No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[Umberto]

The creation myth is not even a necessary tenet of Judaism. That A&E fell is a sufficient condition to require salvation and creation is not a necessary condition for either their existence or their presence in the garden.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Evolution caused the Holocaust.

It's not just the Jews who believe that.

Now YECs like you have me talked into it.

I can really see how the earth is 6,000 years old. Most anything is "possible." I mean, you have heard of the talking horse, Mr. Ed, right?

with God all things are possible, oh ye of little faith

[h=1]2 Peter 2:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)[/h][SUP]16 [/SUP]but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.

 

[Elin]

The creation myth is not even a necessary tenet of Judaism. That A&E fell is a sufficient condition to require salvation and creation is not a necessary condition for either their existence or their presence in the garden.

You cannot prove creation is a myth, nor can you prove it is not a myth.

Both are a matter of faith.
"Science" (not hard science) is the basis of what you believe.

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures are the basis of what I believe.

Who has the authority to declare which faith trumps the other?

 

[Elin]

with God all things are possible, oh ye of little faith

Oh ye of no faith. . .

Oh ye, of the trolls.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oh ye of no faith. . .

[/B]Oh ye, of the trolls.[/COLOR]

confused, was this directed at me?

 

[Elin]

confused, was this directed at me?

Not at all. . .it was directed at the one of little faith.

Actually, of no faith.

 

[Noxious]

I certainly would not say evolution has been disproved, however many questions are unanswered. I think it is possible to be a Christian, yet not deny some basic tenets of science. I would point to the evangelical Christian and scientist Francis Collins. I am a scientist and scientists are not the type of people to engage in a huge, evil conspiracy.

 

[Elin]

I certainly would not say evolution has been disproved, however many questions are unanswered. I think it is possible to be a Christian, yet not deny some basic tenets of science. I would point to the evangelical Christian and scientist Francis Collins. I am a scientist and scientists are not the type of people to engage in a huge, evil conspiracy.

Evolution, like the laws of thermodynamics, is to be proved, not disproved.

It has not been proven, as thermodynaics has been proven.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I certainly would not say evolution has been disproved, however many questions are unanswered. I think it is possible to be a Christian, yet not deny some basic tenets of science. I would point to the evangelical Christian and scientist Francis Collins. I am a scientist and scientists are not the type of people to engage in a huge, evil conspiracy.

lack of proof is disproof.

There are so many holes in evolution. So many things missing, which can EASILY be explained by other forms of science (ie cataclysmic destruction and damage caused by the world wide flood and its effects) that to be honest. I am amazed anyone even believes in it anymore

 

[Percepi]

You can leave the Bible completely out of the conversation if you wish. Simply look at what you're being told by science for how we came to be.

We don't know exactly how life came to exist. But what we do know is we evolved.

Here's an even better one. Observation teaches us that life doesn't just begin. Therefore, life must somehow have always existed. Isn't that true my friend?

1. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It has to do with the study of abiogenesis, which is a very young field of science.
2. Life didn't pop up out of nowhere, but there's also no reason to suggest life always existed. Currently, scientists believe the formation of life was a VERY gradual process which started off with the most simple of chemical reactions that would form basic cells. Those cells would evolve and become more complex, and eventually form life. This isn't completely verified yet, that I know of, but it has more scientific evidence backing it than the idea everything was just created.
3. If you're going to talk about how we never observed life "just beginning" as if it's a winning point, understand that nobody has ever observed the creation of any object through God's power.

If you are interested in abiogenesis, I can dig up a video that will explain the theory in a nutshell.

But, again, we have evidence evolution is true. We don't need to know how life began to verify the validity of evolution.

 

[Percepi]

You cannot prove creation is a myth, nor can you prove it is not a myth.

Both are a matter of faith.
"Science" (not hard science) is the basis of what you believe.

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures are the basis of what I believe.

Who has the authority to declare which faith trumps the other?

Science is the process in which faith is removed. If something is faith based, it can not be science.

If you believe all ideas are faith based, even those that are supported by evidence, then you completely devalue our ability to reason. You also completely devalue what it means to have "faith".

If you walk into your house and you find shoe prints all over the floor, your child's shoes covered in mud, and mud all over your child, you can easily conclude that you child is the one who tracked dirt all over the carpet. But according to your incredibly loose definition of faith, it would be wrong to conclude you child messed up the carpet because this conclusion is an idea and all ideas are "faith".

Evolution, like the laws of thermodynamics, is to be proved, not disproved.

It has not been proven, as thermodynaics has been proven.

But it has been proven! I'm copying this list from the blog of someone I've talked to online. It's a link to various proofs and explanations of evolution.

Many of these links will lead to talkorigins.org. TalkOrigins sources all of it's material, so you don't have to complain that everything is coming from "a single source".

Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
Examples of evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home -- ScienceDaily
Actionbioscience | Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Actionbioscience | Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions
Archaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record

This is just a small handful of links going over evidences regarding observed examples and fossils. This is just the very pinnacle of the iceberg.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Science is the process in which faith is removed. If something is faith based, it can not be science.

I must disagree. Faith is strengthened, and turned into knowledge by facts (science)

If I take a step of faith into the unknown. and God proves he was correct. My faith is strengthened. and proven.

Science is th same way.

I took it on faith creation and the account was real, based on a hope God would not lie to us.

the more science I see, the more my faith in what I have seen is proven, and my faith is strengthened.

The same happens whether your a secularist, an evolutionalist. or a creationalist. The laws apply.

 

[Percepi]

I must disagree. Faith is strengthened, and turned into knowledge by facts (science)

If I take a step of faith into the unknown. and God proves he was correct. My faith is strengthened. and proven.

Science is th same way.

I took it on faith creation and the account was real, based on a hope God would not lie to us.

the more science I see, the more my faith in what I have seen is proven, and my faith is strengthened.

The same happens whether your a secularist, an evolutionalist. or a creationalist. The laws apply.

That's not what faith is.

Faith is simply the acceptance of a claim in lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. These views may or may not be strengthened by various means, but science is not faith by design.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That's not what faith is.

faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

It does not mean faith can not turn into knowledge. Sorry, but I can not agree here.

Many things I used to only take on faith. I know to be fact now.

 

[Percepi]

faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

It does not mean faith can not turn into knowledge. Sorry, but I can not agree here.

Many things I used to only take on faith. I know to be fact now.

I edited my prior post to explain what faith is.

Faith isn't evidence of things unseen.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That's not what faith is.

Faith is simply the acceptance of a claim in lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

In other words, unseen, or unknown.

These views may or may not be strengthened by various means, but science is not faith by design.

All science must start with faith of some kind. Otherise, all science would lead to the same conclusion. The mere fact we have so many different scientists saying so many different things and claim they have proof is proof of this.

Faith means an assurance. If your not assured, if you do not trust science. There would be no science, and never be any hypothesis.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I edited my prior post to explain what faith is.

Faith isn't evidence of things unseen.

An evolutionist has faith his science is right.

A creationist has faith his science is right.

if they did not. we would not be having these discussions.

All science is based on faith unless it is proven 100 %,

 

[Percepi]

In other words, unseen, or unknown.

You said faith was evidence of the unseen or unknown. I said faith is to accept something based on the lack of evidence or evidence contrary to your views.

All science must start with faith of some kind. Otherise, all science would lead to the same conclusion. The mere fact we have so many different scientists saying so many different things and claim they have proof is proof of this.

The conclusions of science are generally agreed upon by scientists. The debate happens when scientists can't agree on something due to the lack of evidence for a certain particular claim. But this still isn't faith based because scientists from both sides rely on evidence, even if that evidence isn't conclusive yet.

Scientists who propose new theories aren't relying on faith either. Their evidence may be inconclusive or even flawed, but this doesn't equate to faith. It just means they're basing their views on flawed or inconclusive proofs.

 

[Percepi]

An evolutionist has faith his science is right.

A creationist has faith his science is right.

Evolution is supported by science.

Creationism isn't supported by science. It isn't science. It doesn't follow anything that has to do with science.

All science is based on faith unless it is proven 100 %

It's the exact opposite. Anything that's based off of any evidence, isn't faith. That evidence can be flawed or inconclusive, but it's still a belief based on something that is perceived as evidence. To claim all science is faith based unless proven 100% true is silly. Nothing is proven 100% true, which means it's just as faith based to accept how magnets work than it is to accept that unicorns exist.

Even IF we accepted your definition of faith, it would then mean faith isn't black and white, it's something that's progressive. Some things would be more faith based than others. Of course, this isn't the definition of faith, but if it is - science is clearly less faith based than creationism.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Evolution is supported by science.

Creationism isn't supported by science. It isn't science. It doesn't follow anything that has to do with science.



It's the exact opposite. Anything that's based off of any evidence, isn't faith. That evidence can be flawed or inconclusive, but it's still a belief based on something that is perceived as evidence. To claim all science is faith based unless proven 100% true is silly. Nothing is proven 100% true, which means it's just as faith based to accept how magnets work than it is to accept that unicorns exist.

Even IF we accepted your definition of faith, it would then mean faith isn't black and white, it's something that's progressive. Some things would be more faith based than others. Of course, this isn't the definition of faith, but if it is - science is clearly less faith based than creationism.

I disagree, if science is observation and experimentation, then it would seem Creationist theories have far more scientific weight than Chaos theories. Evolution could fit within either Creationism or Chaos depending on what theories of evolution are held. For example Mendellian genetics version of evolution clearly supports Creationism, specifically Biblical Creation Theory, and can fit within the factual parameters that the earth is young. As where a strict Darwinist interpretation of evolution follows Chaos theory, specifically abiogenesis, and also old earth mythology.