Jump to content
Science Forums

Evolution vs Religion


OpenMind5
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The following shows the extent to which Christians will stoop to try and resolve all the problems with the buybull.

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<i> Let's start with those that are connected to Genesis. </i> : I will complete this later, but I'm getting tired right now. So here are a few of your supposed contradictions:

 

<i> GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.</i>

I'll cover this one later. I have more details at home.

 

<i> GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.

GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.) </i>

Genesis 1:31 says that at the end of day 6, God saw everything He made, and it was good.

Genesis 6:5-6 refers to the time directly preceding the Flood. God saw the wickedness of man, and He was grieved in His heart. How is this a contradiction?

 

Let's see, how does god being PLEASED with his creation efforts contradict god NOT being pleased with his creation efforts? Hmmmmmmmm. Ya I can see the confusion there!

 

NOT!

 

Can you not say the same of your own children? I certainly can! I look at them (sleeping, lol!), and they are wonderful, up until the time when they do something that upsets me, then I am 'grieved in my heart'. It's not a contradiction.

 

So suddenly YOU are GOD?

 

Or perhaps amoung other things, you don't understand what an ANALOGY is? This is another failed attempt I find Christians using. They invent incorrect analogies.

 

In order for an analogy it be VALID, the two things being compared HAVE to share a COMMON element DIRECTLY related to the item being compared.

 

So until YOU have created something and have COMPLETE control over it, any analogy attempting to make that connection is INVALID

 

Meanwhile, you have NOT shown where god being PLEASED with his creation does not contradict god NOT being pleased with his creation. It is STILL a biblical contradiction.

 

<i> GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.

GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years. </i>

The "death" is not a physical one, but a spiritual one.

 

Please show us the precise passage that STATES this difference. You can not RANDOMLY change what the bible says.

 

Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

 

Show us ALL the word "spiritual" in there.

 

Again, we KNOW how DESPERATE you are to try and hide all the contradictions that ARE in the bible. But pretending it says things it doesn't, is not the way to do it. Not if you want any credibility left in the process.

 

"Death" represents a separation from God, spiritually. After Adam sinned, he was made to leave the Garden of Eden, and the physical presence and fellowship of the LORD.

 

Suddenly GOD is NOT everywhere! ? ! Ya got to love the convoluted attempts. God is all powerful and everywhere when it suits Christians. But suddenly he is NOT in some places nor in CONTROL of things when the Christian doesn't like it!

 

You may fall for such obvious convolutions. But those of us not desperate to accept, don't have that failing.

 

<i> GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.

HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil. </i>

Genesis 2 & 3 do not say that it is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.

 

the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was... desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it... And the LORD God comma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

And this one I just couldn't pass up...

 

Quote By Freethinker: Grass is red. "this statement is either true or false. thats why i said 50/50"

Shows how absurd it is to claim a 50/50% chance on anything just because it has not been evaluated for truth yet.

 

But is your statement (Grass is red) truly absurd???

 

Check this out...

http://www.izix.com/personal/photos/mnts/redgrasshills.php

 

The grass sure looks red to me... LOL

 

Once more we get to see the difference between a Christian, stuck trying to maintain their claim to perfect knowledge, and a Freethinker.

 

Yes I made a mistake. I was WRONG! Such is life. I am a human animal and as such, make mistakes. I will be careful not to make this mistake in the future and I appreciate your informing me of my error.

 

While we have yet to see a single Christian admit even the slightest error. No matter how obvious.

 

Thanks for correcting me, AND for giving everyone the chance to see the difference between being close minded and being a Freethinker- able to admit error and make corrections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you in pain from all the STRETCHING you've done today???

 

Let's see, how does god being PLEASED with his creation efforts contradict god NOT being pleased with his creation efforts? Hmmmmmmmm. Ya I can see the confusion there!

Ok, again just for you, Freethinker... The first refers to the time directly after the creation of the world. The second refers to the time directly before the flood. God was pleased with His creation (the earth and all it contained). Hundreds of years later, God was not pleased by how, when left to his own devices, man lived wickedly. How is this a contradiction? C'mon...STRETCH.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once more we get to see the difference between a Christian, stuck trying to maintain their claim to perfect knowledge, and a Freethinker.

Yes I made a mistake. I was WRONG! Such is life. I am a human animal and as such, make mistakes. I will be careful not to make this mistake in the future and I appreciate your informing me of my error.

While we have yet to see a single Christian admit even the slightest error. No matter how obvious.

Thanks for correcting me, AND for giving everyone the chance to see the difference between being close minded and being a Freethinker- able to admit error and make corrections.

 

Don't be so hard on yourself. If you had kept quoting my post, you would have included that i agreed with a big portion of your initial 'grass is red' post to rileyj. Also, I was very specific to say that this was not a slam, but a bit of comic relief. Lighten up a bit. I try very hard not to resort to personal attacks, unlike others that post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So suddenly YOU are GOD?

Or perhaps amoung other things, you don't understand what an ANALOGY is? This is another failed attempt I find Christians using. They invent incorrect analogies.

