1. 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!

Featured Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Patriottechsan, Apr 20, 2019.

  1. Patriottechsan

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2019
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +39
    Religion:
    Bapticostal
    I know so much more than you have any idea about. I just hadn't gotten to them because despite what you say & think.

    When teaching science which leads to mankind's ORIGINS it always starts with Big Bang. So therefore I start from the very start to show the problems & hypocrisy. I have so much more. Yet as is usual you can't handle going to the very beginning & getting the holes exposed from the start. You want to pick & choose where you start. That's incomplete to me when ultimately it's about mankind's Origins.

    That's not the way critical analysis works.

    I have answers for stuff you've brought up but it wasn't time yet. I have a plan to do it step by step.

    For example. I had a man that had 2 Dr.s in Engineering challenge me to a debate back when I was healthy & could work out.

    I have a BS & 2 Masters & all with academic honors plus I worked as a grad assistant on my first Masters in a science research project.

    Anyway the man with 2 Dr.s heard me talking not only about Evolution but Jesus & Christianity. My story was told on New members today.

    He was avid aggressive atheist. He'd debated many Christians before. I accepted his challenge. We set ground rules. We talked 1 hour 3 days a week for 1 hour plus as we walked side by side on a treadmill. Others actually started listening to us.

    We talked for 2 yrs. We went slowly but step by step & each one thoroughly covered. Once a point was covered it was over & couldn't be used again.. I liked our method & process as nothing was missed & thoroughly covered.

    I guess I was wrong to expect anything similar on here. Interesting that despite his very biased atheistic agenda. Key is he was at least an honest academic. Which despite people's bias few can get past their bias & be academically honest. He was. We agreed we both had to read what the other gave us to read despite how we might feel about that sources credibility.

    If we really objected to the others material we had to prove why to the others acceptance or had to read it anyway.

    At the end of 2 yrs we finished. Yes despite his bias & aggressive atheism. He was honest academic & admitted I'd proven all my points much to his surprise. Sadly it ended on a Friday & that weekend he died of a heart attack & I never saw him again.

    He was by far the most thoroughly educated man I've ever met or known. I won his respect due to my knowledge you keep saying I don't have but do. We started at the very beginning too & slowly but surely moved through the science, theology, religion, is Bible inerrant is Jesus who He claimed etc.

    I wish I could find someone like him again.

    That's why I approached this this way. I want complete thoroughness with no holes left that could or would come back.

    This thread that doesn't seem possible yet.

    Happy Easter.
     
  2. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    25,521
    Ratings:
    +9,799
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    What does it mean to "believe in" it?
    If you mean, do I think existence goes on forever, then I have to say, I'm not sure. However, I did read somewhere that eventually, maybe trillions of years from now, the last fundamental element left in the universe will blink out of existence, and that will be that. God can wash and dry his hands, and go home.

    And how does your question "Do you believe in eternal existence?" illustrate your claim, "Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based"?


    .
     
    #62 Skwim, Apr 20, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,601
    Ratings:
    +3,177
    Religion:
    Methodist
    I do not understand how someone that claims to be educated in science produces the posts you have that indicate that you know nothing about science.

    Considering what you have provided so far and how widely refuted your material is, I cannot envision a scenario where your claims would not get the reception they have.

    The points you discussed with this man must not be the ones you have brought up here. Those I have seen have no validity and you have not provided evidence to support the claims of your OP.

    What science did you work on?
     
    • Like Like x 5
  4. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,340
    Ratings:
    +2,569
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    It may be that time is a property or effect of mass-energy, and it may be, as we presently think, that mass-energy can't be destroyed. But we also presently think that this universe, as such, likely has a use-by date.

    As for myself, when I die, I'll cease to exist. (I didn't exist before I was born either.) This is it, the one shot.
    I understand that most creationists think that, but I don't understand how it would follow from creationism as such. That God is eternal is widely opined.
    Creationism is expressly based on faith and generally holds that 'supernatural' is a meaningful term and a quality of God.

