My thoughts on the Creation v Evolution debate

[Gravekeeper]

technically 1923 by a 9th grade dropout, seventh-day adventist named george mccready price, based off the reported dream of the church's founder. Henry Morris(the nutjob from texas)-used Ellen and George's writings as his foundation in the 60's, so it's even worse -_-

Ugh. That IS even worse. Okay, I revise my previous statement. The idiot from Texas started the modern movement but it was invented by lunatics. Got it. >.>

[Rapscallion]

actually bananaman is Ray comfort, a close friend of Ken Ham, Ham said absolutely nothing would change his mind on the age of the earth, not even a message from god.

Bugger - apologies. Hard to keep the 'interesting from a distance' people straight.

Rapscallion

[wolfie]

Hard to keep the 'interesting from a distance' people straight.

Don't worry - they do that well enough on their own. Even a suggestion of being otherwise and they pounce on the "offender" like sled dogs on a wounded comrade.

Oops, sorry - you were using a different meaning for "straight".

[siead_lietrathua]

Stop having all the fun without me! Lol.

There are a few concepts the OP had i want to address, the first one being that NONE OF THIS IS EVOLUTION. These points have nothing to do with the changes in dna that happens over time to cause species to diverge. These are primarily questions about palientology. Even if we never discovered any more links in the fossil record, we now have the sciences in genetics that now make the backbone of the theory of evolution.

But let's go, gonna be a long one! *cracks knuckles*

1) “I believe my God can do anything... evolution over billions of years, or took 6 earth days... not restricted by our concept of time... evolved the physical human body”

The problem with this, is that you could be talking about any god. But if you are talking about the Christian god-of-the-bible Yahweh, then you would be incorrect.
THAT god is a specific god, that claims a 6 day creation, that spake creatures into existence, used golem-spells on dirt-man and created a woman of a rib. THAT god is not, from a theological standpoint, a god that used evolution as a tool, or the big bang to generate the universe. There may be A god that did through evolution or etc, perhaps more of a deistic god, but then it would not be Yahweh.

“Adam and Eve”

never existed. When they talk about “mitochondrial eve” or adam, they are talking bout the furthest forward you can go in the human gene line where everyone is still related, before it branches off. They are not however talking about how far back you can go along the human line, as they infer in the bible when talking about the first man and woman.

here's a list of human ancestors. when creationists can prove at what point along this chain a "soul" was inserted by god, let me know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

2) “...scientist having one toe bone and reconstructing a full sized 'missing link',”

This is crap i hear pushed a lot in creationist media and it annoys me for the blatant lie it is. There are multiple examples of each step found so far in the evolutions of humans. This is on par with the “there is only one Lucy” argument when there have been many more australopithecus afarensis discovered since. The FIRST of something is not the ONLY of something.

“Also, who else looks at these bones?”

people who visit natural history museums? They aren't state guarded secrets. As to people who handle and test them, then the answer is “trained scientists”. Which is as shocking as saying people that work on fighter jet engines are trained mechanics.

“I really want to know the methodology for reconstructing an entire body out of a single toe or tooth.”

you find more bones, and go from there. You can use the DNA (if any is present) to define a new species, but as to it's literal appearance you need more bones.


3) "Radiocarbon Dating... “

radiocarbon dating fails in tests it should never be used in. It's a tool. And just like you can't use a hammer to sand, you can't use RD for all types of dating. That's why there are multiple kinds that cross-confirm each other.
For a quick example you don't use RD it on marine life, especially the predators. The carbon accumulates in their systems (like how mercury does in tuna) and throws off the dating. Good scientists know this and don't use that type of dating. Bad 'scientists' talk about the newly dead otters that date to be 3000 years old as “proof” that RD dating doesn't work


4) “...compiled writings of Josephus were not real because "carbon dating said so".

Killed some time googling this, found nothing really so it's hard to take it as truth. But, if they wanted to claim the writings were bullshit it would really be much easier to just note that the author wasn't even born till 37 years after jesus dies (by your own article), so anything he wrote was hearsay at best. The telephone game rarely leads to truth.

5) “...many scientist in the early 20th century were skeptical of the "Big Bang Theory".”

Irrelevant. All that shows is it took more time and evidence for BBT to move from a hypothesis to a theory. That's a GOOD thing. That's how science works. You might as well argue that because it took time for there to be enough evidence to show the universe isn't geocentric that is must still somehow be geocentric... there's a reason we laugh at those people.

“which was first proposed by a Vatican scientist.”

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the scientist came from. What matters is a correct assessment and explanation of all the observable facts with as few errors as possible. They could be from the vatican. They could be hindu or buddist or whatever. Fact's don't care.

