Bottom line is this argument (I used "argument" because it is and forever shall be, an argument):

Both theories require faith.

There were no witnesses to Creation or the Big Bang. There were no witnesses to the beginning of life as we know it. Therefore, believing that God created the earth, life, and the elements requires just as much faith as believing that the collision of nothing created the same.

(Oh, and wikipedia? Great, entertaining, and often enlightening reading, but honestly stinks as a reference or point of argument!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistorianChick

Bottom line is this argument (I used "argument" because it is and forever shall be, an argument):

Both theories require faith.

There were no witnesses to Creation or the Big Bang. There were no witnesses to the beginning of life as we know it. Therefore, believing that God created the earth, life, and the elements requires just as much faith as believing that the collision of nothing created the same.

(Oh, and wikipedia?? Great, entertaining, and often enlightening reading, but honestly stinks as a reference or point of argument!)

---

This is an absurd point of view. Your brain doesn't know when a photon hits your eye, but it knows it gets an impulse that tells it that some point in the past a photon did hit your eye and that the photon was purple and so you are seeing something that is purple. Does that require faith on the part of your brain? Do you not trust your brain's interpretation because it is acting only on what it thinks happened? - If you carried your argument to it's logical extreme, then reality is merely faith, which seems like a fairly pointless conclusion.

In the same way, we didn't see the beginning of the universe, but we can see what it has triggered since then and infer back in time. The difference between the scientific and the religious point of view is that the Big Bang theory can be tested and has been tested, we observe the CMB, homogeneity, and many other evidences.

In the same way, we see life, we see the building blocks of life and we imagine how they could have formed. There is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis yet but we have models and are studying them and understanding more and more. We just don't have enough evidence to make a solid enough claim yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

In the same way, we see life, we see the building blocks of life and we imagine how they could have formed. There is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis yet but we have models and are studying them and understanding more and more. We just don't have enough evidence to make a solid enough claim yet.

---

You call it imagining, supposition, theory.

I call it faith.

Never the twain shall meet.

It's simple, really, when you correctly define the terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistorianChick

You call it imagining, supposition, theory.

I call it faith.

Never the twain shall meet.

It's simple, really, when you correctly define the terms.

---

I still don't see how you can call theory "faith", or even bundle theory with imagining and supposition (both of which I never said), which have very different meanings. A theory is a rigorous model that has been proven time and time again by observations and predictions that fit the observed evidence. Faith is when a belief is held in the absence of evidence or even if there is contradictory evidence.

I'm not asking you to understand nor define my faith. Its not necessary for you to do so.

Its why I love this website... AMHD is where people can express personal opinions on a variety of situations. We don't ask everyone to adhere to or buy into our own personal explanations of issues, we are simply given a soapbox on which to pronounce our views.

And that's what I did. I used my soapbox and gave my opinion. I was called absurd in the process, but that's OK. It goes with the territory of using a soapbox... I'm just glad you didn't have a rotten e-tomato! ;)

**Edit**
Actually, you did use "imagine" - we see the building blocks of life and we imagine how they could have formed.... I threw in "supposition," but blame that on my writer's mentality... thesaurus' fascinate me... but that is neither here nor there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistorianChick

**Edit**
Actually, you did use "imagine" - we see the building blocks of life and we imagine how they could have formed..... I threw in "supposition," but blame that on my writer's mentality... thesaurus' fascinate me ... but that is neither here nor there...

---

Sorry, you're right, but I used imagine because we do imagine, we don't have a theory yet. But imagining in the scientific sense is based on making models and seeing if they produce the observed conclusions if you carry them through. It's still an evidence based activity.

It was actually childish of me to get my little touche' in there... So, apology not necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HistorianChick

Bottom line is this argument (I used "argument" because it is and forever shall be, an argument):

Both theories require faith.

There were no witnesses to Creation or the Big Bang. There were no witnesses to the beginning of life as we know it. Therefore, believing that God created the earth, life, and the elements requires just as much faith as believing that the collision of nothing created the same.

(Oh, and wikipedia?? Great, entertaining, and often enlightening reading, but honestly stinks as a reference or point of argument!)

