Is this a godd definition of the Evolution doctrine?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

I read through this and have no problem with about 80% of it. (like you care what I have a problem with) I start wondering how accurate it all is when the number 3000 Million years is thrown out.

We can barely figure out a culture from 1000 years ago now we have definative answers to something that might have accored 3000 Million years ago? Its all guessing and telling stories at that point.

So sure I will loose my religion if its true.

[QUOTE
Now the thread can die...until next month. [/B][/QUOTE]

unless it evolves

That's pretty good.

Man wants to be the supreme intelligence...
Man wants to have all the answers...
Man wants to be accountable to only himself...
Man wants to decide what is right and wrong...
Belief in God does not allow this.


There is NO proof for evolution, NO repeatable lab tests, NO missing links alive or in the fossil record. This would be earth shaking news.
Instead, made up "theories" are taught to children as "fact".

It's all put in place to discredit God...Man wants to do things his way.
The issue hasn't changed since the beginning.

Call me a broken record if you like, but man will NEVER rule himself.


KT “

This quote from KT illustrates perfectly the crux of this discussion. On one hand, we have the firm creationists who cannot conceive that god does not have a hand in all this. They are for the most part wholly un or under educated in the sciences. They do not avidly read about or study science; yet they try to use logic and corrupted science (thermodynamics, probability, etc.) to prove an article of faith. This is never going to work. Please don’t try to use the tools you have never learned to use properly; it only highlights your inabilities. It shows the lack of knowledge and understanding like the above statements. This person is firm in his believes, but woefully lacking in what science actually has tested, proved or created.

On the other hand, we have the followers of science, who demand proof. By using the simple critical thinking process of: question, theorize based on known facts, conceive a repeatable test to that theory, review results (peer review), revise test or theory, test, repeat…. Mankind has grown and expanded his knowledge base. Repeatable results are the holy grail of science, that and nothing more. If you can’t find an exception or non-collaborating result of testing to the theory (please learn what the word”theory” means in science, before using it), than the theory stands until proven wrong. End of argument, unless you can devise a test (experiment) that gives different results. Many science opportunities try to use a minority position of disagreement to over-ride a theory, without test results opposed to the theory, these disagreements are meaningless (refer back to the process). Just because you believe something you cannot test and achieve on-demand repeatable results, doesn’t mean it is true. No matter how much you want it to be true. Just because you don’t understand the science doesn’t mean it is not true, no matter how much you dislike the results or are confused by them.

I have always found it amazing that “true” believers willing use the results of cold hard emotionless science all day every day, but then deride science as a generator of facts. How in hell to you think your cars, computers, lights, medicine, and etc. work? How in hell do you think they were designed and built (divine guidance is not an answer you can test, go back to the process)? Mans knowledge changes all the time, what we learned or thought we knew must change too. Many on this board refer back to their high school or college classes. This is incredibly out of date. You are falling behind as soon as you have left an active learning environment.

My challenge is simple: using logic/critical thinking and the scientific process using a test that provides repeatable results on-demand, prove there is a god.

This is no more than we do every day in science and engineering, why should the faithful be held to any lower standard?

So your argument is that belief in God is merely a facet of evolution that enabled man to become the dominant species on the planet. Why are you arguing against a system that has been remarkably successful?

I don`t see how the belief in God made man the dominant species on the planet. God made man the dominant species on the planet, and then man, with some nerve, decided that his belief in God had something to do with his dominant position.

Aurel

Aurel, are you saying that what makes man different from the rest of creation is our ability to deny God's existance?

Absolutely not. Actually, the rest of the creation does not have the ability to acknowledge Gods existance. Only we do, if we so choose.

Aurel

What you are really saying is (to our knowledge) only man has the ability to ignore facts and have a mythological believe system.

And you are saying we should ignore something nature has ingrained into what is the dominant organism on the planet.

A good thread never dies, it evolves.

This isn't a good thread...

Its really a very elegant solution for the "thinking Christian". He can embrace the Theory of Evolution, AND have Creationism. God created life, and also created evolution as a Godly mechanism.

The thinking Christian can now deflect all those akward dinner party moments when someone says in an incredulous tone "Wait- do you seriously believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?"

We need a name for this. How about "Intelligent Design"?

Believers in evolution gain nothing but some empty satisfaction that they have fooled people into thinking there is no God...Believe all you want in evolution, you will still end up empty and unfulfilled. Those that reject God will always wonder if they will burn in Hell, if they are critically wrong...Christians will have no fear from a death without judgement based on some stupid belief in a nonsense theory.

Now where is the fun in that?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1153869486.jpg

Again and again, its just religious babel. When asked for verifiable proof, religion folds into the "you'll all burn in hell" or "we'll be empty and unsatisfied" tripe. I am quite happy, contented, fullfilled, satisfied to run my life with logic and reason, without having a imaginary adult friend to lean on. The more dogmatic the believers are the more fanatic they sound. You'll note that the followers of logic and reason don't have to revert to claims of damnation or you'll be lost and empty crap when someone wants to believe in some religious fantasy. You may beleive whatever story or myth you want. Just don't expect us to accept your particular story as how we should live our life or that your story should set public policy.

You *can't* believe this. I mean, I know you wrote it, but you can't believe it. Really. Really? Do you realize that most Christians accept the theory of evolution?

Nawww...you're just making this up...you can't really think this way...

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Christians will have no fear from a death without judgement based on some stupid belief in a nonsense theory.

This is exactly correct! Christians (as well as anybody else) will have no fear from a death without judgement based on some stupid belief in a nonsense theory (religion).

I'm proud of you Null, you got it right the frst time!

Heh, I swear this is a mirror image of the thread one month ago. I will again point out to the indignant secularists here who are accusing the believers of foisting their beliefs on them that.....

