Creationist vs Evolutionist

last SG · 2004-09-27T14:43:04+00:00

Hi guys... Hmm... think this has turned from a friendly discussion into something less than pleasant to see... Guess it'll all stop right here.

stupidissmart SG

I doesn’t have it better… U r suddenly accused of being me and so does skyfoo. They can’t believe the facts tat there r so many more people who do not subscribe to creation or other topics.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

AHEM!

Rolling Eyes

sillyme SG

Let me rephrase my statement. "Science can never know everything". But from poopie's statement, at least he agrees that to qualify as a godly being, he must be all-knowing.

I do not suggest that all things to be swept under the carpet. But one must acknowledge the limitations of science. There'll always be something that cannot be proven. If you ask someone to prove creationism, the only way I can think of is to prove the existence of a creator. But can science prove the existence of a creator? Again, science is not an all-powerful tool. Creationist will then point to you that the "evidence" of creation is the environment around you. But evolutionist will tell you that the environment is only a result of evolution. Therefore, like Icemoon mentioned, the evidence is there but what you credit the evidence to is very much determined by your beliefs.

Whether it is science or religion, a belief is an important aspect, not just cold hard facts. Many starting point of science discoveries come about from a belief. If they do not belief, then there is no motivation to proof. And sometimes, the belief is good enough for them to ignore certain "facts" until their goal is achieved. Knowing everything or having a proof for everything is not critical to your beliefs. Sometimes we call this determination or perserverence, sometimes we call this chasing dreams or having faith.

So evolution or creation? It really depends on what you belief in. As for me, I believe in a greater power even science cannot prove.

stupidissmart SG

Let me rephrase my statement. "Science can never know everything". But from poopie's statement, at least he agrees that to qualify as a godly being, he must be all-knowing.

So ?? Is there an all-knowing being ? Can u prove the existence of an all knowing being ? Does the bible portray god as an all -knowing being when he has clearly remarked surprises many times in the scriptures ? An all-knowing being is just an idea.

I do not suggest that all things to be swept under the carpet. But one must acknowledge the limitations of science. There'll always be something that cannot be proven. If you ask someone to prove creationism, the only way I can think of is to prove the existence of a creator. But can science prove the existence of a creator? Again, science is not an all-powerful tool. Creationist will then point to you that the "evidence" of creation is the environment around you. But evolutionist will tell you that the environment is only a result of evolution. Therefore, like Icemoon mentioned, the evidence is there but what you credit the evidence to is very much determined by your beliefs.

Actually blaming everything on science is not really adequate... The basic of Science is a call for evidence. Tat is why science has a much higher accuracy compared with other system of beliefs. Tis is because everyone can claim anything they want. Face it, some men lies, some r ignorant while some r mistaken. We cannot believe them just because of their words. I can claim to have seen a flying pig but if I can't show it, then I am lying or ignorant or made a mistake in observation.

If u want to prove a creator, then u show evidence of the existence of a creator. But can u show it ? U can't ! It is not about science being not omnipotent and tat is why it cannot prove existence of god, but because there is no basis for believing in a creator ! All u guys tell me about the so call evidences r personal experiences. There is no real concrete evidence tat point to the fact of the existence of a creator. It is not about the problem of science, it is about the problem of logic. If u cannot prove your point, it is untrue. If I don't have to prove, then I can say tat I have indisputable facts tat god doesn't exists. I don't have to prove it so u have to believe in it fully ? Tat bring me to another point, why do u believe in the existence of a creator despite no evidence ? Faith is sadly, a system where lies can exists and people believe it to be the truth.

U claim the evidence is around me, but they r shown to have been created in a very natural manner, without the aid of any supernatural forces. Just because I see a tree, forest, lakes and mountains in front of me, doesn't mean tat there is a creator isn't it ??? They r probably there because of nature led events, not supernatural intervention! These 2 r very different things.

icemoon claims the evidence is out there... where ?? Surely people r allowed to study and comment on the so call evidence isn't it ? Otherwise I just show people my handphone and say tat it is an evidence tat god doesn't exists. U can't do anything because u can't comment and rebuke any evidences ! Evidences have to stand the heat of being scutinised by experts of related field. There have been many evidences tat was stated tat show evolution is true isn't it ? They had stand the heat of being scrutinised by all people. Why can't creationsist have such evidences ?

stupidissmart SG

Whether it is science or religion, a belief is an important aspect, not just cold hard facts. Many starting point of science discoveries come about from a belief. If they do not belief, then there is no motivation to proof. And sometimes, the belief is good enough for them to ignore certain "facts" until their goal is achieved. Knowing everything or having a proof for everything is not critical to your beliefs. Sometimes we call this determination or perserverence, sometimes we call this chasing dreams or having faith.

