If Evolution was proven to be a fact 100% would there still be creatonists?

[pboily]

You're not answering the OP with a proper reverse analogy. See, I'd kill you. Then there wouldn't be any non-Christians. So, if God was proven to be true, there would only be Christians ... left.

Eventually, I will die. Knowing now full well that I would not convert to Christianity, the event of my death would not change the fact that the existence of God would not have changed my religious affiliation. Errr.. I'm confusing myself.

Mr. Do said it best. While I could not deny the existence of God if it was shown to exist, I could very well deny the teachings of Christianity. Similarly, a creationist would not need to live his life according to Evolution if the latter was proven.

 

[El_Machinae]

While I could not deny the existence of God if it was shown to exist, I could very well deny the teachings of Christianity.

Ah, see, for me to 'believe' that God existed, I would need to know all the reasoning behind the Christian teachings. And I'm sure that will full illumination they would make perfect sense.

And once they made perfect sense, I would be honor-bound to follow them.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The isrealites had enough problems on thier hand at that time. What would compel them to come to north america when they never even knew it existed or heard of its location.

And the book of the mormons is a phony piece of biased crap. Its like using the bible as a source to prove creatonism.

A) Precisely because Israel was having so many problems. A family went out in the desert (as some were prone to do) to escape the sack of Jerusalem, then God led them to North America from there. If one is unwilling to accept the existence of God, then the Book of mormon is just one of lots of things that must be rejected. If one can believe in God, one can believe that God could do this.

B) I'm not using the Book of Mormon to "prove" anything, except specific questions regarding the Book of Mormon itself. I told you, I have a good reason to believe its truth. But this is completely personal and subjective, and I can't use it to convince anyone else.

What do you mean it is biased, beyond the fact that any book that makes an argument is biased?

 

[Bluemofia]

I of course beileve in evolution 100% but i find the religious zeal of some people is so oblivious to science that even if certain crucial things were proven to not be the work of god they wouldnt beileve it.

So do you think there would still be a large amount of creatonists if evolution was proven to be a fact 100%?

Oh! I just remembered!

There are still people who believe that the world is flat. As in, a plate, non spherical.

And they support their arguement with the Bible, and that Columbus used "a complex system of mirrors and a few burlap sacks" to make it appear that he traveled around the world.

 

[Xanikk999]

A) Precisely because Israel was having so many problems. A family went out in the desert (as some were prone to do) to escape the sack of Jerusalem, then God led them to North America from there. If one is unwilling to accept the existence of God, then the Book of mormon is just one of lots of things that must be rejected. If one can believe in God, one can believe that God could do this.

B) I'm not using the Book of Mormon to "prove" anything, except specific questions regarding the Book of Mormon itself. I told you, I have a good reason to believe its truth. But this is completely personal and subjective, and I can't use it to convince anyone else.

What do you mean it is biased, beyond the fact that any book that makes an argument is biased?

A: Why would they even go as far as north america? They could occupy parts of africa with little or no resistence from tribes at the time. Thats assuming god actually told them anything.

B: The book is biased because its written by someone who does not have any sources. Its pure belief and conjecture.

And as you said before the israelites had no evidence left behind in north america. So where would they get this books information from?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

A: Why would they even go as far as north america? They could occupy parts of africa with little or no resistence from tribes at the time. Thats assuming god actually told them anything.

B: The book is biased because its written by someone who does not have any sources. Its pure belief and conjecture.

And as you said before the israelites had no evidence left behind in north america. So where would they get this books information from?

It's quite simple. They went to North America because that's where God directed them to go.

And they left a record of their history in this hemisphere. It was found and translated by Joseph Smith, through the power of God.

It is explicitly religious and depends on the existence of God. But like I said, if you believe that God exists, there is no reason you can't believe that God did this. If you don't, there is no reason to single this out when all sacred writings are false.

 

[Xanikk999]

It's quite simple. They went to North America because that's where God directed them to go.

And they left a record of their history in this hemisphere. It was found and translated by Joseph Smith, through the power of God.

It is explicitly religious and depends on the existence of God. But like I said, if you believe that God exists, there is no reason you can't believe that God did this. If you don't, there is no reason to single this out when all sacred writings are false.

What record did they leave? Give me a source from an unbiased website like wikipedia. I dont beileve this for a second.

 

[pboily]

Ah, see, for me to 'believe' that God existed, I would need to know all the reasoning behind the Christian teachings. And I'm sure that will full illumination they would make perfect sense.

