Faith Required in Both Creation and Evolution.

[Aslan]

Is it not true that belief in either creation or evolution envolves using faith?

Creationists have faith in the existance of an eternal all powerful God.

Evolutionist have faith in the existance of eternal matter.

[Cathar1950]

I don’t know why it couldn’t explain the origins of life as a mater of fact I think it does well in the area. Evolution is about change adaptation and development and has a pretty good account so far. All life needs is some amino acids or other properties. It seems to be diverse and adapt well in even extreme conditions that we figure if there is water you have every reason to believe there is life. That may just be a limit to our experience. Maybe there is life built on crystals, gas or such things using sulfur, carbon or any manner of substances. Maybe even energy can take on a life like form and produce consciousness or self-awareness. Life is here and it isn’t such a surprise. There is enough data to rule out the need for magic.
Evolution is not down for any count or beyond explaining what ever you might expect from some supernatural origin. Personally I can see the development of even natural theology with evolution being a strong defense where a non-natural theology being irrelevant useless and lacking all that we hold to be experience. I think JC is just trying to pick at evolution because it is a threat to his worldview and he tends to have an anti-science paranoia that only the idea of God gives him any comfort. But I could be projecting; it is only an unsupported thought.
Fun to have you back JC.

[Goat]

Hi jcrawford

Hi FB.

As special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum physics also require high levels of imagination, I take it you mean to praise evolution in this respect.

Not exactly, since the highly imaginative speculations of evolutionary theorists serve no practical purpose other than creating a scientific religion bolstered by a highly religious philosophy.

On the contrary, if you don't believe it has practical applicatoins, I would advise you to ignore antibodic research , and most of biology in general.

[jcrawford]

Not exactly, since the highly imaginative speculations of evolutionary theorists serve no practical purpose other than creating a scientific religion bolstered by a highly religious philosophy.

On the contrary, if you don't believe it has practical applicatoins, I would advise you to ignore antibodic research , and most of biology in general.

Have there been some important discoveries or developments in antibodic research which demonstrate, show evidence of, or confirm Darwin's suspicions that his ancestors evolved from a sub-human species of African apes once upon a time?

[jcrawford]

I think JC is just trying to pick at evolution because it is a threat to his worldview and he tends to have an anti-science paranoia that only the idea of God gives him any comfort.

If it wasn't for God, I would have no choice but to believe in evolutionary whackos like Darwin and Dawkins.

But I could be projecting; it is only an unsupported thought.

According to my developing Theory of Mind, Darwin and Freud both projected and imposed their thoughts, beliefs and vain theories on others through the powers of suggestion and arts of persuasion alone.

Fun to have you back JC.

Never a dull moment when you and I start postulating and pontificating on the forum.

[Goat]

Not exactly, since the highly imaginative speculations of evolutionary theorists serve no practical purpose other than creating a scientific religion bolstered by a highly religious philosophy.

On the contrary, if you don't believe it has practical applicatoins, I would advise you to ignore antibodic research , and most of biology in general.

Have there been some important discoveries or developments in antibodic research which demonstrate, show evidence of, or confirm Darwin's suspicions that his ancestors evolved from a sub-human species of African apes once upon a time?

Not in antibodic research, but the fossil and dna evidence is very specific on that.

With the TOE, and knowledge of genetics, we can test medicines on animals, and be reasonable sure that the same metabolic pathways are similar. We can now also make predictions when a medicine that won't work people could have an effect on animals (and vise versa).

[McCulloch]

If it wasn't for God, I would have no choice but to believe in evolutionary whackos like Darwin and Dawkins.

If I asserted that I am a modern Neanderthal, I would be careful calling others whackos.

[jcrawford]

Have there been some important discoveries or developments in antibodic research which demonstrate, show evidence of, or confirm Darwin's suspicions that his ancestors evolved from a sub-human species of African apes once upon a time?

Not in antibodic research, but the fossil and dna evidence is very specific on that.

That is just a vain presumption which consists of empty rhetoric since there are no specific fossils or DNA evidence which you can show us that conclusively demonstrate either Darwin's or Dawkin's descent from a sub-human animal in Africa.

With the TOE, and knowledge of genetics, we can test medicines on animals, and be reasonable sure that the same metabolic pathways are similar. We can now also make predictions when a medicine that won't work people could have an effect on animals (and vise versa).

You can't even guarantee that psychiatrically prescribed drugs don't cause obesity, dementia, paranoia plus suicidal thoughts and impulses.

[jcrawford]

If it wasn't for God, I would have no choice but to believe in evolutionary whackos like Darwin and Dawkins.

If I asserted that I am a modern Neanderthal, I would be careful calling others whackos.

Tell that to the Neanderthals on the Geico commercials, especially the one who puts his mother on the speaker phone while visiting his crazy shrink.

Scientists have found new genetic evidence that they say may answer the longstanding question of whether modern humans and Neanderthals interbred when they co-existed thousands of years ago. The answer is: probably yes, though not often.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/scien ... yt&emc=rss

[micatala]

Welcome to the forum Aslan. Interesting that I meet you just as I am starting about the fourth reading of the Narnia series with my children.

Is it not true that belief in either creation or evolution envolves using faith?
[\quote]

Whether you intended it or not, I would point out the 'or' does not necessarily mean an exclusive or. One can, and I do, believe in God as the ultimate creator, and accept the fact of biological evolution.

Accepting evolution does not require faith in the same way that belief in God does. At the most basic level, evolution holds that life on earth has changed over time. One sees this from the fossil evidence. Life at the time of the trilobites was different than life during the time of the dinosaurs and both are different than what we have today. We never find trilobites with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs with humans, unless there is clear evidence that the geological layers have been disturbed.

To say that it requires 'faith' to accept that life has changed over time is, to me, sort of like saying it takes faith to accept that the 30 year old man you see in front of you was at one time a baby, or that the sun you see rise this morning is the same sun you saw yesterday.

Sure, one could speculate on all sorts of other explanations for the fossil evidence, but to say that accepting the most logical explanation, and the one for which all the evidence agrees, requires faith seems to me a bit silly.

Creationists have faith in the existance of an eternal all powerful God.

Evolutionist have faith in the existance of eternal matter.

As noted above, evolutionists don't have 'faith' in matter, eternal or otherwise. Unless you want to assert that all of what we see around is illusory, we would probably agree that matter exists today. We experienced it yesterday. WE have lots of evidence matter has existed for a long time, and a good deal of evidence that our 'material universe' is finite in time.

As far as biological evolution, whether matter is eternal or not is not really relevant.

Some evolutionists have faith in God, even an 'all powerful' one. Many do not. Again, accepting evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. Accepting evolution and belief in a literal six-day creationist interpretation of Genesis I guess would be mutually exclusive. However, one does not have to accept this, IMV overly literaly and not scripturally sound, interpretation to be a Christian, let alone be a believer in God of another religion.

[Aslan]

I apologize. I suppose what I meant to say is that you either believe that matter was created by something eternal, or you believe that matter itself is eternal.