Evolution vs. Creationism

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ big parts of the bible have been confirmed to be pure works of fiction though ... but be that as it may, even those parts that are not, if they contain no miracles, what's left then to base a religion upon?

You and I have a different view of what constitutes a "miracle."  Humphrey's does a great job explaining what a miracle is (notice how is title even calls them miracles despite them having perfectly natural causes).

Christianity is not based on miracles (as you define them) anyway- even Jesus got aggravated because that's what people were starting to focus on.  The purpose of Christianity is to give glory to God and enjoy Him forever.  Man is sinful and can do nothing to ever please God on his own, so his only recourse is to accept Christ's sacrifice.

This thread focuses on the "how" of creation, whereas the Bible is much more concerned with the "why." 

I consider God a higher dimensional being anyway...so I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that some of the more peculiar miracles by Jesus may have an extra-dimensional explanation.

And no, I do not believe that any of the Bible has "been confirmed to be pure works of fiction."  I spent many years seriously questioning the Bible and some of its difficulties, and every time I've dutifully studied them and weight the arguments regarding them, I have- without fail- come away more enriched and devoted than before. 

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ big parts of the bible have been confirmed to be pure works of fiction though ... but be that as it may, even those parts that are not, if they contain no miracles, what's left then to base a religion upon? You and I have a different view of what constitutes a "miracle."  Humphrey's does a great job explaining what a miracle is (notice how is title even calls them miracles despite them having perfectly natural causes). Christianity is not based on miracles (as you define them) anyway- even Jesus got aggravated because that's what people were starting to focus on.

Of course he got aggravated, since they were difficult to perform.

Epignosis wrote: The purpose of Christianity is to give glory to God and enjoy Him forever.  Man is sinful and can do nothing to ever please God on his own, so his only recourse is to accept Christ's sacrifice. This thread focuses on the "how" of creation, whereas the Bible is much more concerned with the "why."

So why are you constantly evading the "how" part? Evolution and Creation (Genesis) are mutually exclusive, how would you solve that problem? Exactly how did it all happen so that both the evidence at hand and the description that the Bible provides are satisfied?

Epignosis wrote: I consider God a higher dimensional being anyway...so I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that some of the more peculiar miracles by Jesus may have an extra-dimensional explanation. And no, I do not believe that any of the Bible has "been confirmed to be pure works of fiction."  I spent many years seriously questioning the Bible and some of its difficulties, and every time I've dutifully studied them and weight the arguments regarding them, I have- without fail- come away more enriched and devoted than before.

Only yesterday I read some comments about that in Victor Stenger's new book:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Atheism-Taking-Science-Reason/dp/1591027519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259936113&sr=8-1

Maybe I'll manage this weekend to look up the passage and give you some info on the books that provide the detailed evidence for this claim.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 04 2009 at 08:19

I see some progress today... this Thread is becoming very interesting... is kind of "the Corner were Epignosis explains everything" and is very interesting... just a couple of things, it's still early and I have to do some work so I'll be brief...

jampa said:

"but the fact that science cannot prooved it doesn't mean that it actually can't happen"

Though that might be an offhand comment, I hope it's not a serious factor in believing in something. It's a bad reason to do so.

"you know that there's people who can see the "aura" of other people just by changing their state of mind"? did you know that some people could manipulate the energy of the aura and can move object and even floating in the air... this actually is happening now..."

What!? The amount evidence you need to present before saying that is very high indeed.

"Again, the bible is to teach the love of God more than magical facts to believe in him"

That's true, mostly, but the magical facts are supposed to be corroborating evidence. It's just pretty bad evidence. No one's going to believe that just any random guy you haven't met is God, with no powers. He has to be special to be believed in religiously.


Edited by stonebeard - December 04 2009 at 09:06

^ you're not allowed to demand evidence, and evidence to the contrary is being ignored ... that's one of the concepts of religion (and, by analogy, of Intelligent Design / Creationism).

stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: "Again, the bible is to teach the love of God more than magical facts to believe in him" That's true, mostly, but the magical facts are supposed to be corroborating evidence. It's just pretty bad evidence. No one's going to believe that just any random guy you haven't met is God, with no powers. He has to be special to be believed in religiously. And what I've been saying is that magic should not bolster belief if you think about it.  If God created the world and designed the laws of physics, why should he have to violate them for people to believe in Him?  I would think that there being laws and order in the natural world would be better evidence for God than God popping in and doing magic. Not saying God couldn't...but still. I agree, but it's logical that an ancient people who had a hideous knowledge of physics would need otherworldly miracles to believe. I do think the grandeur of physics alone is worthy of awe, I just don't attribute it to God, and in fact think it's more awesome if there was no creator.

I get what you mean, although if I went back in time, I could do many things that are very simple feats today that ancient people would call signs and wonders.

I could also announce myself by blasting "21st Century Schizoid Man..." how's that for an entrance? 

Robert, just curious, did you but #3 - evolution with Divine Intervention. Because you seem to express belief in the physical universe as the will of God.

I'm wondering how you answered the poll itself, based on what you've stated you do and don't believe.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Take the "walking on water" part ... how could you explain it today? Some of these things simply don't work at all.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ you're not allowed to demand evidence, and evidence to the contrary is being ignored ... that's one of the concepts of religion (and, by analogy, of Intelligent Design / Creationism).

Edited by AmbianceMan - December 04 2009 at 11:17