Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationism v. Evolution question

Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:30:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've seen this come up on close to every single debate revolving around the existence of God where someone counters with theories of evolution, they both tend to make the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. My question is on what grounds is that assumption valid? Isn't it perfectly possible (and more logically probable given scientific research) that if a deity existed, that they just simply created life forms and let them evolve? It's certainly more probable than a timeless being playing with mud like a ADHD 5 year old and saying "Let there be life!" and watching his mud figurines come to life before his eyes. But that's me ranting. Back to my original point.

Why does creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Or, at least, why do people think they are mutually exclusive?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zarathrusa
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:34:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The creationists have been cornered into a place in which all of the empirical evidence produced by modern day science validates evolution. Trying to not reject science all together (might be bad for their PR), they attempt to in feasibly and stupidly incorporate intelligent design as something that designed evolution. Last I recall, Christians were preaching against the very basis of evolution some few decades ago. Amazing how the Biblical conclusion stays the same while the evidence being different.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:30:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I've seen this come up on close to every single debate revolving around the existence of God where someone counters with theories of evolution, they both tend to make the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. My question is on what grounds is that assumption valid? Isn't it perfectly possible (and more logically probable given scientific research) that if a deity existed, that they just simply created life forms and let them evolve? It's certainly more probable than a timeless being playing with mud like a ADHD 5 year old and saying "Let there be life!" and watching his mud figurines come to life before his eyes. But that's me ranting. Back to my original point.

Why does creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Or, at least, why do people think they are mutually exclusive?

All depends on how you view creationism. The way I see it, the story of Creation in Genesis was taught as the infallible word of God for centuries (nearly 1600 years I believe), and any one who went against anything the bible says (take Galileo for example) was called a heretic and was severely punished. Then, when the theories of evolution were going around, it still was being struck down (at least by the Church). Then, all of a sudden, the Church decides that a grave mistake was made, and that evolution was actually true, they revised their beliefs (on more than just evolution/creationism) and once more, the bible is the infallible word of God.

My point is, that the Church (the roots of all Christian denominations, by the way) has been anti science since the beginning, and only when the evidence slaps them in the face, do they finally concede and admit that they were wrong, and that the scientists were right, simply to avoid being entirely discredited by the general public. Then, they just take the science and say that this further proves not only God's existence, but further proves Christianity.

So while I believe intelligent design may be possible, Christianity's view on the world, it's origins included, was set in stone when they claimed the Bible was the infallible word of God, in my opinion. In other words, I believe that if there is a God, it isn't the Christian God.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:15:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:51:07 PM, EvanK wrote:

All depends on how you view creationism. The way I see it, the story of Creation in Genesis was taught as the infallible word of God for centuries (nearly 1600 years I believe), and any one who went against anything the bible says (take Galileo for example) was called a heretic and was severely punished. Then, when the theories of evolution were going around, it still was being struck down (at least by the Church). Then, all of a sudden, the Church decides that a grave mistake was made, and that evolution was actually true, they revised their beliefs (on more than just evolution/creationism) and once more, the bible is the infallible word of God.


1. You really need to study your church history. For one, some Christians have been advocating a non literal understanding of genesis since 1800 - 1900 years ago (and these were respected Church fathers like Augustine and the like).

2. Galileo was put in a very comfortable house arrest and he probably wouldn't have even gotten that if he hadn't fabricated false proofs for heliocentrism in court and insulted the Pope personally. Besides, the Church was defending the Greek science of the day as well. Not to say that incident wasn't bad, but "skeptics" blow it way out of proportion and like to say things like he was "tortured".

3. There were very prominent Christians (very conservative as well) advocating for evolution back when the theory was first making the rounds (see Asa Gray and B.B. Warfield).

My point is, that the Church (the roots of all Christian denominations, by the way) has been anti science since the beginning, and only when the evidence slaps them in the face, do they finally concede and admit that they were wrong, and that the scientists were right, simply to avoid being entirely discredited by the general public. Then, they just take the science and say that this further proves not only God's existence, but further proves Christianity.


