Hey, Bill Maher! Why won't you debate evolution?

[Nienna]

I wish I knew Kathianne - I think science is working on analysing the origins of the universe, if I can use that phrase, all the time and probably moving forward slowly in understanding what happened (not why it happened as has been pointed out). I think it's really exciting trying to find out what happened. Just the idea that science can, in a sense, look back in time to try and work out what happened is incredibly interesting and exciting.

Exactly. No scientist observed the "Big Bang." Scientists simply observe the present world and make deductions based on their observations. Same for evolutionists and creation scientists; they have merely arrived at different conclusions.

 

[Nienna]

I think the problem lies in method. I think so anyway.

As far as creationism goes, it's a belief system. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish about how the universe was created, but it's just a belief and as such can't be tested, it's beyond our knowledge. So, anyone can believe what they wish about how the universe was created and no-one can disprove it.

Exactly, once again. The Creationist cosmology is just as testable as the materialist cosmology of the Big Bang. Neither can be observed.

 

[Nienna]

You need look no further than the existence of the "creator".

Is the existence of the Creator truly less feasible than the existence of the Big Bang?

 

[jillian]

Is the existence of the Creator truly less feasible than the existence of the Big Bang?

The two are not inconsistent. But from a science standpoint.... yes.

 

[Nienna]

The two are not inconsistent. But from a science standpoint.... yes.

Why? Which one was observed?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

What if the Creator caused the big bang.

 

[Nienna]

What if the Creator caused the big bang.

Lot of people believe that.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Lot of people believe that.

Obviously not that many, otherwise there wouldn't be such a heated fight over who was right.

 

[Nienna]

Obviously not that many, otherwise there wouldn't be such a heated fight over who was right.

I have personally heard many people say they believe that God "created" using the Big Bang and evolution. I can't vouch for how "scientific" that sample is.

I think the controversy is sparked because material evolutionists will not allow that there is any scientific support for the Creation hypothesis, when in fact the evidence for both creation science and materialism/macroevolution is the same; it is merely interpreted differently.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I have personally heard many people say they believe that God "created" using the Big Bang and evolution. I can't vouch for how "scientific" that sample is.

I think the controversy is sparked because material evolutionists will not allow that there is any scientific support for the Creation hypothesis, when in fact the evidence for both creation science and materialism/macroevolution is the same; it is merely interpreted differently.

I think people often get caught up trying to win some religion vs. science pissing match and forget that micro/macro evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

[Nienna]

I think people often get caught up trying to win some religion vs. science pissing match and forget that micro/macro evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

That's true. However, Darwin's theory of macroevolution was spawned in attempt to discredit the need for a divine creator, to explain how life could have arisen(materialism) and developed(macroevolution) differently than explained in the Bible. The mainstream scientific community clings to materialism, and uses macroevolution to support this philosophy. Biblical creationists are offended that the religion of materialism is seen as legitimate, and the Biblical creation hypothesis is seen as a fairy tale. Creation and materialism are equally valid hypotheses.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

That's true. However, Darwin's theory of macroevolution was spawned in attempt to discredit the need for a divine creator, to explain how life could have arisen(materialism) and developed(macroevolution) differently than explained in the Bible. The mainstream scientific community clings to materialism, and uses macroevolution to support this philosophy. Biblical creationists are offended that the religion of materialism is seen as legitimate, and the Biblical creation hypothesis is seen as a fairy tale. Creation and materialism are equally valid hypotheses.

Wait, Darwin's theory is merely a conspiracy to prove there is no God?

 

[Nienna]

Wait, Darwin's theory is merely a conspiracy to prove there is no God?

You'd have to ask RWA about that!

Darwin embarked on the Beagle as a naturalist. During his travels, he read Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, which argued for an old earth, and against the veracity of the Biblical worldwide flood and Genesis in general. This book greatly influenced, or rather discouraged, Darwin's belief in Biblical creationism, which he had held since childhood. When he returned from his journey and wrote his observations, he chose to interpret them through a materialist rather than a creationist viewpoint. His theory of macroevolution, then, was an attempt to explain his observations without the necessity of divine origin or guidance.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have personally heard many people say they believe that God "created" using the Big Bang and evolution. I can't vouch for how "scientific" that sample is.

I think the controversy is sparked because material evolutionists will not allow that there is any scientific support for the Creation hypothesis, when in fact the evidence for both creation science and materialism/macroevolution is the same; it is merely interpreted differently.

[Darin mode]
You complete me. /swoon
[/Darin mode]

Seriously, though. Awesome post. I am one of those who believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang, though I do not believe in macroevolution. See the Wikipedia article on Old Earth Creationism - this is pretty much what I believe.

 

[Nienna]

[Darin mode]
You complete me. /swoon
[/Darin mode]

Thanks, Jeff. I'm a great admirer of your mind, as well.

Seriously, though. Awesome post. I am one of those who believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang, though I do not believe in macroevolution. See the Wikipedia article on Old Earth Creationism - this is pretty much what I believe.

I will check it out.

 

[Nienna]

So, Jeff... which one of these subcategories do you espouse?
1 Gap Creationism
2 Day-Age Creationism
3 The Framework Hypothesis
4 Cosmic Time

 

[5stringJeff]

So, Jeff... which one of these subcategories do you espouse?
1 Gap Creationism
2 Day-Age Creationism
3 The Framework Hypothesis
4 Cosmic Time

Day-Age, with Progressive Creationism thrown in. I believe that coincides with the multiple times that Genesis 1-2 says that "God created" things.

 

[Nienna]

Day-Age, with Progressive Creationism thrown in. I believe that coincides with the multiple times that Genesis 1-2 says that "God created" things.

Me? I'm stickin' with the Bible, as-is.

 

[jillian]

That's true. However, Darwin's theory of macroevolution was spawned in attempt to discredit the need for a divine creator, to explain how life could have arisen(materialism) and developed(macroevolution) differently than explained in the Bible. The mainstream scientific community clings to materialism, and uses macroevolution to support this philosophy. Biblical creationists are offended that the religion of materialism is seen as legitimate, and the Biblical creation hypothesis is seen as a fairy tale. Creation and materialism are equally valid hypotheses.

Oh pooh!

And the Biblical story isn't a scientific hypothesis. It's an allegory. The method by which creation was accomplished is not explained.

How long is a day in Genesis? It's an undefined term. It simply says "In the beginning....." and goes on from there. None of it obviates the science and the Creator is far more complex, IMO, anyway.

How old do you believe the world is?

 

[-Cp]

[Darin mode]
You complete me. /swoon
[/Darin mode]

Seriously, though. Awesome post. I am one of those who believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang, though I do not believe in macroevolution. See the Wikipedia article on Old Earth Creationism - this is pretty much what I believe.

Are you sure you believe that Jeff? - the Big Bang - really?