Evolution V Creation

[rjh4 is back]

And it is my pet peeve, especially when I visit sites like Answersingenesis and the like.

And their unbelievable mental gymnastics to get the evidence to conform to the Bible.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "their unbelievable mental gymnastics to get the evidence to conform to the Bible"?

It should be pretty clear from my posts elsewhere here that I believe that God created the universe. And while I do not have a problem with evolution in the sense that things/creatures change via natural selection, I reject evolution in the sense of common descent.

[Eilonnwy]

Zen, the have been lots of creation/evolution debates here, they're just embedded in other topics that ended up going that way.

[chatpilot]

rjh4 said: Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "their unbelievable mental gymnastics to get the evidence to conform to the Bible"?

The typical Christian lure to drag anyone who refutes their claims into a senseless discussion of those things they already know. The various disciplines of science completely refute everything the biblical version of creation has to say about our origins etc. For the literalist the Earth cannot be older than 6 or maybe 7 thousand years old, this includes the universe as we know it since creation itself was completed in 6 days since the seventh day doesn't count because that was the day that the lord rested.

Taking the biblical creation story literally makes no sense at all and has been utterly crushed by modern day scientific discoveries. So this rjh4 is where all of the "mental gymnastics" comes into play. There is the famous gap theory where an undetermined amount of time has passed between verses one and two of Genesis chapter 1. Or that the seven days were not literal they could have been 700, 7,000, or 7 million years. The order of the seven days of creation are not meant to be interpreted chronologically but are rather descriptive etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on and I have heard them all before.

Evolution through the process of natural selection is an established scientific fact that has plenty of data and evidence to back it up. I voted for evolution as opposed to the nonsensical creation stories based on faith.

[rjh4 is back]

The typical Christian lure to drag anyone who refutes their claims into a senseless discussion of those things they already know. The various disciplines of science completely refute everything the biblical version of creation has to say about our origins etc. For the literalist the Earth cannot be older than 6 or maybe 7 thousand years old, this includes the universe as we know it since creation itself was completed in 6 days since the seventh day doesn't count because that was the day that the lord rested.

Taking the biblical creation story literally makes no sense at all and has been utterly crushed by modern day scientific discoveries. So this rjh4 is where all of the "mental gymnastics" comes into play. There is the famous gap theory where an undetermined amount of time has passed between verses one and two of Genesis chapter 1. Or that the seven days were not literal they could have been 700, 7,000, or 7 million years. The order of the seven days of creation are not meant to be interpreted chronologically but are rather descriptive etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on and I have heard them all before.

Evolution through the process of natural selection is an established scientific fact that has plenty of data and evidence to back it up. I voted for evolution as opposed to the nonsensical creation stories based on faith.

So if someone has a starting point for answering questions regarding origins other than the scientific method, they are going through "mental gymnastics"? Is that what you are trying to say?

Your comments are kind of funny, too, CP. In another thread you claimed you were unbiased. Yet your comments here are riddled with biased language. Just because you claimed to be a Christian once does not make you unbiased.

Relative to your last paragraph, if you are merely talking about change through the process of natural selection, as I said, I agree with this. You do realize CP that one can hold to this definition of evolution and still hold to creation, don't you? It is common descent that I disagree with.

[chatpilot]

I get that you don't agree with common descent, but my contention is that falling back on the religious explanation makes absolutely no sense at all. What surprises me most is that most of the theists I have met on this site seem very intelligent which is more than I can say for the ones I meet in person from time to time. I find clinging to religious assertions based on faith is an abandonment of reason or a very incompatible compromise. We are all classified as mammals and in essence are part of the animal kingdom. The whole I am a creation of god thing just seems like an extension of mans arrogance. We want to be more than an animal we want to be the supreme creation etc. But in the end like it or not we are just like the lowliest ant or slug of the earth, we live and we die just like everything else on this earth.

[rjh4 is back]

We are all classified as mammals and in essence are part of the animal kingdom.

So says you. You know that the classification system is manmade don't you? It is not like the classification system proves that we are animals just like all others. (In fact, it is clear we are not just like all the other animals. As evidence you just need to look at the list of man's accomplishments cited by your athiest friends here. The animals have no such accomplishments. Man is far above the animals.)

But in the end like it or not we are just like the lowliest ant or slug of the earth, we live and we die just like everything else on this earth.

What a sad outlook on things, CP. The fact is, I don't think you really believe it (at least the part about us being just like the lowliest ant or slug).

Do you think that the killing of ants and slugs, and the like, are equivalent to the killing of humans such that you think, for example, that the Orkin man is a mass murderer?

Do you think that what Hitler and the Nazis did was acceptable/no problem as what they did is no different than what the Orkin man does?

If you really believed what you said, I would think you would answer "yes" to one of the questions above.

[chatpilot]

On a biological level life is life, be it animals or humans genetically we are all very similar and we are all made of the same stuff. What differentiates us from the animals is the advanced development of our brains. Also, you can't make moral arguments by comparing the death of an ant with that of a human. Yet, at the same time man is not blameless and as much as we like to boast about how superior we are etc. we forget that we are also the most destructive living being on the planet. Animals are always being called savage, ferocious, etc but we far exceed any animal in cruelty to one another and to our fellow species on this earth. Mankind has and continues to single handedly destroy the planets resources and the very environment we live in. We have created weapons of mass destruction beyond anything ever imagined. So I ask you rjh4 who is the greater animal, man or ape?

[rjh4 is back]

So I ask you rjh4 who is the greater animal, man or ape?

Man is greater....by far (because he is not an animal).

---

Also, you can't make moral arguments by comparing the death of an ant with that of a human.

Why not if there we are just like them as you put it?

Yet, at the same time man is not blameless ...

If man is just the product of matter/energy/chance then what is man to be blamed for? We could destroy each other and the planet and it seems to me that a consistent atheistic position would be "so what?" So while I agree that man is not "blameless" from my worldview, I wonder why with your atheistic worldview you would make such a moral judgement. It seems like you are borrowing from a theistic worldview to make/support such a moral judgement.

[Rockthatpiano06]

I don't 'believe' in evolution any more than i believe that the sky is blue or any more than i believe in the science of chemistry or the science of physics... evolution is just the truth.

[Autumnlicious]

I don't 'believe' in evolution any more than i believe that the sky is blue or any more than i believe in the science of chemistry or the science of physics... evolution is just the truth.

Correction: Evolution is scientific fact.