Page 1 of 20 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 199

Thread: Evolution vs. Creation

  1. #1
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 @ 06:19 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    74
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Evolution vs. Creation

    Thread to talk about origins, particularly for any Christians to discuss how they believe God created us, either by creation or evolution (or both).

    Points to consider about Evolution vs. Creation:

    Evolution cannot be proved

    1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.

    2. Evolution is not observable.

    Creation cannot be proved

    1. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe or replicate the creation process.

    2. Creation is not taking place now; therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus cannot be observed or tested.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Rev. Jupiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 21st, 2011 @ 02:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Western
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Radical Traditionalist
    Religion
    The Noble Path
    Posts
    310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Your points are rather nonsensical.

    The mechanisms behind evolution can be observed. It is only specifically large-scale speciation that cannot be observed. However, mere changes in biology are easy to see, and it is easy to see them stack up over a period of time. A lot of the reason this myth has circulated so far is because the popular definition of what a "species" is, which is based upon the assumptions of naturalists in the past, isn't congruous with the current scientific definition of a species.

    However, that issue aside, you're essentially comparing two identical stories.

    In the first, something came from nothing, followed by waves of increasingly complex organisms. In the second, something came from nothing, followed by waves of increasingly complex organisms.
    While the sectarian adherents of either interpretation like to assert their uniqueness, both are pretty limited in that they both tell us what happened, but neither tells us why.

    In my opinion, a true Christian would spend more time contemplating what caused God to manifest reality than considering exactly how it happened.
    To practice magic is to be a quack; to know magic is to be a sage. - Eliphas Lévi

  3. #3
    Account Inactive King Sitric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 9th, 2011 @ 11:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    Nordic/Germanic/Celtic/Hiberno/Eireannach
    Ancestry
    Germany/Norway/Denmark/Gaul/Hibernia/Ireland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Dyflin
    Gender
    Family
    free!
    Occupation
    Artizan
    Politics
    Republican
    Religion
    Atheist/Existentialist
    Posts
    96
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    This Evolution V Creation debate is kinda irrelevant now as Evolution has won out!

    There is far more evidence, evidence that is all around us, to prove it as fact!

    Creationism is being kept alive today by looney religious christian fundamentalists... the type of folk that exploit people for their souls and most of all - their money $$$$$$$$$$. It is a money making industry!


    The bible as an historical account is unreliable and totally inaccurate regarding events, dates, places, names etc... Even the gospels contradict each other on numerous occasions. To use it as some sort of scientific source material is absurd!

    Besides there has been no word at all from this god character for thousands of years!

    'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins is a great read!

  4. #4
    Senior Member Rev. Jupiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 21st, 2011 @ 02:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Western
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Radical Traditionalist
    Religion
    The Noble Path
    Posts
    310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by King Sitric View Post
    This Evolution V Creation debate is kinda irrelevant now as Evolution has won out!
    All modern scientists have done is explain to us the story of Genesis in greater detail.

    This doesn't validate the Genesis account so much as it invalidates scientific explanations.

    Something to consider.
    To practice magic is to be a quack; to know magic is to be a sage. - Eliphas Lévi

  5. #5
    Account Inactive King Sitric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 9th, 2011 @ 11:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    Nordic/Germanic/Celtic/Hiberno/Eireannach
    Ancestry
    Germany/Norway/Denmark/Gaul/Hibernia/Ireland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Dyflin
    Gender
    Family
    free!
    Occupation
    Artizan
    Politics
    Republican
    Religion
    Atheist/Existentialist
    Posts
    96
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    "All modern scientists have done is explain to us the story of Genesis in greater detail."

    This is a ludicrous statement.

    BTW, How do you know the world isn't flat?

    Do you finally believe it is round?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Rev. Jupiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 21st, 2011 @ 02:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Western
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Radical Traditionalist
    Religion
    The Noble Path
    Posts
    310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    You forgot the qualifier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Jupiter View Post
    This doesn't validate the Genesis account so much as it invalidates scientific explanations.
    To practice magic is to be a quack; to know magic is to be a sage. - Eliphas Lévi

  7. #7
    Account Inactive King Sitric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 9th, 2011 @ 11:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    Nordic/Germanic/Celtic/Hiberno/Eireannach
    Ancestry
    Germany/Norway/Denmark/Gaul/Hibernia/Ireland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Dyflin
    Gender
    Family
    free!
    Occupation
    Artizan
    Politics
    Republican
    Religion
    Atheist/Existentialist
    Posts
    96
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    The Rev Jupiter ....