---

That's how I see it as well HC. Faith, trust and believe what we are being told is fact.
Something's can be proven in science and religion but not all things. The remainder does take some sort of faith, trust to believe that is true.

That was my EXACT problem in school. History. I used to think to myself, how do you know, what you are teaching from that book in your hand, actually happened. But then I did of course, trust what the teacher was saying did happen. But I still had a hard time
Buying all of it. Oddly, enough, religion class, I never had those doubts. That's odd isn't it.

But yes, for both sides, it does take a bit of faith and trust.

Capuchin


Hebrews 11:

1Now faith is being SURE of what we hope for and CERTAIN of what we do not see.




Don't you see that evolutionists have this kind of "faith" in their theory.



And your analagy to vision:

Your eye, the retina, the optic nerve and all the connections can work and make its way to the occipital lobe, so technically you can "see" but it is the [ occipital ] brain that actually comprehends what it is seeing.

Evolutionists are cortically blind. They can "see" the evidence but are blind to comprehending God's work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Capuchin


Hebrews 11:

1Now faith is being SURE of what we hope for and CERTAIN of what we do not see.




Don't you see that evolutionists have this kind of "faith" in their theory.



And your analagy to vision:

Your eye, the retina, the optic nerve and all the connections can work and make its way to the occipital lobe, so technically you can "see" but it is the [ occipital ] brain that actually comprehends what it is seeing.

Evolutionists are cortically blind. They can "see" the evidence but are blind to comprehending God's work.

---

But scientists do see evolution - It happens every day, your medicines and your food are based around it. We observe animals changing, we observe DNA, the medium through which changes propagate, we observe selection, when multiple organisms compete for a limited resource. We observe these EVERYWHERE and they form the basis for evolutionary theory. This is why evolution is theory.

We don't see a being who can create, we don't (really) see a possible physical pathway for creation. Aliens could have created us through significantly advanced technology, but you still have to wonder what created the aliens. This is why creationism is faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

Somethings can be proven in science and religion but not all things. The remainder does take some sort of faith, trust to believe that is true.

---

Proof is in the eye of the beholder, and in my eye, neither science nor religion offers proof of anything. What they both offer are assumptions, explanations and inferences. Each of us judges for ourselves the persuasiveness and plausibility of these assumptions and the explanations derived from them.

Does it take "faith" to accept the assumptions and methods of science? No, it just takes a willingness to be bound by the limits of observation, measurement, and reasoning in formulating explanations. Faith is simply the choice not to be bound by those limits, so that the set of all possible explanations is much larger.

For myself, the limits imposed by the scientific method are quite acceptable for exploring questions of how the physical world, including life, actually works. Science is also adequate for exploring some aspects of the question of how the universe and our world came to be the way they are. But it is utterly unsuited to the task of finding out why there is something rather than nothing, where the biological urge to survive and propagate comes from, or whether our individual life has a value, meaning, and purpose that transcends the urge to survive.

A lot of the arguments between proponents of science and religion boil down to the issue of which kinds of questions are interesting and important. I think both kinds are, so for me, it's just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]

Does it take "faith" to accept the assumptions and methods of science? No, it just takes a willingness to be bound by the limits of observation, measurement, and reasoning in formulating explanations. Faith is simply the choice not to be bound by those limits, so that the set of all possible explanations is much larger.

QUOTE]

I started thinking I would hightight all the points that seemed to hit home and I find myself wanting to hightlight your entire quote. :).

But the above is spoken with such reasonable sense and a feeling of great truth that it was one paragraph that did strike me the most.

OG - all of what you shared seems to tie it all up and summarize so nicely what is debated
What seems forever with no real conclusion.

To me, you seemed to address it all and lay a lot to rest. So very well done OG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

But scientists do see evolution - It happens every day, your medicines and your food are based around it. We observe animals changing, we observe DNA, the medium through which changes propogate, we observe selection, when multiple organisms compete for a limited resource. We observe these EVERYWHERE and they form the basis for evolutionary theory. This is why evolution is theory.

