Evolution v Creationism

**Kadagar_AV** · 05-04-2009, 04:54

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

What a lot of words. I'm too tired to read them, so sorry if this is has been mentioned before: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...3481305829426D. Rhy, watch that. It's mainly aimed at YECs, but the general idea comes accross. You should learn a lot from it.

Okay. So what I have gleamed from scanning the past 2 pages is that the Creationists among seem to have very little knowledge of scientific theory, combined with a good dose of Argumentam ad ingorantiumum, Argumentum ad verecundiam, and enough Straw Men to fill Ohio.

They also tend to be religious, which is yet another logical fallacy, unfortunately I am unable to remember what this fallacy is called, but it's the one where it is dependent on an outside condition of the arguer to be true, as opposed to being uncaring as to the arguer, as all arguments must if they are logically correct. Anyway, I'm sure someone will remind me.

Anyhoozle, unless something can be explained by process of natural law (or Occams Razor if you prefer), it is up to the theory maker (In this case creationalists) to provide the scientific explaination. Not our job to do your work.

So yeh, the ball is in your court creationalists. Evolution is as much natural Law as Magnetism or Gravity.

Oh, spoil sport!

Seamus Fermanagh, Oh, so now "God" created the Big Bang, huh?

I hope you were sarcastic in that post.

One question though: The christian religions have had to retreat against science for some couple of hundred years now.

Not without a fight, mind you, the church has always put up a valiant fight but lost in the long run.

So now you believe the church is forced to commit: "Ok, so science was right about everything and church was wrong about everything, but God still created the big bang!"

May I ask you, when WILL the church wave the white flag? Say we get scientifical answer to the big bang, will you have some other outpost to hide behind?

And mind you, we are, as I write, planning to send up technology to inspect the very beginning of the big bang.

Where is your next retreat?

"Ok, so science explained everything beyond the big bang, but still hasn't explored all dimensions. God is in one of these dimensions, I ASSURE YOU!".

Can you actually define the last religious retreat?

**ajaxfetish** · 05-05-2009, 23:16

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Seamus Fermanagh, Oh, so now "God" created the Big Bang, huh?

I hope you were sarcastic in that post.

. . .

May I ask you, when WILL the church wave the white flag? Say we get scientifical answer to the big bang, will you have some other outpost to hide behind?

. . .

Where is your next retreat?

"Ok, so science explained everything beyond the big bang, but still hasn't explored all dimensions. God is in one of these dimensions, I ASSURE YOU!".

I can't speak for Seamus, but personally I think this line of argument is irrelevant. Retreating to a 'God of the Gaps' mentality is silly, but the argument that it's either God or science is a false dilemma. In my personal belief, God is responsible for the creation of everything in the universe. Science is a vessel to better understand his methods and perhaps learn something transcendent in the process.

Did God create the universe? Sure. How? Well, let's study it and find out. Looks like it may have been through some kind of 'Big Bang.' Did God create humans? Sure. How? Well, let's study life and find out. Looks like it may have been through divergent evolution, probably powered by natural selection. Etc.

A person can choose to believe in God (any variety), or not to believe. That's a matter of faith, to be neither proved or disproven by scientific inquiry. Regardless of their faith, however, science is still the place to turn for explanations about the natural world. (edit: after all, revelation is filtered through all sorts of fallible humans. The natural world is created directly by God, the Bible only indirectly. I'll put my trust in the primary source, and look to the secondary sources for interpretation and opinion, as in any manner of study)

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

the criticism is not with people who make the Bible adhere to science, it's people who make science adhere to the Bible.

Unfortunately, as you point out, religious people are even more prone to the above false dilemma than nonreligious types.

Ajax

**Che Roriniho** · 05-05-2009, 23:53

The key is to not be Christian, but to be Christ-like.

**ajaxfetish** · 05-05-2009, 23:57

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

The key is to not be Christian, but to be Christ-like.

And these are mutually exclusive?

Ajax

**Che Roriniho** · 05-05-2009, 23:58

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

And these are mutually exclusive?

Ajax

Often, they are.

**ajaxfetish** · 05-06-2009, 00:20

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Often, they are.

The key is to not be a banker, but to be honest. Because, . . . often bankers are dishonest.

Couldn't that be simplified to the key is to be honest? Even if you are a banker?

Ajax

**seireikhaan** · 05-06-2009, 03:54

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Often, they are.

In order for two "things" to be mutually exclusive, it must mean that one absolutely cannot ever happen if the other does. Thus, it is literally impossible for two objects to be "often" mutually exclusive.