Sorry man... a belief remains as a belief without cold hard facts. Unless u can prove your belief out, it is nothing. Crazy people and children have a lot of beliefs/faith/dreams too. We will pay notice only if they prove it out or fulfil them. I can have a dream/faith/belief saying tat I am going to be richer than bill gates. In fact there r many people who had tis belief too. But unless they really become richer than him, it remains just as a dream, not a fact, reality or truth.

So evolution or creation? It really depends on what you belief in. As for me, I believe in a greater power even science cannot prove.

Wrong. It depends on where evidences r pointing. U don't believe in something just because u want to believe in it. U should believe in the truth.

the.raven SG

sekali one day some scientist proves the existence of god using some differential equations.

Chin Eng SG

Totally out of context here.....
I am currently reading a book entitled "The Case For Christ - A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus: by Lee Strobel" by Zondervan books.

The premise of this book is the writer's, who was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune, journey of seeking evidence from various notable sources, all of which are scholars with various high level qualification.

This book was written in the style of a journalist's interviewing the scholars on the the various aspects on the possibility of the life of Jesus. From the accuracy of an eyewitness account to archaelogical evidence to psychological evidence were investigated from an angle of a journalist covering a crime. Makes very interesting reading.

The real issue with people opposing Christianity is not that there are no evidences or proofs, it is whether such evidences are admissable in their own minds.

So unless one argues with an open mind, there is really no point.

My challenge to all who think that you are guided by logic and intelligence, do you dare to pick up this book to read. It would be good for you because all the people featured in this book has extremely high qualification. Examples of the scholars found in this book include:

Edwin M Yamauchi. Ph. D, one of US' leading expert in ancient history.
John McRay, Ph.D, author of the book "Archaeology and the New Testament", also a consultant for National Geographic when they needed a scientist who could explain the intricacies of the Biblical world.
... and many others.

Laughing still there will be people who say "this one no parkay" "that one no count" "so there is still no proof"..... whatever lah!

burntan SG

Again, evolution can be an act of God… so, no matter how many evidences or how true is evolution, doesn’t mean that creation not happened.

stupidissmart SG

The real issue with people opposing Christianity is not that there are no evidences or proofs, it is whether such evidences are admissable in their own minds.

Surely u had read the book. Why don't us tell me the evidences tat exists but inadmissible ? It will be more convenient for everyone isn't it ?

Many scientists tat come with with theories tat were against the powerful churches at tat time. Their theories still emerge as great findings. If people r as close as u describe, then they would never have been famous

stupidissmart SG

Again, evolution can be an act of God... so, no matter how many evidences or how true is evolution, doesn't mean that creation not happened.

Why do u think tat there r so many people here tat were against evolution ? If evolution were true, then it meant tat a lot of things holded by the bible isn't true. Life appears naturally, without supernatural interventions. About creation, there still doesn't exists evidence tat it exists.

sillyme SG

Let me post some names of prominent scientist. No doubt they are dead. But they are the foundation of science and strong believers of the christian faith.

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister
Bacteriology Louis Pasteur
Calculus Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler
Chemistry Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier
Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics Isaac Newton
Electronics John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics Michael Faraday
Energetics Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre
Field Theory James Clerk Maxwell
Fluid Mechanics George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy Sir William Hershel
Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle
Genetics Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz
Gynaecology James Simpson
Hydrography Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsey
Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh
Natural History John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernard Riemann
Oceanography Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy David Brewster

And I quote Lord Kelvin
"If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God"

But then it's out of topic lah. Razz

TrU PeAce (^0*)v SG

Quote from Sis :Sorry man... a belief remains as a belief without cold hard facts. Unless u can prove your belief out, it is nothing

U had also mentioned that evidence is extremely important. u must prove what u believe right??

Let me tell u a true story. Scientist all around the world at that time believe in the existence of aether. I say it again...scientist BELIEVE in the existence of aether. They claim that they had perform sufficient mathematical calculation that aether exist. So, at that time, all physics books mention about the existence of aether. It was taught in the university also.