Balderdash. The Church hasn't been universally "anti-science" since the beginning; in fact the Church in many cases laid the ground work for modern science (at least read the book description).

http://www.amazon.com...

So while I believe intelligent design may be possible, Christianity's view on the world, it's origins included, was set in stone when they claimed the Bible was the infallible word of God, in my opinion. In other words, I believe that if there is a God, it isn't the Christian God.

Nope, you're wrong.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:19:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: No they were always anti science. All scientic advances were against. the church. Being a relgious scientist does't make Christianity support science. Theology LIes. They are with science when it favors then And the are against it when it goes againt the bible. Its completly dishonest. They are causing more harm then good. Look how much they lied to the people about The big bang actualy being the beginning.This is not meant to be a slander its a fact. There is no way to explain this fact without affending someone. Some times the truth is offensive. Religions has always been that way through out history. Its a fact. They donl;t tell you about all this. They hide it from you. And so you will hate me for saying that but its the truth. They teach false logic and false science. They are confusing the youth. They mixing rational with irrational, and everybody is confused. That is why the academic success is low and falling in America. Many Thiest believe they are giving rational arguments for GOD. But they are not. Not in the orginal sense. The Fundementalism is making people dumb. Its not an insult its a REAL PROBLEM. Faith does not mix with logic or science. It never was meant to, it was to make people not think BUT OBEY. . There is nothing rational about the bible nore is anybody justified in altering anything in the BIBLE. Religion should always be kept seprate as a faith.

Evolution is a progressing scientific theory cant be debunked in one whole.. IF some part was wrong the theory will just evolve and account for the changes. Science is progresive. It will shape and bend and get better. You have to be completly ignorant about how science works to not get that. Even if all aspects of evolution happen to be all false. There would still be ZERO support for creationalism. Because you can't test It. ITs not a Dichotomy. If you can't test it, it could never be known!! EVER! It could only be taken of Faith. Its not knowledge.
No body can rationally deny that Evolution is the best record of the history. Even if the theories in it are not true. IT is still the record for history. No matter the bible IS WRONG. I can't believe people are that gullable. But its time to face reality.

. . All god argument have been debunked debunked by philospher in the Enlightenment. long time ago. Its either Logical or its not. If a premise is shown wrong it should never be brought up again. Untill they change the premises. But they don;t. I even think debating about these argument are harmfull. Because it make people think that it depends on how you debate or who agrees. Which is irrational. You have to change the premises. IT doesn't become true because you debated better this time. That would be Sophism, and they are teaching, it Literally.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:31:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:15:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:51:07 PM, EvanK wrote:

All depends on how you view creationism. The way I see it, the story of Creation in Genesis was taught as the infallible word of God for centuries (nearly 1600 years I believe), and any one who went against anything the bible says (take Galileo for example) was called a heretic and was severely punished. Then, when the theories of evolution were going around, it still was being struck down (at least by the Church). Then, all of a sudden, the Church decides that a grave mistake was made, and that evolution was actually true, they revised their beliefs (on more than just evolution/creationism) and once more, the bible is the infallible word of God.


1. You really need to study your church history. You know nothing of the churches history. They teach you a manipulated version.. Being in favor of evolution would make him a heratic. And also irrational. To believe in the bible at the same time. YOu can't pick an choose.

For one, some Christians have been advocating a non literal understanding of genesis since 1800 - 1900 years ago (and these were respected Church fathers like Augustine and the like).

The Fool: But which what justification do they do that. I know they did it an do it, to try an make it not look to silly with new facts .But its not of honesty and there are not GOds.

2. Galileo was put in a very comfortable house arrest and he probably wouldn't have even gotten that if he hadn't fabricated false proofs for heliocentrism in court and insulted the Pope personally. Besides, the Church was defending the Greek science of the day as well. Not to say that incident wasn't bad, but "skeptics" blow it way out of proportion and like to say things like he was "tortured".

3. There were very prominent Christians (very conservative as well) advocating for evolution back when the theory was first making the rounds (see Asa Gray and B.B. Warfield).

The Fool: The theory was around since empedocles.