    You are so blind to understand that by making such unfounded and rediculous statements about that fabled 'Jewish' tome known as 'the bible' and the 'book of genesis' you are endorsing the monopoly of Jewry influence within the western world.

    For there are indeed Israeli archaeologists busy are work contriving 'evidence' to endorse their book of lies, and their place within the western world as 'gods chosen people'!

  8. #8
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 @ 06:19 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    74
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by King Sitric View Post
    This Evolution V Creation debate is kinda irrelevant now as Evolution has won out!
    Please re-read my opening points. Evolution is a theory regarding origins, nothing more. Not a proven scientific fact.

    Something is validated as a scientific law or fact when it is empirically proven by observation, testing, replication etc. However evolution is not observable or testable, which leading evolutionists themselves admit:

    Stephen Jay Gould:
    ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history
    - Discover, May 1981, p. 36.

    Richard Dawkins:
    ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
    - PBS, NOW, 12/03/04.

    G. Ledyard Stebbins:
    ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
    - Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.

    Theodosius Dobzhansky:
    ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter''
    - American Scientist, Vol. 45, p. 388.

    Note particularly that last quote, evolutionists admit that evolution cannot be scientifically tested because of the time-frames involved.

    Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution cannot be replicated, so it is not science.

    Note what another leading evolutionist has admitted:

    Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England… unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’
    - Evolution, p. 45.

    In other words, the world's leading evolutionists admit the theory of evolution is not scientific, but is a mere a theory or hypothesis on origins.

    Even Darwin and Huxley who pretty much invented the modern concept of evolution, accepted it was nothing more than a theory and not a proven fact.

    Thomas Huxley: [on evolution] ‘‘an extremely valuable and even probable hypothesis, but a hypothesis none the less’’.

    Charles Darwin:
    ''I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science''

    'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins is a great read!
    Just to point out, Dawkins (see quote above) admitted in 2004 that evolution is not observable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Jupiter View Post
    Your points are rather nonsensical.
    They are the truth.

    But a lot of folks have a hard time accepting reality.

    The mechanisms behind evolution can be observed. It is only specifically large-scale speciation that cannot be observed. However, mere changes in biology are easy to see, and it is easy to see them stack up over a period of time. A lot of the reason this myth has circulated so far is because the popular definition of what a "species" is, which is based upon the assumptions of naturalists in the past, isn't congruous with the current scientific definition of a species.
    Evolution has never been observed, so it is not a scientific fact. The fact we observe minor variations and adaptations today in no way proves that man evolved from apes, fish, rocks or whatever.

    Historical events cannot now be observed, tested or replicated. So the entire theory of evolution is in fact as religious/faith based as Biblical creation.

  9. #9
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    ţeudiskaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 @ 08:34 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Deutsch
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Minnesota Minnesota
    Location
    Twin Cities Metro
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethnic Neo-Tribalist
    Posts
    492
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    The "Theory" of Evolution isn't a "theory", not really. It's like the "Theory" of Gravity. We don't know everything, but both are scientifically demonstrably accurate.

    I have no problem imagining God shaping humans over the last billion years, carefully crafting us through a series of phases at which the end is humanity.

    The Bible does not contradict this, and the Creation Story in Genesis is much more poetic tradition, than scientific assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Jupiter View Post
    All modern scientists have done is explain to us the story of Genesis in greater detail.

    This doesn't validate the Genesis account so much as it invalidates scientific explanations.

    Something to consider.

    I'd love to see some citation to back this claim up. So far, I've seen plenty of science to support evolution... and no scientific evidence to back up Young Earth Creationist/literal Seven-Day Creationist thought.

    I'm a Creationist. I believe that the universe was divinely created. I do accept, however, scientifically valid explanations for how the Creation came about. Thus I am both a Creationist, and an Evolutionist.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Please re-read my opening points. Evolution is a theory regarding origins, nothing more. Not a proven scientific fact.

