Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[[NH]Shadow]

If, my friends, you are interested in learning with an open-mind, read this most eloquent text, authored by 19th Century scholar Robert G. Ingersoll.

I'll read it tomorrow. Looks cool though

P.S. I'm probably the most open minded Christian you can find...

[Col. Hstar]

If, my friends, you are interested in learning with an open-mind, read this most eloquent text, authored by 19th Century scholar Robert G. Ingersoll.

So since I disagree with this "eloquent text" does that mean you label me close minded?

I'd be happy to listen to your comments about the bible. I personally want to discuss the bible and scriptures with people from their own perspective. It's one of the reasons I don't watch YouTube videos that get posted. Why have someone tell you what to believe when you should do the research yourself.

If you Pepsi are interested in discussing with an open mind, then discuss points in your own words. Post your favorite points from this text if you want, but there is so much that I disagree with in it that I'm not going to do a line by line rebuttal on the entire thing.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

So since I disagree with this "eloquent text" does that mean you label me close minded?
No, you're entitled to that belief. The fact that you read the entire thing (if you did) is enough to prove you are open to exploring alternate viewpoints.
I'd be happy to listen to your comments about the bible. I personally want to discuss the bible and scriptures with people from their own perspective. It's one of the reasons I don't watch YouTube videos that get posted. Why have someone tell you what to believe when you should do the research yourself.
I don't have time to word a coherent argument that encompasses everything I'd like to discuss. Being well-read is important, and I fail to see how you are any the lesser by reading his essay than you would be if you read my summary of it. Not everything I post has to completely represent my views. If I want to introduce what I think is an interesting paper, then I have every right to do so. It contributes to discussion, as it's no longer just a "your opinion vs. mine" sort of thing.
If you Pepsi are interested in discussing with an open mind, then discuss points in your own words. Just because you don't like articles doesn't mean they aren't valid. I am not nearly as well-versed in the subject material as Ingersoll is, and it would be doing a disservice to neglect posting the text. Post your favorite points from this text if you want, but there is so much that I disagree with in it that I'm not going to do a line by line rebuttal on the entire thing.Your prerogative. I don't think you can.

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

Just because God can do anything doesn't mean He will. You are suggesting that He has to do everything and thus violate His own nature. As far as "surprise," that is emotion yes, but not like ours. He is ominiscient, but just because He knows everything doesn't mean He cannot allow Himself to be affected by what He knows. He is never "surprised." Show me those verses, and try again.
Logically inconsistent. By that definition, I am omnipotent; I can do everything that doesn't conflict with my nature.
There is no contradiction in God's nature, you are going to extremes to force them. You are saying that because something can contradict IF DONE A CERTAIN WAY it must contradict. Try again.
What is this "try again" nonsense you've adopted? http://new.exchristian.net/2013/01/why-is-god-surprised-by-events-in-bible.html
I also don't need to prove a negative, so therefore I really don't need to defend Creationism against your attacks. You sir have to prove that evolution happened. Just because a Big Bang could have produced the universe doesn't mean it did. Try again.
Actually, you have to provide viable evidence that Creationism is a legitimate explanation of how the Earth was created. You haven't, you just conveniently ignore certain truths and say things like, "Well, it could be true if we neglect half of the evidence presented so far and twist the rest of it!"
Ok, for the sake of argument, supposed that the ark lacked the capacity to hold all of today's genetic diversity. This implies that genetic diversity (i.e. information) is increasing. Now the burden is on you to prove that genetic diversity increases over time. Show me a lab experiment where genetic diversity increased. I don't have to prove a negative, try harder.
Here is your evidence, http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835. There is also the er of the Lenski experiments, wherein E.Coli was found to develop new genetic information after 50,000 generations were born and reproduced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment and http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/index.html
FYI, Creationism has been around for several thousand years, while evolution has really only been around for a few hundred. You are the newcomer, so the entire burden of proof is on you. Don't try to spin this around.
And? There were other Creationist stories around before yours, does that mean you have to disprove those in order to show yours is true? By the way, Evolutionists HAVE demonstrated considerable evidence, overwhelming evidence. Just because you refuse to accept it or conintually invent non-truths and ridiculously infantile "well Noah's Ark could account for this" apologist nonsense doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.
Just FYI, don't ever try to debate me if you don't like your own arguments being used against you.
This can only loosely be called a debate. If I were vested in trying to change your mind, or in trying to uphold evolutionary theory before a panel of judges, I could (well, I don't know if the former is possible) - and you would lose because you have no evidence and all of your "arguments" are based on false assumptions. But I have no need to try and demonstrate the fact of Evolution to you, most of the educated world knows it to be true, and there isn't any real point in spending hours over the internet formulating responses to your hilarious claims (why I do it, I don't know).

