Re: Can Creation and Evolution be linked?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0700, snex <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 25, 4:34 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <1185397337.470690.61...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,



snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 25, 3:52 pm, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1185384154.187913.264...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:44 pm, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <Xns997783DB86C77GaryB...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Gary Bohn <gary.b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:t7hca3dcsvpq6f6ff84u8c1f9uv0c3su2f@xxxxxxx:

On 24 Jul 2007 18:17:00 GMT, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:05:41 -0000,
yourfriend...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <yourfriend...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Why can't creation and evolution be linked. Why can they
not be a part of the same thing. Sure - there was Gods
creation in the beginning in which the seeds of life were
laid down, which over billions of years evolved to best
adapt to there surroundings. How do we know this was not
God's plan? Because the man who wrote the book of
Genesis, who did not have the ability to understand what
we know today, says it is so?

If you want to believe that, that go ahead. But understand
that it is not science.

Of course it is not science. It is called religion. But
faith can be compatible with science as a very large number
of Jewish and Christian and Muslim scientists can attest.

Is their faith compatible, or are they just succesfully
compartmentalizing their science and their faith in different
mental containers?

As far as I am aware, those religious scientists do not
consider their belief system while running and analysing
experiments. Of course I could be quite wrong in this.

Many religious people consider creation stories to be myths.
They may speak to us on a deep psychological level about what
it means to be human., but they do not provide a literal,
scientific explanation of how the world was made.

the stories only became myths after the evidence indicated a
literal interpretation was wrong. up until that point, they were
believed literally.

I'm not even sure that is the case. I'm sure that ethnologists and
those who study early literature have researched the question of
whether creation myths were believed to be literally true or wether
everyone recognized, as we do, that they were just made-up stories.
I don't think you should believe, without good evidence, that the
stories were held to be literally true.

if they werent believed to be literally true, why was there such a
backlash when science started showing that the literal
interpretations were flat out wrong? why did the first geologists set
out to prove the noachian flood, if they didnt believe a worldwide
flood literally happened? why do modern christians STILL insist that
even if genesis isnt to be taken literally, the gospels must be?
where are the christians saying jesus didnt *really* rise from the
dead, but this is just a metaphor? they aint on this newsgroup.

Because you're mistaking the concepts of "some" and "all".

ok, then show me any christian, jew, or muslim who believed that life
was not 6000 years old (subtracting whatever necessary from that
number to account for when he/she lived) before science discovered
that it wasnt.


why do theists engage in such intellectually dishonest behavior?

Why do you?

point out any such intellectual dishonesty on my part.

Insisting, without evidence, that until scientists came to rescue people
from false beliefs, *everyone* believed in the literal truth of creation
stories.

care to tell us what they believed then? if you had asked aquinas how
life started, or when it started, what would his answer have been?



This is a stupid and completely untenable argument. In the absence
of any evidence whatsoever about the age of the earth, including the
total absence of evidence for its antiquity, any age is as good as any
other. In the total absence of any evidence for alternative origins
of life or of the universe, then mystical magical creation by a deity
is as good an answer as any other. This was a rather universal way of
explaining origins in all human societies. It wasn't until very
recently that people believed living things to obey the then known
laws of physics and chemistry and it was perfectly reasonable to
accept religious explanations. You certainly would ridicule every
possible answer except modern science and, no doubt, in a few
centuries the new modern science will ridicule our answers.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... reasoning would not work in a court of law or in science. ... What literature did I, supposedly, not read. ... is beyond dispute. ... My thinking is consistent with all the evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Exploring_=93Explore_Evolution=94?=
    ... book will help you explore that evidence" ... one of them would be unconstitutional in public schools), ... tasks faced by science teachers is to weave the lines of evidence ... whatsoever to do with either ID or creation 'science', ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM An Encounter with Kent Hovind
    ... My science education was learned physically at the ... accuracy based on how well they fit existing and new evidence. ... The creation science you've ... Are you really putting your faith in the literal ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Encounter with Kent Hovind
    ... Kent Hovind: The Complete Encounter ... My science education was learned physically at ... for accuracy based on how well they fit existing and new evidence. ... The creation science you've ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins for president
    ... So when you see probability talk within science, ... Other evidence leads us to ... How does your creation ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading