Creationism

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

A thread, for the topic of Creationism.

[Key]

There is a bit of similarity between creationism and evolution. Both theories encompass how man was formed from dirt. 😁

[Dan56]

Most believe in common ancestry because humans share nearly 99% similar DNA with chimpanzee's, but we also share 50% with bananas.

 

I believe in a common Creator for the same reason. God simply used the same process to create all life forms, with variations of course. If God had altered the formula, a life form would be alien to earth.

 

Everything reproduces after its kind, there is no proof of any kind evolving into a completely different species, evolution is just scientific speculation.

 

Perhaps the reason science has no definitive answers as to the origin of life is because they have no physical observable evidence to examine? In which case, a unobservable spiritual entity is a plausible answer even if it can't be confirmed.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Most believe in common ancestry because humans share nearly 99% similar DNA with chimpanzee's, but we also share 50% with bananas.

 

I believe in a common Creator for the same reason. God simply used the same process to create all life forms, with variations of course. If God had altered the formula, a life form would be alien to earth.

 

Everything reproduces after its kind, there is no proof of any kind evolving into a completely different species, evolution is just scientific speculation.

 

Perhaps the reason science has no definitive answers as to the origin of life is because they have no physical observable evidence to examine? In which case, a unobservable spiritual entity is a plausible answer even if it can't be confirmed.

 

 

Is that really the issue?  You think that evolution is junk science?

 

When Genesis is not taken as literally true -- When the story of Adam and Eve is understood, to be a story, instead of history -- then there are consequences for Christian belief.

 

Without a literal, historic, Adam and Eve, there is no Fall.  No Original Sin.  Humanity is not in a Fallen state.  It follows that there is no need for a Redemption.  Or a Redeemer.  No need for a second Adam.  No need to wash away Original Sin with the Blood of the Lamb, because there was no Original Sin.  No need for the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.  The foundation of Christian theology falls apart, like a house of cards.

 

No.  Evolution is not the issue.  Evolution was never the issue.  You are correct in only one thing.  Creationism can not be confirmed.  There are consequences for dismissing Creationism, as the mythology that it is.

 

 

 

 

 

[Key]

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Most believe in common ancestry because humans share nearly 99% similar DNA with chimpanzee's, but we also share 50% with bananas.

 

I believe in a common Creator for the same reason. God simply used the same process to create all life forms, with variations of course. If God had altered the formula, a life form would be alien to earth.

 

Everything reproduces after its kind, there is no proof of any kind evolving into a completely different species, evolution is just scientific speculation.

 

Perhaps the reason science has no definitive answers as to the origin of life is because they have no physical observable evidence to examine? In which case, a unobservable spiritual entity is a plausible answer even if it can't be confirmed.

Not so. We see evolution in viruses and bacteria becoming vaccine resistant, and transforming into newer strains.

If all men came from one couple, then why so many races?

Perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common ancestor"? Seems a plausible theory.

Also, how does unobservable become plausible? It remains theory only, and cannot be continually tested as science can and is always.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Most believe in common ancestry because humans share nearly 99% similar DNA with chimpanzee's, but we also share 50% with bananas.

 

I believe in a common Creator for the same reason. God simply used the same process to create all life forms, with variations of course. If God had altered the formula, a life form would be alien to earth.

 

Everything reproduces after its kind, there is no proof of any kind evolving into a completely different species, evolution is just scientific speculation.

 

Perhaps the reason science has no definitive answers as to the origin of life is because they have no physical observable evidence to examine? In which case, a unobservable spiritual entity is a plausible answer even if it can't be confirmed.

 

 

An addendum:

 

A "spiritual entity" -- observable or otherwise -- is not the same as your Christian God.  A spiritual entity could be almost anything.  The god of Deism, the god of Pantheism, one of the many gods of the different Polytheisms.  Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

You seem to be proceeding on the assumption of a false binary.  That the truth is either Evolution or Genesis.  No.  There are other religions, other scriptures, other philosophies and other gods.  There is no good reason to suppose that your understanding, is the correct understanding.

 

One additional detail.  Your understanding of evolution theory leaves much to be desired.  Likewise, your understanding of science.  Science is not intended to provide definitive answers.  Science provides answers which have been verified -- subject to new information, which has been proven to be more correct.  The old information is then corrected or abandoned.  If new discoveries do disprove evolution theory -- it will be done by science.  Not religion.