My point is, that the Church (the roots of all Christian denominations, by the way) has been anti science since the beginning, and only when the evidence slaps them in the face, do they finally concede and admit that they were wrong, and that the scientists were right, simply to avoid being entirely discredited by the general public. Then, they just take the science and say that this further proves not only God's existence, but further proves Christianity.


Balderdash. The Church hasn't been universally "anti-science" since the beginning; in fact the Church in many cases laid the ground work for modern science (at least read the book description).

http://www.amazon.com...

So while I believe intelligent design may be possible, Christianity's view on the world, it's origins included, was set in stone when they claimed the Bible was the infallible word of God, in my opinion. In other words, I believe that if there is a God, it isn't the Christian God.

The Fool: No there is not way to no intelligent design. Its not testable. Thus is can't be knowledge.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:58:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:31:37 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:15:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:51:07 PM, EvanK wrote:

All depends on how you view creationism. The way I see it, the story of Creation in Genesis was taught as the infallible word of God for centuries (nearly 1600 years I believe), and any one who went against anything the bible says (take Galileo for example) was called a heretic and was severely punished. Then, when the theories of evolution were going around, it still was being struck down (at least by the Church). Then, all of a sudden, the Church decides that a grave mistake was made, and that evolution was actually true, they revised their beliefs (on more than just evolution/creationism) and once more, the bible is the infallible word of God.


1. You really need to study your church history. You know nothing of the churches history. They teach you a manipulated version.. Being in favor of evolution would make him a heratic. And also irrational. To believe in the bible at the same time. YOu can't pick an choose.


For one, some Christians have been advocating a non literal understanding of genesis since 1800 - 1900 years ago (and these were respected Church fathers like Augustine and the like).

The Fool: But which what justification do they do that. I know they did it an do it, to try an make it not look to silly with new facts .But its not of honesty and there are not GOds.


What "new facts" are you talking about?

2. Galileo was put in a very comfortable house arrest and he probably wouldn't have even gotten that if he hadn't fabricated false proofs for heliocentrism in court and insulted the Pope personally. Besides, the Church was defending the Greek science of the day as well. Not to say that incident wasn't bad, but "skeptics" blow it way out of proportion and like to say things like he was "tortured".

3. There were very prominent Christians (very conservative as well) advocating for evolution back when the theory was first making the rounds (see Asa Gray and B.B. Warfield).

The Fool: The theory was around since empedocles.

My point is, that the Church (the roots of all Christian denominations, by the way) has been anti science since the beginning, and only when the evidence slaps them in the face, do they finally concede and admit that they were wrong, and that the scientists were right, simply to avoid being entirely discredited by the general public. Then, they just take the science and say that this further proves not only God's existence, but further proves Christianity.


Balderdash. The Church hasn't been universally "anti-science" since the beginning; in fact the Church in many cases laid the ground work for modern science (at least read the book description).

http://www.amazon.com...

So while I believe intelligent design may be possible, Christianity's view on the world, it's origins included, was set in stone when they claimed the Bible was the infallible word of God, in my opinion. In other words, I believe that if there is a God, it isn't the Christian God.

The Fool: No there is not way to no intelligent design. Its not testable. Thus is can't be knowledge.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 1:05:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:15:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:51:07 PM, EvanK wrote:

All depends on how you view creationism. The way I see it, the story of Creation in Genesis was taught as the infallible word of God for centuries (nearly 1600 years I believe), and any one who went against anything the bible says (take Galileo for example) was called a heretic and was severely punished. Then, when the theories of evolution were going around, it still was being struck down (at least by the Church). Then, all of a sudden, the Church decides that a grave mistake was made, and that evolution was actually true, they revised their beliefs (on more than just evolution/creationism) and once more, the bible is the infallible word of God.


1. You really need to study your church history. For one, some Christians have been advocating a non literal understanding of genesis since 1800 - 1900 years ago (and these were respected Church fathers like Augustine and the like).

2. Galileo was put in a very comfortable house arrest and he probably wouldn't have even gotten that if he hadn't fabricated false proofs for heliocentrism in court and insulted the Pope personally. Besides, the Church was defending the Greek science of the day as well. Not to say that incident wasn't bad, but "skeptics" blow it way out of proportion and like to say things like he was "tortured".

He was subjected to 2nd degree torture. (1st being a threat of torture, 2nd being shown the tools used to torture/others being tortured/ 3rdly being tortured)
3. There were very prominent Christians (very conservative as well) advocating for evolution back when the theory was first making the rounds (see Asa Gray and B.B. Warfield).



My point is, that the Church (the roots of all Christian denominations, by the way) has been anti science since the beginning, and only when the evidence slaps them in the face, do they finally concede and admit that they were wrong, and that the scientists were right, simply to avoid being entirely discredited by the general public. Then, they just take the science and say that this further proves not only God's existence, but further proves Christianity.


Balderdash. The Church hasn't been universally "anti-science" since the beginning; in fact the Church in many cases laid the ground work for modern science (at least read the book description).

http://www.amazon.com...

So while I believe intelligent design may be possible, Christianity's view on the world, it's origins included, was set in stone when they claimed the Bible was the infallible word of God, in my opinion. In other words, I believe that if there is a God, it isn't the Christian God.

Nope, you're wrong.
turn down for h'what
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:03:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:30:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I've seen this come up on close to every single debate revolving around the existence of God where someone counters with theories of evolution, they both tend to make the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. My question is on what grounds is that assumption valid? Isn't it perfectly possible (and more logically probable given scientific research) that if a deity existed, that they just simply created life forms and let them evolve? It's certainly more probable than a timeless being playing with mud like a ADHD 5 year old and saying "Let there be life!" and watching his mud figurines come to life before his eyes. But that's me ranting. Back to my original point.

Why does creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Or, at least, why do people think they are mutually exclusive?

Evolution / Creationism debate and Theism / Atheism debate are different. However E/C debate is historically related to Christianity / Atheism debate since the Church condemned evolution whereas atheists backed it.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:10:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:30:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I've seen this come up on close to every single debate revolving around the existence of God where someone counters with theories of evolution, they both tend to make the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. My question is on what grounds is that assumption valid? Isn't it perfectly possible (and more logically probable given scientific research) that if a deity existed, that they just simply created life forms and let them evolve? It's certainly more probable than a timeless being playing with mud like a ADHD 5 year old and saying "Let there be life!" and watching his mud figurines come to life before his eyes. But that's me ranting. Back to my original point.

Why does creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Or, at least, why do people think they are mutually exclusive?

Well, I'm pretty sure because there was a time when people thought one could really explain the entire history of the world in a few hundred pages.

Now, we realize that hundreds of thousands of pages will not nearly suffice.

So, clearly, Genesis wasn't meant to give us an entire history of the world, but instead, a premise to the rest of the Bible, which is meant to be a moral framework, not a scientific textbook.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:21:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:30:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I've seen this come up on close to every single debate revolving around the existence of God where someone counters with theories of evolution, they both tend to make the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. My question is on what grounds is that assumption valid? Isn't it perfectly possible (and more logically probable given scientific research) that if a deity existed, that they just simply created life forms and let them evolve? It's certainly more probable than a timeless being playing with mud like a ADHD 5 year old and saying "Let there be life!" and watching his mud figurines come to life before his eyes. But that's me ranting. Back to my original point.

Why does creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Or, at least, why do people think they are mutually exclusive?

There are two things to consider here.

First, this resolution basically saying that: Creationism = Evolution + God. Occam's Razor dictates that we eliminate extraneous elements. Since God is extraneous to Evolution, we remove it from the equation. Positing a god adds nothing.

Second, if Evolution has taught us anything it has taught us that life does not fit into our discrete labels. Categorizing living organisms into nice, neat, clean, concrete bins called "species" is, ultimately, a fallacy.

Life exists on a spectrum with no clear delineations. We know this, yet we continue in our current methods of classification for purely utilitarian reasons. It is immensely useful and pratical to talk about life in such a way. However, it does run into problems of the Sorites Paradox sort. Prior to the development of evolution and genetics; and the discovery of things like ring species, we ran into these problems unwittingly. We now know about them, and run into them knowingly, and acknowledge that these problems are artefacts of us deliberately trying to shoehorn reality into our artifically created labelling system.

