[_ Old Earth _] myths of evolution

[Guest]

Does evolution =creationism? If not, then it =atheism. Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both. And since Jesus is the Word, then you either believe he is telling the truth or is a liar. So which is it? :-?

So how could we have evolved from animals if we were created as our own separate species?

Evolution to some may equal creationism if they view evolution as how life diversified after God created life. Or maybe believe God created the program for the universe; started the program with the Big Bang and then let it run.

That passage seems to contradict some other more tolerant teachings of Jesus.

 

[Heidi]

Does evolution =creationism? If not, then it =atheism. Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both. And since Jesus is the Word, then you either believe he is telling the truth or is a liar. So which is it? :-?

So how could we have evolved from animals if we were created as our own separate species?

Evolution to some may equal creationism if they view evolution as how life diversified after God created life. Or maybe believe God created the program for the universe; started the program with the Big Bang and then let it run.

That passage seems to contradict some other more tolerant teachings of Jesus.

It doesn't appear that you've read Genesis. It says that God created the animals each to his own kind. Therefore, then how could any of us have evolved from a different species? :o

And as for toleration, please read the 7 woes in Matthew and how Jesus talked to false teachers.

 

[Guest]

It doesn't appear that you've read Genesis. It says that God created the animals each to his own kind. Therefore, then how could any of us have evolved from a different species? :o

And as for toleration, please read the 7 woes in Matthew and how Jesus talked to false teachers.

It appears you don't understand that Genesis could be viewed as allegorical and not literal. God could have left out the details of how animals including humans evolved in favor of a more entertaining allegorical summary of Creation.

And he also said things more tolerant things like:

"Who art thou that judgest another?"

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

"Love your enemies."

"Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

It seems to be contradictory for him to say these things and say things like "He who is not with me is against me."

 

[bibleberean]

Jesus took Genesis literal. His fleshly lineage was traced back to Adam.

This isn't "rocket science"...

God took the first woman from Adam's rib. That is the way it is.

Undermine Genesis and every Christian doctrine is invalid...

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

"Eve was the mother of all living."

Man did not evolve.

Man was created...

 

[Frost Giant]

There's no evidence of that and it wasn't concieved by looking at the evidence and forming a hypothesis and thus will never be science.

 

[Solo]

There's no evidence of that and it wasn't concieved by looking at the evidence and forming a hypothesis and thus will never be science.

Science is much more capable than evolutionists give it credit. Evolutionists hide their false belief system behind science while science is the actual observation tool within the realm of the physical creation. False philosophy fuels evolution, and it is conjectured by those of that faith to be backed with empirical data that can only be seen by their faith.

 

[reznwerks]

idea

[

Science is much more capable than evolutionists give it credit. Evolutionists hide their false belief system behind science while science is the actual observation tool within the realm of the physical creation. False philosophy fuels evolution, and it is conjectured by those of that faith to be backed with empirical data that can only be seen by their faith.

On the contrary evolutionists depend on science for their conclusions. Evolutionist have no false belief. They , like scientists take the evidence , make the hypothesis and draw a conclusion. Theists on the other hand have already come to a conclusion and are still looking for the evidence. If anyone lacks empiracal data it is ID'rs as they have been repeatedly challenged to come to the party but never show up.

 

[Solo]

Re: idea

[

Science is much more capable than evolutionists give it credit. Evolutionists hide their false belief system behind science while science is the actual observation tool within the realm of the physical creation. False philosophy fuels evolution, and it is conjectured by those of that faith to be backed with empirical data that can only be seen by their faith.

On the contrary evolutionists depend on science for their conclusions. Evolutionist have no false belief. They , like scientists take the evidence , make the hypothesis and draw a conclusion. Theists on the other hand have already come to a conclusion and are still looking for the evidence. If anyone lacks empiracal data it is ID'rs as they have been repeatedly challenged to come to the party but never show up.

