Evolution-Creationism Debates

I noticed we didn't have a thread for this, so I made one.

It just baffles me how many creationists argue by treating evolution as a full worldview and criticize it for "not answering" philosophical questions that evolution never sought out to answer. It's like somewhere along the line they confused evolution with "nihilistic strawman atheism". Asking evolution to answer "what was the origin of life", or worse yet "where did matter come from", is like asking the Bible "Who was George Washington" or "Prove Fermat's Last Theorem".

With the right algorithm, I could get a proof of Fermat's last theorem out of the Bible.

I don't think there are any Creationist tropers here...so I'm not sure how much real discussion could happen in this thread.

I think there's quite a few here, but it just doesn't come up much.

I might be one, but I'm choosing to exercise my 5th Ammendment right on that.

This thread isn't intended for debates so much as for discussion of debates, though if any creationists show up that is subject to change.

I think the debate is good to have, as far as that goes.

Not that Creationism proponents always agree on the mechanics involved in that, either. Young Earth, Old Earth, and so on.

What gets me is how people on both sides of the 'debate' conflate evolution with the theory of evolution or distinguish between macro- and micro-evolution.

I note that in referring to creationists to my father, I always have to say "7-day 24-hour creationists", because if I just call them creationists he will protest that God DID create everything, and if I just call them 7-day creationists then he will protest that God DID create everything in seven days, they just were abstract God-days uncorrelated to the human concept of days.

I'm more inclined to put stock in the Old earth Creationism account - and that "Day" is more accurately translated into "time period".

But, then I run into trouble as plants were created before the Sun. Grrr.

Considering how many more theist evolutionists there are than literalist creationists, it's possible that the creation story in The Bible is inaccurate because providing man with actual scientific knowledge would be equivalent to just making bread fall from the sky whenever someone becomes hungry, as Jesus specifically states God does not do.

Hmm, interesting. When I think of pure Creationism, I think of New Earth Creationism. People who believe God jump started the universe and allowed for evolution to occur and whatnot seem to be on the same page as people who acknowledge evolution. I tend to view them as (mostly) on the same side.

I suppose I should have said I don't think there are any New Earth Creationists here to my knowledge. Although, I could always be wrong.

edited 25th Feb '11 5:08:22 PM by snailbait

I don't see how evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, it's important to distinguish between those who believe a higher power orchestrated/had some hand in creation versus those who take Genesis literally word for word. (I suspect more are in the former category).

edited 25th Feb '11 5:11:04 PM by apassingthought

I remember reading in a book that if you take the seven days of creation and divide them by the number of years that it took for the universe to get to the point of the bible being written, you get a surprisingly even number. Or something like that.

Basically, the days weren't actual days, they were billions of years each. God just called them days to get the point across easier.

Yeah, I'm pretty much on the evolution side of the argument. I only jump in on the opposite side when athiest evolutionists use YEC to discredit Christianity.

Since when was this a "debate", since a debate requires 2 sides with arguments.
This is nothing but a farse for a simple reason: Evolution is a proven theory, and all arguments against it is nothing more than random nitpicking in a desperate attempt at saving their own faces.
Give me 1 rational creationist, who are willing to debate, and we shall so how long the person remains a "creationist" :P

Then why would the term DAYS be used? Because DAY has always, even through the passing of languages (translated of course) been the reference of a cycle of the sun's rising and setting.

Frankly the whole "1 day = eons!" thing is just a lame cop out.

The word in Hebrew does not actually MEAN "day" in the modern English sense.

Nothing in ancient Hebrew means anything in the modern sense.

@Tze: And?

@CD: You could say it's metaphorical (most people agree that a lot of the Bible is) since the Israelites had no chance of understanding the truth. It's a lot easier to relate to days than eons when you haven't gotten the concept of space yet.

And about the sun being created after the Earth?

The 7 day creation is just a children's story, akin to Santa Claus. The fact adults still cling to it, despite scientific evidence to contrary, is rather sad.

I really don't see why more people take the seven-twenty-four-hour-day creation story literally more often than they do to the story of the Tower Of Babel.

Maybe because Genesis to them means "god made a whole world for me and I'm special in it" while The Tower of Babel thing means god is a harsh critic of architecture?

I actually saw a pretty good analysis of the Tower Of Babel story claiming that it's an allegory against dictators.