• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An open challenge to evolutionists.

night912

Well-Known Member
Many people refer to "believing'" in evolution. I do not "believe" in evolution. In my lexicon, "belief" reflects faith. I believe in God. I accept the scientific evidence for evolution and deep time, both of which are plentiful.

Dad asserted that, "to accept and believe in the evolution of life, one must deny creation and ignore it." I disagree.

There are many, many people of faith who believe in God and believe that God had a hand in creation, but emphatically do not view Genesis as a science or history book.

I am a mainstream Christian (ELCA Lutheran, raised Catholic) who believes in God and believes that he had a hand in creation, and also accepts the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time. Within mainstream Christianity (e.g., the Reformation denominations and Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian), I believe this is the overwhelmingly common position.

As to the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus, that is a matter of faith. Science, which researches the natural cosmos, cannot study, confirm, or deny his existence. As Carl Sagan said about life on other planets, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I believe it is an abomination for YECs to deny the faith of the great majority of Christians and assert that evolution is an atheistic "belief." And it equally wrong for atheists who accept scientific evidence for evolution and deep time to assert that those who agree must also set aside belief in God.

Yes, I recognize that there are many religious and many perceptions of God. "We see through a glass, darkly."
I would have to disagree with you in regards to "belief/believe." I don't think it necessarily have to reflect faith. If one is convinced that something is true, then they believe that, regardless of it being actually true. And if one "accepts" that something is true, that results in "believing" it. People can deny all they want about not "believing" that evolution is true, but still accept it as being true, all they're doing is actually contradicting themselves.

One cannot accept that evolution is true and not believe that evolution is true at the same time. That's a contradiction, therefore, irrational.

Btw, I'm talking about the most basic form of "evolution," all of the theory of or not.
 
I would have to disagree with you in regards to "belief/believe." I don't think it necessarily have to reflect faith. If one is convinced that something is true, then they believe that, regardless of it being actually true. And if one "accepts" that something is true, that results in "believing" it. People can deny all they want about not "believing" that evolution is true, but still accept it as being true, all they're doing is actually contradicting themselves.

One cannot accept that evolution is true and not believe that evolution is true at the same time. That's a contradiction, therefore, irrational.

Btw, I'm talking about the most basic form of "evolution," all of the theory of or not.

True, but in the context of this discussion, "belief" is being used to equate faith and evidence based positions. Because of that, a distinction needs to be recognized between the two. Unfortunately I don't think this will stop creationists from dishonestly trying to equate belief in facts and belief in the impossible.

I "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but considering that it's a practical impossibility for it not to, it's more acceptance than belief. I accept that I will die one day - or even further, I accept that living things die. Most theists believe they continue living in some form after death - that is faith-based. Those two are not equal beliefs and shouldn't be characterized as such.
 

dad

Undefeated
I "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but considering that it's a practical impossibility for it not to, it's more acceptance than belief. I accept that I will die one day - or even further, I accept that living things die. Most theists believe they continue living in some form after death - that is faith-based. Those two are not equal beliefs and shouldn't be characterized as such.
The sun will rise whether we believe it or not. Jesus did come to offer real eternal life whether we believe it or not. We should try to align what we chose to believe with reality.
 
The sun will rise whether we believe it or not. Jesus did come to offer real eternal life whether we believe it or not. We should try to align what we chose to believe with reality.

Whether Jesus preached this message or not is a separate belief from whether or not his message is true. Life after death is perpetually unknowable until we cross that boundary, and verifiable information cannot be taken back from it. It must be accepted based on faith and nothing more. As opposed to the sun rising, which has happened on Earth since there was an Earth and will continue to do so until there isn't one.
 

dad

Undefeated
Whether Jesus preached this message or not is a separate belief from whether or not his message is true.
Only in the minds of those who do not believe.


Life after death is perpetually unknowable until we cross that boundary, and verifiable information cannot be taken back from it. It must be accepted based on faith and nothing more. As opposed to the sun rising, which has happened on Earth since there was an Earth and will continue to do so until there isn't one.
We can't know until we choose to believe. Then it is not unknowable any more.
 
Only in the minds of those who do not believe.


We can't know until we choose to believe. Then it is not unknowable any more.

So if I choose to believe that there isn't a god, do I then know that there isn't? Knowing doesn't come from belief. Thousands upon thousands of people all choose to believe they will win the lottery. They might even say they know they're going to win.
 

dad

Undefeated
So if I choose to believe that there isn't a god, do I then know that there isn't?
No. You would then know nothing and be sinking deeper into delusion.
Knowing doesn't come from belief.
Knowing God results in belief and comes from belief.

Thousands upon thousands of people all choose to believe they will win the lottery. They might even say they know they're going to win.
Not all beliefs are equal.
 
I would not ask someone opposing what the bible says what is logical, or correctly applied.

So 70% of the world, not including the other Christians who vehemently disagree with your fundamentalism, aren't capable of logic? Talk about a superiority complex.

Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with the bible. They predate your favorite part of it by centuries. Belief in your holy texts has no relation to it. Hand waiving me away because I disagree with its truthfulness is just willful ignorance.
 

GardenLady

Active Member
I would have to disagree with you in regards to "belief/believe." I don't think it necessarily have to reflect faith. If one is convinced that something is true, then they believe that, regardless of it being actually true. And if one "accepts" that something is true, that results in "believing" it. People can deny all they want about not "believing" that evolution is true, but still accept it as being true, all they're doing is actually contradicting themselves.

One cannot accept that evolution is true and not believe that evolution is true at the same time. That's a contradiction, therefore, irrational.

Btw, I'm talking about the most basic form of "evolution," all of the theory of or not.

I see what you say. I was attempting to draw a distinction between belief as faith in things unseen versus evidence.
 

GardenLady

Active Member
Creation was proclaimed from the beginning and is not something seen in a glass darkly. It is repeated clearly from cover to cover in black and white and red.

There is belief in creation and there is YEC (a literal rather than allegorical view of Genesis). The two are not the same. You apparently believe that we who believe in creation but not a literal YEC view of Genesis are apostates. But that is only a subjective assertion based on the idea that Genesis is historically and scientifically accurate, rather than a spiritual story of our relationship with God. It's an interpretation you choose; it is not a verifiable fact. And yet you condemn others based on your chosen interpretation. SMH.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I would not ask someone opposing what the bible says what is logical, or correctly applied.

The Pentateuch has no historical evidence before ~ 1000 BCE and it is compiled and edited after ~1000 BCE. There is absolutely no historical record of Hebrew writings of the Tanakh,and that is scany evidence,. nor any other Hebrew writings before this.

The scientific evidence demonstrates your diagram is false, and only based on a fundamentalist religious agenda.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Do you believe in evolution?

I scanned your quoted text but it's from a random source, if you could post a paper whose abstract and conclusion I could read that would be more helpful.

If your issue is merely, 'it's fractal not random' I'd say, perhaps in some way, I'm not sure, I don't really have much of an interest in exploring that as it sound like new age airness...

I don't want to put the effort into researching your source as 1) the website is non scientific and suspicious. The leading edge research group is not credible, not in hard sciences or humanities. 2) upon reading the first few paragraphs I read, "In the view of the Darwinists, the endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of an interplay of two factors--random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. This misses genetic shift and shows the crude knowledge base of the writer/group.

Also dawins theories have been built on. Evolutionists are not dawinists. All the language is suspicious, this is coming from a linguistics background myself.

My reason for posting was not to debate if random genetic mutation is fractal. Sorry I personally don't have much interest in debating that. If you would like to pursue this for some reason please don't quote large volumes of mystic text and expect me to read it all. Be considerate of my time and the effort I would have to put in to refute such a ethereal claim.

Thanks

Mman

Please read the references as posted.
 

dad

Undefeated
There is belief in creation and there is YEC (a literal rather than allegorical view of Genesis). The two are not the same.
I do not believe that creation could be anything other than described by God in His word.

You apparently believe that we who believe in creation but not a literal YEC view of Genesis are apostates.
Not really. The main views of the faith are about Jesus, so unless you say He was not God, or never came and rose from the dead, etc, I think what we would be dealing with is mistaken views or bad teachings, or ignorance or something like that.

But that is only a subjective assertion based on the idea that Genesis is historically and scientifically accurate, rather than a spiritual story of our relationship with God.
Jesus and the apostles verified there was a first man and woman, and that they were created. (as well as everything else that was made) While the facts of what happened and was created do tell us about our relationship with God, that does not mean they can be waved away as lies.

It's an interpretation you choose; it is not a verifiable fact.
Jesus verified it. So did Peter and etc.
Science cannot confirm or deny.
And yet you condemn others based on your chosen interpretation. SMH.
Pointing out that some are wrong when they call God a liar basically, is not condemning them. It is showing that some have erred in some aspects of the faith.
 

dad

Undefeated
The Pentateuch has no historical evidence before ~ 1000 BCE and it is compiled and edited after ~1000 BCE. There is absolutely no historical record of Hebrew writings of the Tanakh,and that is scany evidence,. nor any other Hebrew writings before this.

Or not. You have no historical evidence that God did not talk to His people or that they had no record. Jesus confirmed the record (that did get written at some point also) was true. To deny the record also is to call Moses a liar and a con. Just because we may have had no written record does not mean we had no record.

The scientific evidence demonstrates your diagram is false, and only based on a fundamentalist religious agenda.
Not sure what diagram you are talking about, or what supposed evidence in your mind exists one way or the other.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Proof that Evolution predates Creationism therefore invalidating it.
God existing, and understood to be the Creator of everything (not only some things, but truly all that is), then, therefore, is the creator of physics necessarily.

The design of Nature -- the laws of nature -- physics, chemistry....

Therefore with God existing, then all that happens in nature, naturally, is of course then His design in action, doing as He made it to do.

By definition, even before we consider any particular detail.

Right?

When planets orbit around the sun by gravity, or moons around planets, this is God's design doing naturally as He designed nature to work, right?

Just trying to ask you to consider the full reality of what you believe in this regard. Did God create everything, or only some things?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Or not. You have no historical evidence that God did not talk to His people or that they had no record. Jesus confirmed the record (that did get written at some point also) was true. To deny the record also is to call Moses a liar and a con. Just because we may have had no written record does not mean we had no record.

'Arguing from ignorance' is a fallacy, and does not support your aargument. My argument is based on the factual verifiable evidence of what is known for the geologic history of the earh, and the verifiable archaeology of the Middle East.

Not sure what diagram you are talking about, or what supposed evidence in your mind exists one way or the other.

The diagrame at the bottom of every one of your posts.
 

dad

Undefeated
'Arguing from ignorance' is a fallacy, and does not support your aargument.
Great so when you have no clue about our record that existed since creation, keep your ignorance to yourself.
My argument is based on the factual verifiable evidence of what is known for the geologic history of the earh, and the verifiable archaeology of the Middle East.
Religious beliefs foisted onto rocks is verification of nothing except that you have beliefs and no honesty.

The diagrame at the bottom of every one of your posts.
I see. Divest your geo column of fake dates based on belief only and we see that they basically agree.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Great so when you have no clue about our record that existed since creation, keep your ignorance to yourself.

Religious beliefs foisted onto rocks is verification of nothing except that you have beliefs and no honesty.

I see. Divest your geo column of fake dates based on belief only and we see that they basically agree.

Ummph! Shhhhlump . . . Plop!
 
Top