Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate - Nye Vs Ham

[Ace]

Originally Posted by photon

But by what criteria does one decide one's belief is correct? If there's, in principle, no way to prove (or I'd use demonstrate, support with evidence as synonyms here) one belief as opposed to another one...

This is exactly my point, you can't prove that your Faith is true in the context of a debate. The very definer of Faith is that you live that Faith out in it's truth. I'm not a world religion expert, but I assume many of the faiths share the same sentiment that the living of your Faith will be validated beyond this world, and hence no way to be validated by this world.

The issue of Faith is not an issue of democracy, in that if the majority of people start doing something, or agreeing with something, that in and of itself does not make it right. So if all of a sudden we took your extreme example of murder, and the majority of people believed it to be allowable or true, they are not ultimately validated by a society that proclaims it to be normal (they may be validated inside that society, but ultimately the Faith says they will be rejected). Faith would require you to hold true to the values of the Faith despite the contrary proclamations of others.

Therefor having Faith that a system of "Not Murdering" is the correct one, and living that out is not for validation on this Earth but for validation in the next Realm. Hence in order to receive ultimate validation your faith has to be true. Really that's what Faith is, living that my belief system is ultimately true and therefor I live by it's standards (not by say popular opinion). In Biblical Scriptures Christians could refer to this as the moment when they receive a "Well done good and faithful servant" (From a basic Christian parable).

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by photon

That's the thing, this debate wasn't about the existence of God, and I think it's only those extreme people that try to equate acceptance of evolution with atheism. They do it because accepting evolution, I think they feel, threatens their particular interpretation of scripture. And without their inerrant interpretation they feel they have nothing, so they fight.

Like Nye talked about, lots (probably most) Christians accept evolution without feeling their belief in God is threatened.

I dunno how this debate isn't about the existence of God when we are debating Creationism?

I get what you are saying but do you not see what I mean?

[photon]

I'm not sure I get what you mean, at least partially.

and the majority of people believed it to be allowable or true, they are not ultimately validated by a society that proclaims it to be normal (they may be validated inside that society, but ultimately the Faith says they will be rejected). Faith would require you to hold true to the values of the Faith despite the contrary proclamations of others.

What I'm saying is what if the value of the Faith includes murder? If society proclaimed it to be normal, and the faith proclaimed it to be normal, then one who holds true to the values of their faith is correct. A better thing to use might be slavery, since this used to be very much true, society accepted it and their faith supported it.

I can't see any way in what you've described to say that supporting slavery and opposing slavery aren't equally valid beliefs.

Therefor having Faith that a system of "Not Murdering" is the correct one, and living that out is not for validation on this Earth but for validation in the next Realm. Hence in order to receive ultimate validation your faith has to be true. Really that's what Faith is, living that my belief system is ultimately true and therefor I live by it's standards (not by say popular opinion). In Biblical Scriptures Christians could refer to this as the moment when they receive a "Well done good and faithful servant" (From a basic Christian parable).

Ok, I think I understand, being true to one's beliefs is the ultimate virtue. But that doesn't necessarily require faith, if one's beliefs are based in reason and observation.

Having faith that supporting slavery is the correct belief and living that out despite popular opinion seems just as valid as having faith that not supporting slavery is the correct belief.

[photon]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

I dunno how this debate isn't about the existence of God when we are debating Creationism?

I get what you are saying but do you not see what I mean?

If one's definition of God requires that that God created the earth and all extant species as they are 6000 years ago then I guess in a way it is about the existence of that particular God, but there are plenty of definitions of God (and plenty of believers) that don't require that.

I really do think framing the discussion about evolution or the age of the earth (or even the origin of the universe) as a believe in god / do not believe in god dichotomy is a deliberate attempt by some to try and protect their fundamentalist interpretation of things.

One could believe in a God that didn't create the universe, but created the quantum foam that gives rise to many universes. People have no problem nowadays giving up on things like lightning or floods or biology or gravity and admitting they are natural processes as opposed to direct active Godly intervention, I don't see that attributing the universe itself to a natural process is any different. Maybe I'm a closet pantheist.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

I dunno how this debate isn't about the existence of God when we are debating Creationism?

This debate was about creationism vs. evolution. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, most Christians accept evolution as a valid scientific explanation for the origins of life (this has, incidentally, been the official stance of the Catholic Church since 1950). The only people who cannot reconcile their faith with the scientific validity of evolution are the wacko extremist young earth creationists suffering from cognitive dissonance because they believe the Earth is literally 6000 years old.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This debate was about creationism vs. evolution. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, most Christians accept evolution as a valid scientific explanation for the origins of life (this has, incidentally, been the official stance of the Catholic Church since 1950). The only people who cannot reconcile their faith with the scientific validity of evolution are the wacko extremist young earth creationists suffering from cognitive dissonance because they believe the Earth is literally 6000 years old.

Most Christians I know say "God" started life on earth but most now(duh) believe evolution let it spread.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

I dunno how this debate isn't about the existence of God when we are debating Creationism?