In order for an analogy it be VALID, the two things being compared HAVE to share a COMMON element DIRECTLY related to the item being compared.

So until YOU have created something and have COMPLETE control over it, any analogy attempting to make that connection is INVALID

Meanwhile, you have NOT shown where god being PLEASED with his creation does not contradict god NOT being pleased with his creation. It is STILL a biblical contradiction.

Ok, I can't believe I have to exlain this to you, but here goes... The God of the Bible has many names, one of which in English translates loosely to "Father". My example of seeing my children and being pleased, then being displeased when they do something 'wrong' WAS an analogy. No, I am not calling myself God. However, just as He is considered by many to be a father (also known as a parent), so am I a mother (again, a parent). I 'created' my children (they evolved inside of my body, right? lol), and until they are 18, I have control over them. Complete control? Well, you're a parent, you tell me! However, if my analogy is untrue because I don't have 'complete control', does that mean you are admitting that God DOES have complete control? Hmmmm.... Just wondering...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suddenly GOD is NOT everywhere! ? ! Ya got to love the convoluted attempts. God is all powerful and everywhere when it suits Christians. But suddenly he is NOT in some places nor in CONTROL of things when the Christian doesn't like it!

I think you also used a similar argument regarding Cain. If you actually READ the text, you will notice that God created the Garden of Eden, placed Adam there, then walked with him daily. There was a personal fellowship between them, a spiritual connection. When Adam sinned, he had to leave the Garden, where he walked daily with God. It doesn't say, or even imply, that God is not omnipresent. However, there was no longer a personal walk between God and Adam. And as for the word spiritual being there before death, you have to check the translation of the word 'death'. Different words are used in different places to relate a physical death, or a spiritual death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Are you in pain from all the STRETCHING you've done today???

 

<i> Let's see, how does god being PLEASED with his creation efforts contradict god NOT being pleased with his creation efforts? Hmmmmmmmm. Ya I can see the confusion there! </i>

Ok, again just for you, Freethinker... The first refers to the time directly after the

 

It really does not matter AT ALL what the time periods were. We are talking about INTERNAL CONSISTANCY of the document. If a math book said that 1+1=2 in the 1st chapter and 1+1=3 5 chapters later, it is still not internally consistant.

 

(Notice how the analogy is constructed. The two objects share the main topic in common, they are both books and the element is a specific proposition seperated by some volume of the book, thus it is a valid analogy)

 

For testing the internal consistancy of the bible, this example uses the proposition of this god being pleased with his creation. In one section god is pelased, in a later one, he is NOT pleased. INCONSTISTANT! Contradiction!

 

OK, to explore it further, how could an all powerful, OMNISCIENT being be displeased with something IT CREATED? By being Omniscient, it would KNOW EXACTLY AND PERFECTLY what every instance of this creation would be/do. The creation could not possibly do something this god did not ALREADY KNOW. Thus this god would already KNOW everything this creation would do and nothing could possibly be displeasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<i> Let's start with those that are connected to Genesis. </i> : I will complete this later, but I'm getting tired right now. So here are a few of your supposed contradictions:

 

 

<i> GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created./////

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created./////

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created./////

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.

GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. </i>

Genesis 1 is an outline of the events of creation. Genesis 2 is a detailed description of the creation of man. There is no contradiction. Genesis 1 references trees, birds, and animals all being created before man. Genesis 2:8 says that after man was created, God planted a garden, and put man there, then brought the creatures to man to be named. I'm failing to see a contradiction. One chapter is an overview, the other is a more detailed account. This is also true for man and woman. Genesis 1 says that God formed them and told them to go forth and replenish the earth. Genesis 2 is an actual description of their creation. No contradiction exists.

 

I just love the lengths an apologist will go to try and justify problems in the bible. When they like what the bible says, they are more than willing to just grab the words off the paper! But when the ACTUAL words cause them trouble, then we get all kinds of convoluted approaches. In this case, we get that one is an outline of the events of creation. and one is a detailed description of the creation of man.

 

Sounds convincing doesn't it? Only problem is no matter how you try to twist what they say, or invent a why, they each lay out a specific and detailed chain f events. They each specify a linear series of events. Thus they can be compared directly to see if it is "internally consistant". Remember those words? They are a major test of a document's truth. You don't have to compare a document to the outside world if it contradicts itself internally.

 

So let's look at each order of Creation! If they match, hey no problem!

 

Genesis 1

 

1-5 In the beginning God created the <B>heaven</B> and the <B>earth</B>... And God said, Let there be light: and there was light....And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

6-8 And God said, Let there be a <B>firmament</B> ...and divided the <B>waters</B> which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: ... And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

9-13 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the <B>dry land</B> appear: ...And God said, Let the earth bring forth <B>grass,</B> the <B>herb</B> yielding seed, and the <B>fruit tree</B> yielding fruit after his kind, ...and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in...And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

14-19 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven...And God made two great lights; the <B>greater light to rule the day</B>, and the <B>lesser light to rule the night</B>;... he made the <B>stars</B> also... And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

20-23 And God said, Let the <B>waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life</B>, and <B>fowl</B> that may fly ... And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,... and <B>every winged fowl after his kind</B>: ...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

 

24-31 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, all this fan mail! I am pages behind right now!

