Kevin's Watch

odd that those of us who believe in creationism on this board have no problem with some form of evolution and the big bang. but the 'rational' folk reject creationism out of hand? but we on the side of Rational Design are seen as the intolerable?

I'd say it's because there's enough evidence on the side of evolutionism that to dismiss it would be to put yourself in an untenable position. Creationism on the other hand, with its entirely subjective evidence ("I see God's love in everything, etc.), is dismissable.

no, there isn't an overwhelming pile of evidence for evolution. we wouldn't be happening upon this argument if there were. gravity has plenty of evidence, we don't argue that. creationism takes a lot of filling-in-the-blanks. most people argue when folks argue that man has evolved. and if there were a swamp full of evidence, we would not be able to argue the point. folks went away from a earth centric solar system, no?

If that's not the reason then please explain what is.
Why else would "those of us who believe in creationism on this board have no problem with some form of evolution and the big bang."?

Just for the hell of it? I don't think so, I think it's because there's enough evidence to make their dismissal unviable.

but there's enough missing from both that belief isn't a certainty. unless you advocate that a little faith should be used?

but there's enough missing from both that belief isn't a certainty. unless you advocate that a little faith should be used?

Interesting dodge.
No, I don't think that faith is necessary. I've looked at the evidence for both and I can trust either:

a) Fossil records (admittedly incomplete, but still substantial), evidence of evolution on a microscopic scale and adaptation. Red shift, the blackness of space, background radiation, etc.

or

b) One book, written comparatively recently, plus an assurance that certain people can see God's works everywhere.

If you asked me which I think is more plausible it'd be a. Since there's no other explanation going around for the existence of everything and the big bang/evolution theories fit the current knowledge I'm willing to believe them. They're also open to being changed should our understanding of the universe change.

Creationism, on the other hand, is very inflexible, but has been hammered into shape to fit current knowledge. Reinterpretations and things being deemed metaphorical seem to be a daily occurence.

...I am here to announce,,I have Proof..proof of Evolution...I live in Arizona..The Grand Canyon is in this State. The grand Canyon is a natural barrier...On the South Rim..there exists the grey squirrel..on the Northrim..known as the Kaibab Plataue,,a region surronded by natural barriers..is the Northern Kaibab Squirrel...slitely different than the squirrel of the south rim..Same can be said about many bird species of Hawaii..many lizard species of the Caribean Isles..or take alook at the divergent specofication of Madagascar island..or the Best and most Well Known..AUSTRALIA...etc..etc..IF one cares to look into it,,there are many more examples around the world..where geographic boundaries have stopped the co-mingling and as a result,, over looong periods of time ,,the same species ends up evolving in two different ways..Theory?? meets all the requirements..Proof?..start with reading Darwins Origin of Species..otherwise..anybody can just sit there and say,,I don't believe it..What is to be taught in public school shouldn't be subject to what a religous belief,,when there is plenty of science that says otherwise..and aaa still haven't hear any feed back on Creationism being taught in a Humanities class, along with all the other creation storys from all over the world...Why is that a problem?.......MEL

What would be so wrong about both being true?

God creates universe, God creates earth. Earth reaches a certain level of growth. God kills off dinosaurs to prepare the way for man. God creates mammilians, and among these is a mammal that slowly adapts over time, to become man. Other animals adapt to environments that God created, as God intended! How hard is that to understand? It sounds as likely as any explanation or "theory" that I have heard of so far. The only difference between my concept and Darwin's, is that he refused to bring God into it, yet my explanation is just as likely, because no one can disprove either concept!


Or can they?
-B

That's pretty much how I see it Baradakas. God set everything into motion, species adapt to a changing world.

dennisrwood wrote:odd that those of us who believe in creationism on this board have no problem with some form of evolution and the big bang. but the 'rational' folk reject creationism out of hand? but we on the side of Rational Design are seen as the intolerable?

I can't speak for every disbeliever, but I dismiss Creationism because I don't believe in God. It's that simple. For me, it's less about particulars and more about comfort-level. I don't actively search for flaws in a religion or attack a certain part of it to justify my own beliefs. The justification of my belief is that I've been a Christian for most of my life, an atheist since early 2002, and I'm simply happier where I am. That's all it comes down to. It's a completely personal thing.