Now, did they prove thier believe before publishing out in journals and books. They even taught it at the university level. So, dont think that scientist ALWAYS believe in something with evidence. In this case, i solemnly tell u SIS, that ur statement " a belief remains as a belief without cold hard facts " is not 100% TRUE.

Michaelson- Molley experiment had fail alot alot of times. He did not give up. His reasons is that aether exist, and he believe that his experiment was not sensitive enough to detect the aether. He never question that " hmm, aether might not even exist". He blame himself and he continue on for the rest of his life on his experiment. So..u see, scientist even from cambridge university BELIEVE STRONGLY ..VERY STRONG INFACT over something that they FEEL it is true.

It is until the day Einstein came and he claims that aether doesnt exist. Einstien is famous because he DARE to go against all the other scientist believes. Even though after mentioning it, he got bombarded by alot of other scientist in the world. Is like all vs 1. They did not accept his statement until years had passed. Some of his claims were even not accepted until he died. So sad for him. So..this is how STRONG a believe is...be it science or religion.

Therefore SIS, do not quote each and every sentence of a person as if all thier statement from the first line and to end have no sense and urs have the most. Ignorance is bliss. As someone had mention in his thread to u, i believe is quite true. that is if u r so right in every single statment, can correct every single word from another being, well u do not need to be here. U will be called to join the States for research. But since u are not, then ..all i could say is dun act like one.

never say that u cannot disagree, but to disagree WITH the attempt to prove that the persons statement is wrong from the start till the end, i believe that it shows ur personal grudge that everything,..EVERYTHING that this fellow mention is wrong and I AM right. So darn right. PERFECT, FLAWLESS. However so sad to acknowledge the fact that no one on earth is perfect.

Chin Eng SG

Laughing
this statement has just underlined my assessment all along, that it's all about a personal issue, as you'd said, a grudge or biasness toward Christianity and Christians specifically.
I have never understood the need for one to be compelled to argue with such propensity as this individual.... hey wait a minute... there was another one... his name was Saul.... Very Happy

Chin Eng SG

Well, if you are really in the search for truth, you will read all information. Including this one...
If you are not really in the search for truth, then it does not matter what I say.

The scientists and scholars in this book is still living. I will maintain that I am not these scientists equals so I do not believe I can explain it as well as the writer. If I am to attempt it, again, it would be the cultural context, languages, lifestyle, habits, which may I say, you have discounted as inadmissable in our previous exchanges.

stupidissmart SG

Let me tell u a true story. Scientist all around the world at that time believe in the existence of aether. I say it again...scientist BELIEVE in the existence of aether. They claim that they had perform sufficient mathematical calculation that aether exist. So, at that time, all physics books mention about the existence of aether. It was taught in the university also.

Isn't tat the beauty of science ? They evolve after finding out facts tat were more relevant and proven. Science cannot know everything instantly. Your example has further illustrates the meaning and value of proving and evidence. Aether cannot be proven, and it is easily replaced with the Einstein more believable and provable theories. Science is not as close as wat chin eng described. They will change when sufficient evidences was given. When u have irrefutable evidences and produce new knowledge, science will evolve, and it will evolve to become more and more accurate. Your example further illustrates the fact tat belief remains as belief only after cold hard facts have been supplied. Einstein support his belief with cold hard facts in the end too isn't it ?

Wat about creation now ? There r still no evidence on its creation. Isn't creation "aether" now while Einstein theories become "evolution" ? Why do u believe in creation ? It is just because the bible support evolution. Isn't tis following theory of "aether" blindly without looking at hard facts ?

BELIEVE STRONGLY ..VERY STRONG INFACT over something that they FEEL it is true.

Again in the end he give off hard cold facts to support his stand. Some Crazy people believe something to be true strongly. But they can never prove it out if they r wrong. Tat is the beauty of evidences. It can help to determine who/wat is right or wrong.

Therefore SIS, do not quote each and every sentence of a person as if all thier statement from the first line and to end have no sense and urs have the most.

I do explain why I disagree with them isn't it ?

Ignorance is bliss. As someone had mention in his thread to u, i believe is quite true. that is if u r so right in every single statment, can correct every single word from another being, well u do not need to be here. U will be called to join the States for research. But since u are not, then ..all i could say is dun act like one.

