100 Questions for the Evolutionists to Answer

Oh, and I am not here to Christian or any other religion bash... I just love science. I don't really like it when one side calls another side stupid or whatever... People can believe anything they want, from Jesus to the invisible pink unicorn.
 
Depending on the definition of belief and prove we're only go round and round with this discussion.

The lay definition of proof is CSI-Deniable-100% Take-It-to-the-Bank repeatable. That isn't even close to the scientific definition of a proof. There are lots of things that we take for granted on the basis of scientific proof. But when science and faith seem to always butt heads is in evolution.

What I've found is that I have a weak faith in a religious sense but a strong faith in a scientific sense. That is fine for me.

Talking about an Earth that is 4,000 years old is complete rubbish! Today I went on a 3 hour hike at Canyon Lake Gorge, http://www.canyongorge.org/Default.aspx that started on rocks that are 110 million years old and ended on rocks that are 111 million years old. How does a 4,000 year timeline fit with this? The flood in 2002 cut 80 feet down exposing layers with dinosaur tracks and lots of fossils. There are too many examples of old Earth around...fossils on Everest...how did they get that far up?

The credibility of someone speaking about young Earth is gone for me. Whatever they build their argument on has no substance. Besides, how many real theologists even believe the 4,000 year old age anymore? Shoot...the bristlecone pines are that old. Did they form in place in the shape that we see? No...
 
[ QUOTE ]

Evolution IS religion by the way.SOrry to inform you!! It is a belief that requires a leap of faith.It is absolutly not proven science.You believe it because you choose to NOT because of air tight science. Spare the science has proven lines for someone else!


[/ QUOTE ]

actually there is plenty of evidence. one the age of the planet can be determined by radiocarbon dating and understanding some simple geology. look at animal husbandry for instance. this is a hyper active form of evolution where animals have evolved by selective breeding to achieve certain traits. much like natural selection. i dont think belief in evolution and belief in god need be independent of each other or at odds. most of the main stream christian denominations actually embrace it.
 
Good video with lots of interesting ideas and questions. Too bad about the passive-agressive attitude though. He isn't doing himself any favours with the evolution crowd, just comes across as smug or ignorant.

(...and that's coming from a creationist!)


BTW: can't we all just get along?!?
223580-jesus_and_the_dinosaurs-banner.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 223580-jesus_and_the_dinosaurs-banner.webp
    223580-jesus_and_the_dinosaurs-banner.webp
    33.3 KB · Views: 5
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Evolution IS religion by the way.SOrry to inform you!! It is a belief that requires a leap of faith.It is absolutly not proven science.You believe it because you choose to NOT because of air tight science. Spare the science has proven lines for someone else!


[/ QUOTE ]

actually there is plenty of evidence. one the age of the planet can be determined by radiocarbon dating and understanding some simple geology. look at animal husbandry for instance. this is a hyper active form of evolution where animals have evolved by selective breeding to achieve certain traits. much like natural selection. i dont think belief in evolution and belief in god need be independent of each other or at odds. most of the main stream christian denominations actually embrace it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is evidence, only from one point of view.

Suppose one who does not believe that God created the heaven, were willing to consider the possibility.

If so, then if he were able to create and form all the elements and put atoms in motion, as well as the stars, he could have created everything in a condition that we would classify as having age to begin with.

So when we get down to the basics, science and carbon dating can't prove whether God created the earth and heavens. He either did, or did not.

cool.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Good video with lots of interesting ideas and questions. Too bad about the passive-agressive attitude though. He isn't doing himself any favours with the evolution crowd, just comes across as smug or ignorant.

(...and that's coming from a creationist!)


BTW: can't we all just get along?!?
223580-jesus_and_the_dinosaurs-banner.jpg


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is a good point about the video.

Even if he were right, rediculing others does not win a lot of friends.

Biblically, I've only recall redicule in scriptures being aimed directly at those who seem permanently set in their ways.

As a teaching example, it wouldn't be the best habit to sow among others.
 
Attempting to blend scientific evidence and theology won't work. Faith and proof don't integrate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

For me, they can function together.

In order to dodge excommunication Galileo [1564-1642] had to rebuke his belief in Copernicus' [1473-1543] theories of a sun centered solar system. Would anyone believe that the earth is the center of the solar system?
 
(Tom, this is also in response to your PM:)

Here's how I see the evolution/creation debate: It is NOT meant to be solved!
That may make me sound like an ostridge with a head stuck in the sand so I'll have to explain. I believe in God and creation. However, that doesn't mean that I am incapable of hearing and even considering an evolutionists' views and ideas. There are dead- ends to the debate on both sides, and that is how it's meant to be IMHO. Why? Because a definitive answer one way or the other would illiminate FREE WILL.

