Why are Creationists so afraid of Evolution?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by JarodRussell, Jul 2, 2013.

  1. Coloratura

    Coloratura Snuggle Princess Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    At the Piano
    Science doesn't reject the notion of a god. The issue is that there has been no evidence to suggest that one or more exist. A scientist can have a personal faith, but injecting faith into science takes away the science in favor of the faith.

    You can have faith a bridge won't collapse when you drive over it; I'd rather have the science behind it's construction, instead.
     
  2. Llama

    Llama Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I'm right because I have 150 years of observation and experimental evidence to support me (no evidence has even suggested that evolution doesn't occur)

    You're stupid not if you ask why (that's actually very clever), but if you don't want to know why
     
  3. iguana_tonante

    iguana_tonante Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Italy, EU
    "Science" does nothing of the sort. The question whether God/s exist/s is simply outside the field of interest.

    Easier than actually learning about the subject, that's for sure. It's not like the evidences for evolution are super-secret or anything. Just crack a book and educate yourself.
     
  4. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    When you have empirical evidence on your side, yes, it is really easy.
     
  5. RJDiogenes

    RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    In a sense, it is. It's called Artificial Selection-- it's sort of the technology to evolutionary science. It also demonstrates that Humanity has been aware of evolution to some degree for thousands of years.
     
  6. Llama

    Llama Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Artificial selection vs natural selection is a false dichotomy. They are the same thing biologically and genetically, the only difference is the selective agent (and seeing as humans are part of nature, it could be argued that they are the same)
     
  7. 1001001

    1001001 Let the Good Times Roll!! Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Location:
    People's Gaypublic of Drugafornia
    A great example of the fundamental problem: science doesn't say anything about God, one way or the other. It simply describes observable processes and natural laws through a standardized method.


    Now you've gone one toke over the line, Mister!

    :scream:



    :lol:
     
  8. 1001001

    1001001 Let the Good Times Roll!! Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Location:
    People's Gaypublic of Drugafornia
    One need only to watch Carl Sagan's masterful telling of the Heikigani Crab/drowning warrior story to fully understand this point.

    [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8[/yt]

    We can also see evolutionary processes (greatly sped up) in HIV, and in resistant staph strains.
     
  9. RyanKCR

    RyanKCR Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Location:
    RyanKCR is living here in Allentown

    I never understood this. There are no different orders of creation listed in Genesis.
     
  10. Davros

    Davros Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Kaled bunker, Skaro
    What about people being created twice? Once together and once separately.
     
  11. Miss Chicken

    Miss Chicken Little three legged cat with attitude Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Howrah, Hobart, Tasmania
    Genesis 1:25-27

    God creates the beasts and then Man.

    Genesis 2: 18-19

    Animals created after Man.

    Most certainly a different order.
     
  12. RyanKCR

    RyanKCR Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Location:
    RyanKCR is living here in Allentown
    2:18-19 don't indicated a different order. "Had formed" is in refernce to something that happened before (1:25-27) to give foundation to this new thing about to occur (naming of animals and finding a helper for Adam.)
     
  13. Miss Chicken

    Miss Chicken Little three legged cat with attitude Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Howrah, Hobart, Tasmania
    Lets go with the New American Standard Bible instead



    where it says "formed" rather than "had formed" and it shows that, at lest, the Bible account is ambiguous.
     
  14. Tora Ziyal

    Tora Ziyal Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    In the NRSV, Genesis 2 is clear that the animals came after Adam:

    "18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name."

    God wanted to give the man a partner, so he formed the animals and birds.
     
  15. Llama

    Llama Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I love that we are arguing the different English translations of the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the original ancient Hebrew....
     
  16. Miss Chicken

    Miss Chicken Little three legged cat with attitude Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Howrah, Hobart, Tasmania
    You think that God, in all His Glory, could have found a way to keep His Book easy to interpret.
     
  17. Gov Kodos

    Gov Kodos Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Location:
    Gov Kodos on Mohammed's Radio, WZVN Boston
    I blame the holy ghost writer.
     
  18. Tora Ziyal

    Tora Ziyal Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    :bolian::lol:
     
  19. EmoBorg

    EmoBorg Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Location:
    in the 10 dimensions of reality
    Reading the later translated versions like the King James Bible or New American Standard Bible may not be that accurate.

    There are two early translated versions that i would recommend for reading

    Tyndale Bible is the first English bible to be translated from the Hebrew and Greek texts. Only the new testament is available as the translator, William Tyndale was executed before he could complete the old testament translation from Greek/Hebrew to English.

    Wycliffe's Bible is perhaps the first translation of the Latin bible into English.

    Both the Tyndale Bible and Wycliffe Bible are the earliest English language bibles that i know of. It could be argued that they represent the most accurate english translation of the bible from the original Greek, Hebrew and and Latin bibles.

    Biblegateway is an online site where you can access many translations and versions of the Bible including the ones that i mentioned.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2013
  20. Llama

    Llama Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Especially when it can cause distress. Eg. there is no commandant "thou shall not kill", in the Hebrew it is "thou shall not murder". There is a huge difference between killing and murdering - just ask a soldier.

    If religious person who literally interprets the bible accidentally kills someone, say in a car accident, the guilt would be bad enough without the thought (and added shame) that they were now a "sinner" because they broke a commandment

    Winner! :)
     

Share This Page