Evolution Debate

[bob b]

I thought I would start a thread disussing some of the key tactics used in the evolution debates.

Here is one for starters:

ATTACKING THE MESSENGER

There is another characteristic element in litigation that also appears repeatedly in the evolution debates: the ad hominem denigration of the representatives of the other side, and the assertion that the opponent said things he or she didn’t really say. In litigation, lawyers regularly seize upon any action by the other side’s lawyers that can he characterized as evidence that the lawyer is deceitful, incompetent, confused, or acting in bad faith. The goal is to get the judge to discount the credibility of the other side’s spokesman. Anyone who delves into the books, articles, and internet postings in the evolution debate will see instantly who employs these kinds of tactics and who does not.
From Teaching the Flaws in Evolution by Edward Sisson, an article in the collection of articles comprising the book Uncommon Dissent.

 

[`Love.]

WHERE ARE THOSE APE LOVERS!?!? :madmad:

 

[tjguitar]

I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis. Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong. The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

 

[Lord Vader]

Hmmm, denigrating the others character to cause an audience to discount their credibility... yes, I see what you mean.

 

[tjguitar]

No, I'm just trying to understand the thought process. Either way you look at it, God is lying to us. Its a catch 22.

 

[bob b]

I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science?

If science is wrong why would that reflect on God?

Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

In light of the fact that God told us through His word what He did, by what kind of warped logic do you conclude that it is God's fault that some in effect call Him a liar?

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis.

But I have a different interpretation of that same emprical data.

Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong.

Correct. Either the Bible was inspired by God to be an infallible record of His word or science is able to speak infallibly about unwitnessed events in the past.

The question for Christians is: Which option do you have more faith in?

I used to have unswerving faith in everything said by scientists untill 22 years ago when I started to read about DNA and it dawned on me like a ton of bricks that the area of science known as Origins was different than "science of the present", that which I had dealt with my entire professional career.

DNA and all that goes with it in the cell was the key which freed me from the lie of evolution and later caused me to revisit the Bible which I had rejected during my college years. Since I discovered 22 years ago that evolution could not according to scientific principles possibly be true, the scientific evidence against evolution (the primitive protocell to Man variety) has been accumulating rapidly.

The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

Incorrect. The most important part is that God is infallibly reliable and humans are not, because humans were given free will to choose and one cannot do this unless it is possible for humans to choose wrongly.

 

[`Love.]

I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis. Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong. The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

There are a few evidences that show evolution might be plausible. Even the ones given for evolution fit easily into creation, whereas visa versa is not true. Evolution is not considered by even today's top scientists as a FACT. They know they can't prove it. Evolution is just a case of The Emperor's New Clothes. :cow:

There is NO God vs Science debate here. It's God vs Darwin.

 

[Lynn73]

I thought I would start a thread disussing some of the key tactics used in the evolution debates.

Here is one for starters:

Well, Kent Hovind says there are about 500 anti-Hovind sites so yeah one of their tactics is to attack the messenger when they don't like the message. Of course, I know there are Christians who disagree with Hovind but the point still is some evolutionists go after the one bringing the message.

 

[Jimmy West]

I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis. Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong. The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

Evolution is a THEORY. It has nothing to do with the accuracy or credibility of science. What makes it a theory is that it can not be proven beyond doubt.

 

[Lynn73]

I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis. Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong. The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

Maybe it isnt' the data that's bogus. Maybe it's man's interpetation of it that's bogus. Especially the interpretation of those who desperately attempt to make the evidence fit evolution and those who ignore data who doesn't fit what they want. The Bible says that Satan is the one who is a liar and the father of it, not God.

 

[tjguitar]

If science is wrong why would that reflect on God?

Because God created everything.

In light of the fact that God told us through His word what He did, by what kind of warped logic do you conclude that it is God's fault that some in effect call Him a liar?

How can you prove that God is speaking to us through an ancient text, and that the writers were not simply inspired by Him?

But I have a different interpretation of that same emprical data.

