Subject:
|
Re: Concerning Evolution vs. Creation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:07:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
88 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> IMHO:
>
> Trying to convince anyone that Creation is the truth rather than
> Evolution is futile given that:
> (a) The Evolutionist does not believe in God in the first place OR
> (b) The Evolutionist does not believe in a literal interpretation of the
> Bible[1], in which case they do not believe in the same God as I do.
I totally agree (I'd put myself in the (b) category).
> Why? Because no matter what someone else may say Creationism is a
> theory and is FOUNDED on the Biblical record of of the origin of life.
Which means that you can't use Creation "Science" without accepting a
literal interpretation of the Bible.
> HOWEVER, the same is true of Evolutionism in that today it is
> essentially based on the model put forth by Charles Darwin. (For
> dictionary definitions please see http://www.m-w.com and look up
> "CREATIONISM" and then "EVOLUTION" (def. 4b))
This model is:
(1) Subject to change, criticism, improvement and total replacement if a
more useful model is devised.
(2) Not reliant on any particular belief in God
> To address Dave's question "why not both", I encourage the reading of
> the following four articles which briefly explain the 3 basic theories
> that try to "include both" and coincide with my beliefs:
> (A) THEISTIC EVOLUTION -
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
> (B) PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM -
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c009.html
> (C-D) THE GAP THEORY -
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html
> -
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-gaptheory-problems.html
>
>
> So what is the debate then?
>
> For me, it encompasses 1 major issue:
>
> (1) The generalized acception and even teaching (in tax-funded public
> school systems) of Evolutionism as "the only possible Theory" or worse,
> emperical science.
The failures of high-school science teaching are a totally different (and
much more arcane debate). The theory should be taught as a theory, the
evidence should be taught as evidence. If a basic understanding of the
scientific process was actually taught, people would be much better equipped
to question not only Creation "Science" but much of the other misleading
propaganda that surrounds them.
> Some will (and have here) tried to argue that the
> Bible CONTRADICTS modern scientific discoveries, or that the creation
> theory is "absurd" at best or even "impossible". I however, beg to
> differ. Rather than my stating of any particular subjects that
> Evolutionists commonly argue I urge you to present any specific topic
> that you feel fits this criteria.
Creation theory is not absurd, or impossible. It is unprovable. That makes
it religion, not science.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Concerning Evolution vs. Creation
|
| IMHO: Trying to convince anyone that Creation is the truth rather than Evolution is futile given that: (a) The Evolutionist does not believe in God in the first place OR (b) The Evolutionist does not believe in a literal interpretation of the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