In short: for the purposes of usefulness, we create the occasional paradox, judging that the positive value of the former outweights the negative value of the latter.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, if we exist on a spectrum of life, with no discrete, conrete lines, then any attempts to discriminate using such lines is, ultimately fallacious.

Creationism does that. Creationism singles out humans as special. We have dominion over animals. We have souls. We are the sinners that need a savior. Only humans. As I said, Science does this too (discriminates among living organisms using discrete lines) but acknowledeges that this is a tool, not an immutable, inerrent description of reality. Creationism doesn't concede that point.

Since Creationism makes this distinction, which we know actually doesn't reflect reality. Then Creationism doesn't reflect reality. Thus, Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive in the sense that Creationism contradicts reality whereas Evolution describes it.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 9:52:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:30:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I've seen this come up on close to every single debate revolving around the existence of God where someone counters with theories of evolution, they both tend to make the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. My question is on what grounds is that assumption valid? Isn't it perfectly possible (and more logically probable given scientific research) that if a deity existed, that they just simply created life forms and let them evolve? It's certainly more probable than a timeless being playing with mud like a ADHD 5 year old and saying "Let there be life!" and watching his mud figurines come to life before his eyes. But that's me ranting. Back to my original point.

Why does creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Or, at least, why do people think they are mutually exclusive?

According to rabbi doctor Dale Gottlieb (Retired professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins), according to Judaism they are not mutually exclusive. However showing that evolution is untenable, would provide evidence for a creator
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:32:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been in around ten formal debates on the existence of God on this site and that's never come up. But yes, I do see it allot and it really annoys me how people think they are mutually exclusive. I've seen atheists say they're right because evolution is a fact and I've seen theists say they're right because evolution is wrong. It always makes me facepalm. I think there are a few reasons why it's like this. Firstly, when evolution started to gain it's validity, atheists thought of it as a great explanation that fit into their world view perfectly. Many theists, however, couldn't accept evolution because they believed it contradicted their religious views, namely the age of the earth and also because they thought of it as an atheist thing. Evolution also alleviated many theistic arguments about design, thus the atheists loved it and the theists, not so much.

That's my take on it.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:49:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If evolution is false our existence would be evidence of a creator.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:01:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:15:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:51:07 PM, EvanK wrote:

All depends on how you view creationism. The way I see it, the story of Creation in Genesis was taught as the infallible word of God for centuries (nearly 1600 years I believe), and any one who went against anything the bible says (take Galileo for example) was called a heretic and was severely punished. Then, when the theories of evolution were going around, it still was being struck down (at least by the Church). Then, all of a sudden, the Church decides that a grave mistake was made, and that evolution was actually true, they revised their beliefs (on more than just evolution/creationism) and once more, the bible is the infallible word of God.


1. You really need to study your church history. For one, some Christians have been advocating a non literal understanding of genesis since 1800 - 1900 years ago (and these were respected Church fathers like Augustine and the like).

Augustine? The man whose theodicy necessitates the literal event of Genesis, and the writer of "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis"? That guy?

2. Galileo was put in a very comfortable house arrest and he probably wouldn't have even gotten that if he hadn't fabricated false proofs for heliocentrism in court and insulted the Pope personally. Besides, the Church was defending the Greek science of the day as well. Not to say that incident wasn't bad, but "skeptics" blow it way out of proportion and like to say things like he was "tortured".

Ignoring how false proofs and insults don't merit the events that took place anyway, I've never heard of Galileo using false proofs, nor has google.

3. There were very prominent Christians (very conservative as well) advocating for evolution back when the theory was first making the rounds (see Asa Gray and B.B. Warfield).

Asa Gray, I only know, because he helped publish Darwin's work in America. The book itself was astronomically popular straight away. There really was no time where it was unpopular, because of how well it was written, the evidence in favour of it, and the strength of the works. Looking up Warfield, he strongly disagreed with evolution:

"How it operated in so doing it is not difficult dimly to trace. ... But Genesis is an integral part of the Old Testament, and with the truth and authority of the Old Testament the truth and authority of Christianity itself is inseparably bound up."

My point is, that the Church (the roots of all Christian denominations, by the way) has been anti science since the beginning, and only when the evidence slaps them in the face, do they finally concede and admit that they were wrong, and that the scientists were right, simply to avoid being entirely discredited by the general public. Then, they just take the science and say that this further proves not only God's existence, but further proves Christianity.


Balderdash. The Church hasn't been universally "anti-science" since the beginning; in fact the Church in many cases laid the ground work for modern science (at least read the book description).

http://www.amazon.com...

Speaking from general knowledge of the subject, the Church didn't really do anything regarding science: science was necessary to protect against the Muslim Caliphates and help stop them. However, what they did stop was all muslim influence. Which did stunt growth in mathematics, algebra, and similar for a fairly large period of time. In the Renaissance, though, is where the Church did its best. But the Enlightenment is most important regarding scientific growth, which also correlates with when we started throwing off philosophical shackles of theology and into general philosophical discourse.

So while I believe intelligent design may be possible, Christianity's view on the world, it's origins included, was set in stone when they claimed the Bible was the infallible word of God, in my opinion. In other words, I believe that if there is a God, it isn't the Christian God.

Nope, you're wrong.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 1:29:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The way I see it, why would an omnipotent God use such a long and imperfect process as evolution. If He could do anything He wanted, there just doesn't seem to be a logical reason that evolution would be used.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 1:42:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@hawkins, do you actually know what augustine wrote in that work? If you did, you probably wouldn't have brought it up...lol
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 1:56:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 1:29:55 PM, Magicr wrote:
The way I see it, why would an omnipotent God use such a long and imperfect process as evolution. If He could do anything He wanted, there just doesn't seem to be a logical reason that evolution would be used.

Efficiency only matters to someone with limited time or resources. God has neither limitations.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 2:11:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 1:56:58 PM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 1:29:55 PM, Magicr wrote:
The way I see it, why would an omnipotent God use such a long and imperfect process as evolution. If He could do anything He wanted, there just doesn't seem to be a logical reason that evolution would be used.

Efficiency only matters to someone with limited time or resources. God has neither limitations.

Efficiency is a measure of perfection.
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 2:53:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not only is efficiency a measure of perfection, but evolution itself is not a perfect process. Think about all the ways that our anatomy could be improved. What if we had separate holes to eat and breathe? That way no one would die from getting food caught in their throats and not being able to breathe. That's just one example of a more perfect human anatomy. So why would God use a process that produces imperfect results?

Additionally, to believe that God made other species, 99.9% of which are extinct [http://en.wikipedia.org...], and now we have evolved and are what he was trying to create in the first place is an extremely arrogant view of the world, as well as being rather illogical.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 3:01:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:30:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I've seen this come up on close to every single debate revolving around the existence of God where someone counters with theories of evolution, they both tend to make the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. My question is on what grounds is that assumption valid? Isn't it perfectly possible (and more logically probable given scientific research) that if a deity existed, that they just simply created life forms and let them evolve? It's certainly more probable than a timeless being playing with mud like a ADHD 5 year old and saying "Let there be life!" and watching his mud figurines come to life before his eyes. But that's me ranting. Back to my original point.

Why does creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Or, at least, why do people think they are mutually exclusive?

I don't think that people necessarily "think" that these terms are mutually exclusive (At least, I don't). However, within the realms of debate it is rather necessary to have concrete sides should the detail wish to envelope further than just to say - "They are both true."
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 3:03:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 3:01:13 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:30:08 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I've seen this come up on close to every single debate revolving around the existence of God where someone counters with theories of evolution, they both tend to make the assumption that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. My question is on what grounds is that assumption valid? Isn't it perfectly possible (and more logically probable given scientific research) that if a deity existed, that they just simply created life forms and let them evolve? It's certainly more probable than a timeless being playing with mud like a ADHD 5 year old and saying "Let there be life!" and watching his mud figurines come to life before his eyes. But that's me ranting. Back to my original point.