I get what you are saying but do you not see what I mean?

The Catholic church believes in a contextual interpretation of the bible rather than a literal interpretation of the bible.

The short version is that you look at the society and the context that and interpret scripture on that basis. Now I am posting this from memory of high school christian ethics so anyone feel free to correct me where I make mistakes.

But a good place to start is the two creation stories in genises. The first being the God created the earth in seven days. The second is the Adam and Eve story. The seven days story is a much more mature liturary technique than the fable type story of adam and eve. They also contridict eachother.

In seven days genesis they create all the animals and everything else and them they create man and women at the same time. In adam and eve genesis God creates Adam, then creates the animals for him to play with, then creates Eve. The stories themselves are contridictory (at least translated to english).

Instead the Catholic interpretation is that God is responsible for creation and that the genesis myths are useful tools in learning about sin and temptation. So you can definately believe in God while also believing in evolution.

How do young earth creationists deal with the fact Genesis contradicts itself in the order God created things.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm not sure I get what you mean, at least partially.



What I'm saying is what if the value of the Faith includes murder? If society proclaimed it to be normal, and the faith proclaimed it to be normal, then one who holds true to the values of their faith is correct. A better thing to use might be slavery, since this used to be very much true, society accepted it and their faith supported it.

I can't see any way in what you've described to say that supporting slavery and opposing slavery aren't equally valid beliefs.



Ok, I think I understand, being true to one's beliefs is the ultimate virtue. But that doesn't necessarily require faith, if one's beliefs are based in reason and observation.

Having faith that supporting slavery is the correct belief and living that out despite popular opinion seems just as valid as having faith that not supporting slavery is the correct belief.

I'm not saying that the act of being 'Faithful' to something is correct. I'm saying that Faith will be validated (or invalidated) in the next realm. Therefor it is each individuals responsibility to have Faith in what is true. I would also assume that most 'religions' hold that God is just, and therefor whatever He requires would be just. If I hear you correctly the example that you're describing is 'what if God is not just'?. This to me is outside of the realm of any major belief system on the earth, however we certainly see people doing what most would perceive as unjust acts in the name of some god. What I am saying is that although they are Faithful to their belief, they would be invalidated in the next realm if their Faith is untrue.

The whole point of bringing this up is if I am faithful to my God and that is how I live my life, then a debate amongst well respected world humans will have zero impact on my Faith, because Faith cannot by definition be validated by this realm. Therefor the debate serves no purpose, the creationist is assumably (I haven't watched this particular debate) trying to persuade people that creationism is the truth. Whereas my understanding of most Biblical definitions is that Faith is required (not choosing based on analysis).

I think what you and I are discussing is: your questions address how do we know someone is doing the right thing now (or here), and I'm saying that the issue of Faith takes the validation to a different realm all together.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by T@T

Most Christians I know say "God" started life on earth but most now(duh) believe evolution let it spread.

Unfortunately, you don't know most Christians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1563800.html

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Unfortunately, you don't know most Christians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1563800.html

That article is only about Americans.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ace

I'm not saying that the act of being 'Faithful' to something is correct. I'm saying that Faith will be validated (or invalidated) in the next realm.

So you mean that the truth that one has faith in will be validated or invalidated?

But what's the way to get a gauge if it will be validated or not while still in this realm? Or do we not know?

Originally Posted by Ace

Therefor it is each individuals responsibility to have Faith in what is true.

How does one determine truth then? Responsibility implies choice and requires ability to evaluate.

Originally Posted by Ace

I would also assume that most 'religions' hold that God is just, and therefor whatever He requires would be just. If I hear you correctly the example that you're describing is 'what if God is not just'?.

Not what if God is not just, more "what is just is defined by God", or at least that's the stance most believers would take. Whatever God says is just is just, regardless of what we may think, him being the creator of justice to being with. If there's a standard of justice that trancends God then God isn't the top level.

Hence the example of slavery, where the source of truth seems to justify an action that I would anticipate would result in invalidation rather than validation in the next realm. But I'm making that value judgment based on my personal morals, how do I derive a "slavery=bad" truth and have faith in it if my particular source of truth tells me that slavery=ok?

Originally Posted by Ace

This to me is outside of the realm of any major belief system on the earth, however we certainly see people doing what most would perceive as unjust acts in the name of some god. What I am saying is that although they are Faithful to their belief, they would be invalidated in the next realm if their Faith is untrue.

But there was a time when those exact same acts that we would perceive as unjust now were perceived as just then. Again how do they determine their faith is true?

Originally Posted by Ace

Therefor the debate serves no purpose, the creationist is assumably (I haven't watched this particular debate) trying to persuade people that creationism is the truth. Whereas my understanding of most Biblical definitions is that Faith is required (not choosing based on analysis).

Fair enough, it's not always consistent but the Bible does have its fair share of "don't think just believe" portions, and that's certainly along the lines of what I was taught.

