I want some answers

[Powerman]

I see a few threads here pertaining to evolution.

I can understand if from a scientific standpoint you might not be completely sold on evolution.

But if you believe in creationism or ID why don't you apply the same thought process to that?

Why must there be a high standard of proof for evolution which so many of you despise yet you don't apply that to your own beliefs concerning faith? With faith there is no standard of proof. It's quite silly actually.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well if you believe god is allpowerful and can do anything, then it's nothing for him to create humanity, plus a fossil record which appears to support evolution to lure the nonbelievers away from god.

 

[Mr. P]

I see a few threads here pertaining to evolution.

I can understand if from a scientific standpoint you might not be completely sold on evolution.

But if you believe in creationism or ID why don't you apply the same thought process to that?

Why must there be a high standard of proof for evolution which so many of you despise yet you don't apply that to your own beliefs concerning faith? With faith there is no standard of proof. It's quite silly actually.

I'll bet my SHIT stirrin stick is bigger than yours is. :whip3:

 

[Powerman]

I'll bet my SHIT stirrin stick is bigger than yours is. :whip3:

Who said anything about stirring shit? It's a message board and a place for people to debate things. You can call it stirring shit if you want. I just see it as talking about something.

 

[Powerman]

Well if you believe god is allpowerful and can do anything, then it's nothing for him to create humanity, plus a fossil record which appears to support evolution to lure the nonbelievers away from god.

Let's be serious for a second...do you really think that God put fossils there to test your belief in Genesis?

 

[Mr. P]

Who said anything about stirring shit? It's a message board and a place for people to debate things. You can call it stirring shit if you want. I just see it as talking about something.

Okay..after your 651 posts if you haven't learned yet, I guess you won't.
Carry on, see what kind of "DEBATE" you get on this subject here.

Here, hold my stick for me, you'll need two.

 

[5stringJeff]

I see a few threads here pertaining to evolution.

I can understand if from a scientific standpoint you might not be completely sold on evolution.

But if you believe in creationism or ID why don't you apply the same thought process to that?

Why must there be a high standard of proof for evolution which so many of you despise yet you don't apply that to your own beliefs concerning faith? With faith there is no standard of proof. It's quite silly actually.

Science is not the only way to determine truth. Logic and philosophy are equally valid ways to determine whether or not something is true. As ID/creationism can be shown to be true using logical arguments.

 

[Powerman]

Science is not the only way to determine truth. Logic and philosophy are equally valid ways to determine whether or not something is true. As ID/creationism can be shown to be true using logical arguments.

Look...that's just silly. Be serious now. Logic would not lead you to believe in anything other than evolution.

 

[5stringJeff]

Let's be serious for a second...do you really think that God put fossils there to test your belief in Genesis?

The view you reference is called "young-earth creationism," and is not held universally by all Christians. There are many Christians, including me, who believe that the universe was created, by God, through the 11-12 billion year time span that scientists determine is the age of the universe. We view the six days of creation to be more like six different time periods, during which God was actively involved in creating different things (the earth, the stars, plants, land, oceans, animals, etc.). Therefore, we see no conflict between our faith and the existence of fossils, dinosaurs, etc.

 

[5stringJeff]

Look...that's just silly. Be serious now. Logic would not lead you to believe in anything other than evolution.

OK, try this on for size:

1. Jesus was the Son of God, and was Himself divine (article of Christian faith; provable, but it would take a long time and is outside this thread).
2. God cannot lie (see the Bible; however, it can also be proved that if God exists, and is Himself the ultimate cause of everything, that He must be purely good, which precludes lying).
3. Therefore, Jesus cannot lie.
4. Jesus affirmed that God created the universe.
5. Therefore, since Jesus cannot lie, God created the universe.

 

[Powerman]

The view you reference is called "young-earth creationism," and is not held universally by all Christians. There are many Christians, including me, who believe that the universe was created, by God, through the 11-12 billion year time span that scientists determine is the age of the universe. We view the six days of creation to be more like six different time periods, during which God was actively involved in creating different things (the earth, the stars, plants, land, oceans, animals, etc.). Therefore, we see no conflict between our faith and the existence of fossils, dinosaurs, etc.