The Ecoli experiment is still not producing a new gene, you are just reactivating genes that were dormant (i.e. they were already there). That is still not new information. Show me a brand new gene that was never there in the first place. Show me a brand new function that was never there in the first place. I'll save you the trouble, it never happens. Natural selection is a reductive process, it results in the loss of information. It has NEVER EVER been shown to increase information. Of course, seeing as how you have no Intelligent being to introduce this information, you are forced to take this on faith, so don't act like you are the "facts" person and I am the "faith" person. Evolution takes just as much faith to believe in it as Creationism no er how much you refuse to admit it.

You have the wrong definition of omnipotence as well. Using your logic, I can say you are a free citizen, and therefore capable of breaking laws, so if you don't break laws, then you are not a free citizen, even though you are a law-abiding citizen. God is not composed of parts, He is a unified whole. We use the word Omnipotence to describe the fact that He can do anything, but He will not violate His nature. They are human words to describe Someone we cannot fully understand. It is pretty ludicrous to supposed that we can bind God to follow our own rules. You are basically making a more sophisticated version of the "well, if God can do anything, can He make a rock so big He can't lift it and so be unable to do everything?" It's a pretty childish argument when you get into it because you are supposing that you can force God's parts (which do not exist) to conflict.

Also, the language in the Bible about God being "surprised" is easily interpreted as an emotion, not a lack of knowledge. It makes sense that He has emotion, why would He give it to us?

So basically, any interpretation that differs from yours is "twisting the evidence"? Might I not accuse you of the same? Considering the fact that Uniformitarianism got popular through the efforts of a man who hated Christianity and desired to undermine its basis (Charles Lyell), I might have a better case for that. Yeah, that's right, before the 1800s, pretty much everyone believed the earth was on the order of thousands of years old (yes, even mainstream geology held that), and interpreted the rock strata as being laid down by the flood. I am not really making a new argument when I say that.

Why is the onus on me to provide evidence and not you? What makes your argument special? Are we going to invoke a bandwagon argument here? Pretty lousy debate if you have the established position and I am "the challenger." If you want to invoke the bandwagon argument, there are quite a few people who don't buy evolution, including many scientists.

Let me turn the tables on you: How do you know the Big Bang happened? Why are you so sure?
And don't give me this "well we are here so it must have happened" nonsense, I can make that same argument, which you would rightfully reject.

And to be fair, I find your claims equally hilarious,* but I do consider them worthy of a response, so perhaps you could continue to extend that courtesy to me, as you have been doing.

*i.e. your world makes no sense to me, I consider a world without a maker, design without a designer, information without a knowledge source, and order without a lawmaker to be the height of nonsense.

How about this, I dare you to actually read Genesis with an open mind and actually try and see what it is claiming. And do it in a version like the NIV, don't waste your time trying to read the King James (it just obfuscates the language). I'll look into the book you mentioned if you will do that. I'm assuming it's available online, right?

You don't even have to read the whole book, just the first 12 chapters. Here, I'll link a free source: http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch ... ersion=NIV.

All I am asking out of you is to acknowledge that Creationism is a valid position given the starting assumptions and that multiple interpretations exist for the evidence out there. I'm not asking you to accept the position, just to acknowledge its validity. I accept your position as perfectly valid given your starting assumptions, even though I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.


==
Just as a note for Christians who believe in an old earth: Mark 10:6 - Jesus talks about Adam and Eve being made "at the beginning of creation." Having man come about millions of years after creation started really twists what He says.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

I hold that the evidence for evolution is tantamount to certainty, and though we must continue to research, continue to discover, continue to question existing thought, evolution does occur. Take a look at the following database for answers regarding the increase of genetic information: http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm, particularly this item: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html. The important thing, however, is that in each and every instance in which what was thought to be added genetic information is demonstrated to be loss of genetic information, we further the notion that significant change can occur through minor alterations in the genome.

I have several Bibles around the house. As per your request, I will reread Genesis - I would like to inform you of something however, I have studied the Bible for the last 10 years - and I attended services 5 out of 7 days every week for 8 years. I may not be a Biblical Scholar, but I am well-read enough to make an informed decision as to where I stand on Biblical Inerrancy and how I feel the Bible was compiled. My belief that the Bible is not the inspired work of God is not a belief I formed on a whim - it was based in several hours worth of reading over several years. My belief that the contents of the Bible are fallible, in many cases, is formed because I have studied ancient history, studied Biblical history, and know that the two are incompatible. My belief that some of the evil found within the book is founded in deep thought. I am not uninformed.

I apologize for being rude and condescending - that was unbecoming and immature. I will continue to discuss with you as long as you like, so long as common courtesy continues to exist between us.

Have you looked at the Smithsonian's description of their exhibit showcasing the progression of human evolution? http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence. It's very interesting.

[Hobo]

The Ecoli experiment is still not producing a new gene, you are just reactivating genes that were dormant (i.e. they were already there).

...do you have evidence of this? or are you just saying it because it sounds nice next to your religion?

[-)G(-Sawyer]

What about them Witches?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154923/Half-Americans-believe-creationism-just-15-percent-accept-evolution.html

[Col. Hstar]

Post your favorite points from this text if you want, but there is so much that I disagree with in it that I'm not going to do a line by line rebuttal on the entire thing.Your prerogative. I don't think you can.

I'm not going to rise to this childish comment Pepsi.
I know I could rebut it , but if you dont want to take the time to post point yourself then why should I take the time to post arguments?

Matt 10:14

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

The Ecoli experiment is still not producing a new gene, you are just reactivating genes that were dormant (i.e. they were already there).

...do you have evidence of this? or are you just saying it because it sounds nice next to your religion?

No, I actually read the description of the experiment and that's exactly what it's doing.

A pseudogene is a fragment of a gene that used to be active but which got shuffled around and corrupted in the process. This makes it no longer active.

I hold that the evidence for evolution is tantamount to certainty, and though we must continue to research, continue to discover, continue to question existing thought, evolution does occur. Take a look at the following database for answers regarding the increase of genetic information: http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm, particularly this item: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html. The important thing, however, is that in each and every instance in which what was thought to be added genetic information is demonstrated to be loss of genetic information, we further the notion that significant change can occur through minor alterations in the genome.

I have several Bibles around the house. As per your request, I will reread Genesis - I would like to inform you of something however, I have studied the Bible for the last 10 years - and I attended services 5 out of 7 days every week for 8 years. I may not be a Biblical Scholar, but I am well-read enough to make an informed decision as to where I stand on Biblical Inerrancy and how I feel the Bible was compiled. My belief that the Bible is not the inspired work of God is not a belief I formed on a whim - it was based in several hours worth of reading over several years. My belief that the contents of the Bible are fallible, in many cases, is formed because I have studied ancient history, studied Biblical history, and know that the two are incompatible. My belief that some of the evil found within the book is founded in deep thought. I am not uninformed.

I apologize for being rude and condescending - that was unbecoming and immature. I will continue to discuss with you as long as you like, so long as common courtesy continues to exist between us.

Have you looked at the Smithsonian's description of their exhibit showcasing the progression of human evolution? http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence. It's very interesting.

And I similarly apologize for being a bit snippy. I have to thank you for providing me with a high level and intelligent debate, one does not get that opportunity very often. I think we both got a bit frustrated and started venting. I know I had some rather...harsh.... stuff in a post I was working on that I went back and deleted because it was very unprofessional.

I have found this debate to be quite helpful to me in learning how to debate properly in general. Specifically, I have learned what arguments are rather weak in this kind of debate and what work better. I have also learned when the debate should stop.


You are acknowledging that an increase in genetic information has not been demonstrated, so this is a er of "faith." Nothing wrong with that as long as you are aware of it. Science can never explain everything, there are always gaps to be filled in that extend outside of what we know (and possibly what we can know) so we have to take a side at some point.

It is good that you are comfortable with your position and regard it as a certainty. I am in the same position because I start from different assumptions. My position makes little sense to you, and yours makes little sense to me, which is not surprising. We are at the same impasse as before, so we are going to have to leave it at that. Unless you change your starting assumptions or I change mine, only the details of what we believe will change. I believe that any apparent contradictions in the Bible are better explained through better interpretation because one of my starting assumptions is that the BIble is a unified whole and is not written to conflict with itself. You do not have that assumption, so these contradictions are problems in your eyes. It boils down to whether you believe that the Bible is true in the first place or not. If you believe it is true, then you will assume that anything that would detract from that is a result of misinterpretation. If you believe that it is not true, then you would enumerate any issues in support of your position.

Basically, creationism works from a Christian point of view (and i contend it is a mandatory position), but it is ludicrous for an atheist/agnostic to believe it for obvious reasons. Origins is such a complicated field because it blends religion, philosophy and science together, and it's sometimes hard to separate the elements.

I am glad to know that you have studied the Bible in depth, many people don't even bother to do that before forming an opinion.

However, I am curious to know how it conflicts with other sources of history. I am unaware of very many conflicts in this area. I know there are some conflicts with certain Egyptian records that imply long ages, and possibly some others.

[Mandalore]

I posted because I knew I wouldn't have access to a computer and wanted to jot down something quick so I'd remember.

Honestly just a copy and paste of a few verses about predestination. Obviously some are out of context or don't prove the over arching points of predestination but it's pretty generally recognized that there is support for "the elect." Plus omniscience by itself sort of lends credence to predestination. You could argue either way for God curtailing his power of omniscience or for the lack of support for curtailing his omniscience. Both arguments don't really have evidence to sway either way.


"For many are called, but few [are] chosen." (Matthew 22:14, KJV)

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5 NIV)

"As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven." (Mark 4:10-12, NASB)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,..." (Eph. 1:3-5, NASB)

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB)

"... but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; ..." (1Co. 2:7, NASB)

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." (Act. 4:27-28, NASB)

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psa. 139:16, NASB)

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans 9:15-18, NIV)

"The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exodus 4:21, NIV)

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" (Rom. 9:22-24, NIV)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:8-10, NKJ)

As for my statement about the devil, if God is omnipotent then he therefore lets everything happen. The Devil exists solely by the grace of God. There is also scriptural support for God's creation of evil in Isaih. The argument revolves around the word "rah" but even though it doesn't strictly and solely mean evil it is a general catch all for bad things. The Devil can not exist without God's allowance. Evil can not exist without God's allowance. Epicurus' puts it quite well before Christianity was even formed

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

And yes, anytime a topic is debated such as this for any length of time goes on then it gets boring pretty quickly. Most of the arguments and counter-arguments are extremely well known. Occasionally you gets a few nuggets of good stuff like Pepsi's point on immortality and omnipotence. Certainly not something I've thought about extensively even though that would have been a logical thing to do since I've often thought on omnipotence and omniscience and their dual, dueling, and sometimes contradictory features with Biblical scripture and post-scripture thought. Obviously this is a topic that most of us have spent time on in what form or another. Things might be reworded but in the end it's all the same drivel on both sides. Really the only thing stuff like this does is get people thinking, generally people who aren't involved but who might have their interested raised. For example, Nye's point about the Ark really got me interested in looking at comparable ships and their history which occupied me for an hour or so.