    Evolution is an observed process in nature and the theory of evolution explores, describes and explains how evolution occurs. Its methods are empirical and inductive, its reasoning evidence-based and skeptical and subject to peer review, and like any other branch of science, its conclusions are tentative, the best opinion we have at any given time.

    I see nothing there that would traditionally be regarded as 'faith'. What, specifically, do you have in mind?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    8,203
    Ratings:
    +5,719
    Religion:
    Catholic
    ... Huh?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,601
    Ratings:
    +3,177
    Religion:
    Methodist
    Maybe this first step will help you. Science does not offer proofs or absolutes. The conclusions of science and theories are contingent and not absolutes. Even a theory like the theory of evolution--the most well-supported theory in science--is contingent on some future data providing reason to reject it.

    Anyone trained in science should know this.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,621
    Ratings:
    +13,007
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Nope, abiogenesis is based upon the laws of science and nature. If you want to discuss that I have no problem. You only have to own up to your earlier errors. And now that you know the flaws of moving the goalposts you have as much as admitted that evolution is correct since it does not rely upon nature abiogenesis.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    3,569
    Ratings:
    +1,724
    Nope.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,621
    Ratings:
    +13,007
    Religion:
    Atheist

    If you supposedly know so much then why do you make such basic, at best high school level errors in all of your science claims?

    Why not try to learn from your experience here? It may help you in future debates. Would you like to start with the scientific method? A refresher is often a good idea.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  10. MJ Bailey

    MJ Bailey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    All of them in one way or another
     
  11. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,216
    Ratings:
    +2,650
    Now if they believe in eternal existence. Then what is the difference between them & creationist & believing in an eternal God.

    Creationism treats reality as a cartoon created by Walt Disney. So i would say that creationism has no real relationship at all to either the topic god or nature and is really just Bigfoot theorists pretending in self deluded ways . That's normal.


    On the flip side a dog is an evolutionist so big deal it's not really saying much in that life interconnected does not need science since it's self evident.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,340
    Ratings:
    +2,569
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    What hypocrisy, exactly?
    In that case experience suggests that you'd want to run an argument along these lines ─

    1. You don't know how life began.
    2. Therefore God did it.

    Is that correct? I'll happily debate that with you.
    Does that mean that if someone shows you you're wrong you readily admit it?

    If you show me I'm wrong I'll readily admit it. I'd just like to debate you on equal terms.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,431
    Ratings:
    +2,399
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    You've got no chance of being taken seriously when you start by describing people with a science education as "evolutionists". This is a silly, loaded word, invented for purely rhetorical purposes by creationists in a futile attempt to put creationism on the same footing as science. Everyone here can see you coming a mile off. Nobody intent on a serious discussion would use such a term, nor would they jump immediately from evolution, which is a theory in biology that does not even seek to account for the origin of life, to the Big Bang, i.e. the origin of the whole cosmos.

    So you don't want to discuss evolution, apparently, but the far larger subject of science versus creationism.

    As Christine pointed out a while back in the thread, the essential difference between science and creationism is that science is evidence-based. Contrary to the assertion in the thread title, the supernatural plays no part in science whatever. Science proposes theories that can be tested by seeing whether they correctly predict what observations of nature can be expected. This is something creationism can't do, as it explains nature in terms of the actions of an omnipotent Creator who can do what He likes at any point and is thus inherently not predictable.

    Creationism is in fact inherently anti-science, as it encourages people to stop looking for natural explanations and instead to just accept what they observe as the result of some caprice on the part of the Almighty. This is how Mediaeval people explained things they could not understand. Needless to say such an attitude does not lead to scientific discovery.

    So science and creationism are utterly different. Creationism is, in fact, something to be despised by any thinking person.

    Happy Easter.
     
    #73 exchemist, Apr 21, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,100
    Ratings:
    +5,277
    Religion:
    None
    If you must engage, try just one little point.
    So far he is playing gish gallop.

    "Proof", say. That he is wrong on that.