Your scientific inquiry must align with the faith of evolution, otherwise you label the science a pseudo science. The same evidence exists for creationists and evolutionists, the difference is in the interpretation which is dependent upon the faith of the observer. Evolutionists have placed their faith in the works of man and draw conclusions based on this faith. They do not see that dating methods are in error for it would throw their faith in evolution into the toilet, so they make excuses for the dating methods and continue on. Also, the evolutionists faith do not allow them to make suppositions apart from evolution for it would be denying their faith. A hypothesis that the speed of creation may have been at such a rate of speed that todays speed of light is miniscule compared to the beginning of creation. There is no creation in an evolutionists mind, therefore any of their speculations must be curtailed short of the possibility, bringing about a false foundation of study. Evolutionists have a faith in themselves and their doctrines of scientific thought as gods and creators of their environment. Silly but true.

 

[hansbrix]

Your scientific inquiry must align with the faith of evolution, otherwise you label the science a pseudo science. The same evidence exists for creationists and evolutionists, the difference is in the interpretation which is dependent upon the faith of the observer. Evolutionists have placed their faith in the works of man and draw conclusions based on this faith. They do not see that dating methods are in error for it would throw their faith in evolution into the toilet, so they make excuses for the dating methods and continue on. Also, the evolutionists faith do not allow them to make suppositions apart from evolution for it would be denying their faith. A hypothesis that the speed of creation may have been at such a rate of speed that todays speed of light is miniscule compared to the beginning of creation. There is no creation in an evolutionists mind, therefore any of their speculations must be curtailed short of the possibility, bringing about a false foundation of study. Evolutionists have a faith in themselves and their doctrines of scientific thought as gods and creators of their environment. Silly but true.

If creationism was the hypothesis that best fit the evidence, it would be the generally accepted one in scientific circles. Quoting from Wikipedia, science is "a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism aimed at finding out the truth." It has no bias or agenda, other than the seeking of (physical) truths.

I understand that you're suggesting that evolution is bad science; that proponents of evolution ignore evidence that clearly refutes it. You are suggesting that they have faith in the theory of evolution, and are invested in this belief to the point where they would ignore evidence to the contrary for the sake of being able to maintain their belief.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Here's why: A scientist (I'm generalising here) is primarily a seeker of the truth in the physical world. Their "belief", if you can call it that, extends as far as noting which hypothesis appears to best fit the evidence. If a new hypothesis better fits the evidence, the scientist happily changes her "belief" because the new hypothesis is more likely to represent the truth. To the scientist, ignoring evidence which points to the truth is completely antithetical to their nature. You're suggesting that the vast majority of the scientific community has wilfully ignored evidence that clearly refutes evolution. This is not a rational position. And, I have to admit, I rather value rationality in these kinds of discussions.

 

[Solo]

Your scientific inquiry must align with the faith of evolution, otherwise you label the science a pseudo science. The same evidence exists for creationists and evolutionists, the difference is in the interpretation which is dependent upon the faith of the observer. Evolutionists have placed their faith in the works of man and draw conclusions based on this faith. They do not see that dating methods are in error for it would throw their faith in evolution into the toilet, so they make excuses for the dating methods and continue on. Also, the evolutionists faith do not allow them to make suppositions apart from evolution for it would be denying their faith. A hypothesis that the speed of creation may have been at such a rate of speed that todays speed of light is miniscule compared to the beginning of creation. There is no creation in an evolutionists mind, therefore any of their speculations must be curtailed short of the possibility, bringing about a false foundation of study. Evolutionists have a faith in themselves and their doctrines of scientific thought as gods and creators of their environment. Silly but true.

If creationism was the hypothesis that best fit the evidence, it would be the generally accepted one in scientific circles. Quoting from Wikipedia, science is "a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism aimed at finding out the truth." It has no bias or agenda, other than the seeking of (physical) truths.

I understand that you're suggesting that evolution is bad science; that proponents of evolution ignore evidence that clearly refutes it. You are suggesting that they have faith in the theory of evolution, and are invested in this belief to the point where they would ignore evidence to the contrary for the sake of being able to maintain their belief.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Here's why: A scientist (I'm generalising here) is primarily a seeker of the truth in the physical world. Their "belief", if you can call it that, extends as far as noting which hypothesis appears to best fit the evidence. If a new hypothesis better fits the evidence, the scientist happily changes her "belief" because the new hypothesis is more likely to represent the truth. To the scientist, ignoring evidence which points to the truth is completely antithetical to their nature. You're suggesting that the vast majority of the scientific community has wilfully ignored evidence that clearly refutes evolution. This is not a rational position. And, I have to admit, I rather value rationality in these kinds of discussions.

With that understanding then you believe that the majority of the politicians are in the political field for the people and not any personal motives such as cash, influence, fame, etc.

You also negate an individual's worldview as being biased when observing various empirical data, the same data the creation scientists view in making their hypothesis and theories. If evolutionists do not believe in God's creation as described in his word, then they are in short supply of a reason for our existance unless they fabricate another philosophy.

 

[hansbrix]

With that understanding then you believe that the majority of the politicians are in the political field for the people and not any personal motives such as cash, influence, fame, etc.

I'm suggesting that the majority of scientists are "seekers of the truth". It's a personality trait. Do you disagree with this assessment?

It's entirely irrelevant whether the actions and motives of politicians do or don't match up with what they're supposed to be doing.

You also negate an individual's worldview as being biased when observing various empirical data, the same data the creation scientists view in making their hypothesis and theories. If evolutionists do not believe in God's creation as described in his word, then they are in short supply of a reason for our existance unless they fabricate another philosophy.

On the contrary, I do not negate the possibility of individual bias at all. You appear to have missed the part where I specified that I was generalising when saying the scientist is a seeker of the truth. There are, of course, individuals who are biased and who wilfully overlook the truth in favour of maintaining their existing belief. To suggest that the vast majority of scientists do this is absurd. You may not know a lot of scientifically minded people, but I do, and I can tell you with assurance that if there is one thing they hate, it's bias that distorts the truth.

 

[Solo]

With that understanding then you believe that the majority of the politicians are in the political field for the people and not any personal motives such as cash, influence, fame, etc.

I'm suggesting that the majority of scientists are "seekers of the truth". It's a personality trait. Do you disagree with this assessment?

It's entirely irrelevant whether the actions and motives of politicians do or don't match up with what they're supposed to be doing.

You also negate an individual's worldview as being biased when observing various empirical data, the same data the creation scientists view in making their hypothesis and theories. If evolutionists do not believe in God's creation as described in his word, then they are in short supply of a reason for our existance unless they fabricate another philosophy.

On the contrary, I do not negate the possibility of individual bias at all. You appear to have missed the part where I specified that I was generalising when saying the scientist is a seeker of the truth. There are, of course, individuals who are biased and who wilfully overlook the truth in favour of maintaining their existing belief. To suggest that the vast majority of scientists do this is absurd. You may not know a lot of scientifically minded people, but I do, and I can tell you with assurance that if there is one thing they hate, it's bias that distorts the truth.

What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from?

 

[hansbrix]

With that understanding then you believe that the majority of the politicians are in the political field for the people and not any personal motives such as cash, influence, fame, etc.

I'm suggesting that the majority of scientists are "seekers of the truth". It's a personality trait. Do you disagree with this assessment?

It's entirely irrelevant whether the actions and motives of politicians do or don't match up with what they're supposed to be doing.

You also negate an individual's worldview as being biased when observing various empirical data, the same data the creation scientists view in making their hypothesis and theories. If evolutionists do not believe in God's creation as described in his word, then they are in short supply of a reason for our existance unless they fabricate another philosophy.

On the contrary, I do not negate the possibility of individual bias at all. You appear to have missed the part where I specified that I was generalising when saying the scientist is a seeker of the truth. There are, of course, individuals who are biased and who wilfully overlook the truth in favour of maintaining their existing belief. To suggest that the vast majority of scientists do this is absurd. You may not know a lot of scientifically minded people, but I do, and I can tell you with assurance that if there is one thing they hate, it's bias that distorts the truth.

What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from?

Would you mind answering my question first? I bolded it.