Ignorance is bliss... So u prefer to be ignorant ? Strange... do u know me ? Maybe I am doing research in the US now too isn't it ? American cannot access to tis website meh ? Maybe I had won a nobel price before ? How do u know I am not ? U don't even know me ! Why do u have the qualification to tell me not to act as someone or something ?

never say that u cannot disagree, but to disagree WITH the attempt to prove that the persons statement is wrong from the start till the end, i believe that it shows ur personal grudge that everything,..EVERYTHING that this fellow mention is wrong and I AM right. So darn right. PERFECT, FLAWLESS. However so sad to acknowledge the fact that no one on earth is perfect.

a little bit off point here... different people have different manner of writing in forums. I have put down my reasons on why I disagree. U can do the same to me if u want too isn't it ?

stupidissmart SG

Well, if you are really in the search for truth, you will read all information. Including this one...
If you are not really in the search for truth, then it does not matter what I say.

There r a lot of other readers here. If u want to tell us your perceive truth, then make it convenient and tell us wat it is about. Why don't u want more peopel to know about it ? I can put 1000 books here and tell u to read all of them. Do u think everyone have the time to do tat ? It is convenient to ask people to read but I believe it is your duty to sumarise exactly wat is important or relevant first.

The scientists and scholars in this book is still living. I will maintain that I am not these scientists equals so I do not believe I can explain it as well as the writer. If I am to attempt it, again, it would be the cultural context, languages, lifestyle, habits, which may I say, you have discounted as inadmissable in our previous exchanges.

I am no evolution expert either, but I attempt to understand and explain in my own words isn't it ? Cultural context, lifestyles, habits have no meaning in science or evidences. I am sure u master your english language well too. It is not as though I am asking u to translate from french to english. Rolling Eyes

burntan SG

Bible mention that God create the universe, the world and all living things including human.... but it didn't mention "how".

So, proving that evolution is true, doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong. God can create the universe by big bang, God can create Human by evolution isn't it?

Chin Eng SG

Confused yes there is! Cultural context explains why science was science at any given point in time in history.

let me offer a couple of reasons why you would not want to pursue the book I'd recommended:
1. The content is totally opposite of your mindset - this shows your lack of desire to really want to find out. You merely want to push your version of truth.
2. The content is immensely superior to your intellectual level and that it contains quotations and interviews from eminent scholars - this is an opposite of your allegations that Christianity is being practiced by ill-informed and uneducated individuals.

Still, why wouldn't I share with what I'd learnt?
1. I cannot not translate it as well as I want and because of that, it will lead to another pointless and endless debate.
2. The book is 300 pages thick. I won't know where to start.

TrU PeAce (^0*)v SG

My above statement..is to show u that scientist need not to have facts as like what u say to prove thier statement. They just simply believe, didnt they?

And not all scientist today are like Einstein. They still believe in what the think it is right...and might not have a solid evidence. Of course those scientist at that time have alot of so called evidence that claim the existence of aether. U try to argue with them last time..u will surely be nail down my thier "evidence".

quote from SIS: Science cannot know everything instantly. Your example has further illustrates the meaning and value of proving and evidence. Aether cannot be proven, and it is easily replaced with the Einstein more believable and provable theories.

U said my example has illustrates the meaning and value of proving and evidence. Yup i accept that. U know what is Einstein prove of the non-existence of aether, it is just simply the Michaelson Molley experiment that fails. He need not to come up with another experiment. So..a prove of an evidence can be from the failure to prove from the other party. Can u get what i am trying to tell u here. Cool

hm...u won nobel prize.ur name in here http://www.almaz.com/nobel/
?? singaporean/malaysian/indonesian won nobel prize? can u be the one in future?
then better u say u are a ang moh right. and u r above 50. becoz i dun think that by 20+ u can win one nobel prize loh.

U working in US...the time zone tells alot also.

U r a researcher, my prof dont even have enough time to sleep, u got so much time to log in and out this forum so frequent??

so..probability tells me u r not a researcher in states, not a nobel winner. Cool
if u r one..a nobel winner, tell me ur name...coz i really want to know who u r.

I forgot the last probability. Because of ur incorrigible atitude, ur respect to the rest and the grudge that u hold against christianity...if u R REALLY a NOBEL WINNER, I BET that u will definitely mention ur name in ur post to gain fame or to further "enchanced" ur arguement against christianity. Mr. Green

stupidissmart SG

double

« Previous Page Next Page »