    Chances are the plan is just to return to creoland
    having gloriously argued a roomful of evos to a
    standstill.

    If he / she cannot handle being wrong about "proof"
    in science, may as well let 'em declare victory now,
    and go away now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,556
    Ratings:
    +9,991
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No. The environment will continue to change, meaning the population has to change to stay adapted to it. The environment, by the way, includes all of the other species around that might affect the survival of that population. Any of them can change, making it necessary for the population to change also.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,556
    Ratings:
    +9,991
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Please be specific. Which laws are violated?

    Shouting doesn't help your cause.

    Life *does* come from non-life. None of the atoms or molecules in your body is alive. Yet, the combination of all of those non-living atoms and molecules *is* alive.

    The point is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. What abiogenesis attempts to do is understand the origin of that complexity.

    See above. It is hardly something for the Nobel committee. Life *does* come from non-life. it is made from non-living parts.


    Nope. You are giving intent to the forces of nature where no such intent exists. Once you have a population of things that reproduces, mutates, and has differential survival, you *will* have natural selection and thereby evolution. That is a mathematical inevitability.

    Now, why you confuse the origin of life and the origin of the universe is anyone's guess. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old, which is about 3 times as old as the Earth and about 4 times as old as life on Earth. There were a *lot* of events between the origin of the universe and the beginning of life, including complete cycles of star formation and destruction.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  17. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,211
    Ratings:
    +5,312
    Religion:
    None
    Of my consciousness? No. It may be the case, but I have no reason to think that it is, so I don't.

    If you are referring to the eternal existence of the original source of that consciousness, whether that be the universe itself or some prior cause of it such as a deity or a multiverse - whichever of these is the case, that original source has to have existed infinitely back in time or have come into existence from nothing. I have no method for ruling any of these in or out, so I must concede that it may be the case that there exists something with no beginning.

    Science is indifferent to and wholly independent from religion.

    Actually, the Big Bang theory is about the evolution of the universe from a very small, hot, dense kernel into the array of forces and particles and their characteristic arrangements and behaviors that we find today. The origins problem asks where this kernel came from and why it began expanding. The Big Bang theory tells us how that process unfolded once it was under way.

    It's analogous to abiogenesis and biological evolution. The first is the origins of life problem, the second describes the process of that initial kernel of life unfolding into the tree of life we find today.

    Sorry, but many of us have systematically eliminated faith-based thought from our lives. It's a logical fallacy to believe by faith, since any idea and its polar opposite can be believed by faith knowing that at least one of them is wrong. For that reason, believing by faith cannot be a path to truth unless one happens to guess correctly, and even then, he has no way to determine that he has guessed correctly without confirming evidence, after which, the belief is no longer faith-based.

    It remarkable how often theists tell us how we think, what we are forced to believe if we think as well as the theist believe, and how creates a crisis in science. There's another thread actively growing claiming that some antenna has created a crisis for the Big Bang theory. Somebody should alert the media and the scientific community.

    The Big Bang theory has been confirmed in the main by its predictions and their confirmation. Like evolution, the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and the cellular theory of life, it may be tweaked over time, but not overturned.

    There is no reason to believe that all phenomena are not natural. Nor that the word supernatural has any meaning. If it exists, it is part of nature, even if that means that nature includes realms, substances, forces, processes, or entities unfamiliar to us.

    There is also no reason to invoke deities. Our existing scientific theories have done a great job allowing man to predict and at times control outcomes of assorted physical situations, none of which includes a god, and none of which would experience an increase in explanatory or predictive power by the ad hoc insertion of a god into it.

    These are the kind of comments that diminish your ethos with your audience, ethos referring to that aspect of argumentation that focuses not on the argument itself, but on how the audience perceives the speaker or writer. Is he well-informed? Is he honest? Can we trust that he has presented all of the relevant evidence in his argument as opposed to cherry-picking? Is his agenda to inform or to indoctrinate?

