Faith Required in Both Creation and Evolution.

Aslan · Post by **Aslan** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:22 pm

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.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:39 am

Aslan wrote:To be truthful, in the end you will feel the truth in your heart...or spirit. I would say to look inward at times. What does your heart say, sometimes we tend to think things through and forget to feel them...now you must have the thought, but the heart must be there as well.

Intuition and emotion are not good determinations of truth. They might be good tools to use in the search for truth, but they have never been good at objectively determining truth.

The One · Post by **The One** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:25 am

Actually, there is no wrong answer in Theism, but there has to be a "logical" one in science. Since Theism has many forms on Earth as different religions, science only has one "the truth". I think that Theism and Science play important roles in finding the truth and meaning of the existence. Also, to question one's belief is to question one's existence. In order to find the answer to these questions, you must question your own and other beliefs.
Also one can be right but, I believe there are both right. Yes, we may have evolved from bacteria or have been created by a supreme bieng called God, but no one human can ever have the answers. They are all theories no matter how you see it. Creationism, ID, or whaterver; they are all just theories of how the universe works. Science did not prove anything and Creationism certianly does not explain the "meaning of life" or "where we came from." Creationalists and believers of ID can both be wrong. So why are are we debating? To challenge each others beliefs, gain knowledge, and to discover truth that we may never find.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:55 am

The One wrote:Actually, there is no wrong answer in Theism, but there has to be a "logical" one in science. Since Theism has many forms on Earth as different religions, science only has one "the truth". I think that Theism and Science play important roles in finding the truth and meaning of the existence.

What role does Theism play in finding the truth when theism as you say has no wrong answers?

The One wrote:Also, to question one's belief is to question one's existence. In order to find the answer to these questions, you must question your own and other beliefs.

I agree with this fully. Oh, and welcome to the DC&R forums

The One wrote:Also one can be right but, I believe there are both right. Yes, we may have evolved from bacteria or have been created by a supreme being called God, but no one human can ever have the answers.

You lost me. Both cannot be simultaneously right. Either we evolved by natural selection from bacteria-like life forms or God miraculously created humans from dust one day or something else.

The One wrote:They are all theories no matter how you see it. Creationism, ID, or whatever; they are all just theories of how the universe works.

In a technical sense, ID does not fit the definition of theory as used by scientists. To be generous, one could call it a hypothesis; and if you are less generous you could call ID a speculation, but it is not a theory.

Aslan · Post by **Aslan** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:12 pm

You lost me. Both cannot be simultaneously right. Either we evolved by natural selection from bacteria-like life forms or God miraculously created humans from dust one day or something else.

Actually this statement is not true. It is possible that God created humans through the process of evolution, and taking into considerations the unbelievable details of evolution....all of the processes that had to take place...all of the events that had to occur in order for humans to come to fruition through this process...well I find it no less a mircacle than if God had simply spoke the words and it was so.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:35 pm

McCulloch wrote:You lost me. Both cannot be simultaneously right. Either we evolved by natural selection from bacteria-like life forms or God miraculously created humans from dust one day or something else.

Aslan wrote:Actually this statement is not true. It is possible that God created humans through the process of evolution, and taking into considerations the unbelievable details of evolution....all of the processes that had to take place...all of the events that had to occur in order for humans to come to fruition through this process...well I find it no less a miracle than if God had simply spoke the words and it was so.

Read the emphasized words. I stand by my original statement. It cannot be true that both God created humans from dust one day AND humans evolved by natural selection from bacteria-like life forms.

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:43 pm

Aslan:

To be truthful, in the end you will feel the truth in your heart...or spirit. I would say to look inward at times. What does your heart say, sometimes we tend to think things through and forget to feel them...now you must have the thought, but the heart must be there as well.

I try very hard not to believe anything based on hormonal imbalances, which is all emotions are.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

I really hate this passage. Let me tell you why. Because in effect, Matthew is saying that one must have faith in Christ in order to see, hear, and understand the words of Christ. But how does one gain that faith? If they must have it to understand the scripture, how can the attain it if they can't understand the scripture. See the circular arguement that one gets caught up in. It would appear that unless your parents raised you with some sort of religious knowledge (which mine did not) then as an adult you must throw out all your education and trust an emotion to lead you to understand the meanings of a book that is suppose to be the only book that can lead you to God.

As far as the "eternal matter" goes...all the objects in space are made up of molecules, which are in turn made up of atoms, which are in turn made up of neutral, positive, and negative particles, these are made up of quarks. Thats as far as I know. Even if at the big bang these were all broken down into their lowest forms they would still be under the general term of "matter"...substance...a thing that takes up space. If this "matter" was not created at some point then it is eternal

.

Ok, couple minor issues, atoms, neutrons, electrons, etc... can be proven and require no faith. We manipulate these formulas to make medications all the time. Quarks, quasars, etc. Now you are getting into the realm of quantum physics which can only be proven by mathematical equations and can't be shown in the "physical world" through our senses, only through formulas and hypotheses. So yes, it takes much faith. However, it isn't proven by faith. It is proven by the scientific method. If it cannot hold up to it's standards, then it goes no further until we have the technology to test it, hence theoretical physics. However, faith is required on the side of the scientist. Without it, they woudn't ever have a theory to test. But if their theory fails, such as Newtonian space and time being absolute as opposed to relative, then faith is no longer an issue. It has been weighed against the scientific method and proven wrong. The same application goes for spacetime being absolute being correct.

Overall, science and religion aren't at odds per se. They are two completely different arenas. Science is out to prove a positive, which is possible. Religion is accepting a negative which is impossible to prove.

Noachian · Post by **Noachian** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:28 pm

I think that it does both require faith......evolution has many missing fossil links and as you know.....Creation the eternal God........and some evolutionists do believe in eternel matter my physics teacher did and he was a doctor of physics.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:39 pm

Noachian wrote:I think that it does both require faith......evolution has many missing fossil links and as you know.....Creation the eternal God........and some evolutionists do believe in eternel matter my physics teacher did and he was a doctor of physics.

The term 'missing link' is more of a creationist strawman than anything else. The term should be 'transitional forms'.

You see, each time a transitional form is found between two other forms, this seemingly creates two more 'missing links'.

As for what your physics teacher might or might not have believed, it is irrelavent unless it can be tested by science.. from a scientific perspective. Your terminology is vague enough that I am not sure what your physics teacher really believed.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:54 pm

The One:

Also one can be right but, I believe there are both right. Yes, we may have evolved from bacteria or have been created by a supreme being called God, but no one human can ever have the answers.

McCulloch:

You lost me. Both cannot be simultaneously right. Either we evolved by natural selection from bacteria-like life forms or God miraculously created humans from dust one day or something else.

I can see a god being contingent and an aspect of creation. But you are right that is not the choice theist give us.

McCulloch wrote:In a technical sense, ID does not fit the definition of theory as used by scientists. To be generous, one could call it a hypothesis; and if you are less generous you could call ID a speculation, but it is not a theory.

I agree 110% Mack.

Noachian:

I think that it does both require faith......evolution has many missing fossil links and as you know.....Creation the eternal God........and some evolutionists do believe in eternel matter my physics teacher did and he was a doctor of physics.

If you mean by faith believing something with out evidence they you might be right about the non-theist or evolutionists do need less faith.
But I tend to go with a faithfulness interpretation of “faith” and therefore you statement is irrelevant.

I don’t sound like I am PMSing do I?

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:24 am

McCulloch wrote:In a technical sense, ID does not fit the definition of theory as used by scientists. To be generous, one could call it a hypothesis; and if you are less generous you could call ID a speculation, but it is not a theory.

If your credo cannot be tested for and cannot be falsified, then it is a religious creed.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Faith Required in Both Creation and Evolution.

Faith Required in Both Creation and Evolution.

Re: Faith Required in Both Creation and Evolution.