Evolution or God????. . . .

[Pyramidsonmars]

and vice versa. but thus far every argument from creationsists/intelligent design people I've ever heard entirely falls flat, usually something around the lines of "you can't disprove it, so that proves it".

That's where I disagree. Evolution is based on very non-permanent scientific data. Creationist Scientists have managed to keep a very consistant answer.

The thing that most people seem to forget is that one's faith in Evolution is just as much "based on the facts" as one's faith in God. Evolution has by no means been proven. That is fately misunderstood by those who believe in it and yet are not scientists themselves (aka normal people who believe in evolution based on what scientists TELL them).

I as a christian believe what I believe based on what I've seen (and felt). NOT because I'm weak and need to believe in God (that idea is a contradiction anyway because it requires much strength and dedication to do God's work). People often think christians are the ones in the dark who just don't see the obvious, but in truth it's the same for atheists. You're asked to pick a standpoint based on what you already know about life/the world/logic/etc, and to be honest, there is a solid standpoint from a christian point of view. We KNOW what we believe, but atheism gives a shakey ground at best that is ALWAYS changing.

The funny thing is that the bible claims to be an historical account of what actually happened. Go read something in the bible, find the name of a place or city or person, and then go look it up and find out that it actually exists/existed...

[Pyramidsonmars]

LOL, I couldn't vote. It's kind of like "Do you want peanut butter or jelly on your peanut butter and jelly sandwich?" I just cut it off before it was even possible to debate the existence of a God. Of course, according to the Bible, the first humans on Earth were aware of God. That's impossible, because then our beliefs would be instinctively ingrained instead of wide-ranging. Even if "The Devil" had corrupted Man, everyone of us still would have been born spiritual. The same way we're all, supposedly, born with The Original Sin, like it or not. Belief or not.
We have physical evidence of Evolution on parts of our bodies. A Supreme-Being would not create us with the single purpose of confusion.

You're right! The bible teaches that all men are born knowing God. Jesus claims that we are to be like children. Childhood is actually a lot closer to God than adulthood.

This is taken from romans:

For (AJ)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (AK)suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because (AL)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For (AM)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22(AP)Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.

also:

32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (BD)death, they not only do the same, but also (BE)give hearty approval to those who practice them.

[beachguy in thongs]

PYRAMIDS ON MARS, now I know why everyone says that the Bible contradicts itself. It doesn't, it only clarifies?

[mrdevious]

That's where I disagree. Evolution is based on very non-permanent scientific data. Creationist Scientists have managed to keep a very consistant answer.

it's much easier to maintain a consistant answer when you can invent the answer as a simplistic "god did it" claim for everything. the only reason scientists don't remain "consistent" is because science is constantly evolving and evolutionists don't cling to a strict dogma of how it should be. creationists have never been able to prove their theory to maintain it, only refuse to refute it.

The thing that most people seem to forget is that one's faith in Evolution is just as much "based on the facts" as one's faith in God. Evolution has by no means been proven. That is fately misunderstood by those who believe in it and yet are not scientists themselves (aka normal people who believe in evolution based on what scientists TELL them).

nobody in the right mind has "faith" in evolution, they simply maintain that it is the theory with the most answers at present, a theory that is constantly growing and evolving. evolution and creationism are not just as much based on the facts. evolution is based on emperical evidence such is radiological carbon dating, fosil interpretation, and genetic consistencies. the only evidence intelligent design is based on, is evolutions lack therof is certain area's.

People often think christians are the ones in the dark who just don't see the obvious, but in truth it's the same for atheists. You're asked to pick a standpoint based on what you already know about life/the world/logic/etc, and to be honest, there is a solid standpoint from a christian point of view. We KNOW what we believe, but atheism gives a shakey ground at best that is ALWAYS changing.

again, atheism or evolution are not discredited because they have not yet determined all the answers. to say that christianity has more validity because of it's certainty is rediculous. a group of people forming an opinion, and refusing to budge in the face of numerous pieces of condradictory evidence isn't proof, it's stuborness, most often based on societal or family conditioning.

The funny thing is that the bible claims to be an historical account of what actually happened. Go read something in the bible, find the name of a place or city or person, and then go look it up and find out that it actually exists/existed...

I've no doubt that those places and people existed, but so what? If I write a book about a super powered holy man that takes place here in kelowna, B.C. and can prove kelowna exists, does that prove my tale? there's a fellow named benny hin who's a famous faith healer out of the united states. I'm pretty sure america exists and so does his home town and even him (considering I've seen him), doesn't mean a thing in prooving he has healing powers.