 

Originally posted by: ScienceGuy

It seems to me that you do not discuss possible scientific views in your posts, but rather how to contradict what everyone says.

 

I only WISH I could be having scientifically valid discussions here. I would love to explore valid substantiated assertions and concepts. And when I see them, I respond in like fashion.

 

However most of whaat is posted is argument fallacies and unsupported assertions. It's useless to try and respond in a logical manner when your responding to an illogical post. So the best we can do is try and show the poster WHY their stuff was not a logically constructed argument. And then hope they learn from it and stick to logical discourse going forward.

 

Instead I spend lots of time reposting info on ad hominems, Straw Man and Shifting the Burden of Proof.

 

I am giving you a possible solution to how the Biblical creation story could make sense given the scientific findings that we have today. They may be changed or proven wrong in the future. This explanation I have given seems more logical (to me) than a six consecutive day creation week or the evolution of every living organism by chance alone. Granted, this is my view, you don't have to believe it. I would consider any alternative you will give me based on science.

 

Well, I don't see it presented here, so I will check your earlier post

 

One more thing, God is the gaps, He is here for everything.

 

So he is NOT everywhere, just places that other things aren't! Interesting.

 

Calling the plagues and creation fairytales is based on what?

 

History. Often a good thing to base the past on. There is nothing in any local contemporary written history from the time to support the biblical claims.

 

Did you research the plagues?

 

Are you kidding? I read EVERY SINGLE CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESS text from the time that mentions it. Here is the list:

 

1)

 

:-)

 

 

Give me science to refute science, not just opinion of God or no God.

 

Give me PROOF and we can use SCIENCE on it together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: ScienceGuy

I have never posted anything in my life, but I couldn't pass this up. I have read some of the material presented in this topic. Some of the material is not worth anything, but everyone has there own views. Now I present a radical view, Everyone (almost) is right in some way. Is there a way that science (evolution) and God could coexist on the same level? Yes!

 

I already did respond to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: rileyj

i think that we did evolve but one can say that that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more.

 

I'm not sure what other game you may want to throw in here, but I will approach this directly and see. I will be busy correcting the misrepresentations.

 

I believe this is the thread in which I posted an entire list of PROVEN speciations. So it is obvious this person should already KNOW they are WRONG. That in fact speciation is a PROVEN FACT at this point.

 

So what we have here is misrepresentation. It's a Straw Man (I think I just said that was one that keeps me busy!). Ya, as long as we keep all those dogs on the same block, they will never change species! That's for sure! Case closed!

 

OK, that's out of the way. Now let's talk about EVOLUTION, instead of whatever it was the other post was pretending to talk about.

 

Evolution is based on genetic drift over relatively long period of time with a geographic seperation. With a geographically commonality, there will always be interbreeding, so the drift will aways be re-integrated into the gene pool.

 

However when you add geographical seperation to genetic drift, the two paths will eventually drift far enough apart to have resulted in seperate genetic lines that if they should cross paths again, will not develop progeny.

 

This is another part of the original misrepresentation. Evolution is NEVER about something "turning into" something else.

 

but a dog can never become anything other than a dog.

True, just like a primate can never become anything other than a primate. But one path the primate may take after an extended period of time is to the great apes of today. Another path may become a chimp. Another may become homo sapien sapien. Evolution NEVER claims that an ape turns into a man. It SHOWS that humans and apes have a common ancestry. Two very DIFFERENT things, one animal turning into another and Evolution. Let's stick to discussing Evolution on this thread. If you want to talk about magic, one animal turning into another, you can start another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: rileyj

Admitting this, evolutionists

 

This ought to be interesting.

 

Please provide some valid verifyable names of "evolutionists" (we assume you mean evolutionary biologists?) that have admitted that this is how evolution works, first of all.

 

Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code.

 

Also provide a list of verifyable Evolutionary Biologists that agree that ALL "alterations to the genetic cod" are "harmful alterations".

 

I realize that Evolution is much harder to argue against if you stick with what Evolution ACTUALLY IS. But it is the only way we can have a valid discussion.

 

Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop,

 

Ah we are getting closer to current science, FINALLY!

 

The 2nd law was adopted in the mid 1800's, around the time if the US civil war. It is based on studying the interaction of various gasses in GLASS JARS. That is why all of the laws of thermodynamics are only valid when used in a "closed" system. e.g. the Law of Entropy (the 2nd law) would say that a seed can;t grow into a plant. After all, a 100 ft tree is a lot more organized (has less entropy) than the original seed it came from. But the earth is NOT a "closed system". It get's energy from outside of it. This allows an increase complexity, decrease in entropy.

 

Unless you are able to prove that the universe is a closed system, you can not apply the 2nd law to it. And we KNOW the earth is NOT a closed system. Or we'd lose all of our shade trees!

 

so evolution has to be taken by faith just like a god, unless you have something that show it to be true freethinker.

 

By now, you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...