Adam and Eve or Evolution

[JosephOne]

Hold please wrote:

<quoted text>
If I were you, I'd just ignore J1. Not only does he just regurgitate whole passages of drivel, but their validity and objectivity come into question due to the sources from which they're derived.

And sources of evolution are unbiased? Everyone starts with a presumption, there is no one completely unbiased, therefore we interpret the same information differently. However, which side has done the most to change the rules, doctor evidence and out right use fraud. Evolution.

[Hold please]

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
And sources of evolution are unbiased? Everyone starts with a presumption, there is no one completely unbiased, therefore we interpret the same information differently. However, which side has done the most to change the rules, doctor evidence and out right use fraud. Evolution.

Once again, the supporters of Evolution also publish their findings for all to test and re-test. Supporters of Creation either point to the Bible as proof, or publish mis-interpretation of others' scientific discoveries to use that as proof. Two negatives do not equal a positive.
I don't ever hear of any "rule changing" or "doctoring evidence" except from those who have the most to lose from the general acceptance of Evolution.

[davy]

that explains a lot

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
If you must know Rio Grande.

[Some Guy]

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? I try that, really I do. But then people want proof or sources. So that is what I post. So let's turn it over to you then. Prove to me three things, scientifically and otherwise. Evolution. Non-existence of God. Non-existence of miracles. I will even through in one extra one. Prove to me scientifically how a fire molecule is created. If you can't do it in your own words, and verify them as truth and proof, why should I believe your positions on any of it? You need backups and help. But I dare everyone here to answer those points. Critically, scientifically and that is verifiable.

My opinion is that the scientific process itself is more based on fact than belief in the words of stories that have been revised (in other words, stories that have evolved) through generations of retelling.

I believe that one supreme being created a spark, and said "I'm curious, what does this button do?" - and then everything we know and do not yet know began evolving into what it is today. I believe that Jesus was a great guy, but isn't a man-made son of this supreme being. I believe that there is so much we do not know that debating the existence of something that we don't know much about is simultaneously futile and hilarious.

I don't believe that we need a deity to see beauty in this world. I don't believe God created the platypus.

There are many references I could post to back the scientific processes and methods proving evolution. I am choosing not to herein, as there are just as many articles backing the theory of "intelligent design".(A term which, in looking back at the nature of our species, is in itself debatable.)

What I will say is that we see the effects of evolution, not the process itself. We also see the effects of "miracles" - many of which, when scientifically explained, are still seen as such because of a believer's desire to continue believing. The issue is not fact vs. fiction, or fact vs. fact - it's a debate, plain and simple. Belief system vs. belief system. What is interesting to me in this forum specifically is to watch one's argument get picked apart.

Even the Catholic Church has changed its mind over the years, lending credence to its own inability to refute certain findings.

As for me, evolution has been proven and is used widely to find methods of scientifically explaining - or resolving - many issues we face. Putting your faith in a deity helps you mentally and emotionally cope with an issue, but where do you go when/if you have a heart attack or other emergency ailment that threatens your life?

Do you go to a church, or do you go to a hospital? Why not go to a church? If God created everything, can't he just fix it? Why trust yourself to scientists whose very work is based on facts derived from evolution?(There is a reason why I alluded to fruit flies in an earlier post...)

Faith in a deity is a belief system, turned into fact by an inherent human desire to never want to be wrong. Actions are based on another system that, as far as I can tell, does not necessarily have to be contradictory to faith. Actions are based on what has been shown to work more often than not, and that is generally based to some degree on scientists taking a fruit fly and saying "what does this button do?".

Then they see what effect pushing that button had on the next generation(s).

[Some Guy]

Holy crap that's a long post.

[nmweatherman]

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, imagine that.
Could it be because I believe a certain way, and look to see the critical science out there?
I am not a scientist, but I can understand the information out there to discern what is real or not. Sometimes, I might make a mistake or two, but I am consistent. I leave to others that I share beliefs with to articulate better what is known. I am sorry if you don't like that very much but it is what it is.

Brother, I see you are still engaging and responding to the gray people, who come here for no reason but to flame others and get their jollies from behind the anonymity of a computer screen. It's a lifestyle with these twitterers.

Yeshua's love for mankind is the only truth, and the only truth that matters.

Do I assume you love persecution (from the rabble)?

[Willothewisp]

What you are speaks so loud I can't hear what you are saying (apologizes to the creator of this quote).

[JosephOne]

You see I agree with you in some ways. However faith does not need to necessarily contradict science. Faith IS actually substantive. We assume faith is some mystical thing of nothingness. But we say we have faith in a car or in people or even in science. Faith IS generally in someone or something that actually exists.

That belief system as you have termed it can be put forth what or who came first the belief system or God. Those who would want to deny God, the existence of God would conveniently say that the belief system comes first. But there is too much evidence otherwise that shows that God came first. Even in scientific circles an intelligent designer is coming into focus. But what happens when that designer lives in a different dimension than us. I mean we live in 4 dimensions. Yet science has shown there to be at least 10 dimensions which we could only perceive mathematically. We would never be able to perceive or understand God who might live in the 10th dimension. Unless He came down to spend time with us.

I agree with you in that since God would be so big, one we have to go off what He has revealed, and that is the Bible and Jesus but it is our job to try to find out "how" He created things. Maybe evolution is the mechanical process, but to deny the processor is incredibly dishonest as well. We have to admit, that even if evolution is the mechanical process, we still don't know and may never know this side of eternity the whole "how". We may know what, but the how will probably always be just out of our grasp.