...Now we are getting somewhere. God sets everything in motion..I'll go with that..So we then will teach our kids that the Tsunami that wiped out 200k people was Gods Will,,also,,5 million Jews, Gypsies, Intellectuals excetera dead from Nazi's was Gods will..I mean ,,this is not a Pick and Choose deal..Or is it? Again..Creationism should be taught along side all the Creation Stories of all the races and tribes of the world,,in a Humanities class,,not a Science class. I mean,,how is that one is perceived as science or equalvalent to science ,when the others aren't??
.......MEL

Lurch: good try. free will. might have heard of it? and you observed the macro evolution? no, then you have fossils? no. that wouldn't be proof, sounds like conjecture. nice try though. and we're not advocating teaching creationism. we are advocating a simple text reading that states such...
"the theory of evolution is one of many theories on how life began. we urge you to find out what other theories there are" i paraphrase, but that is the reading that is causing so much problems. you ask me to see your 'proof' and then fill in the gaps. so why be afraid of telling kids there may be other thoughts out there. or are you so afraid that your house of cards will fall over in the light of day?

Foul: i admire your honesty. no if we could get more folks to admit that they don't believe and that is why they don't want creationism mentioned.

baradkas/Cail: my thoughts exactly. i just don't want the state to dismiss religious belief out of hand. seperation should go both ways?

dennisrwood wrote:Foul: i admire your honesty. no if we could get more folks to admit that they don't believe and that is why they don't want creationism mentioned.

Thanks. I don't consider myself the best of persons (far from it), which is why I value my honesty toward myself. Also, just to clarify: I personally think it'd be silly not to mention Creationism; you'd be ignoring society. "Oh yeah, and there's also this silly thing about God creating the earth, heh." But most teachers I've had handle the controversy very intelligently, usually saying, "Now I know many of you don't believe in evolution, and that's completely fine; we're not here to challenge your faith." They all try their best, I think, to air out any hostilities (of course, I can only speak from my own experience with teachers on this).

Baradakas wrote:

What would be so wrong about both being true?

God creates universe, God creates earth. Earth reaches a certain level of growth. God kills off dinosaurs to prepare the way for man. God creates mammilians, and among these is a mammal that slowly adapts over time, to become man. Other animals adapt to environments that God created, as God intended! How hard is that to understand? It sounds as likely as any explanation or "theory" that I have heard of so far. The only difference between my concept and Darwin's, is that he refused to bring God into it, yet my explanation is just as likely, because no one can disprove either concept!


Or can they?
-B

If God created man to look like him, would he look like a member of the ape family?

Good posts Foul.

Barad, I agree with you in the sense that it's possible, and, if you recall, that was the only way that I said I could possible reconcile the two sides.

However, the main problem I have is the very concept of a "Prime Mover". Of some external intelligence setting it in motion.

Lurch-- My own favourite example was when, upon the discovery of an orchid with an extremely long flower, Darwin hypothesised the existence of a moth with a 12-inch proboscis to pollinate it. His theory was mocked. Until the dicovery of just such a moth.

Granted, I suppose that these can be dismissed as examples of "micro-evolution", but doesn't Occam's Razor suggest that the scaling up of this evidence is the simplest explanation?

Dennis-- Not sure how free will encompasses the tsunami?

--Avatar

God didn't send the water. people live where they live. other folks decide not to spend money on good detection equipment. many people die. we have a choice, retain status quo or build better equipment. to stand on the sidelines or help these people.

better?

Much better. Can't disagree with you there. (Not that I think that god caused it anyway, but it's the principle, I'm sure you understand. )

Still, while on the topic, I'm not sure that detection equipment would have helped much. Imagine trying to evacuate those areas of hundreds of thousands of locals, and thousands of tourists, in the short time that would be available.

Admittedly, the death-toll would have been lower perhaps, but I'm not sure how significantly.

BTW, New estimates suggest 280,000 dead.

--Avatar

...House of Cards?????,,,Thats the point!!...If a better conclusion comes up the Scientific Process ALLOWS for change..Creationism..what part of CREATIONISM is PREPARED FOR CHANGE??..some of it,,or part of it or All of It?? yeaa, just what I thought...
..Amongst all the believers there seems to be a disparity in agreement..I mean..some say its all God s Will..others say free will.. Thats my point..Creationism is just one segment of the populations belief,,so what " version" is going to be taught where?....Does anybody get dizzy with all this circular thought?....and now we have human being saying what their God did or didn't do..oh to be so bold as to speak for God! ...MEL

Avatar said:

However, the main problem I have is the very concept of a "Prime Mover". Of some external intelligence setting it in motion.

If you have another theory, besides the old "cosmic accident" bit, I would be willing to listen. However, to theorize that the universe suddenly exploded into being from nothingness for absolutely no reason (reason would, by its nature denote intelligence), well, that just sounds silly to me. Where did the energy that caused the big bang come from? Since nothing existed in the space that existed before the universe did, would'nt that point to intentional creation? Therefore intelligent creation? If you can explain the creation of our known universe in any other way, again, I would be willing to listen.

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tool ... s/ruse.asp

Leading anti-creationist philosopher
admits that evolution is a religion

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.