I believe in Creation ...and Evolution

[Uncertaindrummer]

Really? So there is absolutely no way that life can come about without god? Interesting...

While I do believe God created the universe, I, in this thread, have done nothing but argue that He could have created it using evolution, or whatever other way He saw fit.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/falk/OriginOfLife/Origin.htm
Read the rest of the article for the rest of the info =) See, there are theories out there besides the one that says "God made life because its so complex..."

He says the earth of a million years ago was different, but I wonder... where did the Earth come from?

 

[Ryan2065]

I certainly don't believe you HAVE to believe in evolution. The argument is that believing in God in NO WAY AT ALL eliminates the possibility of evolution.

I was informing you after this quote. This makes me think that you don't believe there are other theories of where life came from besides "god said let there be life"

He says the earth of a million years ago was different, but I wonder... where did the Earth come from?

Ahh, now I see. My eyes are open. Your right. I have no clue where the earth of a million years ago came from. It MUST be god! =)

Oh wait...

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/origins.htm

 

[chuckles1028]

I agree with Lady Crismson completely

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

I was informing you after this quote. This makes me think that you don't believe there are other theories of where life came from besides "god said let there be life"

Well certainly. But that is not the topic at hand.

Ahh, now I see. My eyes are open. Your right. I have no clue where the earth of a million years ago came from. It MUST be god! =)

Oh wait...

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/origins.htm

Are you trying to look silly? You think this somehow answers the question of where the Earth came from? You have no idea where the Earth came from. The Big Bang accounts for... nothing. There had to be something to BANG, otherwise there would be no BIG BANG.

Also, the original idea that somehow life came into being on Earth randomly is COMPLETELY unscientific. We have NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, even had the SMALLEST observance of life coming from no life. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. The only reason ANYONE would postulate such a ridiculous theory is if they didn't WANT to believe in God. People say God should be kept out of schools because He is not "science". Well, making up stupid random theories about things that have NEVER been observed to be possible is far more unscientific than God, who actually has some evidence.

 

[meogi]

Are you trying to look silly? You think this somehow answers the question of where the Earth came from? You have no idea where the Earth came from. The Big Bang accounts for... nothing. There had to be something to BANG, otherwise there would be no BIG BANG.

It does answer the question of where the earth came from. Was it the actual way? Who knows, but it does answer the question. God also answers the question. But the supporting evidence for the scientific explanation gives it more credibility.

The Big Bang accounts for... nothing.

Except for the highly evidenced explanation of what happened after Plank's wall. That's what it accounts for, and it doesn't strive to account for anything else...

There had to be something to BANG, otherwise there would be no BIG BANG.

What I find silly is the fact that you're ignoring evidence in favor of the question: What came before X, Y, or Z? Science does have theories for origin questions, but they have absolutely no relevance to the questions of what happens to things after they originated. Which would be a question of how the earth came to be... or the big bang.

Also, the original idea that somehow life came into being on Earth randomly is COMPLETELY unscientific.

No, the original idea was a theory that made predictions and was testable. COMPLETELY scientific. Also COMPLETELY wrong, at the time. Abiogenesis is a bit different today than it was originally.

We have NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, even had the SMALLEST observance of life coming from no life.

Works for me, but we've also NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, even had the SMALLEST observance of god. Unless you're willing to count the bible. In which case, Urey/Miller would be (just one of) the corresponding observance(s) of abiogenesis. Silly.

The only reason ANYONE would postulate such a ridiculous theory is if they didn't WANT to believe in God.

Or they were making testable predictions...

People say God should be kept out of schools because He is not "science". Well, making up stupid random theories about things that have NEVER been observed to be possible is far more unscientific than God, who actually has some evidence.

Do you really think theories are stupid, random dreams that scientists get after eating too much pizza?

 

[Ryan2065]

Are you trying to look silly? You think this somehow answers the question of where the Earth came from? You have no idea where the Earth came from. The Big Bang accounts for... nothing. There had to be something to BANG, otherwise there would be no BIG BANG.

Now you see, I knew you would bring up this point. I actually had a nice response countering this point in my last post but decided to take it out because I thought there was a chance a better argument would be used. Come on... Are you seriously using the argument "Science can't answer all the questions but my bible can so I'm going to put faith in the bible." There will always be questions that science cannot answer for the simple fact that there are an infinate amount of questions. Just because science cannot answer something does not mean it is false. You propose that "god" started the big bang. Lets say next year someone comes up with a great theory over why the big bang happened that does not involve god. Then you will come up saying "Oh, god must have caused this to happen!" You keep taloring your story to fit your belief.