[JosephOne]

nmweatherman wrote:

<quoted text>
Brother, I see you are still engaging and responding to the gray people, who come here for no reason but to flame others and get their jollies from behind the anonymity of a computer screen. It's a lifestyle with these twitterers.
Yeshua's love for mankind is the only truth, and the only truth that matters.
Do I assume you love persecution (from the rabble)?

Sometimes persistance pays off. Paul rarely stopped. I can be just as stubborn.

[nmweatherman]

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
Sometimes persistance pays off. Paul rarely stopped. I can be just as stubborn.

I admire your persistence. We will never know what all Paul endured but that was ages ago, before the Internet.

This morning before leaving I was re-reading the Sermon On The Mount (Matt. 5) and the people here you are debating were lighting up their first doobie of the day...completely unrepentent...and thinking who or what to attack next.

But...keep up the Work, brother. I've got your back.

[bbb]

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
If you must know Rio Grande.

another blow to poor rio grande's reputation.

[Some Guy]

nmweatherman wrote:

<quoted text>
I admire your persistence. We will never know what all Paul endured but that was ages ago, before the Internet.
This morning before leaving I was re-reading the Sermon On The Mount (Matt. 5) and the people here you are debating were lighting up their first doobie of the day...completely unrepentent...and thinking who or what to attack next.
But...keep up the Work, brother. I've got your back.

Your assumptions about those with whom he's debating are being expressed as snide remarks. Snide remarks will not help his side of the debate.

I therefore am curious as to whether or not he will welcome you having his back, or if JosephOne would rather brave al of the evils online without your "help".

Go back to re-reading your sermons and pretending to be righteous; your hate is not welcome here.

[Some Guy]

JosephOne wrote:

You see I agree with you in some ways. However faith does not need to necessarily contradict science.... We have to admit, that even if evolution is the mechanical process, we still don't know and may never know this side of eternity the whole "how". We may know what, but the how will probably always be just out of our grasp.

OOH I like this post! Thank you!(I really do like it, and I really do thank you.) It's much more interesting to see this than blanket quotations!

Throwing something else out there just for fun:
Why do we even need to know all of the "how"? Being naively optimistic, once we know the "how"...what then?

I am at once excited and terrified to know for sure the answer to the how.

[Willothewisp]

Thanks for highjacking this thread. The speed bumps don't even stop you. Just use it to write your own diary.

[Willothewisp]

Where is JimBo by the way? He is the Creator of this thread. Maybe he has something to say. While we construct our own golden calf.

[Jim-Bo]

Willothewisp wrote:

Where is JimBo by the way? He is the Creator of this thread. Maybe he has something to say. While we construct our own golden calf.

I have been reading all the posts. I have been arguing this since I was 19, I'm 42 now. I have written papers on this, visited creationists museums, read their text books and went to their churches. I have a degree in Physics.

Bottom line, creationists ultimately rely on faith, not observation. Science has the ablity to change when presented with new information, relgion does not. If creation science was really a science, then why do all bookstores put those books in the religon section?

I think religon needs to keep it's head out of science.

[One of the Gray People]

nmweatherman wrote:

<quoted text>
Brother, I see you are still engaging and responding to the gray people, who come here for no reason but to flame others and get their jollies from behind the anonymity of a computer screen. It's a lifestyle with these twitterers.
Yeshua's love for mankind is the only truth, and the only truth that matters.
Do I assume you love persecution (from the rabble)?

Your logic seems weird. Are you saying you are not as anonymous as a gray person? And that you never consider another post as inflammatory? And that you are on this Forum less than a Gray person? And that Gray people are rabble? You seem incredibly nuts. Get the net!

[nmweatherman]

Jim-Bo wrote:

Bottom line, creationists ultimately rely on faith, not observation. Science has the ablity to change when presented with new information, relgion does not.

Science and scientists NEVER lie, do they?

Or...do they?

http://www.google.com/search...

[Jim-Bo]

nmweatherman wrote:

<quoted text>
Science and scientists NEVER lie, do they?
Or...do they?
http://www.google.com/search...

Science doesn’t lie.

Scientists may be wrong today about some things, and have been many times in the past.
Remember cold fusion??
I am sure there are theories out there today that are wrong.

We have learned by being wrong, when new observation tells science that we need to change our understanding about something, the scientific community changes. Look at Einstein and the static universe? Look at our view of the election (being a particle that orbits like a planet vs. a cloud of probability), Look at Kepler, when he realized that the planets orbit in an ellipse and not a circle, throughout history Science has been wrong, but corrects itself by testing theories and hypothesis.

Science has only one agenda, discover and understand the reality of everything we experience.
Therefore, science has no motivation to lie.

Religion has a different agenda.

Science has never started a war, yet the number of men who died under Christ’s name…. wow.
I am not knocking religion, I have respect for all religions.
But religion has its place in society, and in human kind….

These Christian scientists, creationist, are out of their place.

[Jim-Bo]

Creationist have attacked C-14 dating methods. True, the further back in time you go, the less accurate it is, but always provides good ball park. The shroud of Turin was carbon dated back to the 1600s, give or a take a 100 years. Does not date back to Jesus’ time. C-14 is also calibrated against other dating methods, like the rings in falling redwood trees.

There is a creationist museum in Glenn Rose Texas.
I’ve been there, I felt like everyone there would just jump me if they knew my stance and that my only reason there was to exploit them on a paper I was working on.

Creationists support the argument that man and dinosaur walked together at the same time on earth, because of a set of fossil foot prints there at Glenn Rose showing dinosaur tracks near human tracks.

The man who created the human tracks, admits it, but creationists…. You know, believe what they want to believe instead of what logic combined with observation dictates.