And once they made perfect sense, I would be honor-bound to follow them.

I sense you are already close to the border between belief and non-belief, then.

And I find your spelling of honour damn-near treacherous

 

[El_Machinae]

What? Certainly not. There are a HOST of miracles that I would not accept as 'proof'. Certainly not the parting of the Red Sea or a bunch of meteors hitting my lawn stating "Jesus Loves You"

(Although, it can be true that I actually am close. I believe that it's possible to believe in God after a sharp blow with a hammer ... so I guess that could happen to me)

I feel I'm holding the bar higher than a lot of people.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What record did they leave? Give me a source from an unbiased website like wikipedia. I dont beileve this for a second.

You are completely and entirely missing the point. The Book of Mormon is the source I have. It has not been scientifically or historically validated or proven, but it is not meant to be. It is a matter of faith that can only be established between an individual and God.

I am not trying to prove its accuracy, nor am I trying to prove anything else by assuming its accuracy. I believe it to be the word of God. I do not say that it therefore scientifically proves that there were descendants of Israelites in the New World before Columbus. You don't have to believe it, because like I said it is a matter of faith.

By the way, I think this is the attitude more people should have towards the Bible. Then we wouldn't have this Creationist controversy.

 

[Masquerouge]

What record did they leave? Give me a source from an unbiased website like wikipedia. I dont beileve this for a second.

Of course you don't. I think that's the whole of EoA's point : either you believe in God and in Joseph Smith, in which case you believe that Israeli people came across the ocean to America, or you don't, in which case you will think the whole thing makes no sense, just like what you're doing right now.

 

[shadow2k]

Aren't Mormons the ones who believe J.Smith found all those texts on some gold tablets or something that got lost again?

What does the source matter anyway? Say someone found the Ark of the Covenant, and inside was the ten commandments. What was the source, God? How is that any more credible? Because it's an older story? Because it's been written down far more times, and more people believe it?

What the source of the NT? It was from men, from the deciphels, from Jesus, from God.

What's the source of the Qur'an? It was revealed to Mohammed by God.

It all comes down to the source being God at one point or another. So you either believe, or you don't. Just because the source of some of them are older doesn't make them any more valid.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Aren't Mormons the ones who believe J.Smith found all those texts on some gold tablets or something that got lost again?

Yes, except that they were taken back to heaven, not lost.

But the point is, I believe that the Book of Mormon is valid based not on objectively verifiable evidence but on faith (which doesn't mean blind acceptance) which is subjective, but ultimately more meaningful to me.

However, only objectively verifiable facts, ie science, eg the theory of evolution, should ever be taught as fact.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I'm sure you can still find people saying the world is flat.

 

[pboily]

However, only objectively verifiable facts, ie science, eg the theory of evolution, should ever be taught as fact.

Is that generally believed by LDS/Mormons, or is it your unsanctioned belief?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Is that generally believed by LDS/Mormons, or is it your unsanctioned belief?

The church has no official position on evolution, but pretty much all scientifically literate members accept it, and Brigham Young University, a church run school, teaches it.

When I say "taught as fact", I mean in schools of course. We teach our beliefs at church, where they belong.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Im just wondering how sturdy peoples faith are. Ever hear of the word blind faith? Creation stories are evident in every religion but with the modern world science has explained many of these old mysteries.

I of course beileve in evolution 100% but i find the religious zeal of some people is so oblivious to science that even if certain crucial things were proven to not be the work of god they wouldnt beileve it.

So do you think there would still be a large amount of creatonists if evolution was proven to be a fact 100%?

That condition already exists today. Evolution had been proven with scientific accuracy long ago, and this is why it has not been a scientific issue for over 100 years. But there is no amount of proof that will ever convince those who don't want to believe it. That's the whole idea of religion, or any other fixed delusion -- you believe it regardless of the facts.

There's no such thing, btw, as anything being proven 100%. That's an impossibility.

 

[warpus]

The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with creation, so I'd have to say 'Yes'.

We'd have a couple weirdos refuting the evidence, while all other remaining creationists would hold the position that God put the big bang into motion and evolution took care of the rest.

 

[Tae]

Some choose to have faith in Science, others choose to have faith in things unseen.

There is no difference in each others faith.

And evolution in of itself is not decending from Apes. So I don't think your question has any bearing on creationist viewpoints.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

It would be nice to see them admitting they are wrong, although I would not expect them to. Their faith would not allow them. Most people are past a point of no return when it comes to faith, and that is not very reassuring.