Creation And Reality

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 22
Topic's author
#1
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
I think that the concept of creation and evolution "co-existing" is a vain attempt by creationists to keep their dream alive whilst indirectly conceding that they have been totally trumped by evolution.

For example: "species having been created will adapt to their environment" and "there is evolution within species but not between species". A new term I found yesterday was "kind". . . . . . "there is evolution between species but not between kinds."

Then there is the vague play on the "consciousness" or "spirit" concept that somehow a creator left everything to evolve but when a human comes about, a conscience is miraculously programmed into that body.

Evolution is an extremely tried, proven and irrefutable science. When will creationists stop trying to take a free ride by jumping on the evolution bandwagon in a vain attempt to gain credibility?

If creationists have any reasonable argument for their cause, they should present their own research and evidence instead of hijacking the hard, Intelligent work done by others.

Creation and evolution have nothing to do with each other, They are poles apart and the twain shall never meet.

#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
Depends upon how broad ranging you care to be with your discussion.

If you are just talking species development then I would perhaps have to agree with you.

But that is only considering a tiny piece of the picture.

At some point there had to be some sort of creation event (something from nothing), from which a developmental process (evolution) began. Organic and consequent species development is very much the latter part of that process.

The God idea obviously evolved when a humanoid species started to derive the ability to ask questions.

And of course a supreme (humanoid) being hypothesis was probably always going to be the likely outcome.

That is to say, that humans would create a God in their own image.

Nonetheless, the cause of primary creation is a separate issue and all possible cards are still firmly on the table.
 


#3
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@David
Yo big shot, is spam still against the CoC?
Topic's author
#4
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless, the cause of primary creation is a separate issue and all possible cards are still firmly on the table.
It is only a separate issue for creationists who want to keep the dream alive. "Oh yes, oh yes, we concede there was evolution but there are questions still about how life started."

In other words, creationists invented the table and invented the cards.

The formation of life is a part of the evolutionary process and has been overwhelmingly demonstrated and proven if one cares to read the research which is complicated but not understanding it is no reason to poo poo it.

Tellingly, there is not one skerrick of evidence disproving the interaction of heat and chemicals that formed the first living cells. And, although creationists are so keen to rubbish the beginnings of life, they have not provided any detail whatsoever of an alternative theory.

Evolution (including the very initial formation of biological formations) has been irrefutably proven and there are no cards on any table except in the minds of (deluded) wishful thinkers.
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
You're still getting bogged down in the same old, god and species debate and therefore missing the bigger creationary/evolutionary picture.

As I have already stated elsewhere, to much negative angst is perhaps clouding your judgement.
Topic's author
#6
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@zedvictor4
As I have already stated elsewhere, to much negative angst is perhaps clouding your judgement.
So now, let's bring out the personal attack and guilt trip trump card and whack it on the straw table, shall we?
The trouble is that you can't use the Joker as a trump.

There is no such thing as "creationary/evolutionary" let alone trying to make up a bigger picture with which to frame such a nutty concept.

I don't know what shovel-leaning roadworker wrote the book you get your ideas from but he certainly wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, that's for sure.


#7
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Oops Zed, you are now a closet Christian!

You can now be dismissed without reasoning.

#8
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
If something comes into being, it is created.

If things come into being by the process of evolution, evolution is a creative process.

If evolution is true, it does not negate God or the fsct that God created everything. 

#9
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
If evolution is true, it does not negate God or the fsct that God created everything. 

Would it negate the creation story in the bible, where basically God creates everything in its current form in a matter of days?
#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Most of the earliest commentaries on scripture don't even interpret the creation account in Genesis literally. 

The bible was never intended to be a scientific manual. These Dr. Dino types, while interesting enough at times to get you scratch your head from time to time, do not represent the historical Church's viewpoint.







#11
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
You have to picture god making ( one Adam ) and ( one Eve )
Then God filling Adam up with blood ( type A )  
And God filling Eve up with blood ( type B ) 
Then God just waiting around with two sachets of blood ( type AB ) and ( type O ) waiting for the next people to give it two. 


#12
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Or using your best David Attenborough. 

Lions,  Zebras and elephants have walked the great plains of Africa now for a Wednesday 6000 years ago. 
 

#13
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
6000 years ago , God creates alllllllllllll the animals
4000 years after God created alllllllllllll the animals he drowns the lot.  apart from a pair of each. 
So ummmmmm , every animal today come from the animals on the ark some 2000 years ago. 
No that's not right is it ? 
Is it?
 
  


#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Haha.

Salixes one track mind unfortunately blinkers their judgement somewhat. They're missing the wood for the trees as it were.