The thread was started by a evolutionist. The religious people didn't start a secular bashing thread here. So again, the believers who are simply defending their ideas from a spontaneous attack get labeled as the oppressors. It's actually comical.

It's pathetic. A persons faith can now be considered a crime against humanity.

The age of the earth is unknown to man.

Who said it was less than 10,000 years old?

The Bible certainly does not.


KT

much of the "logical reasoning" exhibited here is definitely a crime against sanity...

Some people will have you believe in order to understand anything, you have to be a part of the "super-smart elite".

Only problem with that is, they are "smart" because they say they are.

Just because someone is an "expert" at material that is false, doesn't make it true.


KT

Now THAT was funny. :D


KT

Oh, the irony.

You miss the point. Faith is faith. I have no issue with faith. But call a spade a spade. Faith ain't science. People who (ab)use science to explain their faith have issues. Just as those who insist that those with faith explain it with fact/reason. The two can coexist, but they cannot be used to confirm or deny each other.

KT wrote:
The age of the earth is unknown to man.

Hey KT, this is simply balderdash (BS)! You can go to any current book on geology and find the answer and learn how the answer was obtained. You really need to broaden your reading list! Welcome to the 21st Century.

I am not mistaken in thinking that evolution is most oft used as a tool to dismantle the God concept. Those multi-faith believers (evolution/God) are but a side note to the thrust of the argument and the debate...Lets stay focused like a laserbeam...When one is discussing evolution versus creation they are debating macro-evolution versus an intelligent designer or creator.

Lets stay focused like a laserbeam.

ARRIVING AT TRUTH THE SCIENTIFIC WAY

1. Observe what happens.

2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.

3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.

4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.



KT

RPKESQ, ( sir )

Coming up with a number of years that represents the age of the earth, or the universe for that matter, is simply guessing.

You know it, I know it...WE ALL KNOW IT!!.


KT

The problem with threads like this is that most (if not all) of the posters have no clue that it is hardly a bipolar discussion.

On the "Creationist" side you have...
- The Jewish views (I'm not qualified to speak to these)
-- Orthodox
-- Conservative
-- Reformed
- The Christian views
-- Reformed (roughly: What the bible said is philosophically correct, or else it was within the context of that period in time)
-- The (for the lack of a better word) conservative view: The bible is right, but we don't necessarily understand the details. There is also the issue of things which are adiaphora (sp?) which means upon which the Bible is silent. This view is generally shared by the Catholics, Lutherans and other "non-reformed tradition" churches.
-- The "Baptist" tradition (aka: "Evangelical" or "Fundimentalist" although both of those terms once ment something very different, but I digress) view: 7 Days means 7x24 hours, or something along that line.

The "Evolutionest" side is hardly monolithic either
- Agnostics: Darwin was right, but it not clear if this proves or disproves any overall plan behind the whole thing.
- Athiests: By definition they believe that there is absolutely no God behind Evolution, which really takes just as much of a leap of faith as being a "believer". Otherwise they'd fall into the Agnostic category.

So to argue either of the extreme cases is really to be kicking a "straw man", and hardly representative of the richness of the discussion.

Speaking of 7 days; here's something to chew on -- The "day" of the creation story in the Bible is the Jewish word yom.
So did that clarify a few things??? :confused:

Jim Cesiro wrote:
I read through this and have no problem with about 80% of it. (like you care what I have a problem with) I start wondering how accurate it all is when the number 3000 Million years is thrown out.

We can barely figure out a culture from 1000 years ago now we have definitive (sic) answers to something that might have accored (sic) 3000 Million years ago? Its all guessing and telling stories at that point.



Jim, that statement is simply not true; we know a lot about almost all 1000 year old civilizations. In fact we have in some cases recorded (written) history for the last 10,000 years. If you study and learn how the dates and activity was tested and verified then you would not be so quick to make these wildly inaccurate statements. Unless you have studied geology, physics (how about String Theory?), chemistry, biology, history: how can you expect to make rational, reasoned judgments on these subjects?

Been to Chichén Itzá?

http://www.mysteriousplaces.com/mayan/TourEntrance.html

No one knows what happened to the people. They disapeared. No a very old civilization yet everyone is baffled why they just disapeared.

Just one example.

A bunch of evangelical Christians came and bored them to death :p

"Are we still evolving?"

In general: Yes.

Although recent scientific studies have found that the evolutionary cycle for those who believe in divine creation stopped about 500 years ago.

There is no scientific discipline that does not support evolution.

Originally posted by Jim Cesiro
Been to Chichén Itzá? No one knows what happened to the people. They disappeared (sic). No a very old civilization yet everyone is baffled why they just disappeared (sic).

In point of fact, we have discovered quite a lot about the Mayan civilization. You need to visit some more Mayan web sites and read some current archeological journals. But due to the fact we have not yet deciphered much of their writings, we have some gaps in our knowledge. Not all information is at the same level for all civilizations. Some have yet to be studied still. Science always admits its gaps. But until you can (using the scientific method) prove we will never know, then it is just an unknown. Not a MYSTERY, not WERID, not anything, except... an unknown. Not something that will never be known (if you think so, prove it), just something not fully understood YET! It is specious to argue that just because you cannot fully answer all questions, you don't know anything about a subject. A logic course would have taught you that.

Proof that there is a god:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1153885345.jpg


And it is repeatable:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1153885385.jpg

Jeff. Those amazing creatures are just a fluke of evolutionary random chance. Just a series of 2nd Law violations, mutated and re-ordered from some unknown and un-proven primate...The evolutionists are pretty darned sure that is how it happened, maybe, possibly, but who knows for sure, except it is absolutely true without a doubt.