Originally Posted by Ace

I think what you and I are discussing is: your questions address how do we know someone is doing the right thing now (or here), and I'm saying that the issue of Faith takes the validation to a different realm all together.

Ok, so I'm trying to understand how one goes about ensuring that validation takes place? Either there's a way to be on the right path, or it's random.

You can play Jeopardy with or without the answers, but not knowing the answer for Famous People for $100 and guessing "Who is Marilyn Monroe" and not getting the correction of "Oh sorry, you were looking for 'Who is Pinky and the Brain'" until the next realm would make learning anything pretty difficult.

[Red Slinger]

It's threads like this that make me miss Calgaryborn. That guy was oddly fascinating.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

? There are literally hundreds of thousands of examples.

I don't think you understand evolution. There is no "transition" or "partial species". Almost every fossil is a transition between two species. Virtually every dinosaur fossil is a chain in the evolution of some other species.

This was a very common counterpoint to evolution when I went to church amongst the people I talked to. That and the "Why are there still monkeys". Both are clearly brought from an ignorant view of evolution

Exactly, the idea of a "missing link" is ridiculous. Every fossil represents a stage in an ever-existent gradient between species.

This is exactly how the argument goes between the 2 sides:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...Ola3TyfqQ#t=74

[AC]

I think the most striking line in the debate is when Ham was asked what it would take to change his mind on the topic.

He replies by saying that because his "truth" comes from the Bible, nothing could ever change his mind on the evolution/creationism debate.

That statement is exactly why creationism simply can not be considered a scientific model in the slightest. A refusal to change one's opinion when presented with new contradictory data is unscientific by definition. Therefore, insisting that notions based on unscientific principles and sources should be granted an equal footing in educational settings is a fundamental disservice to education as a whole.

[Ace]

Photon, you're highlighting the mystery of life. Is the God of the bible true? Is there some other god? Is there no God? Is life random? Is what we see what we get?

I'm basically just pointing out that the Biblical account cannot be proven using scientific analysis because the account itself states that it requires Faith.

I know that the Biblical account uses Spiritual Validation along the way (Talks about relationship, Holy Spirit etc)

The Science aspect gets it's validation along the way from new discoveries, and new levels of knowledge.

So both systems have ways to Validate the person along the way , but at the end of the day there is something that is true, and that's for each person to figure out.

It's clearly not supposed to be simple (IMO)

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Can someone please explain to me that if Leviticus 11:7 states that pig is unclean and it is an abomination to consume it; why should we be listening to a guy named Ham?

[photon]

Originally Posted by AC

He replies by saying that because his "truth" comes from the Bible, nothing could ever change his mind on the evolution/creationism debate.

1 Samuel 18:27 - God said it, I believe it, that settles it!

[AC]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Can someone please explain to me that if Leviticus 11:7 states that pig is unclean and it is an abomination to consume it; why should we be listening to a guy named Ham?

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by photon

If one's definition of God requires that that God created the earth and all extant species as they are 6000 years ago then I guess in a way it is about the existence of that particular God, but there are plenty of definitions of God (and plenty of believers) that don't require that.

I really do think framing the discussion about evolution or the age of the earth (or even the origin of the universe) as a believe in god / do not believe in god dichotomy is a deliberate attempt by some to try and protect their fundamentalist interpretation of things.

One could believe in a God that didn't create the universe, but created the quantum foam that gives rise to many universes. People have no problem nowadays giving up on things like lightning or floods or biology or gravity and admitting they are natural processes as opposed to direct active Godly intervention, I don't see that attributing the universe itself to a natural process is any different. Maybe I'm a closet pantheist.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This debate was about creationism vs. evolution. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, most Christians accept evolution as a valid scientific explanation for the origins of life (this has, incidentally, been the official stance of the Catholic Church since 1950). The only people who cannot reconcile their faith with the scientific validity of evolution are the wacko extremist young earth creationists suffering from cognitive dissonance because they believe the Earth is literally 6000 years old.

My point is can one believe in God and not Creationism?

Sure one can believe in God, Creationism and Evolution but can God and Creationism be exclusive?

I am curious how many faiths are founded upon the concept that there is a god but he/she/it did not create?

[photon]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

My point is can one believe in God and not Creationism?

Sure one can believe in God, Creationism and Evolution but can God and Creationism be exclusive?

If by Creationism you mean the broadest possible definition probably not in monotheism, at some level the god will become involved (even if it's a deist god that just created the universe and doesn't interact with it).

I'm sure there are other creation myths that don't involve creation "ex nihilo" by a preexisting deity though, maybe Greeks?

You asked "I dunno how this debate isn't about the existence of God when we are debating Creationism?", I'm just saying it doesn't have to be, because the discussion always actually revolves God's role in observed phenomenon, ultimately not God's existence. If we eventually figure out how the universe got to be the way it was at the start of the Big Bang, that doesn't mean it's a debate about God's existence, it just moves God's role up a level (until we figure that part out ).

Ultimately I guess you are right that for a believer God would always be part of creationism, but the discussions don't have to be framed that way.