And everyone and everything is a strawman other than their own blinkered angst.

Good fun nonetheless.

#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Lol.

I can dismiss you because the "shovel-leaning roadworker who wrote the book you get your ideas from", (what book?) is a theist!

Lol. Hilarious.
#16
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@Mopac
 Most Jewish scholars consider Genesis as being a literal account of creation and although the Bible is not a science book, wherever it touches on scientific subjects it is 100% accurate.
 No matter what fallible humans (the Church) think, it is Scripture that should be a Christians authority. 
#17
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ronjs
So then you do not in any way believe in evolution, correct, you believe all current life on earth was put here in its final form by god directly? 

wherever it touches on scientific subjects it is 100% accurate.
What's the biblical reading for pi?

Most Jewish scholars consider Genesis as being a literal account of creation
This is either patently false or poorly stated. I think you mean most people who believe the Old Testament, right? Not like a Jewish professor of science, but a scholar who is way into Judaism as their scholarly pursuit. 
#18
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ronjs
We certainly respect scripture as authoritative. 

However, sola scriptura leads to 30,000 plus denominations that don't know the God they worship. Scripture detached from the church is removed from its proper context.


The Orthodox Catholic Church is the very church of the apostles, and we have preserved the teachings. This is evident by the enlightened doctrine that the church has consistently maintained for millennia.

The proper conclusion of the reformation is reunion with the Orthodox Church. The Latin church had been broken off from Orthodox Christianity for over 500 years by the time the reformers left them.



#19
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@Mopac
 

We certainly respect scripture as authoritative. 

Then why so many anti Biblical practises like considering Mary co-redeemer with Christ, which I know you will deny but that is what is done

However, sola scriptura leads to 30,000 plus denominations that don't know the God they worship. Scripture detached from the church is removed from its proper context.


Only if it is taken out of context and rules of grammar are ignored. The gospel message can be understood by anyone without any Church being involved.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is the very church of the apostles, and we have preserved the teachings. This is evident by the enlightened doctrine that the church has consistently maintained for millennia.

The proper conclusion of the reformation is reunion with the Orthodox Church. The Latin church had been broken off from Orthodox Christianity for over 500 years by the time the reformers left them.



Yes the Catholic Church was very true to Christianity, but has strayed far from it, such as when they supported the Nazis in order to protect their wealth. 




Topic's author
#20
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Salixes one track mind unfortunately blinkers their judgement somewhat. They're missing the wood for the trees as it were.

And everyone and everything is a strawman other than their own blinkered angst.

Uh, uh. You are wrong there.
I have not made everyone and everything a Strawman, have I?

Well, have I?

No, I haven't. So perhaps You may like to reign yourself in a bit.

I was very specific in my my totally correct exposure of your erroneously introduced and dicombobulated assumptions..

the cause of primary creation is a separate issue and all possible cards are still firmly on the table.
The cards and the table are only in your mind. A mind that cannot apparently stop associating the known with the unknown.

I'm afraid that you will need to sharpen your knife quite considerably before even thinking of trying to stick it in me.
Topic's author
#21
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Mopac
We certainly respect scripture as authoritative. 

The scriptures deserve not one ounce of respect as being authoritative at all since they are riddled with inaccuracies, speculative anecdotes and outright myths. 
The Bible has never been authenticated and is classified as a book of reference. It has very little of substance of fact or truth to it whatsoever.

The Bible displays very little respect for human rights and its authority is limited to ruling with an iron rod in commanding its followers to behave in the most heinous and anti-social ways.
#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ronjs
Then why so many anti Biblical practises like considering Mary co-redeemer with Christ, which I know you will deny but that is what is done


Jesus Christ's flesh comes from Mary. However, Mary is not God, who is the one who saves.

Mary herself said, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour."

Mary herself calls God the savior.

So yes, I do deny your assertion, and with good reason. However, we give her the honor that is due to her as theotokos.


Only if it is taken out of context and rules of grammar are ignored. The gospel message can be understood by anyone without any Church being involved.
What language is the New Testament written in? Greek.

What is the religion of the Greeks? 

Orthodox Christianity.

I am not denying that one could come to knowledge of The Truth through studying the bible on their own, but the bible belongs to the church.

Who wrote the bible? Who determined the canon? The Church.



Yes the Catholic Church was very true to Christianity, but has strayed far from it, such as when they supported the Nazis in order to protect their wealth.


The Roman "Catholic" Church hasn't been orthodox for over a thousand years.

They are heretics, which is part of what sparked the reformation to begin with.

There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Orthodox Catholic Church is the historical church.