The Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-23-2004, 01:20 AM   #31
War Child
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 08:18 AM
The idea that creationsism cannot co-exist with evolution is only perpetuated by the ignorant evangelical zealots. It's simply boggles the mind. Evolution HAS BEEN PROVEN. Just as it's been proven that you need oxygen to breathe. I am not talking abouot any one theory persay, but the actual process of species evolving is fact.

For the record, I am a creationist, I hate religion, or at least what it has become, a social event, a corporation whatever analogy that fits for you, but you simply cannot ignore hard core scientific fact, it defies logic.

It's the silliness of books like this, and those who promote it that really lead people away from God or faith in the truest sense. Most biblical scholars will say that almost all of the older religions, the muslims, even the buddhists have historical references of a great flood. In other words, it's not really disputed. What is disputed is that the flood submerged the entire earth, It's believed by scholars I have heard and read, that the most likely occurence was a deluge in mesopotamia (middle east) or in the general area, which is actually beilevable even to the secular scientists.

I have read a lot, or tried to anyways, about science/creationism/evolution/geology/biblical history etc.
I would never claim to be an expert but in my efforts to educate myself I have found, as well as those much much more scholarly than me, that creationism and evolution can absolutely co-exist.

I am not talking about Darwin's theory, but I don't even discount it.

I believe that science itself tells you that creationism is plausible. You have to look at the scientific theories for the creation of life and understand some of the stretches that are made. I have read (or heard) more than one secular scientist say that they could see both sides of that token, but it cannot be proven, how would it be proven?

Anyhow this is not an argument about the semantics of each of our beliefs, it's about the agenda that our leadership in DC has.
It's an agenda if ignorance because it defies science. Believe what you will, I am a man of faith, I believe the bible is a book of teachings, and I believe in Christ. And while someone like A_Wanderer or others might think that is silly, I am okay with that. But at least I don't defy actual scientific fact.

What does it say about a philosophy or religion or line of thought that defies science? It's a lot harder to believe unless you throw all critical thinking out the window. Is this what we have in DC?
Yes. Bush seems to be a good man, who is like every other radical evangelical I know (and I know a lot of them, friends and family).
They would discount the nose on their face if it was taught to them in bible study.

Just think, for goodness sakes. Can't I have a President who thinks? Critically? I don't agree with everything that Bush stands for, but if this were a critically thinking man who could admit mistakes and listen to opposing opinions or points of view then I would feel better. What we have is a man of faith, who leads by faith. That's why he scoffed at Kerry, these people (radical evangelicals) don't take doubters well.

I don't want to put down anyone's faith or the way they practice it, I would just like the President of the United States to be able to discern opinions that don't follow his method of operation. Critically think for goodness sakes. Bush's life was changed by an emotional and dramatic event in his life, this was tied into his sobriety, his wife etc. It's a wholesale event. I'd applaud the man's steadfastness and stubborness if he weren't the most powerful man on the planet fighting a difficult war. He HAS to be able to listen to oppositions.

That's the thing, he doesn't think he has anything to learn. He believes it's all mapped out for him.
This doesn't defy science, this defies logic, even in the sense of faith and love in a higher being. The mistakes that have happened over the last few years could have been avoided, not all of them, but some had he had more of a presence of mind to listen to opposing viewpoints.

Have you read Bush at War by Bob Woodward? This book was AUTHORIZED by the White House and it shows the very same things that his critics think. I am not talking about Michael Moore hyperbole and untruth, I am talking about a man that will not listen to opposition. O'Neill's book said the same thing. Clarke's book said the same thing. Woodwards second book Pal of Attack, said the same thing. But I guess we are to believe that this is all 'partisan hackery'. Give me a break.

My only hope is that Bush learns from his mistakes for the good of us all. I think he will be re-elected by those who buy his rhetorric. I'm not talking about conservative Republicans. Those people were going to vote for him no matter what. That's fine that is an idealogical link, they are likeminded, right or wrong, it's understandable. I am talking about those voters in the middle, the ones who are gullible and buy into Swiftboat nonsense and other garbage. They can't critically think either. Look at the charts, the music charts, the TV ratings, the movies our mass public watches, listens to etc. We aren't a thinking public, so I guess maybe we deserve a non-thinking President. Well, I'm sure he thinks a lot, but not critically. It's been proven, just like the sciences, but not everyone believes it, if it defies their dogma, then it can't be, even if it is.

Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 02:43 AM   #32
love, blood, life
A_Wanderer's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:18 AM
I would not mock your belief, generally people dont listen if one doesn't respect them.

A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 07:26 AM   #33
She's the One
martha's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddam place
Posts: 41,769
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
but it does not have to be. Many christians understand evolution but may see it as the way that God operates in the universe, his hand guiding the creation of mankind.

Theistic evolution would be synthesizing our current knowledge of evolutionary biology with the belief in God.
Evolution as the method of God's creation is the only way any of it makes any sense.
martha is online now  
Old 10-23-2004, 09:04 PM   #34
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,200
Local Time: 09:18 AM
Originally posted by martha
Evolution as the method of God's creation is the only way any of it makes any sense.

