Oh, lord, please!

[Spaceman McConaughey]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm

This is one of the reasons I hate religion, and a lot of the people involved with it.

See this? There's so much talk of "you can't prove x and y", but wait! How are they going to prove x and y of their stuff? Exactly!

[winkio]

I'm completely nonreligious here, but even I can tell that this has nothing to do with religion.  This is an example of a conspiracy theorist.

[Spaceman McConaughey]

Uhm, what? Nothing to do with religion? Oh, yeah, so I guess all of that pro-God and pro-bible stuff I've read in that article had nothing to do with anything. And not to mention it's on a website called "Jesus-is-Savior".

...

I'm not going to really argue it, actually. I know what's there, and so do you.

[Blizzard]

Still. Just because somebody mentions Jesus, doesn't mean it's actually about religion. This site look more to me like that guy's been brainwashed or something.

[Spaceman McConaughey]

The whole point of that article the guy wrote is to say evolution is hoax, and biblical explanations of creation are the only truth.

That's basically what the whole article is, is "This couldn't have happened because my God and his bible says otherwise, and your brainwashing schools and scientists are dumb and wrong".

[ForeverZer0]

Both creation and evolution when reduced  down result in a base belief that cannot be scientifically proven. It just comes down to where ones chooses to put their faith.  Its an ongoing debate that is pointless to try and prove on a purely intellectual viewpoint.

[Spaceman McConaughey]

Well, much like the base of this person's argument of evolution sounding "stupid" and it "makes no sense", I have that same view. Although, I point it towards a God having any role in it all.

[Blizzard]

The funny thing is that they are not mutually exclusive. If god is that all-knowing and all-powerful, why couldn't he have created the universe 13 billion years ago and just let things work themselves out? He probably knew everything was going to happen as it happened anyway. Why couldn't god be so powerful that he made evolution work and made everything happen?
As I said, that guy isn't thinking about what he's actually saying there. It has nothing to do with belief. His way of presentation makes him look like he's been brainwashed into it.

[Ryex]

I find that the base of there entire argument is flawed, there is no proof that the earth is older than 4000 AD? there is no proof of human life before 4000AD? well that's bull crap, the 4.54 +- 0.05 billion year timeline of the earth has been verified in 100's of places through an equal number of different means. and it's no like they don't know this, they have blatantly dismissed this existing proof as manipulation and lies. and that's the point I find distressing. that any one can become so convinced and wrapped up in a belief that they can not even consider another's evidence or view point is frankly extremely sad. at that point they loos that ability to logically process the world, they in a way willingly choose insanity to avoid questioning their world.  << it is this power of religious belief that I dislike the most.

and what Blizz said is right, the two systems are not mutually exclusive, a point many have tried to make over the years. but they are shot down on principle of the middle ground being a compromise of belief more often than not.

[Spaceman McConaughey]

Makes sense.

[Vell]

Not to mention saying "It's just a theory" is itself pretty much a baseless criticism. After all, in order to become a theory something has to have a lot of scientific evidence. Otherwise the scientific community doesn't recognise it as a theory.

[ForeverZer0]

I would think that the systems are mutually exclusive. Th evolution theory beliefs that the universe slowly came be over eons, forming starts, galaxies, and so on and so forth. After all this, over many more eons, Earth was formed and evolved into the planet that it is today.

The people who compromise and say that God created the galaxies through evolution are blinding themselves ARE contradicting the very system the belief.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth

That is the first day.

And here we are on the fourth day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

As you can read, the sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth.

Either way, when it comes to religious matters, you cannot fault someone for rejecting another belief system, even if it is flawed.  You are not supposed to make compromises with your faith, because to do so defeats the purpose of having it.

On a side note, I have yet to find the scientist answer the question of when we had this supposed "Big Bang", you know where the particles of energy collided and spawned the seed of the universe, where them first particles came from.

[Blizzard]

You still have to consider when the Bible was written. It was written in a time where metaphorical language was almost always used in written texts. You have to consider that there was no kind of education and in order for the simple folk to understand, they had to explain the creation in a simple way so a child could understand that god is the creator. Whether a "day" is an actual day or actually represents 2 billion years was irrelevant to the people back in the past. All they had to understand is that god is the creator.

If you do not question your belief, it is even worse than "making compromises". Besides, making compromises is relative here. The point of genesis is that god created everything, not that he literally create the earth on the first day. I don't see it as a compromise if somebody believes that god created everything 13 billion years ago and set everything in motion. In that sense god is all-powerful, he can do whatever he wants. It's the people that have a blind belief in the Bible that claim that the world was created in 7 days. How vain that they compare one of "god's days" to be the equal of a "human day".

I can give you an example that the Bible cannot be possibly considered as a 100% accurate historical document: Noah's Ark. If there was a flood that killed every animal and human on earth, how is it possible that we still have black people, that we still have animals on other continents that were not on the ark. How did Noah save the animals that were in North and South America and in Australia? Obviously there were both animals and people when the continents were discovered. How did they survive the flood if they were not on Noah's Ark, particularly black people as there were no black people on Noah's Ark and the didn't just appear out of nowhere? Sure, the flood could have been in a local region, but that would still render the Bible inaccurate as in the Bible it says that the whole earth was flooded.

This is just another example how stupid and pointless blind faith is. The Bible may be "god's word", but it was still written by humans who are flawed. The argument that god wouldn't allow the Bible to become flawed contradicts with the belief that god gave humans free will. If god forced upon people what exactly to write in the Bible, then there was no free will. If somebody would have written something inaccurate in the Bible, god would not have prevented them. This then obviously makes the Bible's integrity questionable from a point of historical accuracy. But for the sake of religion this didn't matter. Noah didn't have to exist in the first place and god didn't have to flood the whole earth to make his point. The whole story can be a metaphorical story about something completely else and how god actually punished the sinners. This is what people with blind faith don't understand. It's not important that you believe that Noah's story happened exactly it is described, it is important to understand and believe that god will somehow punish the sinners in some way and that justice will be served in the end.
There is another example to this. Did you know that there was a huge translation mistake in one of Jesus' stories? Remember how he walked on water? It was a translation mistake. The original document said he walked NEXT TO THE WATER. How would god allow the Bible to become "corrupted" like this? This is yet another example that god does not ask for blind faith of his children. Blind faith basically equals brainwashing.

What is one of the tasks of a priest? Priests are educated enough about the religion and the Bible that they are allowed to interpret its meaning and explain the simple man what is important and the lessons that can be learned. If the Bible was literal, it would contradict this purpose of priests as everybody could just go ahead, read the Bible and blindly believe what is written inside.

EDIT: I just wanted to mention that on the fourth day god separated the day from the night. How can there be a fourth day is there have not been previously day and night? This text basically contradicts itself. But let's not go further into this discussion. It's pointless to discuss a certain piece of text from the Bible as it is pointless to discuss the color of one pixel on a whole image. "It should be more green!" "No, the redish color is just fine!" "But green fits the rest of the image!" "It gives it detail!" "Fuck you!" "No, fuck you!"

[tSwitch]

Both creation and evolution when reduced  down result in a base belief that cannot be scientifically proven. It just comes down to where ones chooses to put their faith.  Its an ongoing debate that is pointless to try and prove on a purely intellectual viewpoint.

I'm going to go on the record as saying that science never proves anything.

The point of science, and the scientific method, is to disprove, as, by the definition of proof, you need to show without doubt that a given hypothesis is true in all situations it could be applied to, which is always an infinite set.

In order to disprove something, you simply need to show it is false once.

So in other words, Evolution is credible, because with the current information we have, we cannot disprove the theory (which is why it is called a theory, but that's a subject for another situation), however we have no evidence to support or disprove God, as belief is not based on fact or patterns, but often on the lack thereof, and so the scientific process cannot be applied to matters of faith.

Apples and Oranges.

[Blizzard]

You're right about that. It's just sad that religious fanatics are always like "you have to prove your science" and as soon as you ask them to prove their god they're all like "no, this is belief and faith, you can't prove god". Basically a double moral. :/ I have to prove my "science", but you don't have to prove your "faith".

[Vell]

Like Nam said, though. Faith and religion are by definition without reason or logic. It's, well, faith. That which you believe with no evidence to lend credence to your belief. Trying to "prove" faith is like taking a rubics cube and trying to solve it but you can only move it if your hand is within the rubics cube to begin with.

Science is often misinterpreted. It's thought of that we try to -prove- everything. Science is thought to say "This is what we know, this is the truth" and therefore, proving everything. If that's true, anything science would be infallible or it'd not be science. Science is, like Nam said, about disproving things. "Based on what we think we know so far, this is probably true."

[ForeverZer0]

@Vell:
Well said.

@Blizzard:
About the "days" thing, its explained in the verses in between, but thats another subject.

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

The Bible also explains that God protects his word. I dunno. You either believe it or not. One we or another, we will all find out the truth when we die whether the Bible is divine book, or the thoughts of a bunch of old guys long dead.

The difference is one "faith" is taught is to children in normal public schools as "this is how it was", and if the other was taught, it would cause a lawsuit.  It is the norm of the world, even if never directly said, that the evolution is somehow "more correct" than creation, even though there is no solid evidence of either.

[Vell]

Now, now. Science calls Evolution a Theory for a reason. Based on what we know and have observed, operating within logical bounds dictated by what we believe to be truth, that and the analysis of things, merit is granted to evolution. It's not a belief grounded simply in faith. There's a difference. It's been given evidence and that evidence has been interpreted to mean evolution occurred - it's very sound. It's not considered a straight fact because there's every possibility that tomorrow we'll discover something that makes evolution sound like a convoluted idea. It's not proven 100% with no doubts forever. That said, it is EVIDENCED.

Difference between the scientific evidence and theory versus religious faith and spirituality is that one is based in logic and knowledge and what can be measured. the other is founded in nebulous ideas that can impact people on an individual level. They're completely and totally different things. To say that "science" is a faith is to say that one cannot trust what one sees with their own eyes - everything must be taken on faith. Which is an idea I've been presented and argued against in the past and all I'm saying is I'm not getting into that.

[ForeverZer0]

Now, now, I don't think most people, religious types included, believe that evolution in its entirety does not exist. Plants, animals, and everything else show abundant evidence of evolution.

I refer to the "Big Bang" theory versus divine creation. There is NO evidence of any big bang, no more or less than God created Adam from dust, and yet it is the accepted theory.

[Ryex]

actually there is evidence of the big bang theory. the blue shift and the fact that every object in the universe seems to be racing away from one point in the universe is while not strong or definitive on any matter it does provide some logical evidence.