evolution or creation? lets talk...

by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    AlanF writes:

    Most evolutionists agree that the "origin of life" problem is a very different thing. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins shows this clearly, because evolution is a process, whereas the origin of life was most likely a one-time event. Most creationists want to lump the much harder to explain "origin of life" problem with evolution in order to muddy the waters.

    And to my mind that's exactly the point.

    Evolution doesn't yet even pretend to have an answer to biogenesis, but it does have a good go at explainng the mechanisms for how we have so much diversity on this planet. Science answers the "how" questions of life, and leaves the "why"s to the philosophers.

    BigTex:

    What I posted about Little Toe was my attempt at humor.

    I got it buddy. It's all good

    Hillary:

    LittleToe, in his frequent role as Uncle Knight of Reason , has tried his best to build a bridge of kindness between the opposing factions, but agendas are always far more important on these Board's than reason, as he has found out - again.

    It aint my fault that the Billy Goats Gruff allied themselves with the Big Bad Wolf, and huffed and puffed the bridge down! It's the troll with the sore head that I feel sorry for

    Ian:What have you suddenly got against Christ? He hasn't treated you too badly, though I can't speak for many of his alleged followers...

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Ian:What have you suddenly got against Christ? He hasn't treated you too badly,
    He turned him into a Newt, for god's sake.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    But he got better

  • acsot
    acsot

    Ian (and others) : my username is A C S OT, or, T O S C A backwards. It's one of my favourite operas but I thought Tosca was too "common" so spelled it backwards. But I guess I should have gone with ascot, though I prefer bowties .

  • acsot
    acsot

    Hillary, yes I replied to a post by TopHat about her using the Answers in Genesis website as a basis for her rebuttals to evolution, but I guess she didn't see it.

    I'll address the rest of this post to her (again) :

    TopHat, copy-pasting an url from Answers in Genesis only proves you don't understand evolution nor do you understand science. AiG is not a peer-reviewed, scientific website. It doesn't even have links to museums, universities, or other scientific sites. (I've italicized and bolded some statements which I found to be particularly, uh, interesting). You might as well return to the Kingdom Hall if you're going to accept Answers in Genesis as the basis for your understanding of anything.

    From the AiG website:

    Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith

    For a slightly more detailed copy of the Statement of Faith, please make your request in writing.

    (A) PRIORITIES

    The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    (B) BASICS

    The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.

    The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

    The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

    The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

    The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

    The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

    Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.

    (C) THEOLOGY

    The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons-God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

    All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.

    Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.

    The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

    The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.

    Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.

    All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.

    Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

    Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.

    Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.

    Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.

    The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage.

    (D) GENERAL

    Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

    The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

    The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

    The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.

    The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious,’ is rejected.

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    Good Morning, Zagor.

    First of all, I had a real problem getting on this site this morning - as I do many mornings as it is just so s-l-o-w.

    Thanks for the link, which I perused, believe me. As you say, there are those for and against Jesus' existence, just as I'm finding on the ancient bible history forum I belong to. In order not to get bogged down in this subject (I think I have an old thread on it somewhere and, if I haven't, there'll be one in the archives. I'll take a look - providing it doesn't move slowly) I'll stick to what I was attempting to show and which is what you correctly assumed, that there is nothing we can find (outside of scripture) that Jesus was the Messiah - even accepting that he could have existed.

    Thinking about it, and keeping to the subject of this thread, trinitarians believe Jesus to be God and, as has been shown here, the probability of there being a God as creator is minute compared to what we know about evolution. As the title of this thread makes clear, it is Creation v Evolution, and I'm firmly in the latter camp!

    Ross:

    Ian:What have you suddenly got against Christ? He hasn't treated you too badly, though I can't speak for many of his alleged followers...

    I haven't got a clue what you're talking about! I haven't suddenly got anything against him. I can't have something against someone in whom I don't believe! And as for his not treating me too badly, you've completely lost me!

    Ian

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Ian:

    My point is merely that there is historical evidence (even a single ancient document would usually suffice for us to believe an individual lived, outwith such an emotive character) both outwith the bible canon, and to be frank including it, because regardless of how much myth people may believe is contained in it, it's still an extant work of the First century AD, regardless of how much is may or may not have been tampered with.

    By direct comparison there are a wealth of myths around Buddha, no writings by his own hand, and a bunch of schools attributed to his thoughts that exercise some level of control over the philosophies of millions. Do you similarly not believe in him?

    Finally back on-thread, the patterns of understanding that accept that Jesus and Buddha were likely historical figures are not dissimilar to the construction of the theory of evolution. Snippets of facts are provided that link together to make the outcome probable. In the case of evolution there's the whole geological showcase to work from, adding additional facts pretty much every time a new hole is dug. In the case of historical personages the additional evidence occurs rarely, but does still occur.

    As for the "what has he done to you?" comment, I was merely reflecting on the fact that I'm unaware of him having personally done you any injustice, so I'm wondering where your desire to disprove his historicity has come from. "What does it ease, in your internal worldmap?", is another thought that comes to mind - that'll teach me to take a Psychology course, huh?

    On a further note, who is this mysterious "Jon"? What are his credentials, aside from being some guy on a webboard?

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    I did some research a long time ago on Tacitus, as I remember there were some very considerable problems with using Tacitus account as proof of Jesus existence. Early Roman records do not record his name, there is a suggestion from tacitus' peers that there was someone else in Rome at the time claiming to be the messiah. There is evidence of falsification of other early records (notably josephus) to include reference to Jesus but no actual records from the time Jesus was around. Not really very surprising considering how unimportant he was to the Romans at the time.

    I think it is interesting that someone who disliked christians as much as Tacitus chose not to engage in his usual dilligent research regarding the name of the founder of that faith. As one of the most important and most read of all the Roman historians I would have thought he would be the obvious choice to provide a bit of secular evidence of Jesus existence, regardless of his personal animosity towards christians and not an unlikely choice as one poster suggested.

    All in all, some very sketchy evidence from the century after Jesus death and nothing at all that could be construed as proof

  • Beardo
    Beardo

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

    I bought this guys book - it has nearly fallen to bits. Some interesting odds'n'sods in there.

  • TopHat
    TopHat

    Satanus: Please DO NOT make the ID thread as mindless as this one...I gave you the answer on this thread...and that is all you are going to get. God is OUTSIDE the realm of time.

    I will NOT go on and on with redundant questions.

    The End

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit