Are you a creationist?

[Wishing on a star]

I kind of get it, though. Imagine how scary it would be to put your whole life into worshipping something, basing your entire understanding of the world around it. It's beyond an emotional attachment, letting it go would involve the rethinking of EVERYTHING you know and understand to be true. That's hard for people to let go; it's scary to stand there emotionally cold and stripped naked of your understanding of the world, to learn a new way of life.

WOW, just wow....

There may be a few religious zealots out there that these incredibly negative and judgmental assumptions could apply to...

But, I am NOT one of them.

 

[Nomi]

Nope, I do not feel like I am disagreeing with confirmed facts...
The above comments are cleary simply trying to paint me in a negative or ridiculous and closed minded light...

Please present some of these confirmed facts where there is empirical evidence of any organism or species changing/evolving into another.

How can I agree or disagree with facts that I do not know to exist???

I posted a while back with links to many examples of one species giving rise to another, speciation, but I'll put it here again for you. Yes, evolution has been and is observed, and these reports stand up to scrutiny of the scientific community.

Observed instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

More instances of observed speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

One common and easily observed instance of evolution is the reason we need new flu shots every year, the flu virus evolves to become resistant to the old vaccine.

Here is another good explanation, it is under the first heading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

More instances where speciation has been observed: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Observed_speciation

I can produce more links and instances if you need them. Hope this was helpful to clear your misconception!

 

[ford family]

Please present some of these confirmed facts where there is empirical evidence of any organism or species changing/evolving into another.

Look at the physiology of dolphins and whales. They were originally land mammals, perhaps like a hippopotamus, but evolved into sea creatures. However, they retain the bone structure of a land mammal, things like radius and ulna, finger bones etc.

ford family

 

[Wishing on a star]

I did take a quick look at the first of those links...

First, I noticed that they admitted that there were was very little data... that the beliefs regarding speciation had just been considered a 'given'.

Second, I noticed that some of the info was from reports/studies that go back as far as like 1912, where scientific knowledge and methods were simply not capable of making anywhere near the findings that they are today...

Thirdly, and most importantly...
I noticed that in the cases that I did glance at... in the end... the 'flies' were still 'flies', the primrose was still a primrose....

We must simply agree to disagree.

 

[Momvic5]

Well, it does change things with regard to the effect of the word as you were using it.

That's not the case. The evidence for the facts of evolution is incontrovertible. Science doesn't work like philosophy. Truth is determined by very clear rules that everyone agrees to.

That's why evolution belongs in science class, and creationism belongs in the church or in comparative religion classes (which is all that matters to me, by the way).

You can have your rules apply, to you person, in your home, and in your church.

Then skip the descriptive generalization and just look at the facts of evolution: The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Okay, so evolution has happened. It is true. It is factual. No generalization necessary.

And focusing just on that is fine with me, since it gets us to the exact same place.

Not at all. They're simply focusing on the facts.

Yes, your defintion of theory changes my thinking with regards to the word.

The facts of evolution do not make the idea of evolution the truth, according to your definition. The facts of evolution only describe the idea of evolution. The idea of evolution and it's description is limited to its facts. Its very strengh is its weakness.

Our fossil records do not merit as fact. They are highly questionable, and the rules surrounding them are not agreed upon by all. Our fossil records are interpretations of what is hoped to be a fact. Our fossil records are not proveable facts. They are considered implications. Generalization is required when using fossil record as a fact.

You can focus on the facts of evolution. I do not have a problem with that. The problem comes when the facts of evolution are equated with the truth of the idea. Evolution is only as strong as its facts and according to your definition of a theory, evolution's facts only describe evolution. The proven facts do not validate evolution nor prove it to be the truth.

 

[RitaE]

Originally posted by Ms.Pete - copied from the post above....
As for who Cain married, there's another possibility: The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve, and they had children. It's entirely possible that He also created other humans, but He didn't choose to tell us about those -- He only mentioned the first ones, then He moved on to other topics. If that is true -- and it may or may not be -- then Cain could've married one of those women. The Bible does mention cities in early Genesis, so there were other people around. Had Adam and Eve lived long enough that their children populated cities? I don't know.

Genetic evidence does clearly point to a single 'Eve'.

Are you speaking of the discovery of the Mitochondrial Eve? If so, not she was not the single woman alive during her time. She is the single woman who every human on Earth can trace back solely through the maternal line. There were many other women (humans) populating the Earth at the time, which is believed to be about 3000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Eve

Personally I believe in Evolution and I believe in a Creator. I don't believe in the seven 24 hour day theory. I think the concept of weeks and days is Earth specific based upon the rotation of our planet and the specifics of our solar system. Since the Creator is patently not bound by the logistics of our Earthly cycle, I don't see the logic in limiting his/her actions to them. I think doing so is insisting that the creator is just like humanity, when obviously whatever the Creator is, he/she is much more.

I am also not a Bible literalist. I have my doubts about many parables in the Bible being solely factual. I look at the Bible as more of a guide toward a God inspired life, not a recording of history.

 

[bicker]

Yes, your defintion of theory changes my thinking with regards to the word.

As I noted in the message you read, the material you read was from Scientific American. My primary role in presenting these facts to you was copying and pasting.

I'm sorry so many folks choose to reject scientific fact because they feel it threatens their religious faith.

 

[Momvic5]

As I noted in the message you read, the material you read was from Scientific American. My primary role in presenting these facts to you was copying and pasting.

I'm sorry so many folks choose to reject scientific fact because they feel it threatens their religious faith.

Scientific facts can only improve faith. It is the scientific world that is threatened by faith because the scientific world is limited to its scientific facts. To generalize, to imply, or to suggest demands controversy and risks rejection. Ironically, scientific facts are not only a strength but an undeniable weakness as well. The unknown is what drives the scientific world, and yet the unknown is not of value in scientific facts.

Faith or no faith, evolution is a big camel to swallow even with its proven facts. The facts of evolution may be enough for some and may hold in a defintion of theory, but the unknowns are what reveal the whole truth.

I have enjoyed our discussion. You have allowed me to think deeper and to appreciate your thinking. I don't agree, but it has been interesting.

Have a great evening.

 

[Buckalew11]

Look at the physiology of dolphins and whales. They were originally land mammals, perhaps like a hippopotamus, but evolved into sea creatures. However, they retain the bone structure of a land mammal, things like radius and ulna, finger bones etc.

ford family

You saw them on land? Sorry, I could not resist.

 

[bicker]

Scientific facts can only improve faith.

Indeed. I'm a Pantheist, and my faith is actually supported by what science has proven.

It is the scientific world that is threatened by faith because the scientific world is limited to its scientific facts.

Not in the slightest. Science endures, because it is truth. The threat is not to science, but to people, specifically to their freedom, stemming from a penchant for those who reject pluralism and reject science to work to impose their personal vision, not of creation, but of strictures they've chosen to subscribe to, onto everyone, regardless of the fact that many of those people hold to different values.

Faith or no faith, evolution is a big camel to swallow even with its proven facts.

Nowhere near as hard to swallow as creationism, AFIAC. Evolution, collectively (the theory and the facts), implicitly acknowledges its limitation, while creationism fails to do so. Science welcomes proof of contrary facts, while creationism holds that it is inviolate, and generally, forces that hold to creationism attack those who would question the creationism story.

Remember, the question of this thread isn't whether or not you believe in evolution, but rather whether or not you're a creationist. So putting aside evolution as the alternative, the issue is just a matter of creationism, yes or no: There is no evidence to support "yes", no reason to believe it is a foundation for anything vital, and therefore (and this is the only important part) no reason to hold it out as foundation for asserting strictures interpreted (correctly or via distortion) from the same book as the creationism story.

Nice chatting with you too.

