Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[sdingfelder]

From I Shot JFK:
I would like to ask why you consider evolution, when backed up with the (albeit long) statistics Michael stipulated to be 'impossible', and yet creationism, which can't be backed up with ANY statistics, long or short, to be so logical an option.

Great question. For each of the stats that point to evolution, there's a stat for Creation. In order to keep a focused discussion, please point out the top 3 reasons you believe in evolution and we'll move forward from there.

From Claudel:
What do you think about this?

Can you be a bit more specific ? Is it the comparison/contrast of the Nephilim vs. aliens that you're looking for comment on -- or is it the exposition of the section of Revelation 12 ?

From Heath21:
And yes I would rather believe in "real hard facts that you can touch" rather then just having faith. I am going to believe what the scientists say because they have proven things to be true and I'd rather go with the truth.

"Real hard fact that you can touch"... you mean like the aliens that you've shaken hands with ? You're believing other men's thoughts and imaginations and you're taking them as truth. Good thing you weren't alive when the "great minds" of the day were advocating blood-letting.

From Heath21:
"you will be found guilty and you must receive the right sentencing." Really? I had no idea you were God...last time I checked, God is the only one that can judge or determine our destiny.

Way to take a huge leap there.

If you were to tell someone that if they break into a store and steal something they'll get caught and be found guilty, does that make you a judge ? Of course not. If you have knowledge of a law and you share it with someone, it doesn't elevate you in any way. It's simply sharing a truth with someone about the law and the coming judgment.

In the same way, those who have broken His Laws will stand in judgment. They will be found guilty. They will receive right sentencing. It doesn't elevate me in any way to the level of the Lord. It simply means that I'm sharing a truth that some may not be aware of of their guilt and coming judgment.

We've talked enough, Heath21, that you know where I stand as I know where you do. You're a professed agnostic. You reject this coming judgment. You reject His Word. You reject Him. Why would you ever think that He wouldn't do the same to you ?

From kryogenix:
ScottD, there is large format 8x10 film which can record 800 megapixels. Though I suppose we haven't made an artificial liver yet...

That's very interesting. I'm glad you pointed it out.

That 8x10 film has less than twice the resolution of the eye. That 8x10 film was specifically designed to have that kind of resolution. That 8x10 film is not made of flesh.

So, my question is still outstanding: Will no one stand up for their faith in the theory of evolution and clearly state that they believe that the human eye just happened to "evolve" to have such amazing resolution and that it wasn't DESIGNED (as the 8x10 film was) ?

Here's an extra point to consider: The camera that takes this 8x10 image and the best digital camera -- can they repair themselves ? Scratch the lens on these cameras and you have to get a new lens. Scratch the cornea of your eye (not major damage, of course) and it'll heal itself. How many millions of years do you think it took to "evolve" that feature ?

From kryogenix:
I need to ask you one thing... why do you think accepting evolution is incompatible with Christianity?

Christianity is believing in the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible says that He's the God who created all things -- seen and unseen. If you don't believe that He created all things, then you don't believe He is who He says He is. So, one of two things: (1) You're calling Him a liar, or (2) You've created a different god in your mind that isn't the God of the Bible.

Which do you align yourself with...
(1) the God of the Bible, or
(2) the god of evolution

The god of evolution says that your death is natural and necessary. It's the whole "circle of life" thing. This god says that through the death of all things, progress occurs. This god says that there is random judgment -- you're a product of random mutation and natural selection. This god says that there is nothing about you that is precious -- humans just happened to "evolve" to where we are today.

The God of the Bible says that you have a soul that will live forever. This God says that there is righteous judment based on a set of basic rules. This God says that your fine can be paid for breaking these rules if you believe Him and if you show your love for Him. He also says that your fine will not be paid if you choose to reject Him. This God says that you're priceless to Him -- so much so, that He sent His own Son to die to pay for the fine of each of us breaking His Laws.

Which do you align yourself with ?