 

It is religion which insists on definitive answers.  At least, your version of religion.  Even if they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

When Genesis is not taken as literally true -- When the story of Adam and Eve is understood, to be a story, instead of history -- then there are consequences for Christian belief.

 

 

Well of course, if you erase the narrative, then the rest would be senseless wouldn't it... But there was original sin, an initial fall, and a need for a Savior.

 

12 hours ago, Key said:

Not so. We see evolution in viruses and bacteria becoming vaccine resistant, and transforming into newer strains.

If all men came from one couple, then why so many races?

Perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common ancestor"? Seems a plausible theory.

Also, how does unobservable become plausible? It remains theory only, and cannot be continually tested as science can and is always.

 

Yes, viruses and bacteria mutate (micro-evolution), but neither evolve into anything other than a virus or bacteria.

I don't believe everyone came from one couple, the Hebrew nation were descendants of A&E. All other races were created separately  (Genesis 1:27).

Or my counter point, perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common Creator"... Seems a plausible theory.

That was my point, a spiritual Being is not observable, so science can never prove God.

 

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

One additional detail.  Your understanding of evolution theory leaves much to be desired.  Likewise, your understanding of science.  Science is not intended to provide definitive answers.  Science provides answers which have been verified -- subject to new information, which has been proven to be more correct.  The old information is then corrected or abandoned.  If new discoveries do disprove evolution theory -- it will be done by science.  Not religion.

 

 

If science provides answers that have been verified, then science has not proven macro-evolution because it hasn't been verified. Its nothing but wide-eyed speculation of examining the fossilized bones of extinct animals and imagining that they turned into something completely different (science fiction).  

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Well of course, if you erase the narrative, then the rest would be senseless wouldn't it... But there was original sin, an initial fall, and a need for a Savior.

 

 

Yes, viruses and bacteria mutate (micro-evolution), but neither evolve into anything other than a virus or bacteria.

I don't believe everyone came from one couple, the Hebrew nation were descendants of A&E. All other races were created separately  (Genesis 1:27).

Or my counter point, perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common Creator"... Seems a plausible theory.

That was my point, a spiritual Being is not observable, so science can never prove God.

 

 

If science provides answers that have been verified, then science has not proven macro-evolution because it hasn't been verified. Its nothing but wide-eyed speculation of examining the fossilized bones of extinct animals and imagining that they turned into something completely different (science fiction).  

 

 

 

 

Hello, Dan.

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

[...] If science provides answers that have been verified, then science has not proven macro-evolution because it hasn't been verified. Its nothing but wide-eyed speculation of examining the fossilized bones of extinct animals and imagining that they turned into something completely different (science fiction).  

 

 

Still a #3[[ of a lot more proof that there is for genesis.

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Still a #3[[ of a lot more proof that there is for genesis.

 

No proof of either imo... Both require faith, and evolution still doesn't answer the origin (cause) of life.

[RevBogovac]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

No proof of either imo... Both require faith, and evolution still doesn't answer the origin (cause) of life.

 

Yes, we all know by now you think binary. But as has been explained to you numerous times (and you just don't want to grasp) that is not how the real world works.

 

In this case: no, no definitive proof of either (nor will there ever be without the invention of time travel). But a lot of indirect proof for evolution theory and no proof whatsoever for creationism...

[Key]

On 5/11/2020 at 10:43 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Well of course, if you erase the narrative, then the rest would be senseless wouldn't it... But there was original sin, an initial fall, and a need for a Savior.

 

 

Yes, viruses and bacteria mutate (micro-evolution), but neither evolve into anything other than a virus or bacteria.

I don't believe everyone came from one couple, the Hebrew nation were descendants of A&E. All other races were created separately  (Genesis 1:27).

Or my counter point, perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common Creator"... Seems a plausible theory.

That was my point, a spiritual Being is not observable, so science can never prove God.

 

 

If science provides answers that have been verified, then science has not proven macro-evolution because it hasn't been verified. Its nothing but wide-eyed speculation of examining the fossilized bones of extinct animals and imagining that they turned into something completely different (science fiction).  

 

That's another point. Why would science even try to prove there's a God? Besides, even if they were, they'd start with what He has left here for us. Kind of like backward engineering something alien to understand how it works, which is what scientist do all the time on everything else. Hence, all the peer review and testing to prove, debunk, or deem plausible.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

51 minutes ago, Key said:

That's another point. Why would science even try to prove there's a God? Besides, even if they were, they'd start with what He has left here for us. Kind of like backward engineering something alien to understand how it works, which is what scientist do all the time on everything else. Hence, all the peer review and testing to prove, debunk, or deem plausible.

 

 

I think that's funny.  It is not the function of science to prove that God exists.  It is for religion to prove that God exists.  In this, religion has failed quite miserably.

 

A god which can not be demonstrated to exist -- which can not be detected -- is irrelevant and meaningless.  Even if the god actually exists -- it still doesn't matter.  As in -- So what?

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 But a lot of indirect proof for evolution theory and no proof whatsoever for creationism...

 

'Indirect' proof can be applicable to just about everything unknown. I obviously don't find the indirect proof of evolution nearly as convincing as you do.

 

6 hours ago, Key said:

That's another point. Why would science even try to prove there's a God? Besides, even if they were, they'd start with what He has left here for us. Kind of like backward engineering something alien to understand how it works, which is what scientist do all the time on everything else. Hence, all the peer review and testing to prove, debunk, or deem plausible.

 

Why? Call it scientific curiosity. For the same reason science would want to prove that the moon was not made of blue cheese. You can't backward engineer a tree to learn how it originated, you can only discover as far back as the seed it sprang from. Then what? Science can study how things work, but draws a blank slate when it comes to the original cause of what made things work.

 

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

A god which can not be demonstrated to exist -- which can not be detected -- is irrelevant and meaningless.  Even if the god actually exists -- it still doesn't matter.  As in -- So what?

 

 

Christ demonstrated that God exist, he was God manifested in the flesh and many witnesses detective it. He was relevant and meaningful. He mattered because he brought salvation, and not many people will be saying "So what" come judgement day.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

'Indirect' proof can be applicable to just about everything unknown. I obviously don't find the indirect proof of evolution nearly as convincing as you do.

 

 

Why? Call it scientific curiosity. For the same reason science would want to prove that the moon was not made of blue cheese. You can't backward engineer a tree to learn how it originated, you can only discover as far back as the seed it sprang from. Then what? Science can study how things work, but draws a blank slate when it comes to the original cause of what made things work.

 

 

• Christ demonstrated that God exist, he was God manifested in the flesh and many witnesses detective it. He was relevant and meaningful. He mattered because he brought salvation, and not many people will be saying "So what" come judgement day.

 

Another terrorist threat.     

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Another terrorist threat.     

 

 

Yup, that's what you get once science is "not convincing"...  anyway:

 

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I think that's funny.  It is not the function of science to prove that God exists.  It is for religion to prove that God exists.  In this, religion has failed quite miserably.

 

A god which can not be demonstrated to exist -- which can not be detected -- is irrelevant and meaningless.  Even if the god actually exists -- it still doesn't matter.  As in -- So what?

 

 

That says it all.

 

 

[RevBogovac]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

'Indirect' proof can be applicable to just about everything unknown. I obviously don't find the indirect proof of evolution nearly as convincing as you do. [...]

 

It isn't important what you or I find of that proof. At least there is proof. Objective, empirically testable, proof. So a lot more proof that there is of creationism. As for creationism there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

33 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Yup, that's what you get once science is "not convincing"...  anyway:

 

 

That says it all.

 

 

 

 

It's what True Believers do.  When their pretend facts crumble -- when their bald, unsupported assertions draw only laughter -- they make terrorist threats.  Usually Hell Fire or Judgement Day.  Then they wonder why nobody cares what they think.  If "think" is the operative word.

 

The problem is that there are so many True Believers.  What is one snowflake?  Nothing.  Less than nothing.  When it snows, trees break and roofs collapse.  They are destructive.  Their cultural dominance is something that we must endure.  For now.  Demographics shift.  The Wheel turns.  I'm thinking of a reality shift.  Do you remember when smoking was cool?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

What is, is.  Not having answers doesnt mean we should abandon reasonable searches for them in favor of popular mythology.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

35 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

What is, is.  Not having answers doesn't mean we should abandon reasonable searches for them in favor of popular mythology.

 

 

It's the old God of the Gaps.  We don't have every definitive detail -- so God did it.  It's what happens, when belief is more important than truth.