Why does creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Or, at least, why do people think they are mutually exclusive?

I don't think that people necessarily "think" that these terms are mutually exclusive (At least, I don't). However, within the realms of debate it is rather necessary to have concrete sides should one wish to develop further detail than just to say - "They are both true."
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 3:09:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:34:14 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
The creationists have been cornered into a place in which all of the empirical evidence produced by modern day science validates evolution. Trying to not reject science all together (might be bad for their PR), they attempt to in feasibly and stupidly incorporate intelligent design as something that designed evolution. Last I recall, Christians were preaching against the very basis of evolution some few decades ago. Amazing how the Biblical conclusion stays the same while the evidence being different.

It's called "Theology on the Edge". Basically, if science explains y, theists will just say God is responsible for y. It's a clever trick, but one easily spotted.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 6:27:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:32:02 AM, phantom wrote:
I've been in around ten formal debates on the existence of God on this site and that's never come up. But yes, I do see it allot and it really annoys me how people think they are mutually exclusive. I've seen atheists say they're right because evolution is a fact and I've seen theists say they're right because evolution is wrong. It always makes me facepalm. I think there are a few reasons why it's like this. Firstly, when evolution started to gain it's validity, atheists thought of it as a great explanation that fit into their world view perfectly. Many theists, however, couldn't accept evolution because they believed it contradicted their religious views, namely the age of the earth and also because they thought of it as an atheist thing. Evolution also alleviated many theistic arguments about design, thus the atheists loved it and the theists, not so much.

That's my take on it.

Agree completely.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 7:40:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:01:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Augustine? The man whose theodicy necessitates the literal event of Genesis, and the writer of "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis"? That guy?


Yeah, "that guy". Have you read The Literal Interpretation of Genesis? And what is the "literal event" of Genesis in any case? One of his most famous passages in there could have practically been written today and it's a very strong criticism of the fundamenatlistic, "too literal" (in the modern sense - as a sort of history book) reading of Genesis. Do you know what they (the early Christians) meant by "literal"? They certainly didn't always take the "literal" meaning of a text to mean an accurate retelling of history, told in a "matter of fact/scientific way" - they took "literal" to mean whatever message God is trying to convey through the text (through the vehicle of divine accomodation) and they made extensive use of metaphor and allegory.

Ignoring how false proofs and insults don't merit the events that took place anyway,

Never said that.

I've never heard of Galileo using false proofs, nor has google.

Up your google-fu, then. It's not really that hard to find. I don't particularly like D'Souza but he's not wrong here:

http://townhall.com...

Other books like:

http://books.google.com...

In the book I posted earlier the author also talks about the case.

http://www.amazon.com...

Have you ever heard of Galileo's theory of tides?

Asa Gray, I only know, because he helped publish Darwin's work in America. The book :itself was astronomically popular straight away. There really was no time where it was ::unpopular, because of how well it was written, the evidence in favour of it, and the strength of the works.

Yup. :

Looking up Warfield, he strongly disagreed with evolution:

"How it operated in so doing it is not difficult dimly to trace. ... But Genesis is an integral part of the Old Testament, and with the truth and authority of the Old Testament the truth and authority of Christianity itself is inseparably bound up."


Nope. He was just strongly against the idea that evolution entails atheism just as Asa Gray was (Darwin was, too).

http://www.jstor.org...

My point is, that the Church (the roots of all Christian denominations, by the way) has been anti science since the beginning, and only when the evidence slaps them in the face, do they finally concede and admit that they were wrong, and that the scientists were right, simply to avoid being entirely discredited by the general public. Then, they just take the science and say that this further proves not only God's existence, but further proves Christianity.


Balderdash. The Church hasn't been universally "anti-science" since the beginning; in fact the Church in many cases laid the ground work for modern science (at least read the book description).

http://www.amazon.com...

Speaking from general knowledge of the subject, the Church didn't really do anything regarding science: science was necessary to protect against the Muslim Caliphates and help stop them. However, what they did stop was all muslim influence. Which did stunt growth in mathematics, algebra, and similar for a fairly large period of time. In the Renaissance, though, is where the Church did its best. But the Enlightenment is most important regarding scientific growth, which also correlates with when we started throwing off philosophical shackles of theology and into general philosophical discourse.