[*mipadi*]

Since you have a math student's perspective, consider the statistical probability of one man fulfilling just 8 simple prophecies of the coming of the Messiah. Just 8 of the over-300 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. The ultra-conservative probability that a man could satisfy just 8 of them would 1 * 10^17 !! If anyone's not familiar with that notation, that means one chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000. Would you consider that improbable ?? Remember, that's just 8 of them -- imagine how many it'd be for the 300+ prophecies that He fulfilled.
Where did the evolutionary "pixel" come from ?

I'm not sure how you came by the figure 10^17. Could you elaborate, please?

I would like to ask why you consider evolution, when backed up with the (albeit long) statistics Michael stipulated to be 'impossible', and yet creationism, which can't be backed up with ANY statistics, long or short, to be so logical an option.

Actually, it's important to note that I did not stipulate that the statistics were impossible.

[sdingfelder]

From mipadi:
I'm not sure how you came by the figure 10^17. Could you elaborate, please?

The following estimation is based on very conservative numbers:

• One person born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)

Let's estimate that 1 person in every 100,000 is born in Bethlehem (1*10^5)
Of course, the real number is far less than this

• One person rides a donkey into Jerusalem (Zechariah 9:9)

Again, let's conservatively estimate that 1 person in every 100 did this (1*10^2)

• One person betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)

Conservatively, 1 person in every 1000 have been betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (1*10^3)

• 30 pieces from the previous thrown to the floor of the temple and put toward property (Zechariah 11:13)

This is actually 3 in one verse (in the Temple, thrown to floor, and put toward field)
Again, conservatively estimate that 1 in every 100,000 have had all these three happen (1*10^5)

• Wounded in the hands (Zechariah 13:6)

Estimate that 1 in every 100 have been wounded in their hands (1*10^2)

• One person didn't contest the charges against him (Isaiah 53:7)

Conservatively guess that 1 person in every 1000 didn't contest the false charges against them(1:10^3)

• One person died with the wicked and had a grave with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)

Again, estimate that 1 in every 1000 has had this happen (1:10^3)

• One Jewish person would be seen as a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6)

Conservatively, 1 Jew in every 100,000 has been viewed as a light to the Gentiles (1:10^5)

Now, what are the chances of 1 person satisfying ALL of these ? For anyone who doesn't know how to determine the overall probability of ALL of these happening is

(10^5) * (10^2) * (10^3) * (10^5) * (10^2) * (10^3) * (10^3) * (10^5) = 10^28

The probability that a single person can fulfill just these 8 is 1:10^28. But in order to normalize based on the population of the Earth, divide this by the total population. 10^28 / 10^11 = 10^17.

What is 10^17 ? Mark one quarter out of 100,000,000,000,000,000 and all mixed up. By the way, 10^17 quarters would cover the state of Texas 2 feet deep. Reach into this pile of 10^17 quarters and get the one that's marked on your first try. That's 1 out of 10^17.

That's only 8 of the over 300 prophecies of Messiah's first coming.

[sweetangel2128]

I am aweful with numbers so I think I'll stay outta this one

[*I Shot JFK*]

I'm not sure how you came by the figure 10^17. Could you elaborate, please?
Actually, it's important to note that I did not stipulate that the statistics were impossible.

i know... bad use of the word stipulated on my part... i was asking why he considered the stats you presented to be impossible, not that you thought they were impossible.

[NoSex]

Now, what are the chances of 1 person satisfying ALL of these ? For anyone who doesn't know how to determine the overall probability of ALL of these happening is

(10^5) * (10^2) * (10^3) * (10^5) * (10^2) * (10^3) * (10^3) * (10^5) = 10^28

The probability that a single person can fulfill just these 8 is 1:10^28. But in order to normalize based on the population of the Earth, divide this by the total population. 10^28 / 10^11 = 10^17.

So, what you're saying is that it is more probable than not that Jesus never fulfilled said "prophecies?" Alright, I'll agree: In all likelihood, Jesus never did fulfill these prophecies.

