A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If the creationists don't agree with eachother, isn't that a sigh that something is wrong somewhere?
The main part of evolution is agreed upon among evolutionists, details are discussed.
But a main part of creationists, the coherence with the bible, is not aggreed upon among the creationists themselves.
Doesn't this say something about creationism?

And all evolutionists agree with each other about everything regarding evolution? It seems to me that the theory has evolved over time, no?

As far as creationists go, you might want to check out some of the earliest ones from the Jewish faith. Specifically, men such as Onkelos (150 C.E), Rashi (1040-1105), Maimonides (1135-1204), and Nahmanides (1194-1270). Just google them if you are interested. These men studied Genesis in the original Hebrew so they had a distinct advantage in studying it, mainly because they were experts in the langauge as well as having passed down information from generation to generation. These men did not believe Genesis referred to six literal days of creation. In fact, many of their conclusions mirror those within modern science today well before the advent of it!!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
would most (not all) creationists agree with you?

What does it matter? For example, creationists once held to the notion that the universe revolved around the sun, however, this belief is not found any where in scripture. Go figure?

Really, the problem here is that you have scientists trying to use scientific data to attack the Bible and you have religious folk trying to attack those within science using the Bible. The problem, of course, is that those who study theology are in large part uneducated regarding science. Likewise, those who study science are in large part not educated regarding theology and the study of the Bible, thus we have misinformed parties on each side of the issue professing to know all about the other. To make matters worse, however, is that you have theologians who are using a translated version of the Bible and not aware of previous interpretations in the original langauge!! It reminds me of the theologians in times past that insisted that the Bible says that the universe revolves around the sun. They were simply ignorant of the Bibles teaching whether it was willful or otherwise.

And finally, perhaps the biggest problem at hand is the fact that the Bible is NOT a book of science. In fact, only a brief 2 or so chapters is all we have to tell us about the creation of the universe. If it were books of science, however, there would be too much information to read through assuming one could brake creation down scientifically.

Originally posted by whodey
What does it matter? For example, creationists once held to the notion that the universe revolved around the sun, however, this belief is not found any where in scripture. Go figure?

Really, the problem here is that you have scientists trying to use scientific data to attack the Bible and you have religious folk trying to attack those within science usin ...[text shortened]... d be too much information to read through assuming one could brake creation down scientifically.

Acutally, the ancient Jews and Christians believed the EARTH was the center of the universe not the sun. It was only at the dawn of the scientific age with Copernicus and and his pals showing the geocentric universe was patently wrong, Ptolemies universe ran the show for thousands of years and the early christians just followed suit. THEN the sun was the center of the universe. After that they figured, well if the sun isn't the center then maybe the milky way was the center, indeed WAS universe, then they found billions of galaxies so the milky way was not the universe, now we find maybe the UNIVERSE isn't the center of the universe with hints of something around before the big bang, maybe another universe where our big bang was just a black hole in that larger universe and like a boil erupting on the skin, forming a new universe by popping through that universe into what we would call a white hole, our universe being the other side of that event and if that is true then nearly infinite universes may be the norm (freely admitted to be total speculation at this point in time). But you see the progression away from human centric universe ideas.
Besides, evolution is not an attack on biblical ideas, it is only PERCEIVED as such by the religious. They are TAKING it as an attack. Even Darwin was a devout christian, however much he was vilified by the religious right after his ideas started gaining traction.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Acutally, the ancient Jews and Christians believed the EARTH was the center of the universe not the sun. It was only at the dawn of the scientific age with Copernicus and and his pals showing the geocentric universe was patently wrong, Ptolemies universe ran the show for thousands of years and the early christians just followed suit. THEN the sun was the ce however much he was vilified by the religious right after his ideas started gaining traction.

I don't recall the rabbis I mentioned as ever saying that the earth was the center of the universe, however, I am pretty sure that it has no Biblical references as well. As for your statment that the ancient Jews thought that the earth was the center of the universe, I presume you have names?

Originally posted by whodey
I don't recall the rabbis I mentioned as ever saying that the earth was the center of the universe, however, I am pretty sure that it has no Biblical references as well. As for your statment that the ancient Jews thought that the earth was the center of the universe, I presume you have names?

It was Ptolemy who said that, it was ancient world dogma.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I get plenty of yours and others "impressions" here, and I'm sure the
numbers are slanted against me since I seem to have more than a
few attempting to get me into a discussion verses me trying to get
them into one.

They may be. That's one of the reasons why we ask you questions though.

I'm not sure whay you're talking about when you say p ...[text shortened]... to answer EVERY question asked.

I won't expect my questions to be answered though.

Have not forgotten you, but not a lot of time. I'll go back and
look for your question as soon as I can get a little more time.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
And all evolutionists agree with each other about everything regarding evolution? It seems to me that the theory has evolved over time, no?

As far as creationists go, you might want to check out some of the earliest ones from the Jewish faith. Specifically, men such as Onkelos (150 C.E), Rashi (1040-1105), Maimonides (1135-1204), and Nahmanides (1194-127 ...[text shortened]... any of their conclusions mirror those within modern science today well before the advent of it!!

In the main part, most all evolutionist agree on the main part. (Can you give me an counter-example?)

Creationists cannot even agree on one of the most important things, the age of our universe. From Biscop Usscher of Ireland and forward there have been numerous opinions about the age.

Originally posted by whodey
And all evolutionists agree with each other about everything regarding evolution? It seems to me that the theory has evolved over time, no?

As far as creationists go, you might want to check out some of the earliest ones from the Jewish faith. Specifically, men such as Onkelos (150 C.E), Rashi (1040-1105), Maimonides (1135-1204), and Nahmanides (1194-127 ...[text shortened]... any of their conclusions mirror those within modern science today well before the advent of it!!

…And all evolutionists agree with each other about everything regarding evolution? It seems to me that the theory has evolved over time, no? …

FabianFnas is right when he says “In the main part, most all evolutionist agree on the main part”.
All evolutionist agree that one species can, over many generations, slowly evolve into another species through natural selection. Sure many of the more subtle theories of the details of how evolution generally works change over time -it changes over time as a result of new scientific evidence keep coming up that challenges the general scientific consensus of some of the subtle details of how evolution and causes evolutionist to modifying their beliefs in the light of the new evidence.

Creationists, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, don’t generally respond to any new scientific evidence that challenges details of their beliefs by modifying there beliefs. Instead, they either ignore such evidence or refute it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…And all evolutionists agree with each other about everything regarding evolution? It seems to me that the theory has evolved over time, no? …

FabianFnas is right when he says “In the main part, most all evolutionist agree on the main part”.
All evolutionist agree that one species can, over many generations, slowly evolve into another spe ...[text shortened]... heir beliefs by modifying there beliefs. Instead, they either ignore such evidence or refute it.[/b]

I don't think 'refute' is a good word when referring to creationists. That implies a scientificly sound reason. Ignore is good. Scorn is good. Refute does not scan.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Creationists, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, don’t generally respond to any new scientific evidence that challenges details of their beliefs by modifying there beliefs. Instead, they either ignore such evidence or refute it.[/b]

Again you are generalizing. I am a creationist that views science as simply a means through which we study how God created the universe and yes, I view the evolutionary process as simply a means through how God creates.

Really, evolution does not intrigue me nearly as much as how life was birthed. Abiogenesis, whether you view it as God mediated or otherwise, is really the mystery to it all if you ask me. Sure we can point to the building blocks and say that these building blocks had to get together and build life, but other than that it is but a mystery. For example, Creationists believe that man was formed from the dust of the earth. Likewise, those in science beileve that man evolved from the building blocks of the earth.

All this talk brings to mind Ben Stiens movie "Expelled" in which he asked an evolutionist how life came about. The man said crystals. Ben looked puzzled and asked him once again how life came about. the man just looked at him once again and said crystals. At this point he just smirked and decided to leave well enough alone and move on. LOL.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In the main part, most all evolutionist agree on the main part. (Can you give me an counter-example?)

Creationists cannot even agree on one of the most important things, the age of our universe. From Biscop Usscher of Ireland and forward there have been numerous opinions about the age.

If all were in agreement it would simply be a sign that all are wrong.

Whether you be an evolutionist or creationist you simply do not have all the anwers. To think otherwise would be to make oneself God. Unfortunatly, mankind has a nature in which pride tends to snuff out a general sense of humility and awe when studying such mysteries of God. Of course, the same can be said of evolutionists. I have talked with some who claimed to know and be certain of things they simply had no way of proving.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It was Ptolemy who said that, it was ancient world dogma.

So no evidence of rabbinical teachings on the matter eh?

Originally posted by whodey
If all were in agreement it would simply be a sign that all are wrong.

Whether you be an evolutionist or creationist you simply do not have all the anwers. To think otherwise would be to make oneself God. Unfortunatly, mankind has a nature in which pride tends to snuff out a general sense of humility and awe when studying such mysteries of God. Of cours ...[text shortened]... talked with some who claimed to know and be certain of things they simply had no way of proving.

"If all were in agreement it would simply be a sign that all are wrong."
Then creationism is wrong, because you all think that you agree and evolutionists doesn't.

"Whether you be an evolutionist or creationist you simply do not have all the answers."
Scientists use observations as a base for proofs. Creationists do not. They have their "proofs" in a black bock with thin pages written in an medieval English.

Religiously speeking - the proof of evolution is out there in the nature. You can read it or you can not read it. Creationists don't read it. Satan laughs.

Originally posted by whodey
If all were in agreement it would simply be a sign that all are wrong.

Whether you be an evolutionist or creationist you simply do not have all the anwers. To think otherwise would be to make oneself God. Unfortunatly, mankind has a nature in which pride tends to snuff out a general sense of humility and awe when studying such mysteries of God. Of cours ...[text shortened]... talked with some who claimed to know and be certain of things they simply had no way of proving.

…Whether you be an evolutionist or creationist you simply do not have all the answers.…

-and evolutionists, don’t claim to “have all the answers”. However, they can claim to have SOME of the answers based on the evidence. Creationists cannot make such a claim.

Originally posted by whodey
Again you are generalizing. I am a creationist that views science as simply a means through which we study how God created the universe and yes, I view the evolutionary process as simply a means through how God creates.

Really, evolution does not intrigue me nearly as much as how life was birthed. Abiogenesis, whether you view it as God mediated or other stals. At this point he just smirked and decided to leave well enough alone and move on. LOL.

First you say I “generalizing” about Creationists when I said that “Creationists, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, don’t generally respond to any new scientific evidence that challenges details of their beliefs by modifying there beliefs” and then you say:

…Creationists believe that man was formed from the dust of the earth. …

There is some evidence that life came to exist from chemical building blocks but, even if you ignore that evidence, there is a mountain of evidence that more complex life (such as humans) evolved from simple life forms. But there is no evidence that man came to exist from “dust” and to think that more complex life (such as humans) evolved from simple life forms would be totally inconsistent with thinking that man came to exist from “dust“. So saying that “Creationists believe that man was formed from the dust of the earth” implies that they all believe that despite there being scientific evidence that contradicts that belief of theirs because they do not modify that belief of theirs in the light of that evidence.

Is that not making exactly the same “generalizing” about Creationists that I made?