Evolution versus Creationism

Evolution or Creationism?


  • Total voters
    174
not every little detail has to be known to know something is true. As a man of science, you should be one to know this.
Yeah, but you still should have a reason. ;)


So, does you have one?
 
Yeah, but you still should have a reason. ;)
So, does you have one?
if I were to give you a system of equations, containing 26 variables, and told you that you have 1 minute to solve for all the variables, you almost definately wouldn't be able to do it.

If I were to give you all the answers to the variables, you probably would only be able to check a few, even at that. If you knew those few answers (that you checked) I gave you were right, shouldn't you be able to assume that the rest of the answers are right without having to check them to know for a fact?

same idea applies here. I believe one thing is fact, what I told you before. Therefore, shouldn't everything that goes with it be fact also, because it is a part of it? Why should I burden myself with understanding the most complex things first, when I can try to understand the simple things, and just know everything else is how it is while I do it?
 
Yeah, but you've given me no rationale whatsoever for your whole, the universe must be just, thang.
like I just said, I believe in what I have talked about before, prior to the whole "justice" thing. As the universe being a just place goes along with the whole of what I said before, it must be true despite me not knowing for a fact how it works or why it is the way it is.

If statement A is true, and statement B and C explain statement A, shouldn't statements B and C be true also?
 
like I just said, I believe in what I have talked about before, prior to the whole "justice" thing. As the universe being a just place goes along with the whole of what I said before, it must be true despite me not knowing for a fact how it works or why it is the way it is.

If statement A is true, and statement B and C explain statement A, shouldn't statements B and C be true also?
No, it doesn't work like that.
 
My belief in the creator-God of Genesis is compatible with the theory of evolution. Genesis says man was created from dust. How do we know there weren't steps in between?

I don't know all the details of how God created the world. Here's the thing: It doesn't matter! To demand of God that we understand perfectly his work in creation is a cosmic level of arrogance.
 
lIf statement A is true, and statement B and C explain statement A, shouldn't statements B and C be true also?
Not really.

And are you saying that a just universe explains God? :confused:
 
My belief in the creator-God of Genesis is compatible with the theory of evolution. Genesis says man was created from dust. How do we know there weren't steps in between?
Quite a change since the visit to the creationist museum, eh? Despite our arrogance, don't give up learning about biology, since we have a paucity of biological understanding in today's society.
To demand of God that we understand perfectly his work in creation is a cosmic level of arrogance.
But the flip-side of that is to insist that we be satisfied to remain in ignorance. How can satisfaction with ignorance be better than dissatisfaction with ignorance, and then replacing it with knowledge?
 
But why assume God did anything if there are other reasons that have been proven that account for everything?
really? so how did life originate on Earth?

if cells can only come from other cells, where did the first cell come from?
Not really.
And are you saying that a just universe explains God? :confused:
well... I know I implied that, but that isn't what I was trying to get across.
ok... how about this.
Person A has never told a lie. He never will tell a lie. He says one statement that makes sense to you, and you agree that it is fact. He says another statement that you don't quite get, but you know its true because you know he won't lie at all.
That is what I'm trying to say, that I believe this overall picture is correct, but there are a few parts of that picture that I still don't understand completely enough to defend WHY they are correct.

and I'm just curious... going back to my statement thing. What is your logic as to why statements B & C don't have to be correct if statement A is and they explain it
 
But the flip-side of that is to insist that we be satisfied to remain in ignorance. How can satisfaction with ignorance be better than dissatisfaction with ignorance, and then replacing it with knowledge?
if you believe that believing in God means to remain ignorant to the deep matters of science, you are mistaken my friend
 
if you believe that believing in God means to remain ignorant to the deep matters of science, you are mistaken my friend

True that, but that still won't make creationism a science.
 
really? so how did life originate on Earth?

if cells can only come from other cells, where did the first cell come from?
Wiki has a good overview. I don't know for certain, but "god did it" isn't a good explanation.
:king:

well... I know I implied that, but that isn't what I was trying to get across.
ok... how about this.
Person A has never told a lie. He never will tell a lie. He says one statement that makes sense to you, and you agree that it is fact. He says another statement that you don't quite get, but you know its true because you know he won't lie at all.
That is what I'm trying to say, that I believe this overall picture is correct, but there are a few parts of that picture that I still don't understand completely enough to defend WHY they are correct.

and I'm just curious... going back to my statement thing. What is your logic as to why statements B & C don't have to be correct if statement A is and they explain it
It doesn't work that way.
 
Wiki has a good overview. I don't know for certain, but "god did it" isn't a good explanation.
:king:
so you believe that atoms just randomly aligned to form something, and those atoms that randomly aligned SOMEHOW gained life, and those atoms worked together in the primative Earth surviving against the odds the harsh conditions to form more and more of them, until mutations caused them to become multi-cellular organisms? Those are A LOT of unlikely circumstances to occur simultaneously for life to arise and flourish

It doesn't work that way.
I know you say that... I'm asking you to back up that opinion
 
Stop telling me what you think I believe. I am not a Deist... and I know what it is thank you very much.
 
really? so how did life originate on Earth?

if cells can only come from other cells, where did the first cell come from?
Cells don't only come from other cells, I guess!

well... I know I implied that, but that isn't what I was trying to get across.
ok... how about this.
Person A has never told a lie. He never will tell a lie. He says one statement that makes sense to you, and you agree that it is fact. He says another statement that you don't quite get, but you know its true because you know he won't lie at all.
That is what I'm trying to say, that I believe this overall picture is correct, but there are a few parts of that picture that I still don't understand completely enough to defend WHY they are correct.
That's fine, but why do you think that the existence of a law above God making the universe just should be part of the picture?

and I'm just curious... going back to my statement thing. What is your logic as to why statements B & C don't have to be correct if statement A is and they explain it
"Explain" is too loose of a word for formal logical argumentation, so you'd have to elaborate on which sense you are talking about when you mean explain before I can tell you why it fails. (I can think of some senses where they your proposition could always be true, but I would then say that you haven't shown the existence of a law above God making the universe just to be an explanation)
 
Back
Top Bottom