Creationism is false because it can\'t be proven right?

Then whats the deal with evolution(ie. natural selection)? I don\'t think it has been proven as of yet either.

So why is one bad but the other good when neither can be proven to be true?

[GmanJoe]

Some people really think God is gonna talk to people 4 thousand years ago about the DNA, laws of physics, chemistry and all things we\'re bound to? Nope. Heck....the language back then had no word for Solar System and such.

^^^What the heck are you talking about? What does that have to do with evolution?

[GmanJoe]

Sorry. Just a side remark about Creationst vs Evolutionist. Evolutionists and atheist will always later say "Why didn\'t God put that in the Bible if He\'s God?"



You\'ll see. A few atheists here will have some rather condescending comments about Genesis.

^^True.

So let me say first that this is not a creation vs. evolution argument. I\'m merely trying to have a discussion about evolution.

[GmanJoe]

I found this and this is exactly the words I would have used....if I had 30 extra IQ points in my noggin. I gotta stop going to Wal-Mart and getting my IQ sucked out by the dolts that work there (you know about osmosis, right? )

I believe in God. I believe God created the universe and earth and humankind through the agency of natural law; God acts almost solely through the agency of natural law. Natural selection and genetics are the mechanisms God has used to bring us to our current state of being, in other words. In revelations to humankind in earlier ages, the Lord used languages, necessarily, that persons of that age were capable of understanding, and thus did not go into detail as to the mechanism of biology, physics, geology, chemistry, and astronomy -- and, in fact, doing so would have detracted from the purpose of God\'s revelation, which was to guide us spiritually and morally.

So I take it you\'re a biblefreak.

By using your own standard - \'the evil atheists\' say evolution is good and creationism is bad. You think otherwise, that evolution is bad and creationism is good (and true). So I can turn the tables and say why is creationism good and evolution bad? Then we can discuss for hours without accomplishing anything. So I\'ll just say... bleh.

^^^I never mentioned athiests nor did I say that creation was good and evolution was bad.

Originally posted by Black Samurai
^^^I never mentioned athiests nor did I say that creation was good and evolution was bad.

Nah, it was GmanJoe who mentioned atheists. I just imagined you\'d think the same.

Again, I extrapolated from your word title and the fact that you mentioned \'creationism\' in - what I read as - a defending matter.

Many apologies if that wasn\'t your intention and/or opinion.

Maybe I worded my question wrong?

Why is evolution the de facto explanation for the "origin of man" when there is no evidence to support the claim?

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by Samwise
So I take it you\'re a biblefreak.

By using your own standard - \'the evil atheists\' say evolution is good and creationism is bad. You think otherwise, that evolution is bad and creationism is good (and true). So I can turn the tables and say why is creationism good and evolution bad? Then we can discuss for hours without accomplishing anything. So I\'ll just say... bleh.

I\'ve never said that Evolution is bad or false, for that matter. In fact, the Pope (the current one) said that Evolution is something Catholics should embrace as true. God may have created Adam and Eve....but they weren\'t the only ones he created.

Originally posted by Black Samurai
Why is evolution the de facto explanation for the "origin of man" when there is no evidence to support the claim?

As opposed to what... faith?

I\'d imagine religous people say the Bible (or whatever) is enough proof for them to believe what they do, while non-religous people would say the signs of evolution if enough proof for them.

Why does it have to be black and white one or the other?

Neither one of them can be proven to be true so why can\'t it be something totally different?

Originally posted by Black Samurai
Neither one of them can be proven to be true so why can\'t it be something totally different?

Well, it could, but you make it sound like evolution is totally unimaginable and that there aren\'t anything that points in that direction? I\'d say that\'s why evolution is the \'de facto\' standard, not just because someone thought it sounded fancy.

But we could all be wrong. For all we know aliens planted us here...

What points in that direction? Tell me what you have seen or heard that leads you to believe that life on the planet as we now know it evolved from a one cell organism resting in primordial ooze.