[Pyramidsonmars]

I have to admit, congrats on living in Kelowna. Beautiful place...beautiful bud

it's much easier to maintain a consistant answer when you can invent the answer as a simplistic "god did it" claim for everything. the only reason scientists don't remain "consistent" is because science is constantly evolving and evolutionists don't cling to a strict dogma of how it should be. creationists have never been able to prove their theory to maintain it, only refuse to refute it.

The idea behind creationism is taking what the bible says and looking for proof by scientific means. Yes we use the bible as a guideline, a presupposition if you will, but it's the goal of FINDING out whether or not this thing is accurate. The bible claims that God made the earth, that there was a global flood, and many other things... now what creationists try and do is test those claims...look for proof of them. If the bible says there was a global flood, and there is a lot of evidence for a flood (btw here), and it seems obvious that this outrageous claim of the biblical flood COULD be true (nothing's PROVEN yet ) than we must take into consideration that the creation of the earth in six 24 hour days would also be literal, or even that God exists all together. (Btw the FLOOD isn't the only other thing that creationists are looking for proof of.) My argument here is that there is a lot of evidence, historical records, geological evidence for the things that are in the bible, therefor it's reasonable to conclude that the bible could also accurate in it's description of the creation.

nobody in the right mind has "faith" in evolution, they simply maintain that it is the theory with the most answers at present, a theory that is constantly growing and evolving. evolution and creationism are not just as much based on the facts. evolution is based on emperical evidence such is radiological carbon dating, fosil interpretation, and genetic consistencies. the only evidence intelligent design is based on, is evolutions lack therof is certain area's.

-So you're telling me that those who claim that evolution is true do not have "faith" in it? I assume you mean that these people claim they "think" it's true. Just so you know I'm not arguing the "I.D" theory, but rather the christian one. Evolution is based on ones faith that the claims in the bible of the creation, purpose, existence of, and direction of the human race and life in general is false. That is IT'S presupposition, and it goes for any religion that gives a different account of the creation of existence other than evolution as well. The idea that we've "found this truth" through carbon dating, fosil interpretation, and genetic consistencies is something I also have a problem with...just because I've heard two different answers from two different sides, neither more credible than the other. Creationists would tell you are genetic consistencies would argue in favor of the mitocondrial Eve, aside from the obvious decay of the human "gene" as the generations come and go. As well, carbon dating and fosil interpretation (don't forget that word) are in the hands of fallible men. The idea that fossils look millions of years old parallels the creationist argument that the extreme wieght of water in a global flood could infact give them that appearance.

again, atheism or evolution are not discredited because they have not yet determined all the answers. to say that christianity has more validity because of it's certainty is rediculous. a group of people forming an opinion, and refusing to budge in the face of numerous pieces of condradictory evidence isn't proof, it's stuborness, most often based on societal or family conditioning

I'm saying christianity has an answer to the question. Evolution has an ever changing answer due to misinterpreting evidence, new evidence, and a lot of estimation. I'm saying christianity is the argument FOR something, and evolution is simply the argument(s) against it. The problem is sometimes those arguments collide into one another and shatter, whereas creationists seem to have the same answer.

If I could give you an anology...I was building shelves for my girlfriend this week so:

Think of 5 people building 5 shelves. Two of those five people claims to have this set of directions that they found in the box. The other 3, being smart individuals, decide they will try and build the shelves themselves, through trial and error, because they don't believe that those directions are accurate. Whether or not that booklet of directions is right or wrong is something we won't be able to see until it's finished (aka when we die), but I can assure you that the 2 guys with the directions will have at least made the same thing, and will be able to see why/how everything got pieced together and how the thing works, without having to go through the mess of getting it wrong and having to start over again many times. Likewise I claim that as man becomes more advanced in science, the more christianity will appear evident in it's claim of creation (that is if mankind decides to be honest with it's use of science)

btw, I feel I should mention that individuals who claim to be of the christian religion should not represent that religion. I think I know who Benny Hinn is (is he an east indian guy?)...if it's who I think it is than he is one of those guys with a mask who claims to be of God but isn't. There are a lot of people who wish to undermine christianity, and some try to do it from the inside so that others see them and make assumptions about the religion. Kind of like how all Muslims are 6ft 6, and live in caves with AKA47's.

[Pyramidsonmars]

PYRAMIDS ON MARS, now I know why everyone says that the Bible contradicts itself. It doesn't, it only clarifies?

do you have an example of where the bible contradicts itself>?

