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

[Masquerouge]

Evolution will never be proved 100%, therefore creation is the only unthinkable alternative for an athiest.

The principle of all scientific theories, including or instance gravitation, is that they will never be proven 100%. They are "scientific" because one day someone might come up with a proof that the theory was wrong, and the theory will then be modified : gravitation as seen by Newton was not correct, and was modified by relativity.
Creationnism is not scientific because it can not be proven wrong and/or modified.

And yet I don't see fundamentalists Christians (because, contrary to what you're saying, the vast majority of Christians have no problems with Evolution) questionning Gravity because it is not 100% correct.

 

[pboily]

Yes, some people just refuse to accept reason.

I wouldn't refuse to accept God existed, rather, I would not become a Christian. I trust you see the difference and can apply it to the OP.

 

[Andu Indorin]

There is a creationist who is offering $250,000 to whoever can scientifically prove him wrong. So far noone has.

I saw the gentleman in question -- Kent Hovind -- in one his staged debates a few months back. He's a slick debater. But a properly prepared scientist will one these days beat him at his own game ...

Of course, that would have nothing do with science and everything to do sophistry.

 

[Fifty]

I think that this hypothetical is meaningless because it is absolutely impossible to prove anything at all 100%

 

[El_Machinae]

But it's possible to be convinced 100%.

 

[Xanikk999]

I think that this hypothetical is meaningless because it is absolutely impossible to prove anything at all 100%

Its imposible to prove anything? Is it impossible to prove that humans have lungs? Fish have gills? Can you prove that electricity doesnt exist?

 

[shadow2k]

I saw the gentleman in question -- Kent Hovind -- in one his staged debates a few months back. He's a slick debater. But a properly prepared scientist will one these days beat him at his own game ...

Of course, that would have nothing do with science and everything to do sophistry.

All of his young earth topics have been refuted online. Most of his arguments for it are based on the same arguments that were blasted 20+ years ago, just worded differently.

Most creationsts try to stay far the heck away from him, and will openly refute many of his claims as well.

 

[El_Machinae]

bgast: welcome! I appreciate your politeness.

Couple things

Tell me, who would die that kind of death for a lie?

You were referring to Peter. Well, I'm reminded of the Buddhist who lit himself on fire, because he could only allow non-violent protest (according to his religion) for himself. You believe his religion was a lie, but he sure didn't. He set himself on fire! Actions talk louder than words.

Here's the key. You have answer for yourself. (1) Was Jesus Christ a real historical person. (2) Did He do all that He said He would do, was He a liar? (3) Was He in fact crucified? Was He dead? (4) Was He resurrected? (5) Did He appear to credible witnesses after the fact? -- All of Christianity hinges on these questions.

I don't see the Genesis account in any of these five things. It's perfectly possible to honestly affirm all these statements and believe that the priests who compiled Genesis made some mistakes. That makes sense to me. There's no need for Genesis to be true, even to believe in Jesus. And a LOT of evidence shows that evolution is true. That doesn't change your five tenants.

 

[sanabas]

Sanabas--The science is there. It exists, the problem is in the manner in which the facts are interpreted. When the facts lead in a direction which is not suitable to evolution, then the unthinkable is the only alternative.

No worries. In that case, please point me to some of these facts, and tell me how they should be interpreted. That's at least two posts you've made asserting the existence of good science in support of creationism, but as yet you've shown none of it.

@perf: please open up creationism part 3, return of the half-eye. I have replies that need to go in there too.

We may not be able to conclude entirely that what we have is a scenerio for creation or God, but we can also eliminate evolution as a causation as well, which again brings us back to the unthinkable from an athiestic viewpoint. (Evolution being defined as all life that exists, came from nothing and just randomly got together, and formed life, then that evolved into say a fish, and maybe that fish, grew legs and then walked on land and eventually over the years those things turned into dinosoaurs and some of them other things went into other directions and evolved and then we came along somewhere along the line. Is that it in an extremely over simplified manner) Of course, I am expected to take this giant leap of faith and believe that this entire universe we live in came from nothing.

again. Abiogenesis is a separate field, and that is a very strange definition of evolution.

You cannot endorse creationism until you come to terms with God because God is the creator, the only other conclusion would be to be an athiest or a best an agnostic. I understand the dilemma that we find ourselves in.

Of course you can. Believing in creationism does not entail believing in the christian god. I can believe the entire universe was sneezed out of a 5-d being's nose, and live in fear of the coming of the great white handkerchief. That lets me endorse creationism without the christian god being the creator.

The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible's account of the creation. Of course, one must accept that the Bible is true.

Why? There are many christians posting here who don't accept the bible as literal truth.