Here is one of my favorite illustrations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6et2ZSodS0g

God wanted people to willingly desire and follow him, not just follow blindly like drones (although admitedly many of my peers on this side of the fence do just that!) Many of the answers to the debate are simply not attainable, either through scientific limitations or one having to make a literal 'leap of faith'. Does that mean I have to believe that God has thrown me a few wrong clues? Maybe. But that is where faith comes in. I believe all that I read in scripture, not just the parts I like. If the Bible says 'God created the Heavens and the Earth' than I believe it as completely as 'Thou shalt not kill'. I don't get to choose. And if the evolution argument only gets stronger and harder to refute than my faith has to grow correspondingly.
Here is the difference though: I respect everyone's opinions (which is also Biblical BTW). Just because I believe what I read in the Bible does not mean I have to fully insert my head in my butt! I will listen to, understand, and respect differing opinions and viewpoints because the rest of the people on earth have free will as well. I will simply explain my own beliefs if questioned and leave it at that. I don't care if it's religion, politics, science, whatever; an outright and aggresive attack on someone else's beliefs is wrong.
(now having said all that, watch the TreeBuzz fire and brimston fall on me!)
 
Rob,

Your link is blocked in the US because of NBC copyrights :(

If any fire and brimstone start falling then editing/blocking will start. After all...I do have the power of a god in TreeBuzz afterall :)

Having a civil exchange should be easy.
 
I´m really amazed and daffled by the great knowledge of God´s will and intentions among my fellow buzzers and probably everybody else out there. Me, I cant even figure out myself..
 
[ QUOTE ]
Me, I cant even figure out myself..

[/ QUOTE ]Ditto Treebear...
But what wonders me is the fact that many people 'see' proof for their religion in books, 'written' centuries after the so called 'facts' have happened.
I wonder... By the year 4000 Harry Potter will be the guy to follow. After all, there are how many books?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me, I cant even figure out myself..

[/ QUOTE ]Ditto Treebear...
But what wonders me is the fact that many people 'see' proof for their religion in books, 'written' centuries after the so called 'facts' have happened.
I wonder... By the year 4000 Harry Potter will be the guy to follow. After all, there are how many books?

[/ QUOTE ]


i agree. i have studied the translations of the cantebruy tales. a work that was written 1000 years after the bible. there are nearly 120 different versions. its hard to discern the original. so how can one base their entire belief system on interpretations of antiquated text that may or may not be anywhere near their original intent. those in power have used these words to justify there means.i like to base my belief system of the quantifiable and recordable.
 
And here is where the groans and eyerolling is going to start...

[ QUOTE ]
i like to base my belief system of the quantifiable and recordable.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! I do too, it's just that I also incorporate faith into it.

A true religious experience is much more than the simple reading, believing, and practicing of what is written in a book. If that were true my religion would be the sherrill tree catalog or the you-brew recipes.
No, the true experience of religion is just that- experiencial. You've heard it before channel surfing on sunday morning: a 'personal relationship with God', or A GOD, or a potato, or whatever it happens to be for that person. My belief in God is experiencial and until you have experienced it who is to say if it is real or not?
 
Great discussion! Pardon the length, but here are my thoughts on the matters.

1. This guy does himself no favors in the way he is delivering the info. The method is as important as the message (Colossian 4:4-6; 1 Peter 3:15).
2. There are many believers who hold to an old earth idea. The age is not as important as recognizing how it got here. It is NOT an essential doctrine, as an earlier post by mdvaden was pointing out.
3. There is still a lot of faith that is necessary to have an evolutionary (Darwin or other) view. There are many gaps that must be filled with a hope for the discovery of future evidence that is not there yet. A Naturalist or Materialist worldview must presuppose theories that are necessary for the worldview to work, even though there is no evidence to support those specific ideas. So, one with that type of worldview must have faith to the degree that their worldview will still make more sense to them than others, though the evidence is not there at this time.
4. The Christian definition of Faith is trusting what one has reason to believe is true. The reason I am a Christian is because of the evidence, partly that there is no theory adequate enough to explain the empty tomb. It basically comes down to two theories: the Disciples stole the body, or they told the truth. And based upon the cumlitive historical evidence it makes more sense that they had an experience that they believed was the risen Jesus.

I have some more to write, but it's dinner time. I'll be back later.

Feel free to pm me if you want more info or sources.
 
OK, I'm back. I love Spaghetti Sundays.

5. I am also a theist because no one has adequately explained where the mass came from in the first place that went BANG!; how life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals; which came first, DNA, which rely on proteins for its production, or proteins that rely on DNA for their production; how DNA or even simple cells could have evolved with all of the irreducible complexities which make decent with modification extremely unlikely if not impossible (cilium and bacterial flagellum).