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 10:00 PM   #35
love, blood, life
indra's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Originally posted by shart1780

I don't believe in evolution but the governmant teaches that as a fact, not a theory. Is that not pushing their antithesis of religion on me?
You are kidding aren't you? Please tell me you are kidding. You can't possibly believe in creationsim as FACT. I almost fell off my chair when I read that.
indra is offline  
Old 10-24-2004, 02:06 AM   #36
War Child
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 633
Local Time: 02:18 PM
who says a day in God's time has to be a literal 24 hours... it can mean a period of time.. even a thousand years are described as a day in Gods eyes in the bible

like when someone says in my day.. they are basically referring to a period of time an era that could cover 10 to 20 years not a literal 24 hour period..

if God referred to a creative day as a period of time in which he created the animals or the land which could be as long as thousands of years if need be I think it would agree with science and geology ect
annj is offline  
Old 10-24-2004, 04:33 AM   #37
stammer476's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,058
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Let get our terms straight here, folks. MICRO-EVOLUTION has been proven. In that, species can make small adaptations to fit their environment. MACRO-EVOLUTION has NOT been proven. In that, species can make enough small adaptations to fit their environment that these adaptations add up to an entirely different species. Macro-evolution is the theoretical aspect of evolution, and a grand jump, to say the least.

Without macro-evolution, the explanation of the species of the world cannot be explained. However, macro-evolution has not been proven as scientific fact, and the fossil record does not give addequate information to prove this theory correct.

Just wanted to clarify. The battle over evolution as the explanation of the species is far from as simple as some would like it be.
stammer476 is offline  
Old 10-24-2004, 04:47 AM   #38
love, blood, life
A_Wanderer's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:18 AM
I beg to differ - micro-evolution and macro-evolution are two scales of the same process - the problem is time. They are each part of the same process of evolution - it is Natural Selection, Punctuated Equalibrium etc. that make up the theory of evolution. Anyway it is all very consistent if you are willing to think in terms of geological time, but it is total nonsense if you restrict yourself to young earther time scales.

The fossil record is full of transitionary forms, evolutionary dead ends and a whole manner of other wierd and wonderful types of life. Micro-evolution versus macro-evolution only become a problem when the time scale of life on the planet is compressed from billions of years to thousands. By eliminating geological time young earth creationists do not have enough time to account for life on the planet.

What we see in the world and the fossil record makes no sense without evolution. To accept microevolution but deny macroevolution is somewhat contradictory, macroevolution can occur as an accumulation of more minor mutations over a lot of time. The problem is that the creationists cannot think about the sheer length of times involved.

There is no battle over the legitimacy of evolutionary theories within the scientific community, it is pretty much universally accepted and has an extremely high confidence level as a theory because of the massive ammounts of supporting evidence. The idea that evolution is on its last legs and mostly discredited is a myth perpetuated by the creationist movement to kick up a lot of dust to legitimize their "theories" on the subject. We have the evidence for macroevolution - we have been collecting it for centuries and it is there for the world to see, if you choose wallow in ignorance and ignore it then that is your choice - however I would say you should learn about the science first.

I ask you this, on one hand we have have theory that is supported by evidence, when we discover more about life the more that evolution makes sense (the discovery of DNA was well after the theory of evolution by means of natural selection was proposed but DNA is the crucial element of modern investigation into the underlying processes).

To make this theory work
>The earth has to be billions of years old.
>Species must not be static, there must be changes within a population.
>You do NOT need to have intervention by an infinitely powerful being.
>The earth must have been different in its past.

On the other hand we have young earth creationism - the Earth was made by a creator in 7 days 6000 years ago, all life forms that ever existed lived on the earth at the same time but most were wiped out in a global flood. but Noah saved every species that survives today on his ark, every human being is the offspring of Adam and Eve etc,

To make this proposition work
>Mitochondrial DNA is a big fake because it is inconsistent.
>Radioisotope dating is false because it is inconsistent.
>All the fossils in the world just happened to be layed down in their specific beds even though this is impossible to happen in a flood.
>All of geology is an ubersham because it uses especially long time scales based on that same radioisotope dating.
>You require intervention from an infinitely powerful being.

Now please can you give me a good reason that we should treat each equally, a scientific theory with supporting evidence and an extremely high confidence level versus superstition that has to exclude most evidence and bend other evidence to be proven. This is a moot debate because evolution is a fact of life and creation is stuffy old superstition - the flipside is that if I were to just walk away (so to speak) then it would become a case of "oh the science cannot argue against the pure facts that backup creationism". So I will stay around and answer what you choose to lob - but only because I have nothing better to do and I want to make the facts on the matter abundantly clear.

Speciation of species can be seen across habitats on the same continents, minor differences between seperate populations - the ultimate example being Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos Islands. I ask any budding creationist to offer an explanation as to the diversity in those environments and how it came to be without population dynamics and evolution?
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-24-2004, 08:16 AM   #39
War Child
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 633
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Well another way to look at it, is people find ruins and artifacts all over the earth and they knew it had to be made by someone even a simple flint tool.. they know it did not come about or evolve by itself.. they readily accept it was made and admire the workman ship of the person who made it

yet something as complex as a the cells in our body.. which is structured and work in a far more complicated way just happened by some random chance is a bit much to accept

the brain is far more complex than a computer, yet would any one believe that you could just get lots of computer parts and they will suddenly come all together to make a working machine
without the help of some one to build them

why would evolution given us feelings of love sadness hatred compassion caring happiness.. a sense of awareness of who we are and a sense of uniquiness. it is not a neccesity to just get by every day.. so why are they there?

We can look around us and appreciate the beauty of our surroundings and question our exsistence why does mankind seek and search for answers to things around them in a way no other animals do,

why do they feel the need that there is a higher power to turn to if it had not already been built into them.. and why would evolution built such things into us if a Creator doesnt exsist?

annj is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©