Why are Creationists so afraid of Evolution?

[Amaris]

Yeah, I have a life. I don't have time to sit around on an internet forum to try to convince a bunch of people that God exists, especially those who start topics like this.

The question isn't if God exists, the question is why the theory of evolution contradicts the concept of God.

The real question is why science rejects the idea of God in the first place.

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.

 

[Llama]

Funny thing is I don't believe in god, I just think it's silly at best to apply the same circular arguments against those who believe the non-believers so often rail at being used against them.

I'm right because I am. You're stupid if you ask why!!!

But so much easier to attack the people, right?

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

 

[iguana_tonante]

The real question is why science rejects the idea of God in the first place.

"Science" does nothing of the sort. The question whether God/s exist/s is simply outside the field of interest.

Funny thing is I don't believe in god, I just think it's silly at best to apply the same circular arguments against those who believe the non-believers so often rail at being used against them.

I'm right because I am. You're stupid if you ask why!!!

But so much easier to attack the people, right?

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.

 

[Shazam!]

Funny thing is I don't believe in god, I just think it's silly at best to apply the same circular arguments against those who believe the non-believers so often rail at being used against them.

I'm right because I am. You're stupid if you ask why!!!

But so much easier to attack the people, right?

When you have empirical evidence on your side, yes, it is really easy.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Applied genetic selection is not evolution.

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.

 

[Llama]

Applied genetic selection is not evolution.

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.

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)

 

[1001001]

The real question is why science rejects the idea of God in the first place.

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.

Just wanted to point out that the Big Bang Theory was initially proposed by a Catholic priest.

I wish the Catholic Church would start cracking down on priests that create lousy TV shows.

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

 

[1001001]

Applied genetic selection is not evolution.

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.

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)

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.

 

[RyanKCR]

What I don't get is how a literal interpretation of Genesis creation gets past the contradictions in the text? We start with creation story version 1.0, the six days of creation; this is followed by creation story version 2.0, Adam and Eve.

There are different orders of creation in each story (eg humans are create AFTER animals in the first, but BEFORE animals in the second) and even the creation of humans is different (ie Adam is created well before Eve, but in the six days version man and woman are created at the same time (in fact Jewish biblical scholars suggest that the Hebrew text suggest that they were created as a single creature, back-to-back male and female together)).

Genesis has been around for at least 2,500 years - you don't think rabbis and Jewish scholars haven't noticed the contradictions before?

Why do the Christians have to come and misinterpret Jewish texts? I mean original sin, really??? WTF?!?

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

 

[Davros]

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

What about people being created twice? Once together and once separately.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Genesis 1:25-27

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God creates the beasts and then Man.

Genesis 2: 18-19

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Animals created after Man.

Most certainly a different order.

 

[RyanKCR]

Genesis 1:25-27

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God creates the beasts and then Man.

Genesis 2: 18-19

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Animals created after Man.

Most certainly a different order.

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.)

 

[Miss Chicken]

Lets go with the New American Standard Bible instead

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [a]suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

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

 

[Tora Ziyal]

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.

 

[Llama]

I love that we are arguing the different English translations of the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the original ancient Hebrew....

 

[Miss Chicken]

I love that we are arguing the different English translations of the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the original ancient Hebrew....

You think that God, in all His Glory, could have found a way to keep His Book easy to interpret.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I blame the holy ghost writer.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

I blame the holy ghost writer.

 

[EmoBorg]

I love that we are arguing the different English translations of the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the original ancient Hebrew....

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.

 

[Llama]

I love that we are arguing the different English translations of the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the original ancient Hebrew....

You think that God, in all His Glory, could have found a way to keep His Book easy to interpret.

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

I blame the holy ghost writer.

Winner!