Creation and Evolution

[A Troubled Man]

Not at all.
See Webster's

Not sure what Websters has to do with your contradiction.

 

[roger1440]

Aside from all of the biblical nonsense.

What's stopping evolution and "creation" from coexisting?

It was Voltaire who said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” What do you mean by "creation"?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Voltaire is the best *snuggles his sig quotes*

 

[Thief]

Reducing the thread to definition and quote won't work...obviously.

Creation and evolution work together just fine.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I note Adam as the first to walk with God.
Someone had to be first.

Or the Pink Unicorn, or Thor, or Zeus.....It is the assumption of the believer that gods exist. These assumptions don't square with the evidence.

That Genesis is story of faith and event, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

In this case...absence of evidence isn't evidence.

And Yes I've heard your dna rebuttal over and over.
The repeat shows the extent of your ability to increase.

And to date you've been unable to refute it....and yet you continue to interject theological claims into the scientific arena and it continues to fail.

So I doubt you have what it takes to argue faith.

No one can argue against faith which is why I challenge you to break out of your bubble and examine your claims against the evidence. You can't so you fall back onto your campfire stories told by primitive men who knew no better.

You keep calling for evidence, all the while knowing.....
Faith requires no proving.

Then stop conveniently presenting the creation myth as though it's an event that actually happened. If you stopped this then I would have no rebuttal to come up with. You're like a moth to a flame.....you just can't help it. You're under the misguided impression that your version of the creation myth is to be regarded as fact regardless how many times proven wrong. :sad:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Reducing the thread to definition and quote won't work...obviously.

Creation and evolution work together just fine.

So you do accept Evolution as a fact, correct?

 

[A Troubled Man]

See Webster's

Reducing the thread to definition and quote won't work...obviously.

Creation and evolution work together just fine.

That's quite the roll of contradiction you're on there.

 

[Thief]

So you do accept Evolution as a fact, correct?

As well as a belief in a Creator.

 

[Thief]

So.... no one understands that faith does not require evidence?

Sometimes you just have to think about it.

 

[A Troubled Man]

So.... no one understands that faith does not require evidence?

Of course, faith does not require evidence, that's why faith is so dangerous and detrimental to humans and societies. Not only does it often have little to do with reality, it causes good people to do bad things within reality.

 

[Orias]

Of course, faith does not require evidence, that's why faith is so dangerous and detrimental to humans and societies. Not only does it often have little to do with reality, it causes good people to do bad things within reality.

It does.

Like it makes people fight over the very meaning of faith.

Its kind of like trying to deny that your father ever brought you into existence.

"Proof" is a matter of convenience. No one here is saying that a sky daddy exists or that magic can make people combust. Its all a reality designed around the intent of a curious mind.

 

[Thief]

Of course, faith does not require evidence, that's why faith is so dangerous and detrimental to humans and societies. Not only does it often have little to do with reality, it causes good people to do bad things within reality.

Danger wears many coats.
Not wanting digression....still...have you read 'Animal Farm'?
Taking that which is dangerous to mind....
So too politics, economics, and the military.
It's not just religion.

And since the prevailing motivation of Man is acquisition...
religion is not nearly as dangerous.

Back to topic now?

 

[A Troubled Man]

It does.

Like it makes people fight over the very meaning of faith.

Amongst other topics, such as abortion, evolution, science, etc...

Its kind of like trying to deny that your father ever brought you into existence.

Exactly.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Danger wears many coats.
Not wanting digression....still...have you read 'Animal Farm'?

Yes.

Taking that which is dangerous to mind....
So too politics, economics, and the military.
It's not just religion.

I would agree there are other dangerous ideologies in the world, but that does not preclude religion being high on the list.

And, like many other dangerous ideologies, mankind hopes to solve the problems inherent within them. Unfortunately, religion is taboo in that regard and continues unabated.

 

[Thief]

Yes.



I would agree there are other dangerous ideologies in the world, but that does not preclude religion being high on the list.

And, like many other dangerous ideologies, mankind hopes to solve the problems inherent within them. Unfortunately, religion is taboo in that regard and continues unabated.

So have you tried drawing the line between religion and theology?
I did...note my banner and signature.

Drop the dogma and many things are so much easier.

 

[rusra02]

Of course, faith does not require evidence, that's why faith is so dangerous and detrimental to humans and societies. Not only does it often have little to do with reality, it causes good people to do bad things within reality.

Blind credulity does not require evidence. Faith does. Dictionary definitions of faith are often inaccurate. The Bible defines faith as "the asssured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) Both expressions "assured expectation" and "evident demonstration" denote evidence for what one believes. A person purchases an item on a website, using a credit card, and has a measure of "assured expectation" that they will receive the item ordered. They are assured by an email confirming their order, and the fact they have dealt with this company before and found them reputable and reliable. A person sees the sun rise and set, yet knows the Sun does not revolve around the earth. Evidence has been presented to debunk the idea that the earth is the center of the solar system. Faith requires both evidence and reason.

​

​

 

[A Troubled Man]

Dictionary definitions of faith are often inaccurate.

There are usually two definitions of faith presented in dictionaries and they are as accurate as they can be for those who wish to express the word in any given situation.

The Bible defines faith as "the asssured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) Both expressions "assured expectation" and "evident demonstration" denote evidence for what one believes.

That would one of the definitions of faith in which there actually is no evidence from which one is assured anything. That is blind faith.

A person purchases an item on a website, using a credit card, and has a measure of "assured expectation" that they will receive the item ordered. They are assured by an email confirming their order, and the fact they have dealt with this company before and found them reputable and reliable. A person sees the sun rise and set, yet knows the Sun does not revolve around the earth. Evidence has been presented to debunk the idea that the earth is the center of the solar system. Faith requires both evidence and reason.

That would be the other definition of faith in which evidence has already been provided assuring the expectation. Big difference.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yuck... we are seeing more and more of this creationism alternative to science in Australia... until relativity recently such discussion has been confined to where it belongs, faith based learning - but increasingly I see advocates of drawing this more into the mainstream, I fear that Australia might follow America's example (as we all too often do) into the self destructive spiral of irrational faith (where irrational faith refers to faith which is used to discount or dismiss facts because they do not conform to the pre-established beliefs; it is important to note that not all faith is like this) in lieu of non rational faith (or lack thereof) which acknowledges the physical (not metaphysical) supremacy of scientific knowledge.

 

[Thief]

There are usually two definitions of faith presented in dictionaries and they are as accurate as they can be for those who wish to express the word in any given situation.



That would one of the definitions of faith in which there actually is no evidence from which one is assured anything. That is blind faith.



That would be the other definition of faith in which evidence has already been provided assuring the expectation. Big difference.

You're confusing expectation with 'proven'.

Reasoning will lead you to expectation.
Some things have no proving....no photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no experiment.

That you use a method of belief that hinges on 'proof' will only stall your ability to believe in something greater than yourself.

 

[Looncall]

You're confusing expectation with 'proven'.

Reasoning will lead you to expectation.
Some things have no proving....no photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no experiment.

That you use a method of belief that hinges on 'proof' will only stall your ability to believe in something greater than yourself.

Why would you believe in such a being unless you have evidence for it? Is comfortable delusion good enough for you?