cclaydog wrote:

You might not agree with it, but you should at least examine it with an open mind.  When people belittle the scientific status of creationism, they usually attack its believers, not its claims.

How is that more egregious than wilfully ignoring what the theory of evolution actually is?

Creationism is a story about how the universe came into being.  Evolution is a theory about how species develop.  They're not even about the same thing.  Proponents of creationism make this basic error over and over again, even when it's corrected.  

Do you think you could bring yourself to stop?  You see, it really doesn't help your case when you don't even know what you're arguing against.

Wow, didn't expect to get this kind of discussion here.  I have to admit, I've always assumed evolution was the way it happened.  Never really knew why I thought that way.  Maybe it's because the consequences of creation just scare the mess out of me.  I do know that in general, creationists seem to win debates on the subject.  This thread is no exception.  c-dog seems to at least know why he believes what he does. 

I will ponder how a God could use evolution as I trudge my long run this weekend..or even if there is a God...

Dude, he's kickin arse. 

He gave specific points on why he believes a creation must have happened.  You can keep belittling him if it makes you feel better, but right now you're taking it on the chin.

funny how the topic of this debate evolved.  love evolves.  change is constant.

now Jim, the subject of the original post was a factual premise. if

this..., implying then that. you answered your own question with a no

and I respect that. I hope that you have evolved to a level of

certainty greater than before. but the implications of whether the last

word of the premise even is something real, is deeply related toevolvution.  

for instance, the mathematical evolution for identity properties. if

1=1 and 1+1=2, then 2 is not equal to 1. this is true if there are no

unitsassigned to each integer.  however 1 mile

= 5280 ft. this statement of fact is the truth, based on the agreed

identity of a mile and a foot. therefore... other things can be

extrapolated from these factual statements about distances using

dimensional analysis, also known as conversion factors.

this is how someone can logically deduce conclusions about 'GOD'.  but the word 'logic' in English comes to us from the Greek logos,

a word that Jesus Christ of Nazareth used to describe 'GOD'. I am the way, the

truth, and the light. these words deserve further etymology before any atheist

skeptic can honestly conclude that the word 'God'

represents something that is not real, or experiential. can I prove to

you that there was light today? only if you agree with me on the

definition of light, and the space / time dimensions of the location of this so called "light" that alledgedly existed.  at this level all scientific conclusions are dependant on faith, usually an appeal to credibility; ad hominem.  this study done on for x period of time at the University or "independent" research corporation of where ever proves that y.  doctor suchandsuch who did thisandthat suggests a course of action based on his experience with testing.  what is really happening is that doctor whathisface believes.  credere in latin.  the scientist must also believe that their sensory functions are experiencing reality, something that can be quantified (space) and qualified (time) as empirical evidence.  this is however a classic trap of Gaism and Solepism, that nothing is real and everything experiential is an illusion.  believe what you want, but light and gravity is happening to me right now regardless of your belief in such a statement of fact.  true story. haha.

Bob Marley sang "I and I no expect to be justified by the laws of men" in the song So much things to say.  I like to think he wasn't just talking about shooting the sheriff, but also that you can say what you want about the state of affairs regardless of the truth of the situation.  this however does not imply that the laws of science in any way disprove the reality of capitol G to the OD.  the homie JC.  <alpha omega>  yod ve ho vah.  "ghee-suhs".

the truth shall set you free. 

some scientists would have you believe that adopting the philosophical paradigm 'evolution' is not only in opposition to God the father of all creation, but that this belief of prehistoric facts is in itself an evolution of the human species; i.e. the Christian or any Theologian is for whatever reason not mentally evolved enough to conclude that God is not real and evolution is the truth.  my theory is as simple as this. 

love

p.s.  it is the most important ingredient in any real food.  love, that is.  don't have to believe me, believe the food.  proof is in the pudding.

culinarydoctor wrote:

 

the Greek logos, a word that Jesus Christ of Nazareth used to describe 'GOD'. I am the way, the

truth, and the light.

 

Jesus Christ of Nazareth did not speak Greek.

Facts are horrid things.

culinarydoctor wrote:

did he not?

 

my bad dude, I wasn't there when it all went down.  if I had to guess though, he just might have.   some of his people definetely were familiar with Greek at the time of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem.  language is however, another beautiful example of "evolution".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim.  I am not down with belittling people either.  put off foul language and pick up words of encouragement.  I feel that any honest human being much reconsile with science, or what is the percieved facts.  many scientist have only strengthed their faith through pursuit of developing a more accurate understanding as to nature of the universe.  As Albert Einstein said "to know the mind of God". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

seek and yee shall find.

 

 

 

 

 

Dude, ever think about checking out the shift key?

This entire question seems to me to boil down to whether you think that there is only one valid way of knowingapplying reason to evidence, or whether there are two equally valid methods of knowingevidence based knowledge, and faith-based knowledge.  Believers hold that there is more to knowledge than what is provided by application of our abilities to observe and to reason.

I would point out, though, that "when the rubber meets the road", when we make decisions that will result in taking away a person's money, his/her liberty, and even his/her life, we use evidence and reason, not faith.  Judges instruct jurors to base their decision on EVIDENCE, not on what they may believe about the defendant and not on what their faith tells them about the defendant.  I wonder why. 

What is a juror to do if his/her faith in the innocence of a defendant conflicts with what the evidence says?  What does a person do when her faith in the fidelity of her loved one conflicts with incontrovertible evidence of his infidelity?  A person who retains their faith in instances like this is said to be deluded.  Crazy!