Jump to content

Creationist Vs Evolutionary Theory


Colin
 Share

Recommended Posts

PeerieBryan

 

the scientist can try to prove all they want, but the fact is they never will have proof or conclusive evidence of the origins of the universe. So their mission to "seek proof" is futile.

Why are you so sure that there will never be conclusive evidence or proof of the origin of the universe? The progress we've made in understanding the universe has been exponential if you compare the last few centuries to the age of mankind. With increasingly sophisticated theories, techniques and instrumentation, I see no reason why we won't, or how you can categorically state that we never will

 

I certainly don't think that "to seek proof is futile", whether we find it or not. That's what drives progress and understanding

 

A.W. Tozer - "To seek proof is to admit doubt, and to obtain proof is to render faith superfluous"

 

the only difference between the two is the scientist wants while the christian doesnt need is what your saying.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I refer you to my previous posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually I think you'll find every Christian is "Seeking", they have decided that in their eyes the proof of the bibile is enough for them. Just like the scientist who sees the universe expanding is enough evidence of the big bag.

 

Seek and ye shall find? To be ruthlessly pedantic you might more accurately say that christians have sought and found and as a consequence of their 'finding' they are no longer 'seeking'.

 

Now, you might equally apply this to world views which are based on empirical observation. Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world - as well as many non scientific ones - remain attached to theories when the weight of evidence has shifted against them. Many might choose to call this faith - I'm inclined to call it pigheadedness.

 

The difference is, of course, that the latter scenario deals with observable evidence. It might be ignored, thwarted, distorted or denounced as heresy but somewhere down the line it can be picked up again and shown to be either correct or incorrect. Not a process which can be applied to faith. Consequently scientific theories and religious belief, in their purest form, have absolutely nothing in common and to actually compare the two, is to fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent, one or both.

 

Richard Dawkins characterises this by saying, 'I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world'. Personally, I'm satisfied with not understanding great parts of the world but that reflects my lack of academic rigour rather than any beatific religiosity on my part.

 

Regardless; historically scientists have made leaps of logic based on all sorts of impetus', you might call these leaps of faith, but largely they are temporary and subject to dispute. As peeriebryan says, just because something is not yet proven doesn't mean it can't be and, at the end of the day, the difference between religious faith and scientific knowledge is not one of product, but one of process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think you'll find every Christian is "Seeking", they have decided that in their eyes the proof of the bibile is enough for them. Just like the scientist who sees the universe expanding is enough evidence of the big bag.

There's more evidence of the Big Bang than that - what about the cosmic microwave background ? Predicted on the basis of Big Bang theory in 1948, detected in 1965. Observations of the relative abundance of helium, deuterium and lithium, and the distribution and morphology of galaxies are also support the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more evidence of the Big Bang than that - what about the cosmic microwave background ?..........

 

EvilInky

 

I agree with you completey, there are many peices of evidence which could be used to compliment the big bang theory, however in the interests of this discussion and forum in general, I decided not to present all the existing evidence and experiments, instead opting for one well known theory, thus saving precious time and forum space. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well what about those who believe that god intelligently designed the big bang, and left the rest up to physics and nature, what is their purpose in science?

 

Right so the creationist/scientist is seeking truth in the rest of the universe appart from the big bang because he thinks or knows that god did that bit. Can he be doing this? No he can't, science rules that you must be seeking truth in everything, even the origins of the universe. Where is his place?

 

By your reasoning PeerieBryan there is no place for this attitude, but clearly there are those who do believe and practice this. So there must be a crossing point somewhere between science and religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your reasoning PeerieBryan there is no place for this attitude, but clearly there are those who do believe and practice this. So there must be a crossing point somewhere between science and religion.

 

Indeed. Religion is good for answering questions like "how many angels can dance on a head of a pin ?", and "should I stone my neighbour to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath ?". Science is good for answering questions about things that actually matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same logic Evil-inky, science is good for killing people in multitudinously horrific ways, like radiation poisoning and napalm and answering questions like "is an apple a day good for you? (yes, and no!) whilst religion is good for things like not working 7 days a week and healing the sick rather than let them die. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that question you have quoted me on, was infact directed at PeerieBryan, and, or someone with an answer or suggestion that would be in context to my suggestion, compliment the debate in a way that would continue its development, and in fact did make some sort of sense.

In your opinion ( as you would say :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl Sagan famously declared that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This profound truth is a key that frees us from religion’s shackles, since each faith lacks the requisite evidence to substantiate its fantastical claims. Sagan’s oft-quoted observation is self-evident, given humankind’s abundant, demonstrable fallibility. With that in mind, ten simple requests for the Christian faithful follow.

 

 

1. Present extraordinary evidence for Jesus' bodily resurrection.

 

2. Present extraordinary evidence that Jesus was born asexually (of a virgin).

 

3. Present extraordinary evidence that some Biblical characters, such as Adam and Noah, lived in excess of 900 years.

 

4. Present extraordinary evidence that immaterial “souls†haunt our carcasses.

 

5. Present extraordinary evidence that human consciousness survives death, passing to another world of some sort.

 

6. Present extraordinary evidence that Yahweh exists, to the exclusion of other god characters.

 

7. Present extraordinary evidence that there was a cataclysmic flood as described by the Bible.

 

8. Present extraordinary evidence that evolution—the cornerstone of modern biology—fundamentally is incorrect.

 

9. Present extraordinary evidence that “miracles†are possible, let alone actually have occurred.

 

10. Present extraordinary evidence that serpents and donkeys can speak in human language, whether by Yahweh’s help or of their own linguistic ingenuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's wildly tangential JAS, we are debating the subject of creation vs evolution, which to broaden the subject again, is not in any ways reliant on christianity vs science most of the aboriginal cultures of the worls have a creation myth/legend.

 

The existance of any tangible 'creator' within that is relevant, but "Is christianity provable" is a bit of a tangent.

 

The meanings of the metaphors, allegories and misinterpretations in the bible is a fascinating subject, but a very convoluted one to throw ito this debate.

 

Or perhaps i should have just said: Wrong wrong wrong wrong! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...