I ask not to be rude, but for the sake of having a thorough discussion. I'd hate to have any relevant points ignored.

 

[Solo]

With that understanding then you believe that the majority of the politicians are in the political field for the people and not any personal motives such as cash, influence, fame, etc.

I'm suggesting that the majority of scientists are "seekers of the truth". It's a personality trait. Do you disagree with this assessment?

It's entirely irrelevant whether the actions and motives of politicians do or don't match up with what they're supposed to be doing.

You also negate an individual's worldview as being biased when observing various empirical data, the same data the creation scientists view in making their hypothesis and theories. If evolutionists do not believe in God's creation as described in his word, then they are in short supply of a reason for our existance unless they fabricate another philosophy.

On the contrary, I do not negate the possibility of individual bias at all. You appear to have missed the part where I specified that I was generalising when saying the scientist is a seeker of the truth. There are, of course, individuals who are biased and who wilfully overlook the truth in favour of maintaining their existing belief. To suggest that the vast majority of scientists do this is absurd. You may not know a lot of scientifically minded people, but I do, and I can tell you with assurance that if there is one thing they hate, it's bias that distorts the truth.

What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from?

Would you mind answering my question first? I bolded it.

I ask not to be rude, but for the sake of having a thorough discussion. I'd hate to have any relevant points ignored.

Scientists seek truth as it relates to their philisophical understanding and position in life. I would partially agree that "It" is a personality trait if by that you mean that their personality trait depends upon their bias. Man's nature tends to lead them to the position in life where their desires lead them. The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil. I have seen the temptation of the LOVE of money ruin many a good lives.

What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from?

 

[hansbrix]

Scientists seek truth as it relates to their philisophical understanding and position in life. I would partially agree that "It" is a personality trait if by that you mean that their personality trait depends upon their bias. Man's nature tends to lead them to the position in life where their desires lead them. The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil. I have seen the temptation of the LOVE of money ruin many a good lives.

What bias are you talking about? Like I said, scientifically minded people like to be as unbiased and objective as possible. Furthermore, how can a personality trait of "being a seeker of the truth" depend upon a bias?

What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from?

You'll have to be more specific. My bias in relation to what?

 

[Solo]

Scientists seek truth as it relates to their philisophical understanding and position in life. I would partially agree that "It" is a personality trait if by that you mean that their personality trait depends upon their bias. Man's nature tends to lead them to the position in life where their desires lead them. The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil. I have seen the temptation of the LOVE of money ruin many a good lives.

What bias are you talking about? Like I said, scientifically minded people like to be as unbiased and objective as possible. Furthermore, how can a personality trait of "being a seeker of the truth" depend upon a bias?

What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from?

You'll have to be more specific. My bias in relation to what?

Scientists that believe in creation and God's ability to do as he says see the physical evidence that is in scientific realms differently than do the scientists that do not believe in creation and God; therefore the conclusions based on the empirical data are not the same. Those who have the bias that God exists and He created the heavens, earth and all life after its kind see the scientific evidence differently than those who have the bias that God does not exist and the heavens, earth, and life evolved from a physical evolutionary manner.

Therefore your bias, or worldview, would be that God exists and created the heavens, earth, and life forms after their kind, or your bias would be that God does not exist and the heavens, earth, and life forms just came into being somehow.

Another bias is that there is a God and He created the heavens and the earth, but life just came into being and evolved through billions of years to the point where we have the various forms of life that we do today.

Therefore, my question is, What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from? Was your bias established at home, at school, at work, at church, at synagog, at temple, at drug store, etc. ?

Thanks

 

[hansbrix]

Scientists that believe in creation and God's ability to do as he says see the physical evidence that is in scientific realms differently than do the scientists that do not believe in creation and God; therefore the conclusions based on the empirical data are not the same.

I completely disagree with you on this point. Generally speaking, if they are indeed scientists, their conclusions about the physical world will be derived from the evidence. Not from their pre-existing beliefs. Of course, some individuals' biases will colour their conclusions, but peer review effectively negates these individual biases. So, a scientist that believes in creation might analyse the evidence and conclude that evolution appears to be true, however they may or may not believe that, depending upon how that fits with their pre-existing beliefs about creation. This doesn't mean that they were biased in how they saw and analysed the evidence.