I would not expect one to accept the Bible as true unless they came to grips with the God of the Bible. That is why I find it pointless to argue evolution vs. creation or the validity of scripture without faith in God and Jesus Christ.

If good science points to creationism, as you've repeatedly asserted, why can't you base your arguments on that good science? Why do you have to ignore that good science in favour of demanding belief in christian scripture as literal truth?

Evolution will never be proved 100%, therefore creation is the only unthinkable alternative for an athiest.

Those two statements do not appear to be connected in any way, much less one that allows a 'therefore' in the middle. Please elaborate.

There is a creationist who is offering $250,000 to whoever can scientifically prove him wrong. So far noone has.

Please elaborate for us on just what evidence you would accept as proving creationism wrong, even if that evidence doesn't actually exist.

 

[bgast1]

I need to say something here, but I really don't know how to go about it. I've basically said what I think I needed to say, but for some reason it doesn't look as if I am able to get my points across. I firmly believe in all that I have said and believe myself to be correct. No amount of debate will get me to change my mind. I am not close minded, I have indeed considered the subject matter at hand from many angles. As a result, I have drawn my conclusions and stand by them.(I continue to read and study, and alter my thinking as it becomes necessary) But I have to say that you alls concept of Christianity is a lot different than mine, and a lot different than the Christianity of the Bible. I am unable to continue to debate this for this reason. Our definitions and concepts of Christianity do not match up, we are not talking about the same thing. I guess kind of like saying orange=blue. That is obviously a false statement, but that is what I am seeing here.

Finally, being 54 years old, I am starting to lose the edge or ability of debating that I once had. My education level is also probably not as high as most of the people that are responding to me. What I know, I know from experience and living it. You all would probably call me a fundamentalist Christian, but I am far from it, according to my definition. A fundamentalist to me would be someone like Jerry Falwell, or perhaps Pat Robertson. I am concervative in my beliefs, but really not extreme. (By the way, before I became a Christian in my early '20's, I would spout off pretty much the same things that I am reading here, not that it matters, but I can look back and see that I was wrong, at least imo)

One other thing, honesty plays a huge factor when it comes down to these kinds of debates. When I say that in order to get a grasp on origins or the Genesis account in the Bible, I am serious, that you cannot possibly grasp the implictions of Genesis, not just Genesis, but any theological concept coming from the Bible until you have dealt with Jesus Christ. Jesus was a necessary element in the creation. Jesus Christ left the Holy Spirt who lives in all believers. Without the Holy Spirit it is impossible to grasp spiritual things. The Holy Spirit works in many ways, but one of the ways is to illuminate the concepts of the Bible. Much the same way as walking into a dark room and turning on a light. Apart from that we can debate all day and all night long, and get no where, because we are not viewing these concepts from the same outlook (that isn't the proper word, but I really don't know what word to use. We all use a different set of rules to define what we see, or know, or think we know) Another thing, the Bible, back in the day was just another book to me. I couldn't relate to it because I didn't want to relate to it. If I related to it or God, it might cause me to have to be accountable to something, and I didn't want that. I wanted to be free to make my own decisions and live my life the way I wanted to live it. Chrisitanity did not allow that, at least that is what I thought. However, Christianity is about the truth, and the truth will set you free.

I feel like I have gone on and on here off topic, and for that I apologize, but I don't see how I can keep debating this because I feel like I am hitting my head up against a brick wall. We aren't getting anywhere. Although, I appreciate reading everyone's comments, this is just a frustrating exercise for me. It's like telling someone 2+2=4, and they keep insisting that it is 5. (and I understand that the feeling could easily be the same in the reverse as you guys to me)

But while I am off topic here, anyone feel like teaching me how to play Civilization? I just picked up Civ III complete and can't seem to grasp how to really play. Where to set up my cities, what units to build. etc. etc.

 

[Fifty]

But it's possible to be convinced 100%.

No it isn't, or at least you can't show that it is.

Its imposible to prove anything? Is it impossible to prove that humans have lungs? Fish have gills? Can you prove that electricity doesnt exist?

Those could all be very good illusions, or our senses may be incorrect in assessing them, or our faculty of reason may not be adequate in determining what they really are, etc.

 

[Bill3000]

When I say that in order to get a grasp on origins or the Genesis account in the Bible, I am serious, that you cannot possibly grasp the implictions of Genesis, not just Genesis, but any theological concept coming from the Bible until you have dealt with Jesus Christ.

Right. So, Jews can't possibly graps the implications of their own holy book without dealing with a man they do not revere? Nice.