How is this even possible? You think man purposely created the fossils that date back to 10,000 years ago? If God created man 4000 years ago how the heck is it man's doing that these fossils are here?

. It's God vs Darwin

No, its not Darwin's just one guy. Besides there was another guy who theorized natural selection around the time of Darwin and never even met Darwin. His name escapes me, I will have to look it up.

 

[tjguitar]

Evolution is a THEORY. It has nothing to do with the accuracy or credibility of science. What makes it a theory is that it can not be proven beyond doubt.

Relativity? You don't see me time traveling.

Theory in science doesn't mean what you think it means.

What makes it a theory is that there is evidence to support it.

If there wasn't, it would be a hypothesis.

 

[tjguitar]

Maybe it isnt' the data that's bogus. Maybe it's man's interpetation of it that's bogus. Especially the interpretation of those who desperately attempt to make the evidence fit evolution and those who ignore data who doesn't fit what they want. The Bible says that Satan is the one who is a liar and the father of it, not God.

And what about the interpretation of those who desperately attempt to make the evidence fit creation and those who ignore data that doesn't fit what they want?

 

[`Love.]

No, its not Darwin's just one guy. Besides there was another guy who theorized natural selection around the time of Darwin and never even met Darwin. His name escapes me, I will have to look it up.

Ok, it's God vs Darwin w/ a bunch of other idiots.

I can make my own theory and play with my evidence so it all fits, it's not that hard. That's why we don't run off on theories.

See, there were these rabbits a million, trillion, billion years ago and they made little eggs (later became the start of Easter) and one of those eggs blew up and made Earth and the surrounding planets. Then a little flower appeared on the ground and the giant bunny came to pick it, and The Spirit of Creativity came out. The Spirit of Creativity with help from the bunny, made everything the way it is now.

PROVE ME WRONG!!!!

:kookoo:

 

[`Love.]

Relativity? You don't see me time traveling.

Theory in science doesn't mean what you think it means.

What makes it a theory is that there is evidence to support it.

If there wasn't, it would be a hypothesis.

So? The theory of relativity is still a theory and has room for error. Just because the Theory of Relativity was made by a sane man doesn't mean they all are.

 

[Lord Vader]

Ok, it's God vs Darwin w/ a bunch of other idiots.

I can make my own theory and play with my evidence so it all fits, it's not that hard. That's why we don't run off on theories.

See, there were these rabbits a million, trillion, billion years ago and they made little eggs (later became the start of Easter) and one of those eggs blew up and made Earth and the surrounding planets. Then a little flower appeared on the ground and the giant bunny came to pick it, and The Spirit of Creativity came out. The Spirit of Creativity with help from the bunny, made everything the way it is now.

PROVE ME WRONG!!!!

:kookoo:

Not a theory.

 

[Lord Vader]

So? The theory of relativity is still a theory and has room for error. Just because the Theory of Relativity was made by a sane man doesn't mean they all are.

That's a lot o' insane biologists and physicists.

 

[tjguitar]

Incorrect. The most important part is that God is infallibly reliable and humans are not, because humans were given free will to choose and one cannot do this unless it is possible for humans to choose wrongly.

Much like Christians believe man is fallen and inherently sinful and thus cannot objectively tell truth from falsehood? "You've got flies in your eyes. That's why you can't see them."


edited to add: God is indeed infallible, but you are not. That means there is a chance you might be wrong.

 

[tjguitar]

See, there were these rabbits a million, trillion, billion years ago and they made little eggs (later became the start of Easter) and one of those eggs blew up and made Earth and the surrounding planets. Then a little flower appeared on the ground and the giant bunny came to pick it, and The Spirit of Creativity came out. The Spirit of Creativity with help from the bunny, made everything the way it is now.

PROVE ME WRONG!!!!

How is that a theory? What data do you have to support this? That is some alternate reality that you dreamed about. I suppose it could be some kind of hypothesis, but you have no empirical evidence to support this.


I can play this game too. The Bible was actually written by a unicorn. All other histories have been faked.

You can't prove it wrong.

 

[tjguitar]

BTW, how's our emperical data for God coming along?