Also, the original idea that somehow life came into being on Earth randomly is COMPLETELY unscientific. We have NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, even had the SMALLEST observance of life coming from no life. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. The only reason ANYONE would postulate such a ridiculous theory is if they didn't WANT to believe in God. People say God should be kept out of schools because He is not "science". Well, making up stupid random theories about things that have NEVER been observed to be possible is far more unscientific than God, who actually has some evidence.

Right, we have only been able to make organic materials come from inorganic materials. And this is a stupid random theory? The theory stated that when the earth was young its environment was very different than it was today. In the lab, scientists recreated the environment they thought the eart had and were "magically" able to turn inorganic stuff to organic stuff. But yea... Coming up with a reasonable, testable idea has always been considered unscientific...

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Now you see, I knew you would bring up this point. I actually had a nice response countering this point in my last post but decided to take it out because I thought there was a chance a better argument would be used. Come on... Are you seriously using the argument "Science can't answer all the questions but my bible can so I'm going to put faith in the bible." There will always be questions that science cannot answer for the simple fact that there are an infinate amount of questions. Just because science cannot answer something does not mean it is false. You propose that "god" started the big bang. Lets say next year someone comes up with a great theory over why the big bang happened that does not involve god. Then you will come up saying "Oh, god must have caused this to happen!" You keep taloring your story to fit your belief.

What kind of absurdity is that? Why would anyone WANT to be religious unless they felt it necessary? Atheists have to live by no moral code, have no restrictions on what they can do, have no one to ANSWER to. I don't fit the facts to my beliefs, I fit my beliefs to what reality is. The question of how we were created is not just another question, it is THE question, and you certainly can't answer it. As for saying God could have used any methods to creat us... Yes, He could have. I did not say God definitely made the Big Bang happen, I said He COULD have.

Right, we have only been able to make organic materials come from inorganic materials. And this is a stupid random theory? The theory stated that when the earth was young its environment was very different than it was today. In the lab, scientists recreated the environment they thought the eart had and were "magically" able to turn inorganic stuff to organic stuff. But yea... Coming up with a reasonable, testable idea has always been considered unscientific...

First, there is a huge difference between someone creating organic material and someone creating living beings. Second, there is just as large of a difference between SOMEONE creating life and life coming out of NOTHING. Third, I would liek to see the report where scientists claim they made life out of nonlife. It would be an interesting read.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Works for me, but we've also NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, even had the SMALLEST observance of god. Unless you're willing to count the bible. In which case, Urey/Miller would be (just one of) the corresponding observance(s) of abiogenesis. Silly.

But that is entirely untrue. PLENTY of people have had spiritual experiences, thousands have attested to miracles, etc. Are some of them frauds? Sure. But there have been times where THOUSANDS reported the same miracle. For exampels Fatima. Or what about the incorruptible bodies of those such as Bernadette? And the incredible healing qualities of the fountain of Lourdes? Or somethign as general as the existance of a Natural law?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Atheists have to live by no moral code, have no restrictions on what they can do, have no one to ANSWER to.

I think atheist will feel very flatter by your statement. Hey you immoral atheist, nothing to say to that?

Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"
That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually when one talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable ("wrong") behavior within society.

Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must co-operate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage most atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behavior, purely for the purposes of self-preservation.

Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans. So why do they care what happens to others? They don't know, they simply are that way.

Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many people who behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their actions. For example:

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners... But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me... Jesus Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever."

​

The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992 by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality?

A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. ["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]

​

So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral behavior.

Of course, a great many people are converted to (and from) Christianity during adolescence and their early twenties. This is also the time at which people begin to drink and become sexually active. It could be that the above figures merely indicate that Christianity has no effect on moral behavior, or insufficient effect to result in an overall fall in immoral behavior.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#moral
http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/4991-1.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-morality.html

Rod Swift contacted the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons and asked for data on the religious beliefs of the federal prison population. This summary lists the number of inmates per religion category.

http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

 

[greatcalgarian]

But that is entirely untrue. PLENTY of people have had spiritual experiences, thousands have attested to miracles, etc. Are some of them frauds? Sure. But there have been times where THOUSANDS reported the same miracle. For exampels Fatima. Or what about the incorruptible bodies of those such as Bernadette? And the incredible healing qualities of the fountain of Lourdes? Or somethign as general as the existance of a Natural law?

This is how Charles Templeton has his miracles encounter with holy spirit:

One morning, I returned home at 3:00 a. m. after party. For no obvious reason I was heavy with depression. There was a mirror in the entrance hall of our home, and I paused before it for perhaps a minute. I didn't like the man I saw there. I went softly down the hall, not wanting to awaken mother, but she heard me and called out, and I went to sit on the side of her bed.



She began to talk about God, about the happiness her faith had brought her, and about how she longed to see me with the other children in church. I heard little of what she was saying; my mind was doing an inventory of my life. Suddenly. it seemed empty and wasted and sordid. I said, "I m going to my room.?/p> As I went down the hall, I was forming a prayer in my head, but as I knelt by my bed in the darkness, my mind was strangely vacant; thoughts and words wouldn't come to focus. After a moment, it was as though a black blanket had been draped over me. A sense of enormous guilt descended and invaded every part of me. I was unclean.

Involuntarily, I began to pray, my face upturned, tears streaming. The only words I could find were, "Lord, come down. Come done. Come down. . . .?



It may have been minutes later or much longer - there was no sense of time - but I found myself my head in my hands, crunched small on the floor at the center of a vast emptiness. The agonizing was past. It had left me numb, speechless, immobilized, alone, tense with a sense of expectancy. In a moment, a weight began to lift, a weight as heavy as I. It passed through my thighs, my belly, my chest, my arms, my shoulders and lifted off entirely. I could have leaped over a wall. An ineffable warmth began suffuse every corpuscle. It seemed that a light and turned on in my chest and its refining fire had cleansed me. I hardly dared breathe, fearing that I might end or alter the moment. I heard myself whispering softly, over and over, "Thank you, Lord. Thank you. Thank you. . . .?/p> After a while I went to mother's room. She saw my face, said, "Oh, Chuck. . !" and burst into tears. We talked for an hour.

When I went back to my bedroom, dawn was just breaking. I undressed, drew the shade, climbed into bed, and lay motionless in the diminishing darkness, bathed in a radiant, overwhelming happiness. Outside, the birds began their first tentative singing and I began to laugh, softly, out of an indescribable sense of well being at the center of an exultant, allencompassing joy.

http://www.templetons.com/charles/memoir/chap2.html

And subsequently became as famous as Billy Graham.....

However, when he went to study bible in depth, and widened his horizon of knowledge and persistent seeking, he turned into Agnostic:

One night I went to the golf course rather late. I had attended a movie and something in the film had set to vibrating an obscure chord in my consciousness. Standing with my face to the heavens tears streaming, I heard dog bark of in the distance and, from somewhere, faintly. eerily, a baby crying. Suddenly I was caught up in a transport. It seemed that the whole of creation-trees, flowers, clouds, the skied, the very heavens, all of time and space and God Himself-was weeping. I knew somehow that they were weeping for mankind: for our obduracy, our hatreds, our ten thousand cruelties, our love of war and violence. And at the heart of this eternal sorrow I saw the shadow of a cross, with the silhouetted figure on it...weeping.

When I became conscious of my surroundings again, I was lying on the wet grass, convulsed by sobs. I had been outside myself and didn't know for how long. Later, I couldn't sleep and trembled as thought with a fever at the thought that I had caught a glimpse through the veil.
Not long afterwards, I encountered another instance of instantaneous healing. My aunt, Ada Poyntz, a graduate nurse and my mother's youngest sister, was terminally ill with what was described to me as stomach cancer. Exploratory surgery had discovered that the malignancy was inoperable. She suffered greatly from adhesions and was bedridden. There was little point in her remaining in hospital, and, in those days before medicare, the costs would have been prohibitive. She was sent home to live out the rest of her days with my mother.

Mother insisted that I come to the house and pray for Ada. I went again with reluctance and that sense of embarrassment I invariably felt when asked to pray for healing. I had investigated many claims of faith healing over the years and had never seen any instance that seemed to me authentic. I couldn't account for what had happened to the baby's neck but was by no means convinced that it was as a result of divine intervention.

I placed my hands on my aunt's body and began to pray. The moment was intensely emotional. My mother was praying and weeping. My aunt was gasping in an agony of hope, "Oh God! Please! Please God!" As I was praying, I felt something akin to an electrical charge flow through my arms and out my fingers. I remembered the incident in which the woman "suffering from an issue of blood" touched the hem of Jesus' garment and was healed. Jesus stopped and said, "Who touched me?" Peter remonstrated with him: "What do you mean, who touched you? There's a crowd pressing us, jostling us." "No," Jesus said, "somebody touched me; I felt power go out of me!" I wondered if what I was feeling was what Jesus had spoken of.

Afterwards, there was the usual mutual encouragement, the "trying to have faith." When I returned home, the telephone was ringing. It was my aunt, who had not been out of bed for weeks. "Chuck," she said, half laughing, half in tears but far from hysteria, "I've been healed. I really have." Mother came on the phone."?"It's absolutely incredible. She's been walking around. She's been up and down the stairs. Chuck, she's healed. There's no doubt about it."

For almost three years, I trained ministers and laymen, lectured in theological seminaries and universities, wrote two books and did a weekly television show on the CBS network. I continued to preach, but mostly on Sundays as a guest, most frequently at Fifth Avenue Presbyterian.

And I struggled with my faith.

http://www.templetons.com/charles/memoir/evang-princeton.html

In the end, all the miracles encountered by Charles Templeton could not prevent him from turning from a fervent Evangelist to an Agnostic

His work of non-fiction to raise the most controversy was released in 1995. Called Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith it outlined the arguments around the central issue of his early life and why he left the church. That book remains in print, and is bought both by believers and non-believers. It even spawned a popular believer's rebuttal book called The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel.

While writing Farewell to God, he had one resolve in his mind. He felt that today there is a large body of people for whom faith is a burden rather than a blessing. They are people who were brought up in Christianity but have drifted. They say they are Christian but they are unsure. Perhaps they attend at Christmas and Easter. Their faith presents for them a set of moral rules they don't understand which they find at odds with their real lives.

He felt that these people were searching for something that might release them from the ingrained old memes they learned at their mothers' knees. That a rational demonstration of the problems with the church would free them from that burden. The truly faithful, he felt, would not have their faith shaken by this book or any other book advocating agnosticism (his preferred term) or atheism.

http://www.templetons.com/charles/memoir/postscript.html

 

[Scott1]

In the end, all the miracles encountered by Charles Templeton could not prevent him from turning from a fervent Evangelist to an Agnostic

So this proves that there are no miracles?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Are you trying to look silly? You think this somehow answers the question of where the Earth came from? You have no idea where the Earth came from. The Big Bang accounts for... nothing. There had to be something to BANG, otherwise there would be no BIG BANG.

So...what you're saying is that its possible for God to have just "always been" but its not possible for matter to have just "always been"?

The field of science that can answer your questions is called Quantum Physics, and darned if I understand any of it. You can look it all up yourself, or you can talk to Mr_Spinkles. He knows more about it than I do, anyhow.

Also, the original idea that somehow life came into being on Earth randomly is COMPLETELY unscientific. We have NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, even had the SMALLEST observance of life coming from no life. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.

As is evidenced by the many people I see in a day's time, it apparently does happen.

I believe I've talked to you about this exact same question before....have you still not Googled "The Miller-Urey Experiment" like I asked you to? It explains quite simply how life can arise from inorganic molecules, but I can explain it further if you have questions. Actually, you could also check out my thread, "Abiogenesis, Explained" right here on these forums!

The only reason ANYONE would postulate such a ridiculous theory is if they didn't WANT to believe in God.

I disagree. The only way someone could possibly ignore the evidence is if they didn't want to believe that God doesn't exist.

People say God should be kept out of schools because He is not "science". Well, making up stupid random theories about things that have NEVER been observed to be possible is far more unscientific than God, who actually has some evidence.

1.) Please list a theory, (just one theory is all thats needed), that is based on ideas which have not been tested, reproduced, and thereby "observed".

2.) Please list a theory, (just one theory is all thats needed), that provides evidence for the existence of a supreme being of any kind.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Uncertaindrummer, are you playing Devil's Advocate again, or do you truely believe the things you are saying?

First, there is a huge difference between someone creating organic material and someone creating living beings.

Agreed. Allow me to show you, in chronological order, how such things occur:

1. The Earth and its amosphere formed
2. The primordial seas formed
3. Complex molecules were synthesized (organic monomers from inorganic elements)
4. Polymers, proteinoids, and self-replicating molecules were synthesized
5. Protobionts formed (first molecules to display characteristics of life)
6. Primitive heterotrophic prokaryotes
7. Primitive autotrophic prokaryotes
8. Formation of Eukaryotes
9. its all downhill from there.

So you see, it wasn't "primordial soup....life!!" There were many steps in between, all of which I can explain further if you do not wish to research them yourself.

Second, there is just as large of a difference between SOMEONE creating life and life coming out of NOTHING.

Correct, which is why scientists don't "create". They set up hypothetical situation and watch as the elements react by themselves.

Third, I would liek to see the report where scientists claim they made life out of nonlife. It would be an interesting read.

Its called the "Miller-Urey Experiment" as I have tirelessly told you before. Look it up yourself.

 

[meogi]

Atheists have to live by no moral code, have no restrictions on what they can do, have no one to ANSWER to.

I beg to differ... religious or not, everyone answers to society. That's why we have laws. Laws based on the moral code society has established.
But greatcalgarian said it more in depth... frubals for that.

But that is entirely untrue. PLENTY of people have had spiritual experiences, thousands have attested to miracles, etc. Are some of them frauds? Sure. But there have been times where THOUSANDS reported the same miracle.

Mass eye witness accounts account for the credibility of an event, but nothing else. I have no doubt in my mind that something happened. I do doubt that it was supernatural, however. Why? Because the supernatural cannot be tested... call me stubborn, but I don't give much credit to strange accusations that can't be recreated.

For exampels Fatima.

http://www.portcult.com/index.fat.htm - A pretty good analysis... I agree with the conclusion.

Or what about the incorruptible bodies of those such as Bernadette?

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/PaIncorruptibility.htm - I wonder what would happen to Bernadette if she were placed in the dirt for a few years... of course, no one will let that happen.

And the incredible healing qualities of the fountain of Lourdes?

Much like the incredible healing qualities of sugar pills?

Or somethign as general as the existance of a Natural law?

What exactly is a natural law? Like gravity?

Regardless of all this, I'm not saying miracles don't happen. They do. Things that are unexplainable, and generally good. And some are explainable, like birth. It's a broad definition, really, and is the cause of most of these kinds of issues. What I'm saying is that accrediting the miraculous to god or the supernatural is moot. There's no reason to give reason to miracles. Unless you can give me a reason.

 

[greatcalgarian]

So this proves that there are no miracles?

No.....
Miracles are faith believe. If you believe it exists, then it exists. To most atheist, everything has a natural explanation. If a natural explanation is not there, it simply means that it has not been found yet. To a religious person, anything that he cannot explain and is good to him is a miracle. That happening may have a perfectly natural simple explanation, but is absent from his knowledge, and hence from his faith believe system, he will then classified that as a miracle.

 

[matey]

It does answer the question of where the earth came from. Was it the actual way? Who knows, but it does answer the question. God also answers the question. But the supporting evidence for the scientific explanation gives it more credibility."


God does not rely on credibility, it is faith which He relies upon. If God wanted us to rely upon Him by means of credibility, he would have given us free-thinking minds to observe his creation with....wait a minute, He did..alrighty then
Science, imo, deals with the specifics of what God created. We are here observing the world and figuring out how it all works with the scientific method.

 

[meogi]

God does not rely on credibility, it is faith which He relies upon.

Convenient for believers, I guess.

If God wanted us to rely upon Him by means of credibility, he would have given us free-thinking minds to observe his creation with....wait a minute, He did..alrighty then

So he does rely on credibility? Well, he is god... I guess if he can create existance, he can rely on something as well as it's negative.

Science, imo, deals with the specifics of what God created. We are here observing the world and figuring out how it all works with the scientific method.

And you believe it's god's creation because...?

(There's gotta be something that warrants belief besides: Origin, desire, and purpose, oh my!... maybe not though)

 

[KirbyFan101]

There's gotta be something that warrants belief besides: Origin, desire, and purpose, oh my!... maybe not though

I agree.

I think the majority of the world disagree's, though.