 

[sanabas]

I need to say something here, but I really don't know how to go about it. I've basically said what I think I needed to say, but for some reason it doesn't look as if I am able to get my points across. I firmly believe in all that I have said and believe myself to be correct. No amount of debate will get me to change my mind. I am not close minded, I have indeed considered the subject matter at hand from many angles. As a result, I have drawn my conclusions and stand by them.(I continue to read and study, and alter my thinking as it becomes necessary) But I have to say that you alls concept of Christianity is a lot different than mine, and a lot different than the Christianity of the Bible. I am unable to continue to debate this for this reason. Our definitions and concepts of Christianity do not match up, we are not talking about the same thing. I guess kind of like saying orange=blue. That is obviously a false statement, but that is what I am seeing here.

The bit I've bolded sums up the most frustrating bit for me.

Apart from that, we seem to be on a different track with what we're arguing about. You seem to be saying that to be a christian requires an extremely literal interpretation of the bible, and that if you are a christian, you must also be a creationist. I disagree with that, but I can see the logic you're using.

The other thing you are saying is that you can't be a proper creationist without first being a proper christian. That part really makes no sense, as there are plenty of non-christian accounts of the creation of the world/universe/humans/animals/etc. You can justify saying that being a proper christian implies being a creationist, but it doesn't follow that being a proper creationist means you must also be a proper christian.

Finally, being 54 years old, I am starting to lose the edge or ability of debating that I once had. My education level is also probably not as high as most of the people that are responding to me. What I know, I know from experience and living it. You all would probably call me a fundamentalist Christian, but I am far from it, according to my definition. A fundamentalist to me would be someone like Jerry Falwell, or perhaps Pat Robertson. I am concervative in my beliefs, but really not extreme. (By the way, before I became a Christian in my early '20's, I would spout off pretty much the same things that I am reading here, not that it matters, but I can look back and see that I was wrong, at least imo)

I'd want to hear your views on all sorts of other stuff before I decided you were a loonie fundamentalist. But on this particular topic, you do seem to qualify, as you show all the classic signs of it. i.e. Repeatedly stating there is scientific evidence that evolution is wrong, and there is scientific evidence that creationism is correct. When asked to please show us some of this science, you don't. Stating that it's all down to misinterpretation of facts, etc.

I haven't heard anything from you on the age of the earth yet. How old do you think the earth and/or universe is? the answer to that is usually another good litmus test for fundieness.

One other thing, honesty plays a huge factor when it comes down to these kinds of debates. When I say that in order to get a grasp on origins or the Genesis account in the Bible, I am serious, that you cannot possibly grasp the implictions of Genesis, not just Genesis, but any theological concept coming from the Bible until you have dealt with Jesus Christ.

Fair enough, but that only seems to apply to one particular interpretation of one particular theological concept. You should still be able to explain the problems with other concepts on a similar topic without needing to deal with Jesus. And what do you do when research produces evidence that the concept isn't correct? Ignore the evidence? Try and discredit the evidence? Try and refine the concept?

I feel like I have gone on and on here off topic, and for that I apologize, but I don't see how I can keep debating this because I feel like I am hitting my head up against a brick wall. We aren't getting anywhere. Although, I appreciate reading everyone's comments, this is just a frustrating exercise for me. It's like telling someone 2+2=4, and they keep insisting that it is 5. (and I understand that the feeling could easily be the same in the reverse as you guys to me)

Yeah, it is a bit. As I said above, the frustrating bit is asking for any sort of evidence when people say that good science supports creationism, or supports YEC in some cases. If the evidence is there, it shouldn't be that hard to produce.

But while I am off topic here, anyone feel like teaching me how to play Civilization? I just picked up Civ III complete and can't seem to grasp how to really play. Where to set up my cities, what units to build. etc. etc.

Sure thing. In the Civ3, general discussions forum there is a thread called 'total frustration for a newbie'. Have a read through that, and I'd strongly suggest taking up the offer in there. Start a game, save it at 4000BC, play the first 50 or so turns, keeping a detailed log of what you do and why, save again, and then post the 2 saves and the log. You will get heaps of constructive feedback on that.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

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%?

Another thing il add is that some peoples faith is so strong that they will disbelieve anything that science has proven against religion. So i think that if evolution was proven to be a fact there would still be some creatonists.

Moderator Action: Posts merged - please use the "edit" button to add more info, rather than create a separate post just minutes later.

Its because people have beem brainwashed by their parents and priests.

 

[bgast1]

Sansabas--Science, performed properly, is neither good nor bad. It is what it is. The truth is the truth, it does not change. If sciences causes me to alter my stance on something, then I will. Here's the problem, and I think we are all guilty of it. We want to interpret the facts in the way which fits our own belief system. It's very difficult to accept something which points in another direction or to see the alternative. It's human nature. A biblical example, albiet, a bit out of concept is when Jesus was speaking about judging others and said something to the effect of -- Why do you attempt to remove the speck from your brother's eye when you first need to remove the beam from your own. -- the principle here is pretty obvious. Human nature tends to be rather tunnel visioned, and without a concerted effort to change that, we won't. And even when we think we aren't, we still are to a degree.