On one hand you're saying the near impossibility of that specific situation proves your religion, but the, supposed, near impossibility of abiogenesis and evolution disproves the evolutionary construct and theory? Something seems really fishy.

[*mipadi*]

Aside from Acid Bath Slayer's excellent point, I'm also skeptical that you can apply numbers like that to statistics. Statistics don't really apply to "random events", and your math in general seems a bit fuzzy (i.e. not backed up empirically). In any given day, a large number of random events (and many not-so-random) come together to shape my day, but I can't really take all of them out of context and apply math to them to come up with a "chance" that certain events happened or will happen.

The following estimation is based on very conservative numbers:
(snipped)

[*I Shot JFK*]

So, what you're saying is that it is more probable than not that Jesus never fulfilled said "prophecies?" Alright, I'll agree: In all likelihood, Jesus never did fulfill these prophecies.

On one hand you're saying the near impossibility of that specific situation proves your religion, but the, supposed, near impossibility of abiogenesis and evolution disproves the evolutionary construct and theory? Something seems really fishy.

see, this is why i resent intelligent people. they say the thing i was trying to say, but better.

*sulks*

[sdingfelder]

From Acid Bath Slayer:
So, what you're saying is that it is more probable than not that Jesus never fulfilled said "prophecies?" Alright, I'll agree: In all likelihood, Jesus never did fulfill these prophecies.

So close yet so far. That's almost exactly what I'm saying. It is more than proabably that there would NEVER exist a single person that would fulfill all these prophecies. We have a problem, though. One did fulfill them all.

The probability of a single person fulfilling all of them is 1*10^17. Note that all these verses are from the Old Covenant. The description of their fulfillment is in the New Covenant. And, when looking at all 8, only One has fulfilled them.

• One person born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
• One person rides a donkey into Jerusalem (Zechariah 9:9)
• One person betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)
• 30 pieces from the previous thrown to the floor of the temple and put toward property (Zechariah 11:13)
• Wounded in the hands (Zechariah 13:6)
• One person didn't contest the charges against him (Isaiah 53:7)
• One person died with the wicked and had a grave with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)
• One Jewish person would be seen as a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6)

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He rode a donkey into Jerusalem. He was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver which were subsequently thrown down to the floor in the Temp. He was wounded in his hands and didn't contest His charges. He was crucified with 2 thieves along side and His grave was in a rich man's tomb. Finally, He is the only Jew that has been worshipped by Jew and Gentile alike.

From Acid Bath Slayer:
On one hand you're saying the near impossibility of that specific situation proves your religion, but the, supposed, near impossibility of abiogenesis and evolution disproves the evolutionary construct and theory? Something seems really fishy.

That's an excellent point. It does sound like a double-standard, doesn't it.

I have not only the Biblical accounts, but also secular accounts to show that Jesus did, in fact, fulfill over 300 prophecies in the Old Covenant. So, the statistical hurdles have already been jumped.

Abiogensis and evolution (specifically, macro-evolution) have statistical hurdles that have not been overcome. We see no spontaneous organisms originating from lifeless matter. We see no macro-evolutionary modifications in the animals existing today.

There's an account for one of the above (Jesus fulfilling statistically impossible prophecy) and no account for the other (abiogenetic or macro-evolutionary fairytale).

From mipadi:
Aside from Acid Bath Slayer's excellent point, I'm also skeptical that you can apply numbers like that to statistics. Statistics don't really apply to "random events", and your math in general seems a bit fuzzy (i.e. not backed up empirically).

I can understand your skepticism. I was in disbelief when I first saw this estimation as well. There's no way in the world that more than One has fulfilled all these (as well as 300+ others).

I'm surprised, though, at your comment that "Statistics don't really apply to 'random events'". That's the whole concept behind statistics !!

If the events weren't random, then you'd know 100% of the time that something's going to happen. The chances of rolling a 6 three times in a row is not a surety, so you calculate the chances -- the statistical probability -- that three 6's will come up. This is where betting comes into the picture since you're "playing against the odds".

As for the math being "fuzzy": Like I said, I was using conservative numbers. Do you really believe that 1 in a hundred people have ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey ? Of course not. Do you really believe that 1 in a thousand people have been betrayed for 30 pieces of silver ? Of course not. The actual numbers of FAR less than what you see here.

Still, in providing these very conservative estimates, you see how amazing it would be for one person to do each of those things within his lifetime. There's only One that did.

From mipadi:
In any given day, a large number of random events (and many not-so-random) come together to shape my day, but I can't really take all of them out of context and apply math to them to come up with a "chance" that certain events happened or will happen.

Of course you can.

Again, this is the purpose of statistical probability -- the "chance" of something (or a number of things) happening. The context, as you put it, will come out in the resulting probability.

The chance your alarm clock will go off at the right time: 1 in 5
The chance you'll hit the snooze too many times: 1 in 2
The chance you'll forget your lunch to school: 1 in 1 (no chance of forgetting that)
The chance you'll drop your glass of milk at lunch: 1 in 3
The chance you'll get flat tire on the way home: 1 in 400

Now the chance of all these things happening is determined by combining all the appropriate individual statistical probabilities:
(1/5) * (1/2) * (1/1) * (1/3) * (1/400) = .0000833 (or 1 in 12000)

This is what statistics does. It attempts to quantitatively determine the chances of either an event or a series of events occurring -- no matter whether or not anyone would consider it "random".

[*I Shot JFK*]

Again, this is the purpose of statistical probability -- the "chance" of something (or a number of things) happening. The context, as you put it, will come out in the resulting probability.

The chance your alarm clock will go off at the right time: 1 in 5
The chance you'll hit the snooze too many times: 1 in 2
The chance you'll forget your lunch to school: 1 in 1 (no chance of forgetting that)
The chance you'll drop your glass of milk at lunch: 1 in 3
The chance you'll get flat tire on the way home: 1 in 400

Now the chance of all these things happening is determined by combining all the appropriate individual statistical probabilities:
(1/5) * (1/2) * (1/1) * (1/3) * (1/400) = .0000833 (or 1 in 12000)

This is what statistics does. It attempts to quantitatively determine the chances of either an event or a series of events occurring -- no matter whether or not anyone would consider it "random".

This doesn't work, because the things you are applying statistics to (such as dropping your milk) aren't based on any random chance, but rather on variable factors, such as whether or not there's water on the outside of the glass to make it slippery, or if someones bag is there to make you trip, or whatever, whereas something like rolling a dice is pure chance... one set of likelihoods is measureable by estimates of probablity, and one simply isn't.

[sdingfelder]

I Shot JFK,

What you're talking about is whether or not the probability of something occuring is finite or not. The example I gave with waking up, milk, and the tire going flat were off the top of my head and, clearly, I didn't consider all the possible variables.

That said, though, once you consider more variables, you do in fact determine an estimate of the statistical probability of something occuring. That is the nature of statistics -- it's an estimate of the chance of something happening.

Whether or not you "put stock" in the stats is a different thing altogether.

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ Yes, but once you consider the variables of something which are no tthemselves measureable (the liklihood of spilt water, for instance), then statistics cease to have any use or meaning.

Stats are only really truly worth something when they are concrete, like rolling a fair dice, for instance.

[*mipadi*]

I can understand your skepticism. I was in disbelief when I first saw this estimation as well. There's no way in the world that more than One has fulfilled all these (as well as 300+ others).

That's making the presupposition that Jesus fulfilled these criteria. But there's no proof of that, so the numbers are fuzzy. One could easily argue that there's almost no way anyone can fulfill such events.

Furthermore, your argument is circular. You're trying to make an argument that only "the One" could fulfill all that criteria, but using the statistical proof that he did the show that he must be the one.