Again, the book I linked to earlier shows how the scientific advancements of the medievals were the base for enlightenment advances.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 7:55:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 8:21:17 AM, drafterman wrote:
First, this resolution basically saying that: Creationism = Evolution + God. Occam's Razor dictates that we eliminate extraneous elements. Since God is extraneous to Evolution, we remove it from the equation. Positing a god adds nothing.

Occam's Razor is just a technical way of saying the more assumptions you make, the more likely you are to be wrong. All this says is that evolution does not provide any evidence for God's existence, which really changes nothing because the burden of proof was on the theists in the first place.

Second, if Evolution has taught us anything it has taught us that life does not fit into our discrete labels. Categorizing living organisms into nice, neat, clean, concrete bins called "species" is, ultimately, a fallacy.

Humans are different from all other animals because we can rationalize. For instance, take Neil Degrasse's idea about there being a species "1%" better than us (they are to us as we are to chimps). There would be no way to actually create a species like that, because unlike chimps, we can understand how superior they are to us. Chimps do not ponder how smart we are or what we are capable of. That's just an example.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 1:56:58 PM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 1:29:55 PM, Magicr wrote:
The way I see it, why would an omnipotent God use such a long and imperfect process as evolution. If He could do anything He wanted, there just doesn't seem to be a logical reason that evolution would be used.

Efficiency only matters to someone with limited time or resources. God has neither limitations.

That doesn't answer the question.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:09:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't accept evolution, but I agree. It's not entirely necessary to theism. Even atheists often agree.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:17:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evolutionists are fighting a losing battle when engaging science with the etheal. Creationists have the trump card because they have a 'god' of some sort. They can say that god created the world to appear much older than it is. They can say that God through magic or miracle is capable of making the earth appear to be one way when he created it. (Ie. When he created eve from adam's rib was she a baby? Or was she a full woman? Did she appear to be much older?)

The problem with accepting evolution as a christian is that the bible is tracked for 8,000-10,000 years of history back to Adam and Eve. If the fall (sin and seperation from God) had yet to occur, how could their be a fossil record? Christians don't believe in death before sin. The wages of sin are death. Therefore before the temptation in the garden (tracked back 8,000 years) from a Christian's stand point there could've been no fossil record dating back millions of years. And as for sediment and carbon dating they can answer, "God just made them that way."

I think one can't really debate evolution vs. creationism. They have to first address the issue of God, refute or concede and then continue from there. Otherwise people just keep going on parallel paths but never intersect with their reasoning.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 8:24:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 7:55:38 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/2/2012 8:21:17 AM, drafterman wrote:
First, this resolution basically saying that: Creationism = Evolution + God. Occam's Razor dictates that we eliminate extraneous elements. Since God is extraneous to Evolution, we remove it from the equation. Positing a god adds nothing.

Occam's Razor is just a technical way of saying the more assumptions you make, the more likely you are to be wrong. All this says is that evolution does not provide any evidence for God's existence, which really changes nothing because the burden of proof was on the theists in the first place.

Second, if Evolution has taught us anything it has taught us that life does not fit into our discrete labels. Categorizing living organisms into nice, neat, clean, concrete bins called "species" is, ultimately, a fallacy.

Humans are different from all other animals because we can rationalize. For instance, take Neil Degrasse's idea about there being a species "1%" better than us (they are to us as we are to chimps). There would be no way to actually create a species like that, because unlike chimps, we can understand how superior they are to us. Chimps do not ponder how smart we are or what we are capable of. That's just an example.

I never said we aren't different (though we are certainly not the only species that can rationalize). Every species can be said to have something that another species does not. That wasn't the point. The point was, when you consider our placement in the spectrum of life, over time, there isn't a line drawn in the sand between humans and non-humans.

Consider this:

Humans refers to any member of the genus homo. Do Christians, even the most liberal, metaphorical Christian, accept that, when they get into heaven they'll come across this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...