6. Faith and reason absolutely intersect. What many outside of Christianity don't understand is the amount of scholarly research that goes into defending the Christian point of view, and how reasonable the arguments are. That doesn't mean you have to believe them, but they are strong arguments based upon a reasonable logic. As mentioned above, faith is trusting what you have reason to believe is true. While many do not feel they need to examine the evidence, many have and have come away with an assurance that it's the strongest worldview out there. The list of former atheists is long. Lee Strobel and Anthony Flew (now a theist, not a Christian...yet) are just a few current names. They are "former" because they looked at the evidence. They say that is what moved them into a position where they saw their view as lacking, and Christianity as being much more reasonable (or theism in Flew's case).

7. Dawkins may be good at his vocation, but he's a very poor philosopher or theologian (you can add Chritopher Hitchins and Sam Harris as well). If he's going to be in the forefront of the Neo-Atheists he ought to take some logic classes, and perhaps read some Christian books that can bring him up to speed on the current views and arguments. He is mainly arguing in the 19th century. An all too common mistake I've seen several times in debates. You need to know your opponant so you know what and how to argue.

8. The evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is overwhelming, if you want to look. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Disciple's story is true, but it does mean that the evidence shows that 98% of what we have today is what the original author's wrote (USB or Nestle-Aland Greek NT). The 2% in question does not affect any Christian doctrine. This is backed by a large amount of evidence, not blind faith. In Spite of Dr. Bart Ehrman's critiques and skeptical musings on how we cannot be sure what was written or who wrote it, the evidence (some of which he "accidentally" confirms in some of his books) says different.

9. The Christian faith does go beyond the argument. Christianity is about the experiential result of understanding what Christ's death really means. To understand what it means to fall short of a perfect standard, to be forgiven, and what it took to give us the way back to God. It's more than just cerebrial acknowledgement, it is a personal and experiential relationship that results in a changed life. Anyone can just believe, and it does nothing for them. The church has been and always will be plagued by CINOs (Christians in Name Only - see next point). Unless your life is changed (for the better) it hasn't quite got to where it needs to be.

10. There have been, and still are, many who do things "in the name of Christ." It ain't necessarily so. You judge a tree by it's fruit (Matthew 7:15-20 - I knew I could slip some arborist stuff in somewhere). Jesus said that there are those who will do stuff in His name, and are really not His (Matthew 7:21-23). So, if you hear someone making claims, check it out for yourself. I see nothing in the New Testament that supports what some of the lunny-tune nut jobs have done, recently and in history. But, it's not fair or charitable to lump all Christians into the same bundle. Stalin, Mao, and many other vile pieces of debris were atheists, but it is not fair to class others with them just because they are atheists as well.

Well, that should be enough for now. As I mentioned before, feel free to pm me if you want sources or more info.

Happy Resurrection Sunday!
 
You are correct ! if you look at documentation.What most people do not know or understand is that there is actually more original text intact of biblical writings than the history of ancient Rome.Which most folks exept as factual history.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct ! if you look at documentation.What most people do not know or understand is that there is actually more original text intact of biblical writings than the history of ancient Rome.Which most folks exept as factual history.

[/ QUOTE ]

got any links or something to back that up?

So when do you guys believe god created the earth and everything else?
 
home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html
I am not sure if this link will work or not, but if you google manuscript evidence of the Bible, you will be astonished by the number of ancient in tact and partial manuscripts there are for the Bible compared to ANY other ancient manuscripts.Most of those secular scholars take as truth........but not the Bible! why? because they choose not to believe.......and that is ok with me!! it really is ,go ahead and choose not to believe.Just do not tell me I AM A FOOL because i do!! that is really all I ask( not that i really care) I know im not a fool!!
I know that I know because the Lord has opened my eyes!! can I get an AMEN?
 
Hey Banjo:

Here's a couple of links:

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm
http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence
http://iamnext.com/spirituality/NTrely.html

They all have similar lists, and cite some of the same folks, but each have different additional material.

A great source from the one of the greatest textual scholars (and mentor of Dr. Bart Ehrman) is this book:

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987.

Metzger is easy to read and the book is packed with small and interesting details. Highly recommended and quoted by many. He also wrote "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford University Press, New York: 1992).

For your second question, I personally don't think the earth is 6000 yrs old, but I'm not so sure that the 4 Billion mark is accurate either. IMHO the dating method gets a bit circular the further you go back. For me, what is important is how it got here. I believe the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument are valid and have not been refuted:

A. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
B. The universe began to exist.
C. Therefore, the unverse has a cause.

Now for argument's sake it may not have been the God of the Bible, but again I haven't heard of a good scientific explanation of how the first thing got here to go BANG. The Steady State Theory was given up by the guy who proposed it, and the Cosmic Rebound Theory, Imaginary Time, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle lack evidence and have plenty of science against them.

And since we're getting philosophical, if there is no God, then why is there something rather than nothing? And which worldview answers that question best?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom