Creationism vs Evolution

[tomanyhumans]

I have challenged Boogerman to a debate. I gave him 2 options. I don't think he will accept debating whether god exists or not. So if he accepts we'll do Creationism vs Evolution.

[Stoner]

I have challenged Boogerman to a debate. I gave him 2 options. I don't think he will accept debating whether god exists or not. So if he accepts we'll do Creationism vs Evolution.


Will be a good debate for sure. Look forward to it.

[Truth_and_Power]

I look forward to the vestigal organs answer.

[BoogyMan]

I find neither of these worth debating as there is no possibility of this person shaking my faith or causing me to change my view as it is framed by the word of God.

The use of the term "boogerman" shows me that this person is unworthy of my time and efforts.

[tomanyhumans]

Looks like I already won. Gee who could have predicted that a fragile, insecure bible thumper wouldn't rise to meet the challenge of defending that which cannot be logically defended. It's total without precedent!

"Hmm why did the founding father's of this country deem it wise to separate church and state? They must not have believed in god's infinite wisdom!"

[Stoner]

Looks like I already won. Gee who could have predicted that a fragile, insecure bible thumper wouldn't rise to meet the challenge of defending that which cannot be logically defended. It's total without precedent!


Your maturity is mind-blowing. No wonder Boogy didn't bother wasting his time with you.

[tomanyhumans]

Very predictable.
oh and stoner...stop being so weak.

[BoogyMan]

Stoner, my friend, you hit the nail on the head.

[tomanyhumans]

Stand up philosopher huh? Laugh

[BoogyMan]

Stand up philosopher huh? Laugh


I am glad you find it funny tomany, it comes straight out of a Mel Brooks movie. I found it funny as well, that is why it is there.

[tomanyhumans]

Stoner do not confuse the presence of anger for a lack of maturity. Maturity ends with anger.
intellectual maturity that is.

"you can choose to know or be content but not both"

[Red Dragon]

Wait last time I checked Boogy was a theistic evolutionist did something change?

[BoogyMan]

Labrocca wants to keep this forum free of idle banter and for challenges and responses only. If you wish to continue this discussion please start another thread or take it to PM.

p.s. I have NEVER been a theistic evolutionist RD. :D

[tomanyhumans]

Did they refuse your application or something? rofl

[Mayberry]

Looks like I already won. You've "won" nothing. All you've done here is personally attack right out of the gate. Boogey would smoke you bud, but I'd tell you the same thing he did, only not quite so politely. You don't want to debate, you want to attack. We don't do that here pal.

[moses2792796]

Although this thread is kinda shite, Boogyman, if you're still up for a debate on the subject, I will happily partake, though I won't be taking the stereotypical creationist vs evolution approach. However I do disagree with anyone who either believes that the bible is complete literal, dogmatic truth, or anyone who believes that the bible is nonsense. I think this discussion can lead somewhere, if we're all open-minded about it, unfortunately this is a debate where neither side seems willing to be. So, if we can have an open-minded discussion on the subject without the cognitive dissonance that is prevalent in both the religious and the sciency types taking over...someone (preferably Boogyman) step up and outline your views, or ask me to. :)

[BoogyMan]

I have to tell you Moses that I am not willing to bend one bit with regard to my faith in the literal teaching of the bible. I appreciate your making a thread started with a childish overtone into a real discussion and your civil style of discourse.

[bobbylien]

tomanyhumans was right though, personal attacks or no personal attacks.

[moses2792796]

I have to tell you Moses that I am not willing to bend one bit with regard to my faith in the literal teaching of the bible. I appreciate your making a thread started with a childish overtone into a real discussion and your civil style of discourse.


ahhh well there's probably no point discussing it then :), unless you want to in which case I'm happy to.

[BoogyMan]

I have to tell you Moses that I am not willing to bend one bit with regard to my faith in the literal teaching of the bible. I appreciate your making a thread started with a childish overtone into a real discussion and your civil style of discourse.


ahhh well there's probably no point discussing it then :), unless you want to in which case I'm happy to.


I will gladly discuss just about anything with a civil person such as yourself. :D

[moses2792796]

OK then, As far as evolution goes, I'd say that the Darwinian theory is almost completely wrong. The materialistic view that it necessarily implies shows a complete ignorance of transcendent principles. It is also illogical to assume that humans are just matter, because although our thoughts appear to be electrons, the argument going something like this...

"Say one wants to stand up. It is willed and the body acts accordingly. The body is the objectification of one's will. In similar manner you think and a scanner can pick up neural activity. But why make the unfounded leap of saying those thoughts are in-themselves just electrons? Their physical representation consists of the electrons, but in no way does that allow one to say the thoughts are just that which makes up the representation of the thoughts. You start from the self and look outwards. In other words- existence as is, is. One can't claim an origin of the a priori from looking at the a posteriori.

Primarily you ARE." not my wording, thanks to Paul the Baptist from corrupt.org

So in the end it all comes down to faith, you can believe that man exists as a divine archetype projected into physical reality, or that he is simply atoms arranged in a certain way so as to facilitate thought. You cannot know it.

From here it would seem that whether one believes in evolution or not is a choice, neither side is superior from a logical perspective despite what many would have you believe. Natural selection is undeniable though.

[Truth_and_Power]

OK then, As far as evolution goes, I'd say that the Darwinian theory is almost completely wrong. The materialistic view that it necessarily implies shows a complete ignorance of transcendent principles. It is also illogical to assume that humans are just matter, because although our thoughts appear to be electrons, the argument going something like this...

"Say one wants to stand up. It is willed and the body acts accordingly. The body is the objectification of one's will. In similar manner you think and a scanner can pick up neural activity. But why make the unfounded leap of saying those thoughts are in-themselves just electrons? Their physical representation consists of the electrons, but in no way does that allow one to say the thoughts are just that which makes up the representation of the thoughts. You start from the self and look outwards. In other words- existence as is, is. One can't claim an origin of the a priori from looking at the a posteriori.

Primarily you ARE." not my wording, thanks to Paul the Baptist from corrupt.org

So in the end it all comes down to faith, you can believe that man exists as a divine archetype projected into physical reality, or that he is simply atoms arranged in a certain way so as to facilitate thought. You cannot know it.

From here it would seem that whether one believes in evolution or not is a choice, neither side is superior from a logical perspective despite what many would have you believe. Natural selection is undeniable though.


There is no evidence of a soul.

[BoogyMan]

Moses, God has given His accounting in Genesis of how man came to be, that is quite good enough for me. How can man, the creation, claim Christianity without holding to the teachings of his creator?

[moses2792796]

OK then, As far as evolution goes, I'd say that the Darwinian theory is almost completely wrong. The materialistic view that it necessarily implies shows a complete ignorance of transcendent principles. It is also illogical to assume that humans are just matter, because although our thoughts appear to be electrons, the argument going something like this...

"Say one wants to stand up. It is willed and the body acts accordingly. The body is the objectification of one's will. In similar manner you think and a scanner can pick up neural activity. But why make the unfounded leap of saying those thoughts are in-themselves just electrons? Their physical representation consists of the electrons, but in no way does that allow one to say the thoughts are just that which makes up the representation of the thoughts. You start from the self and look outwards. In other words- existence as is, is. One can't claim an origin of the a priori from looking at the a posteriori.

Primarily you ARE." not my wording, thanks to Paul the Baptist from corrupt.org

So in the end it all comes down to faith, you can believe that man exists as a divine archetype projected into physical reality, or that he is simply atoms arranged in a certain way so as to facilitate thought. You cannot know it.

From here it would seem that whether one believes in evolution or not is a choice, neither side is superior from a logical perspective despite what many would have you believe. Natural selection is undeniable though.


There is no evidence of a soul.


It's the same as God, it's impossible to prove or disprove via logic. @Boogyman, while the Bible is highly relevant I think that gathering knowledge from more than one source is necessary for a more complete understanding. In the end, everything comes down to faith, thoughts are the only thing we experience directly, and therefore the only thing we know to exist. Even scientists have faith in that they believe objective reality exists, which is not so different from belief in God when thought about.

Also, assuming that the bible is pure historical fact is a little naieve.

[BoogyMan]

@Boogyman, while the Bible is highly relevant I think that gathering knowledge from more than one source is necessary for a more complete understanding. In the end, everything comes down to faith, thoughts are the only thing we experience directly, and therefore the only thing we know to exist. Even scientists have faith in that they believe objective reality exists, which is not so different from belief in God when thought about.

Also, assuming that the bible is pure historical fact is a little naieve.


I would have to say that if belief that what God says I must study and follow is naive, moses, I would have to say that I wish to be the most naive of them all.

My bible speaks thusly:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Why study in order to rightly divide the word, if we have the option to be right without following it?

[moses2792796]

I think a problem arises is taking the bible as reality, what we should do is first decide on reality, and see how the bible correlates to this. Immediate physical truths in the bible really aren't that impotant. I think if humanity was to survive another 3000 years the bible would be seen like the Greek religion is now, as mythology that has important allegorical value.

[BoogyMan]

I have to disagree moses.

A careful study of the text shows that God has given specific instruction to heed His word. You wish to make yourself a participant in the decision of what God will accept in His name, and the text quite simply disagrees with your assessment.

[moses2792796]

I think where we disagree is on exactly what the bible is. I think it is humanity expressing God, which would be correct God is supposed to have spoken through humans to create the bible. The main thing to remember with all scripture is that it is limited by form, while God is not, meaning it can never truly reveal God, only point one in the right direction.

[BoogyMan]

I think where we disagree is on exactly what the bible is. I think it is humanity expressing God, which would be correct God is supposed to have spoken through humans to create the bible. The main thing to remember with all scripture is that it is limited by form, while God is not, meaning it can never truly reveal God, only point one in the right direction.


God is expressed in terms we can understand in His word. We will not truly know His form until we see Him, but we know His will as it has been left for us to follow.

Consider John 8:31-32 which speaks thusly:

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[moses2792796]

I suppose it all comes down to interpretation, I doubt we will come to agreement on the subject because, although I beleieve the Bible to be truth, I also consider the finer details unimportant...I'll let my traditionalist ally Frithjof Schuon take it from here

"“Dogmatism reveals itself not only by its inability to conceive the inward or implicit illimitability of the symbol, the universality that resolves all outward oppositions, but also by its inability to recognise, when faced with two apparently contradictory truths, the inward connection they both affirm.”
Frithjof Schuon – The Transcendent Unity of Religions

Also Boogyman, despite what you may think, I admire your faith alot, I really do, but my faith takes quite a different form to yours it would seem, which I don't beleive needs to be a problem, everyone needs it, whether they admit it or not, but we all must find God within us as well as in the infinite.

[lily]

Boogy, I think moses made a good point in post #26 when he said:

I think if humanity was to survive another 3000 years the bible would be seen like the Greek religion is now, as mythology that has important allegorical value.

The Greeks and the Romans thought that their Gods were the true Gods, and they were "advanced" societies back then. Evey faith thinks that their God is the one true God. Who is to say?

[moses2792796]

That is where we should turn to God in his highest nature, because in him all oppositions are resolved, is it so hard to beleive, for anyone on these forums, that all religions are in fact worshipping the same God?

Also I am under the impression that the Greeks and other ancient civilisations knew that there mythological stories were not literal truth, and I am not sure about how they viewed their 'Gods'.

[BoogyMan]

That is where we should turn to God in his highest nature, because in him all oppositions are resolved, is it so hard to beleive, for anyone on these forums, that all religions are in fact worshipping the same God?

Also I am under the impression that the Greeks and other ancient civilisations knew that there mythological stories were not literal truth, and I am not sure about how they viewed their 'Gods'.


We seem to be sidestepping a bit Moses, because what we truly know of the nature of God is revealed in His word, not by the discernment of man through his own ponderings.

As I questioned previously but will hopefully clarify here, if one discounts the word, is it still God's word or a creation of Man? God has told us that we must study His word that we may present it properly and that we can be made free by knowledge of His truth. Such statements are only discounted when we allow the will of man to have a guiding influence rather than considering the text in its pure simplicity.

God in His highest nature is revealed in His word left for man.

[moses2792796]

Only in part, I'd say the Bible is as much a creation of man as any other interpretation of God. The real importance lies in that, by allowing God into their lives, those who wrote the Bible were able to express God through writing. I think the disagreement arises in that I believe that God did not actually speak to them, but that they revealed knowledge their of God through their words. For this reason, all religious scripture is valid, but nothing of it is the truth in itself, and could not possibly be.

The Bible brings us closer to God, but only the Self can truly find him. This is proven by the fact that no two people will think of God exactly the same, meaning he manifests himself differently in every person. For this reason no single person's interpretation of God is the 'right' one, they all are, as long as they each aspire to God's highest nature which is transcendent and infinite.

Getting back to the actual topic, I believe that evolution did take place, though I don't believe it can be proven, it seems likely to me that it did, however, the Darwinist conception of evolution makes one major error. Each species is archetypal, a necessary manifestation in physical existence that could always have taken place, we are here for a reason, and that reason is God. This doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution in my view, though except that it necessarily implies that it was not a matter of chance that humans came to be, it was predetermined.

[moses2792796]

Also Boogyman I don't mean to sound like I don't accept your faith, I think it is quite admirable, I'm just showing you my perspective on the matter.

[bobbylien]

You guys can debate the meaning of life when you are through here.

[moses2792796]

Sounds good to me:)

[BoogyMan]

Also Boogyman I don't mean to sound like I don't accept your faith, I think it is quite admirable, I'm just showing you my perspective on the matter.


Hey Moses, no offense taken at all. I appreciate your civility and willingness to engage in a reasoned discussion. :D

[I Like Beer]

OK then, As far as evolution goes, I'd say that the Darwinian theory is almost completely wrong....

Natural selection is undeniable though.

If Natural Selection is undeniable, how is Darwin's theory almost completely wrong? The whole theory of the Origin of Species rests on Natural Selection.

I don't know if this debate is over, but I just want to add that there is no inherent conflict between having faith and believing in evolution. Many of the religious people I know feel that God created the rules or conditions under which, evolution operates.

Of course, if one holds a literal interpretation of the bible, there are some problems when it comes to the origin of man.

So, if we start with the hypothesis that God created humans and all life some 6 or 25 thousand years ago - how does one explain the fossil record and common ancestors?

I can only see two possible explanations.

1 - It is a hoax or conspiracy. I don't see any reasonable person accepting this hypothesis, so we're left with only one explanation.

2 - God put it there on purpose. But, for what purpose? To test our faith?

Boogyman, I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please, there is disrespect intended. There are many deeply religious people in my own family - including my mother.