We don't see a being who can create, we don't (really) see a possible physical pathway for creation. Aliens could have created us through significantly advanced technology, but you still have to wonder what created the aliens. This is why creationism is faith.

---

You have said that evolution is not random, due to "natural selection."

But the changes you mention, such as anti microbial drug resistance, or dog breeding, or the widening of fast food fare to include Hispanic influences are due to humans. Humans as a agent of selection. And what are humans, but INTELLIGENT.

Besides MSSA may become MRSA, but it remains Staph.
Man may select special features to develop breed a dog, but it stays a dog.

What is the agent of change that explains
- bat echolation
- the biological big bang during the Cambrian period
- humans becoming bipedal
- the development of organ systems
- flowering plants?
among others?

This can never reproduced scientifically, it is all a theory and supposition, and yet people claim it as the truth when there is no proof.

How did these genetic changes come about.. Mutations? Because without this natural selection has nothing to work with.

Here is a scientific site

Genes and disease

"Most of the genetic disorders featured on this web site are the direct result of a mutation in one gene."

This is the mechanism by which one celled organisms became us??

You must have a lot of free time to spend all day looking for an exception to disprove the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

This can never reproduced scientifically, it is all a theory and supposition, and yet people claim it as the truth when there is no proof.

---

I'm wondering what you would consider to be "proof" in this case? Or are you saying that the answers to these questions are beyond the scope of science?

Flatearthers,

If you would take the time to study the theory instead of blindly saying it's wrong because the church says so maybe you would understand it. You might as well learn the theory learn why is a good theory and about why it's still a theory instead of a law, so you don't make America the laughing stock of the entire developed world. People who understand the theory tend to put those that don't in the same category as the lady from the view.

Am I blindly saying its wrong?

Or am I asking specific scientific questions that evolutionists cannot answer and have no proof of, so the religious diversions begin.

What specific mutations in the "common ancestor" of primates led to humans vs apes?
What was the "selection" factor?


That is one of hundreds of questions that cannot be proved or answered by evolutionists blindly, religiously saying it is because of "selection" or "mutations.

Evolution cannot withstand critical scientific evaluation.

And it does take time to evaluate data rather than just, without thinking, spouting the party line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Am I blindly saying its wrong?

---

To me, it appears that you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Or am I asking specific scientific questions that evolutionists cannot answer and have no proof of, so the religious diversions begin.

---

Some of the questions you ask have been answered long ago, some have not been answered yet, but may be in the future, and some have no answers at all because they are based on a misunderstanding of how the physical world works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

What specific mutations in the "common ancestor" of primates led to humans vs apes?
What was the "selection" factor?

---

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for sure, but this is probably a question that hasn't been answered yet, but may be eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

That is one of hundreds of questions that cannot be proved or answered by evolutionists blindly, religiously saying it is because of "selection" or "mutations.

---

The fact that you can think of a question that hasn't been answered yet has no bearing at all on the validity of the theory that underlies the study of biological processes. Why would you think that it does?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Evolution cannot withstand critical scientific evaluation.

---

This is simply not true. The evolutionary model has been subjected to intense critical scientific evaluation for almost 150 years and has withstood the scrutiny exceptionally well, as scientific theories go.

It is true, I'm sure, that in the eyes of creationists such as yourself, it cannot withstand the rantings and railings of creationists such as yourself. Big deal.

I think I remember just a few years back that someone working with DNA found that all us humans trace our ancestry back to to a single couple. Anyone have any information about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

I think I remember just a few years back that someone working with DNA found that all us humans trace our ancestry back to to a single couple. Anyone have any information about this?

---

I remember the article and it wasn't that all humans traced back to a single couple is was that most people that don't live in Africa trace back to a small group of people that could have been tossed out Africa which to could have been the origins to the Adam and Eve story. I'll look later to see if I can find the article. Apparently though inbreeding really wasn't a problem with our ancestors cause recently, they found that blue eyes traces back to a very few amount of people as well. I guess it just shows that even if a small population has a beneficial mutation that it gets distributed fairly quickly through out a population.

Found it.
Massive Genetic Study Supports "Out of Africa" Theory