    Something is validated as a scientific law or fact when it is empirically proven by observation, testing, replication etc. However evolution is not observable or testable, which leading evolutionists themselves admit:

    Stephen Jay Gould:
    ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history
    - Discover, May 1981, p. 36.

    Richard Dawkins:
    ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
    - PBS, NOW, 12/03/04.

    G. Ledyard Stebbins:
    ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
    - Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.

    Theodosius Dobzhansky:
    ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter''
    - American Scientist, Vol. 45, p. 388.

    Note particularly that last quote, evolutionists admit that evolution cannot be scientifically tested because of the time-frames involved.

    Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution cannot be replicated, so it is not science.

    Note what another leading evolutionist has admitted:

    Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England… unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’
    - Evolution, p. 45.

    In other words, the world's leading evolutionists admit the theory of evolution is not scientific, but is a mere a theory or hypothesis on origins.

    Even Darwin and Huxley who pretty much invented the modern concept of evolution, accepted it was nothing more than a theory and not a proven fact.

    Thomas Huxley: [on evolution] ‘‘an extremely valuable and even probable hypothesis, but a hypothesis none the less’’.

    Charles Darwin:
    ''I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science''



    Just to point out, Dawkins (see quote above) admitted in 2004 that evolution is not observable.
    "A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire

    Basically, quotes aren't science. You show me academic, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that evolution is implausible, and I will start to think you may be on to something. Until then, all of your valueless arguments are exactly that. Evolution makes more sense, and is more scientifically supported than Seven-Day Creationism, and micro-evolution has been proven. We are seeing anti-bacterial resistant strains of bacteria that never existed before widespread use (and misuse) of anti-biotics. The bacteria are evolving to better survive in a more hostile environment. It's not the leap from primordial ooze -> human, but then again it's only been a hundred years, not billions.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Historical events cannot now be observed, tested or replicated. So the entire theory of evolution is in fact as religious/faith based as Biblical creation.
    This right here shows that you don't understand how science works. We can't go back and see evolution happening in the past, but we can see the clear results of evolution. Why do descendants of Africans have dark skin? To protect them from the sun. Why do Nordvolk have light skin? To absorb more Vitamin D through the weaker sun rays. Asians tend to be smaller than Europeans due to (over extensive periods of time) consuming much less protein on average (fish, and rice, rather than heavier grains, and red meats.) Even today, with much more advanced ways to produce, and distribute food we see that people are getting bigger. The average viking was 5'6" to 5'7", but now that more protein is available in developed countries, the average hight is increasing. Remember that vikings were giants in their time, who towered over all other peoples, now they would be slightly below average hight for a Western man. All of these things are examples of evolution, simply on smaller scales.
    "So, yes, we are better than others. Our worldviews are better than those of others. This does not need to be universally true, it is enough when it is true for us." - velvet

    "Our blood unity is of infinitely more worth than religious particularities;" - Chlodovech

  10. #10
    Senior Member Rev. Jupiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 21st, 2011 @ 02:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Western
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Radical Traditionalist
    Religion
    The Noble Path
    Posts
    310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Der_Erlkoenig View Post
    I'd love to see some citation to back this claim up. So far, I've seen plenty of science to support evolution... and no scientific evidence to back up Young Earth Creationist/literal Seven-Day Creationist thought.
    Oh, heavens, I didn't mean Young Earth Creationism was factually equal to natural selection.

    What I meant was that there is too little philosophical disparity between the Biblical account and the modern scientific account of the universe's genesis to consider them to be opposed.
    To practice magic is to be a quack; to know magic is to be a sage. - Eliphas Lévi

Page 1 of 20 12345611 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Creation of Zion (1799)
    By Caledonian in forum Early Modern Age
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 05:12 AM
  2. The Germanic Myth of Creation
    By SwordOfTheVistula in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 01:39 AM
  3. Replies: 30
    Last Post: Tuesday, December 6th, 2005, 02:34 AM
  4. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 08:39 PM
  5. Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
    By friedrich braun in forum Research & Technology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 02:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •