Posted by Dealer on July 20, 1998 at 03:21:35:
In Reply to: Creationism posted by DNA on April 26, 1998 at 22:49:16:
: : DNA- How exactly do you define a 'creationist?' Someone who believes in a dogmatic, literal interpretation of Genesis?
: Yes.
Nope, It's someone who believes that the order present in the universe didn't just appear by accident which would be contrary to the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
: Would you call me a 'flat-earther' if I told you that I believe that God created everything?
: No.
The Christian God really doesn't have much to do with the subject of creationism. Evolutionism can be the God's method of creating life.
: And can you prove me wrong?
: Nope. Can't prove a negative. Nobody can do that.
However, we can look to see what model of the origin of the species best fits the facts. You don't need to see the actual act of evolving/creating to decide which model is better, you just look at the predicted results of the two models and then compare them to the actual facts that you have.
: : When you say there is no debate about the fact of evolution, do you mean that it has been scientifically proven that all of creation was formed by mindless physical processes?
: That's not what science says. The best science can do is say that there is no evidence that there was any intelligent design in the process. Lacking evidence of such just means that science can't say that it exists. Neither can science say that it doesn't exist. It simply isn't within the purview of science to speculate on ultimate causes.
No evidence of intelligent design in the process? Ha! Have you ever seen a woodpecker? Now tell me honestly, which developed first on it...The hard shock resistant skull needed to get into the bugs holes, the tongue longer than the beak needed to reach the bugs, the sheath like holder for that extra long tongue, or the desire to bang it's head into a wall for long periods of time to get at a bug that without all of these traits AT ONCE it wouldn't be able to get!
: : That scientific discoveries have 'proven' that God did not create heaven and earth? If you ask me, that sounds like a philisophical/religious assertion. ( though of an atheistic nature)
: : Tammy
: That would be true. But science doesn't make any such claim. Atheism, which is a philosophical/religious system, might say so, but science isn't atheistic. It's agnostic. It doesn't deal with the question of God.
That would be true. The only way for us to prove for sure that there was a God would be if he came down and said "Hi". Of course, we could never prove that there isn't a creator. Science does not deal with the question of any supreme being. However, it shouldn't discount any valid theory just because either it says we are all accidents of nature, nor if it says that some higher power might have created us. Again, which ever one fits the facts.
BTW...If you have question about what evidence we do have, or about evolution/creation, send me E-mail and I'll try to answer it to the best of my ability.
[ Follow Ups ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]