I'm surprised, though, at your comment that "Statistics don't really apply to 'random events'". That's the whole concept behind statistics !!

The mathematical concept of random is not the same as the colloquial term you are using.

As for the math being "fuzzy": Like I said, I was using conservative numbers. Do you really believe that 1 in a hundred people have ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey ? Of course not. Do you really believe that 1 in a thousand people have been betrayed for 30 pieces of silver ? Of course not. The actual numbers of FAR less than what you see here.

Well, again, how do we know any of these events happened? And if you admit you can't ascribe numbers to these events, how can you hope to quantify any sort of chance? And even when you do, how does that prove that such events occurred?

Of course you can.

Again, this is the purpose of statistical probability -- the "chance" of something (or a number of things) happening. The context, as you put it, will come out in the resulting probability.

The chance your alarm clock will go off at the right time: 1 in 5
The chance you'll hit the snooze too many times: 1 in 2
The chance you'll forget your lunch to school: 1 in 1 (no chance of forgetting that)
The chance you'll drop your glass of milk at lunch: 1 in 3
The chance you'll get flat tire on the way home: 1 in 400

Now the chance of all these things happening is determined by combining all the appropriate individual statistical probabilities:
(1/5) * (1/2) * (1/1) * (1/3) * (1/400) = .0000833 (or 1 in 12000)

This is what statistics does. It attempts to quantitatively determine the chances of either an event or a series of events occurring -- no matter whether or not anyone would consider it "random".

No, it doesn't work like that. How can I estimate the chance that my alarm clock will go off at the right time? Doesn't it always go off at the right time -- assuming it's working? So how do I quantify a chance it's not going to work? How do I quantify the chance I'll hit the snooze too many times? How do you quantify any of this?

You can't. And there's a huge number of factors that shape my day. One might say an infinite number of possibilities.

The fact is, you can't quantify such a large sequence of events. And even if you do, how does that prove Jesus is "the One"? You first have to prove the events described occurred in the first place, and that they all occurred to Jesus, and that they are all symptomatic of divinity, before you can even begin to apply the (fuzzy) statistics you came up with. And even after that, what does that prove -- or rather, how does it prove anything about Jesus's divinity?

[sweetangel2128]

That's making the presupposition that Jesus fulfilled these criteria. But there's no proof of that, so the numbers are fuzzy. One could easily argue that there's almost no way anyone can fulfill such events.

Furthermore, your argument is circular. You're trying to make an argument that only "the One" could fulfill all that criteria, but using the statistical proof that he did the show that he must be the one.
The mathematical concept of random is not the same as the colloquial term you are using.
Well, again, how do we know any of these events happened? And if you admit you can't ascribe numbers to these events, how can you hope to quantify any sort of chance? And even when you do, how does that prove that such events occurred?
No, it doesn't work like that. How can I estimate the chance that my alarm clock will go off at the right time? Doesn't it always go off at the right time -- assuming it's working? So how do I quantify a chance it's not going to work? How do I quantify the chance I'll hit the snooze too many times? How do you quantify any of this?

You can't. And there's a huge number of factors that shape my day. One might say an infinite number of possibilities.

The fact is, you can't quantify such a large sequence of events. And even if you do, how does that prove Jesus is "the One"? You first have to prove the events described occurred in the first place, and that they all occurred to Jesus, and that they are all symptomatic of divinity, before you can even begin to apply the (fuzzy) statistics you came up with. And even after that, what does that prove -- or rather, how does it prove anything about Jesus's divinity?

I agree you have to PROVE that the events actually happend and that Jesus is the one. Something that can't be proved right now.

[chibichi15]

i've always wondered:

if evolutionists believe in the Big Bang, then where did the Bang come from if they don't believe God created the Earth? i just want to see why they think itz true and im curious.

[sweetangel2128]

i've always wondered:

if evolutionists believe in the Big Bang, then where did the Bang come from if they don't believe God created the Earth? i just want to see why they think itz true and im curious.

Not saying I believe evolution over God or even God over evolution but the same Question goes for those who believe God is the cause of the universe.

[NoSex]

I have not only the Biblical accounts, but also secular accounts to show that Jesus did, in fact, fulfill over 300 prophecies in the Old Covenant. So, the statistical hurdles have already been jumped.

We're not just going to take your word for it. You have to prove it.

But, given the immense unlikelihood of the situation you presented to us (a single individual fulfilling all of these prophecies), would it not be more likely that the accounts you present to us, in order to prove your position, are merely misrepresentations, lies, and fabrications?

Why should we believe in the gospels? Are they not of dubious quality? What secular sources can you cite? Why should we trust said sources?

[sweetangel2128]

evolution.

we arent related to monkeys...we come from the same descent as them...or idk.

scientists that are christians believe in both creation and evolution... =/ its hard to tell, science and religion should never mix.

Well...we came from Apes, I forgot the name of it but a certain species such as an ape, I read about it.

I think that Creation and Evolution could of both happend. Not saying Creation didn't create the earth, but Evolution could of been set off by God for the other happenings in the world. Why can't science and religion mix? Explain? We are evolving today!

[*disco infiltrator*]

We did not originate from the modern ape, but both us and the ape originated from an ancestral primate (that was not the ape that we know today).

The supposed mix of creation and evolution is another argument entirely because the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth's origin. And, the entire theory of creation encompasses both the Earth's origin and the origin of people and every species that we see today. The debate is pitting the theory of evolution against the claim that God made each species as they are today and they have never changed.

[sweetangel2128]

We did not originate from the modern ape, but both us and the ape originated from an ancestral primate (that was not the ape that we know today).

The supposed mix of creation and evolution is another argument entirely because the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth's origin. And, the entire theory of creation encompasses both the Earth's origin and the origin of people and every species that we see today. The debate is pitting the theory of evolution against the claim that God made each species as they are today and they have never changed.

Exactly what I was trying to say. I thought of the word now, we originated from the Homonid. Heres the definition:

Homonid - "any of the modern or extinct bipedal primates of the family Hominidae, including all species of the genera Homo and Australopithecus. "

As for evolution...heres the definition...

Evolution - "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species"

[pink.x.r0se]

i read the whole thread, and i didnt see this.

if evolution has been proved so many times
why is it called the theory of evolution?
i know its not really relevant but i dont understand it

[*mipadi*]

i read the whole thread, and i didnt see this.

if evolution has been proved so many times
why is it called the theory of evolution?
i know its not really relevant but i dont understand it

A scientific theory is different from the common usage of the term theory. For all practical purposes, a scientific theory may be treated as something that, from a scientific standpoint, is undeniably true.

[sweetangel2128]

i read the whole thread, and i didnt see this.

if evolution has been proved so many times
why is it called the theory of evolution?
i know its not really relevant but i dont understand it

Evolution in how the world was created has NOT been proved otherwise most everyone probably wouldn't believe in a God but evolution. It is merely as you say a "Theory" and a "Possiblity". However, I believe that we have evolved since we've been created.

[*disco infiltrator*]

theory:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

It is a theory because it is a bunch of conclusions drawn from plenty of observed evidence that was documented based on a certain hypothesis, not because it isn't real. It may be a theory, but it basically has been proven, and if you dispute it, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.

And the theory of evolution, again, says NOTHING about the origin of the Earth, so if we could begin to try to leave that out of the debate, that would be splendid.

[sweetangel2128]

theory:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

It is a theory because it is a bunch of conclusions drawn from plenty of observed evidence that was documented based on a certain hypothesis, not because it isn't real. It may be a theory, but it basically has been proven, and if you dispute it, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.

And the theory of evolution, again, says NOTHING about the origin of the Earth, so if we could begin to try to leave that out of the debate, that would be splendid.

Tell that all to the Christians that say non-Believers who believe in Evolution, believe Evolution is what created the earth. Like the definition says Evolution is based over time.