Onto other posts!


6) “compare the Creation museum to Disney land... a few other disparaging remarks ... (like implying it is wrong to call them a museum).”

it is wrong to call something a history museum when it depicts raptors eating vegetables and other dinosaurs with saddles on them for their human riders. They have an exhibit designed to misinform people about 'Lucy”. They have several dedicated to a worldwide flood.
It's a pathetic joke of religious propraganda, and people have every right to mock the snake-oil salesmen.


7) ... only posted that Radiocarbon dating was not the only method, but did not tell me what the other types were so I could do research on them...

if only there was some sort of.. international network.. where one could use an.. engine to, say, search for things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_...in_archaeology
aka, just f-ing google it.



I suggest if you want to debate about evolution to actually research into it before trying to jump in with the same, easily debunkable, ray comfort level “facts”.


*keyboard drop.
(like a mic drop. Only more expensive with a laptop)
((oh fuck my laptop))

[HYHYBT]

For a quick example you don't use RD it on marine life, especially the predators. The carbon accumulates in their systems (like how mercury does in tuna) and throws off the dating. Good scientists know this and don't use that type of dating. Bad 'scientists' talk about the newly dead otters that date to be 3000 years old as “proof” that RD dating doesn't work

If marine life builds up C14 extra fast, wouldn't that make it appear *younger* by that test than it really is?

The problem with this, is that you could be talking about any god. But if you are talking about the Christian god-of-the-bible Yahweh, then you would be incorrect.
THAT god is a specific god, that claims a 6 day creation, that spake creatures into existence, used golem-spells on dirt-man and created a woman of a rib. THAT god is not, from a theological standpoint, a god that used evolution as a tool, or the big bang to generate the universe. There may be A god that did through evolution or etc, perhaps more of a deistic god, but then it would not be Yahweh.

Funny how most of Christianity disagrees with you on that.

[Gravekeeper]

Yeaaaah, you can't exactly demand all Christians take Genesis literally in a thread about the trouble with a small group of idiots taking the Genesis literally.... >.>

[wolfie]

4) “...compiled writings of Josephus were not real because "carbon dating said so".

Killed some time googling this, found nothing really so it's hard to take it as truth. But, if they wanted to claim the writings were bullshit it would really be much easier to just note that the author wasn't even born till 37 years after jesus dies (by your own article), so anything he wrote was hearsay at best. The telephone game rarely leads to truth.

Not to mention that radiocarbon dating only gives the age of THAT PARTICULAR COPY of the writings. It can't tell you whether the writing in question is the original, or a copy of an older document. Ever see a CD by an artist who died (or a group that broke up) before the format was developed?

[siead_lietrathua]

If marine life builds up C14 extra fast, wouldn't that make it appear *younger* by that test than it really is?

not really how it works. see, mussels and etc prey obtain their carbon from the rock minerals. so the carbon in their bodies would be of an older date. then the otters that eat them get a higher accumulation of the older-dated carbon in their body.
it may be a lot of carbon, but that carbon dates as old carbon. i don't know how else to explain it.

Funny how most of Christianity disagrees with you on that.

GK made my point for me for the most part.
and aside from his point, what i said is also true. from a theological standpoint, the god of the bible cannot have created the 'verse in any other way than described in the bible. that's the point of it being the theology. theology is kinda what separates all the different religions from each other. it's why odin is in asgard and you don't find quetzalcoatl in greece. to argue that a god can do things outside of it's theology is to morph it into a completely diffrent god.

now, if you want to argue that all gods are really the one god in different representations... than it still is not yahweh. it would also be odin and bastet and hades and etc. it would even include the concept of a god that cares nothing for humans and simply creates, which is the polar opposite of a sky-daddy that watches and judges.

you literally cannot have all these gods all be yahweh without it disintegrating into a pile of rubbish. especially since yahweh even acknowledges there ARE gods other than him (baal, dagon and ashrah pop to mind).

[Gravekeeper]

I'm honestly getting a bit lost here as to what you're arguing. >.>

To repeat myself, why are you insisting Christianity adhere to Genesis when not many do and I would venture to say most understand that Genesis is merely a creation myth. One, that from an academic theological perspective, is compiled from various different sources and influences, incorrectly translated, contradictory to other parts of the Bible and was decided on by a committee. I'd say the average Christian is smart enough to realize they're just reading a book penned and compiled by human hands that is thousands of years out of date.

You are essentially insisting all Christians be fundamentalists.

And that's ignoring the fact that Genesis is merely the Christian creation myth that made it to print.