Those who have the bias that God exists and He created the heavens, earth and all life after its kind see the scientific evidence differently than those who have the bias that God does not exist and the heavens, earth, and life evolved from a physical evolutionary manner.

Therefore your bias, or worldview, would be that God exists and created the heavens, earth, and life forms after their kind, or your bias would be that God does not exist and the heavens, earth, and life forms just came into being somehow.

Another bias is that there is a God and He created the heavens and the earth, but life just came into being and evolved through billions of years to the point where we have the various forms of life that we do today.

Therefore, my question is, What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from? Was your bias established at home, at school, at work, at church, at synagog, at temple, at drug store, etc. ?

Funnily enough, I don't think I have any of those biases you listed.

 

[Solo]

Scientists that believe in creation and God's ability to do as he says see the physical evidence that is in scientific realms differently than do the scientists that do not believe in creation and God; therefore the conclusions based on the empirical data are not the same.

I completely disagree with you on this point. Generally speaking, if they are indeed scientists, their conclusions about the physical world will be derived from the evidence. Not from their pre-existing beliefs. Of course, some individuals' biases will colour their conclusions, but peer review effectively negates these individual biases. So, a scientist that believes in creation might analyse the evidence and conclude that evolution appears to be true, however they may or may not believe that, depending upon how that fits with their pre-existing beliefs about creation. This doesn't mean that they were biased in how they saw and analysed the evidence.

Those who have the bias that God exists and He created the heavens, earth and all life after its kind see the scientific evidence differently than those who have the bias that God does not exist and the heavens, earth, and life evolved from a physical evolutionary manner.

Therefore your bias, or worldview, would be that God exists and created the heavens, earth, and life forms after their kind, or your bias would be that God does not exist and the heavens, earth, and life forms just came into being somehow.

Another bias is that there is a God and He created the heavens and the earth, but life just came into being and evolved through billions of years to the point where we have the various forms of life that we do today.

Therefore, my question is, What is your philisophical bias and where did you derive that bias from? Was your bias established at home, at school, at work, at church, at synagog, at temple, at drug store, etc. ?

Funnily enough, I don't think I have any of those biases you listed.

Perhaps you would be so kind as describing your bias. I discern that you are pro-evolution, therefore you either believe in God or you do not believe in God. I may have missed a bias here but it seems that I have all of them covered.

 

[hansbrix]

Perhaps you would be so kind as describing your bias. I discern that you are pro-evolution, therefore you either believe in God or you do not believe in God. I may have missed a bias here but it seems that I have all of them covered.

You may indeed have all of them covered, and yet I don't think I fit under any of them. I suppose the conclusion would be that I'm unbiased! :P I don't actually presume to make that claim, though.

As far as belief in God goes (whether that constitutes a bias WRT examining evidence is debatable), I have no belief that God exists, and no belief that he doesn't exist. Quite simply, I don't know, or have reason to believe one way or the other, so I don't.

 

[Solo]

Perhaps you would be so kind as describing your bias. I discern that you are pro-evolution, therefore you either believe in God or you do not believe in God. I may have missed a bias here but it seems that I have all of them covered.

You may indeed have all of them covered, and yet I don't think I fit under any of them. I suppose the conclusion would be that I'm unbiased! :P I don't actually presume to make that claim, though.

As far as belief in God goes (as to whether that constitutes a bias WRT examining evidence is debatable), I have no belief that God exists, and no belief that he doesn't exist. Quite simply, I don't know, or have reason to believe one way or the other, so I don't.

Then you believe in evolution as you read and believe the authors of your trusted books, and do not know if God exists or not. I would say that your bias would be that of an agnostic evolutionist whereby any creation scientist's conclusion of the empirical evidence would be less believed than an evolutionist's conclusion of the same empirical evidence. A fourth bias defined. Thank you.

Now with this bias, or your lack of one, where would you say that you derived this bias from?