[mrdevious]

I have to admit, congrats on living in Kelowna. Beautiful place...beautiful bud

thank you, I enjoy it daily .

it's much easier to maintain a consistant answer when you can invent the answer as a simplistic "god did it" claim for everything. the only reason scientists don't remain "consistent" is because science is constantly evolving and evolutionists don't cling to a strict dogma of how it should be. creationists have never been able to prove their theory to maintain it, only refuse to refute it.

The idea behind creationism is taking what the bible says and looking for proof by scientific means. Yes we use the bible as a guideline, a presupposition if you will, but it's the goal of FINDING out whether or not this thing is accurate. The bible claims that God made the earth, that there was a global flood, and many other things... now what creationists try and do is test those claims...look for proof of them. If the bible says there was a global flood, and there is a lot of evidence for a flood (btw here), and it seems obvious that this outrageous claim of the biblical flood COULD be true (nothing's PROVEN yet ) than we must take into consideration that the creation of the earth in six 24 hour days would also be literal, or even that God exists all together. (Btw the FLOOD isn't the only other thing that creationists are looking for proof of.) My argument here is that there is a lot of evidence, historical records, geological evidence for the things that are in the bible, therefor it's reasonable to conclude that the bible could also accurate in it's description of the creation.

indeed, I have no doubt plenty of floods happened, but such a general and natural occurance being described in the bible is hardly proof of noah's arc. besides, if the whole world flooded where did we get enough water to do that and where did it all recede to? no geological evidence suggests the entire world flooded.
there are plenty of such consistancies, but far too vague to be of any real value, and I wouldn't take consistancies of the bible in one area to conclude that another area is therfor true.

nobody in the right mind has "faith" in evolution, they simply maintain that it is the theory with the most answers at present, a theory that is constantly growing and evolving. evolution and creationism are not just as much based on the facts. evolution is based on emperical evidence such is radiological carbon dating, fosil interpretation, and genetic consistencies. the only evidence intelligent design is based on, is evolutions lack therof is certain area's.

-So you're telling me that those who claim that evolution is true do not have "faith" in it? I assume you mean that these people claim they "think" it's true

well, as far as I've seen "faith" in religion is based on giving in to the claim by "making a leap of faith", not analysing thoroughly, but allowing yourself to stop queestioning. evolution is based on all questioning and is subject to change with new evidence, holding no "faith" (in this sense) to a single idea at all.

Just so you know I'm not arguing the "I.D" theory, but rather the christian one. Evolution is based on ones faith that the claims in the bible of the creation, purpose, existence of, and direction of the human race and life in general is false. That is IT'S presupposition, and it goes for any religion that gives a different account of the creation of existence other than evolution as well.

evolution is not held on FAITH that christianity's view is incorect, it's based on scientific evidence that presents answers that are observable and measurable. what distinguishes faith is that you're taking your religion's word for it because that's what you should believe as a member. evolution demands no faith, it demands only interpretation of evidence.

The idea that we've "found this truth" through carbon dating, fosil interpretation, and genetic consistencies is something I also have a problem with...just because I've heard two different answers from two different sides, neither more credible than the other. Creationists would tell you there are genetic consistencies would argue in favor of the mitocondrial Eve, aside from the obvious decay of the human "gene" as the generations come and go.

genetic consistencies, yes, could be argued in different ways. however, adam and eve aren't even possible due to the issue of inbreeding and genetic consequences of such. when you speak of decay of the human gene, I assume you mean this as an explanation for the inbreeding problem. however, inbreeding does not cause general decay of genetic quality, it causes specific diseases and conditions, such as the inability to clot ones blood.

As well, carbon dating and fosil interpretation (don't forget that word) are in the hands of fallible men. The idea that fossils look millions of years old parallels the creationist argument that the extreme wieght of water in a global flood could infact give them that appearance.

Carbon dating is not an interpretation by fallable men based on what it looks like. it is the analysis of the degree of radiological decay which is based on a consistant analysis of a particular radioactive half-life.

again, atheism or evolution are not discredited because they have not yet determined all the answers. to say that christianity has more validity because of it's certainty is rediculous. a group of people forming an opinion, and refusing to budge in the face of numerous pieces of condradictory evidence isn't proof, it's stuborness, most often based on societal or family conditioning

I'm saying christianity has an answer to the question. Evolution has an ever changing answer due to misinterpreting evidence, new evidence, and a lot of estimation. I'm saying christianity is the argument FOR something, and evolution is simply the argument(s) against it. The problem is sometimes those arguments collide into one another and shatter, whereas creationists seem to have the same answer.