[siead_lietrathua]

You are essentially insisting all Christians be fundamentalists.
And that's ignoring the fact that Genesis is merely the Christian creation myth that made it to print.

erm. did i say all christians believe something. no. i'm just saying it's the theology. people are free to NOT believe the theology about the creation myth all they want in their day-to-day lives, just as they ignore the theology about stoning their bad kids. i really don't care on a personal level.

however, when debating about a topic that is essentially Theology Vs Science Theory, things need to be defined. otherwise the debate is pointless from the get-go.

Every religion has it's creation story. if we were talking about Asatru creation VS evolution i would talk about humans being made from trees. if we were talking Greek Mythology Creation i would have to argue against man-mud golems. with abrahamic faiths, yes, i will damn talk about genesis because that IS the creation myth.

now if we're going to talk about a vague god-concept that could have jump started the universe, that's fine. we would have to define that god, and it opens up the door to the irritating goalpost-shifting and god of the gaps issues but fine. the problem starts when people take this overarching, almost diestic concept of god, and then stick the name of a specific god onto it so they can argue that their god is the right creator.

well, sorry, but i don't deal with that nonsense in a debate. if someone insists that a vague, non-theological yahweh is still somehow yahweh-of-the-bible in a debate, then you might as well just override yahweh with zeus. it would be just as pointless and effective at stopping any real debate. and just as factually accurate.


hell if this is going to be "science" VS "everyone's personally chosen beliefs from their multitude of religious and cultural sources they will attach any god-name to they choose" debate then it's a waste of everyone's time, even the theists.

[siead_lietrathua]

just thought about this. even if we disregard the creation of the 'verse and just look at straight, human, evolution. there IS no adam and eve in that course. no true, two homo sapiens, isolated from all other species genetically, that sinned and fell from eden.

the reason this buts heads so badly with christian theology is not because it breaks genesis. it's because the lack of an adam and eve, the lack of a "fall", eliminates the concept of original sin. without the idea that all of us are born in sin, and require this specific messiah to be saved from that sin, christianity loses alot of it's power. it's hard to scare people with inborn sin when they can show that the story is false.

[Rapscallion]

Yeaaaah, you can't exactly demand all Christians take Genesis literally in a thread about the trouble with a small group of idiots taking the Genesis literally.... >.>

Well, one of the main concepts of Christianity as I understand it is that Christ sacrificed himself for the sins of all humans, and that started with the original sin in the garden of Eden. Get rid of the creation and Adam and Eve, and the foundations there start to look a bit dubious. Depends what you take from it, I guess.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Fun fact: While Original Sin is a specifically Christian belief, it isn't universal to all branches of Christianity.

In such cases, Christ died for the sins of Man, in the aggregate, each with his own personal sins. Within that context, Adam and Eve are not treated as literal individuals.

[Rapscallion]

Funny thing about Christians in general. They disagree with each other a whole lot, often more than they disagree with other religions.

Seems to be more vehement against other faiths, but I suspect if Christianity was the dominant religion in the world the churches would start to fight each other.

Rapscallion

[siead_lietrathua]

In such cases, Christ died for the sins of Man, in the aggregate, each with his own personal sins. Within that context, Adam and Eve are not treated as literal individuals.

that doesn't solve anything though, it just drums up even MORE questions. with original sin, sin entered the world because of eve. clean-cut answer. but if there was no eve or eden, if they are seen as non-literal figures, it adds questions like:

when and why did sin come into existence if it was not caused by eve? is sin simply something present in the human soul? why would god make sin present in the soul, since it was not caused by a betrayal? if god created sin at his will, why could he not simply undo it? if god did not create sin, who did? if god did not create sin, yet is the ultimate being, could he not remove it anyway? if god cannot create or remove sin, then isn't there a more powerful diety?

where along the phylogeny does the soul begin? how can the existence of a soul be proven to have begun in that particular species? how can it be proven that souls did NOT exist in other hominid species such as neanderthals or hobbits? how can it be shown that souls exist in any species? how can it be shown that souls do not exist in all species?

how can we identify if a soul is created sinful, or obtains sin through moral choices? how can we identify which moral choices would result in sin? How can we identify which god is deciding what choices are sinful? how can we determine we are following the correct denomination of the correct god for that moral code? how can we know we identified the correct moral choices, when things like Murder can both condemned and ordered by the same incarnation of a god?

If god created sin within us intentionally, are there still consequences of that sin? is god still 'just' for having consequences for sin under those circumstances? why would god require a blood sacrifice of a human to remove sin when humans are not the cause of sin? is it 'just' that jesus died for sin created by god rather than caused by human action?

and so on and so on.

please note that none of these questions claim sin or souls do NOT exist. it's just asking for evidence about the nature of sin/ souls to back up the positive claim made that they DO exist.