 

[SunFloridaDisney]

I tend to believe in evolution, but I also believe God started things.
I do NOT believe in creationism, the way I understand it . There is a large museum in our area, it has been controversial from its beginnings. Many many people go there, maybe you can find some information relevant to this discussion.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

 

[bicker]

To be clear, I also believe God started things, but God isn't an old man sitting in an office with white floors floating on clouds. I believe God is the totality of all existence, not a conscious "person" taking deliberate actions to make things happen a certain way. AFAIC, no omnipotent omni-loving God would create a world like ours. My belief is that the world is affected, shaped, driven, by God's thoughts and actions, because each one of us, every living thing, and every speck of dust, is part of God, and each bit, to its ability*, thinks and acts, thereby constituting the totality of what we see as God's actions.

Not one bit of that is contradicted by science. Science actually supports every bit of it.
____________
* I underline that because I cannot tell you how often people read a message like this and fail to read important qualifications in it, and then go off on some ignorant tangent as a result.

 

[Wishing on a star]

To be clear, I also believe God started things,

...

but no omnipotent omni-loving God would create a world like ours.

Wow, just wow... you have a very interesting belief in 'GOD'..
I really see no way to reconcile the two statements above.

So, God actually exists, and has the power and ability to 'start' everything...
But, then is just some esoteric powerless being at the same time.
Like the proverbial 'Cosmic Cow'.

I can now see how your views have been so confilcted.

 

[bicker]

And this is perhaps why you have, with respect, such a hard time understanding perspectives other than yours. I'll try to remedy that:

Do this: Pick up a pen. Let it go. Gravity made it fall.

It is the difference between intention and effect. God has effect, but not intention, just like gravity (just one aspect of God) has effect, but not intention. There is no supernatural voodoo; that's all myth. All there is is science.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

 

[Laura]

Wow, just wow... you have a very interesting belief in 'GOD'..
I really see no way to reconcile the two statements above.

So, God actually exists, and has the power and ability to 'start' everything...
But, then is just some esoteric powerless being at the same time.
Like the proverbial 'Cosmic Cow'.

I can now see how your views have been so confilcted.

My beliefs are similar to bicker's. Basically, my notion is that god or a creative force started everything, but this deity doesn't interfere directly with our lives. We must learn from our own mistakes and those of others. We made civilization as it is now.

 

[live4christp1]

Yes, I believe in creationism. I believe in a literal 24 hour day - 7 day period as given in the account in Genesis. I do believe that the dinosaurs were created right along with all the other animals in the creation period. I believe in microevolution (Main Entry:
mi•cro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation:
\-ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən also -ˌē-və-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1911
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level ) as opposed to macroevoluation (Main Entry:
mac•ro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation:
\ˈma-krō-ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən also -ˌē-və-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1939
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
— mac•ro•evo•lu•tion•ary \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective )

Wanted to add these two links. Favorite sites on the subject.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.icr.org/

 

[Momvic5]

Yes, I believe in creationism. I believe in a literal 24 hour day - 7 day period as given in the account in Genesis. I do believe that the dinosaurs were created right along with all the other animals in the creation period. I believe in microevolution (Main Entry:
mi•cro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation:
\-ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən also -ˌē-və-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1911
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level ) as opposed to macroevoluation (Main Entry:
mac•ro•evo•lu•tion
Pronunciation:
\ˈma-krō-ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən also -ˌē-və-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1939
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
— mac•ro•evo•lu•tion•ary \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective )

Wanted to add these two links. Favorite sites on the subject.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.icr.org/

I just wanted to say thank you for the sites you posted.

My DS12 is a big science guy (Creationist of course), and he will enjoy reading those sites.

 

[live4christp1]

I just wanted to say thank you for the sites you posted.

My DS12 is a big science guy (Creationist of course), and he will enjoy reading those sites.

You are welcome! Hope you all enjoy them. There are some great topics there. Lots of info.

This is a great article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days