Where is the proof that christianity has the answers? christianity certainly claims to have all the answers, but never changing a claim doesn't make it correct. and that's all the "answers" are, claims of being answers.
as for evolution, it may have to change and add to it's structure, but that's the nature of continual research into the nature of things.

I actually find it kind of funny that you say christianity is FOR something while evolution is AGAINST it, because the argument can easily go the other way. evolution is FOR the theory of species developement through natural selection, while creation is often AGAINST the flaws in evolution as proof of it's existence. when it comes to anti-creationism arguments being AGAINST something, you're thinking of atheism, not evolution.

If I could give you an anology...I was building shelves for my girlfriend this week so:

Think of 5 people building 5 shelves. Two of those five people claims to have this set of directions that they found in the box. The other 3, being smart individuals, decide they will try and build the shelves themselves, through trial and error, because they don't believe that those directions are accurate. Whether or not that booklet of directions is right or wrong is something we won't be able to see until it's finished (aka when we die), but I can assure you that the 2 guys with the directions will have at least made the same thing, and will be able to see why/how everything got pieced together and how the thing works, without having to go through the mess of getting it wrong and having to start over again many times. Likewise I claim that as man becomes more advanced in science, the more christianity will appear evident in it's claim of creation (that is if mankind decides to be honest with it's use of science)

not really a comparable analogy. we can take it for granted that the instructions will be accurate because manufacturer's instruction are most of the time accurate. they also set out guidlines for accomplishing the task, and when the project is done we can verify it's accuracy. creationist arguments, however, are again only claimed to be verifiable after death, conveniently where nobody can tell the rest of us if it's true. because we have seen no results and never will, unlike the cupboard instructions, the bible's claims aren't valid.

btw, I feel I should mention that individuals who claim to be of the christian religion should not represent that religion. I think I know who Benny Hinn is (is he an east indian guy?)...if it's who I think it is than he is one of those guys with a mask who claims to be of God but isn't. There are a lot of people who wish to undermine christianity, and some try to do it from the inside so that others see them and make assumptions about the religion. Kind of like how all Muslims are 6ft 6, and live in caves with AKA47's.

I don't think any one person represents the entire religion, that's not what I was saying. I was speaking in relation to what you said about the places and people in the bible being real places, and how that in its self does not prove anything. I'll take a non christian if it would be more suitable, john edwards, the psychic. he's a real person, from a real place, but that doesn't prove he has psychic powers.

(on a side note, benny hin is a white evangellicle guy who has a televangelist show)

[beachguy in thongs]

do you have an example of where the bible contradicts itself>?

I don't know the Bible. All these brilliant people, who come from somewhere, keep saying that the Bible contradicts itself and they show certain examples, none of which I care to remember. It's their underlying defense. The Bible contradicts itself. Yet when I go to it, I don't see anything that can possibly contradict itself.

Is it that people really aren't seeing that evolution of thoughts and ideas is possible? I know people are just gonna object to a universal idea for the purpose of rebellion, only.

What I mean is, that Moses' explanation of Adam & Eve, contradicted later on in the story or not, was furthered explained in the New Testament, but where people see contradiction, a higher intelligence is instituted and we've yet to learn to solve it's mysteries.

Either way, if you want proof of the Bible contradicting itself, I'm sure there are plenty of "Bible-bashers" around here.

[ADaisyChain]

Sorry for being a retard. CCC's make me a nutjob. I don't see a need for a god anymore. If you believe god can exist forever, then why not take a step down and believe the universe we know and can see can exist forever. I think it's all very interesting that we came to be. Amazing in fact. But I don't see the need for something intelligent making us. I think its just as likely we're coincidence made as it is god made. I kind of hope I'm wrong though, because I don't like the idea of nothingness, not that I'd recognize it to dislike it when I'm in it. I want a soul. If I don't have one though, it doesn't matter too much, because I'll never know in that case.

I'll either not know until I'm dead, or never know. But in the words of socrates
"Why fear eternal paradise and why fear nothing?" in some other language.

I clicked I believe in evolution, because I definately believe in evolution. I'm not sure about god though, and I'm leaning towards doubt and just ignoring the possibility and living a life according to my moral standards.

[F L E S H]

The question is invalid, anyway. You don't "believe" in evolution, just like you don't "believe" in relativity, or "believe" in electricity. These, along with evolution, are concepts that simply are, they exist. I don't "believe" in a tree because whether I believe in it or not, it's there.