    What person competent in the sciences would claim that there are no experiments that can prove you can create chemicals from inanimate objects? Chemicals are already inanimate objects, and it is readily demonstrated that they will spontaneously react with one another under prescribed conditions leading to new chemicals, also inanimate objects.

    Scientists and the sources that underwrite their research aren't dissuaded from looking for a spontaneous path from simple chemistry to simple life simply because the work is still being done to demonstrate how that can occur, or that creationists have already given up.

    It may well be the case that whenever the conditions necessary for life to arise exist, it will, and that those conditions exist on multiple planets and moons in and out of our solar system. That is not random, any more than it is the case that whenever the conditions to form a star exist, a star is born.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,211
    Ratings:
    +5,312
    Religion:
    None
    Is your implied point that a living cell is too complex to exist undesigned by an intelligent designer, but that that intelligent designer is not too complex to exist undesigned? If so, you have a special pleading fallacy. You're also making the error that complexity cannot exist without intelligence, and probably an argument from ignorance fallacy of the form that since we don't know how cells self-organized yet, and some people just can't imagine how they could have, they didn't, and therefore an intelligent designer is required.

    That's not the job of the theory of evolution. It simply provides the mechanism for biological evolution and the evidence supporting the claim that the natural selection of biological populations manifesting genetic variation between generations will invariably lead to their phenotypical and genotypical evolution. The precise pathways historically taken by nature are not part of the theory. For example, we don't know which hominin fossils correspond to man's ancestors, and which correspond to branches that went extinct leaving no descendants.

    So he's a bad teacher.

    My teachers used a different method, the method of teaching in academia, in which one is presented with what is believed and why. Whereas the indoctrinater is very interested in what you believe, the academic teacher won't ask you what you believe, only what you know.

    Except that you haven't demonstrated any fraud. Nor do quotes of the opinions of others establish the factual nature of their opinions.

    All that adapted to ones environment means is that one's species has what it needs to survive and reproduce. It is possible to be better adapted than that and to outcompete competing forms that did just fine before an escalation of the evolutionary arms race caused by a blind genetic variation put them at a competitive disadvantage.

    It's enough that abiogenesis not be demonstrated to be impossible. That alone justifies investigating the possibility. Or perhaps you're suggesting that science just give up looking. If so, why would they do that?

    Where you may have a point is that the abiogenesis hypothesis might not be scientific in the sense that it appears to not be falsifiable. Short of a god convincingly manifesting and showing us how it created life, which probably doesn't rule out the possibility of spontaneous abiogenesis, what finding could rule out the possibility of abiogenesis? None that I can think of.

    That is incorrect. It is not known that abiogenesis could not or did not occur naturalistically on pre-biotic earth.

    You're the one with the agenda - to erode confidence in science. It why you started this thread.

    The atheists contradicting you have demonstrated no other agenda apart from correct errors in the name of accurate information.

    And like the indoctrinator, who has an agenda to change minds, you seem to care very much what we believe. You encourage others to try to see things your way. The people answering you don't seem to care if you come over to their position.

    Natural selection is a fact of life, and not limited to biological populations. Wherever there is competition for scarce resources, there will be winners and losers. Restaurants compete for diners and their dollars. There will be a natural selection in the favor of the restaurant that can attract patrons better than other restaurants. Nobody has to make that happen, or can in a free society where people are at liberty to spend their money as they like. As long as there are living things competing with one another for limited resources such as food and mates, there will be winners and losers. You can't prevent it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    3,569
    Ratings:
    +1,724
    Have a good day.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  20. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    5,615
    Ratings:
    +3,417
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    Re: the OP. I have a feeling like the following, as best expressed by the following quote:

    "Do you ever have a problem where you just don't know how to reply to an argument, not because you don't know the answer, but you just don't know where to begin? Like, the foundation of knowledge you'd need to impart to this person before you could even begin to drag them out of their sinkhole of ignorance would cost thousands of dollars if it were coming from a university?" ~Unknown


    (tried finding the author-- I think it was David McCafee)
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...