I have no problem with that belief. But let me ask you this.

Do you believe that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive?

I see no reason to believe that they are personally. If there was some "intelligent designer" it would make sense that evolution was built into the system. I don't think it would be very intelligent NOT to have evolution into the design.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have no problem with that belief. But let me ask you this.

Do you believe that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive?

I see no reason to believe that they are personally. If there was some "intelligent designer" it would make sense that evolution was built into the system. I don't think it would be very intelligent NOT to have evolution into the design.

I believe that God could have easily used macroevolution to bring about his creation. He is the ultimate cause of all things, and therefore could do anything possible that is consistent with His nature. However, I believe that He did not choose to use evolution, and instead was actively involved in the creation of life and all of its diversity. I base that on Genesis 1-2 and Christ's affirmation of it in Matthew (can't remember the passage off hand).

 

[Powerman]

I believe that God could have easily used macroevolution to bring about his creation. He is the ultimate cause of all things, and therefore could do anything possible that is consistent with His nature. However, I believe that He did not choose to use evolution, and instead was actively involved in the creation of life and all of its diversity. I base that on Genesis 1-2 and Christ's affirmation of it in Matthew (can't remember the passage off hand).

But given all the scientific evidence to support evolution why would you think that God chose not to use evolution? If you believe in God then you must believe he was capable of implenting such a mechanism into us.

 

[dmp]

The word 'some' is useless in your thread title.

I want 'some' answers = I want answers. You should learn to type more efficiently

 

[Powerman]

OK, try this on for size:

1. Jesus was the Son of God, and was Himself divine (article of Christian faith; provable, but it would take a long time and is outside this thread).
2. God cannot lie (see the Bible; however, it can also be proved that if God exists, and is Himself the ultimate cause of everything, that He must be purely good, which precludes lying).
3. Therefore, Jesus cannot lie.
4. Jesus affirmed that God created the universe.
5. Therefore, since Jesus cannot lie, God created the universe.

This has nothing to do with logic. This is all based on the fact that you believe in something that has no proof.

 

[5stringJeff]

But given all the scientific evidence to support evolution why would you think that God chose not to use evolution? If you believe in God then you must believe he was capable of implenting such a mechanism into us.

The evidence only says that there are many animals which look similar. Frankly, the evidence alone leaves much to be desired. Where are all the fossils of the "in-between" animals along the evolutionary chain? If Darwinism is right, there should be millions of fossils of animals that are half-fish, half-frog; half-fish, half-bird; half-insect, half-germ. Where are they? Weren't they around for millions of years? Where are the "in-between" animals of today? What evolutionary principle accounts for the Cambrian explosion? Sorry, evolution has way too many holes in it to be taken seriously.

 

[Powerman]

The word 'some' is useless in your thread title.

I want 'some' answers = I want answers. You should learn to type more efficiently

No. I want some answers. I don't want ALL answers.

But we're nitpicking here. Get to the point if you have an opinion on it.

 

[Nienna]

I'll bet my SHIT stirrin stick is bigger than yours is. :whip3:

Yup, Mr. P. Have to agree with you here. This subject is guaranteed to start a tempest in the toilet!

 

[Powerman]

The evidence only says that there are many animals which look similar. Frankly, the evidence alone leaves much to be desired. Where are all the fossils of the "in-between" animals along the evolutionary chain? If Darwinism is right, there should be millions of fossils of animals that are half-fish, half-frog; half-fish, half-bird; half-insect, half-germ. Where are they? Weren't they around for millions of years? Where are the "in-between" animals of today? What evolutionary principle accounts for the Cambrian explosion? Sorry, evolution has way too many holes in it to be taken seriously.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that there are no transitional fossils? Because if you are I don't need to waste time talking to you.

And answer this question for me. Where are the ancient fossils of humans? That's right. There are none because we didn't exist in our present state millions of years ago.

 

[5stringJeff]

This has nothing to do with logic. This is all based on the fact that you believe in something that has no proof.

You obviously don't understand logical proofs. And if you re-read, I stated that it was outside the scope of the thread to prove the existence of God and the deity of Christ. But here's a short proof of the former:

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
a. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
a. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
b. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.