gives me a headache too haha
maybes the way whatever god made human creation did it through evollution. just sayin.
Terryc... I don't really think bringing sports into this is going to help anything..
well i believe that God and evolution can both be real... as kent said.
What are you talking about, T' ??? Now you just confused me...
if evolution was real we would all look like monkeys.......
I believe in a little of both. Evolution plus creation.
The same comment I posted below applies to this post...
Wow... I'll bet Risa was'nt expecting all of this O.o
Exactly why I try not to answer question like this...
This ramble humours me with all due respect...
its tru, people get really intense bout tht
thank you. dont lose faith. God bless
A thousand years is one day to God...
Too late.... I'm sorry, Risa..
...Bait and switch, nice try.
Its just a figure of speech..
I suggest you get glasses...
& yes, I can respect that..
Does this man ever shut up?
I holy agree well stated
Very, very, well said...
well said alejandro..
To each their own...
same here Angel :)
False dichotomy.
Thanks Terryc
Anytime.. :)