Most of your arguments make sense to me when viewed from your particular paradigm, but from mine they are still incorrect. And, I stand corrected on the comment about that other religions have creation stories, as I understand it others have ressurection stories as well. The problem here is rooting out the correct one. We are really talking about matters of faith here, and faith cannot be measured scientifically. Sorry to get so far off topic here but, faith is a necessary element in drawing the conclusions that I do as well. You start with what you know to be true, then you build from there. If something is contradictory to something else that you know then you have to look for conclusions which support what you know. (I think I know what you are going to say here, but the fact is Christians, non-christians, athiests, agnostics, what have you, we are all biased and we all pick and chose from there)

As far as the age of the earth goes, I don't think that it matters. At this juncture, I believe the earth is very old, but I don't know how old. I am still looking into this one, and have not drawn any concrete conclusions. There are several theological issues that have nothing to do with salvation that I am looking into as well, but that doesn't change the critical issues of Christianity. The problem with the Bible is not that is inerrant, it is, the problem is in determining exactly what it says. We are a few years older than when it was written and cultures change. We have to look at in light of what the culture of the time it was written viewed it in order to interpret it correctly.

@Bill3000--Sorry to have offended you. Perhaps I spoke incorrectly. The Old Testement of Jews is the same as the Christians, so the story is the same. The Jews hated Jesus because He shook up everything that they believed in at the time. It was a hard case for them to stomach, He was the opposite of the way they were living their lives. Jesus was not about live and let live. He was about pointing out sin, and demonstrating that He was God, and the only One who could deal with the issue of sin. I don't think until His ressurection that even His disciples fully understood what He was about. The ressurection is the key.

back to Sansabas-- I will try to do what you said, on the total frustration for newbies. The problem with my game, is that I don't know the why. I have trouble with these kind of games even though I enjoy them. I hate losing though and sometimes gravitate towards the easiest mode rather than take the challenge, but recently have been playing at warlord instead of chieftain and the AI kicks my butt. Anyway of it here, I am going over there.

 

[warpus]

bgast1

At one point you said that a good Christian could not possibly accept the Theory of Evolution and must take a literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm wondering how you reconsile that with the fact that the Vatican itself supports the Theory of Evolution and doesn't want Christians thinking of Genesis in a literal sense at all.

Would you say then that the Pope and the Vatican aren't good Christians?

 

[El_Machinae]

No it isn't, or at least you can't show that it is.

You seem to be awfully convinced!

Booyah!

bgast1 - we certainly don't care if you're 'fundie'. We have a couple very lovable 'fundies' here, and they're very respected.

I just don't get how Genesis HAS to be 100% literally correct, in order to accept Jesus as your own personal saviour. Like I said, some Jewish priests screwing up with translations (which might have happened) doesn't change anything about Jesus ... does it?

 

[bgast1]

@warpus--this is another althogether. The word "good" is a value judgement which I would prefer not to make. I am willing to debate issues, but I don't want to get into the habit of making value judgements on people, and I don't know if I am capable of doing that. I am human afterall.

@El_Machinae--this goes to inerrancy. I believe that the Bible is inerrant. However, this is also a subject that I am currently refinining my definition of at the moment. I am still researching it, and don't want to come on too strong on something that I may regret later. In answer to your question, a missed period, a missed dot on an i (not literally of course, I hope you can give me this much leeway) would not change the theme of the Bible, no. However, the Genesis story had better be correct. There are some serious implications there. It is open to interpretation however. It does mean what it says, the problem is interpreting exactly what it says. A key point of contention is the young earth, old earth theory. As I stated earlier, right now I am in the old earth camp.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's not what the fundies believe that bothers me so much, as it is their approach to other people.

 

[El_Machinae]

However, the Genesis story had better be correct. There are some serious implications there.

I don't really get that. I don't see how Genesis has to be right, for Jesus to be write. It's not like Jesus wrote Genesis or anything.

Anyway, we both know that there are translation errors in the Bible (insects having 4 legs, bats being birds, etc.). I wouldn't say that the authors were wrong, just that something is being lost in the translation.

So Genesis 1 might be a mistranslation (which seems to be clear from the science). It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter with regards to how you view Jesus.

In my opinion.

 

[Fifty]

You seem to be awfully convinced!

Booyah!

Your faculty of reason could be confused or deceived in making that assessment, as could your senses be.