Calling all Creationists!

[Teresa Pitman]

Mikelly, I think I tried to be clear in my explanation that I was NOT saying that the various dog breeds represented evolution. I was simply using that to illustrate how DNA mutations occur and create diversity (in the case of dogs, helped to happen in a very, very short period of time by humans). Perhaps you can see how, over sufficiently long periods of time, the differences between one group of animals descended from a particular ancestor and another group descended from the same ancestor are so great that they become different species.

I don't know how you calculate the odds you describe as "astronomical" but I don't have any difficulty in seeing this all has having happened "by chance." It seems an entirely logical process to me!

Teresa

 

[richmond282]

Thank God most of our lawmakers fully understand the separation of church and state.

Seperation of church and state was intended to keep the government out of religion, not the other way around.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Mikelly, I think I tried to be clear in my explanation that I was NOT saying that the various dog breeds represented evolution. I was simply using that to illustrate how DNA mutations occur and create diversity (in the case of dogs, helped to happen in a very, very short period of time by humans). Perhaps you can see how, over sufficiently long periods of time, the differences between one group of animals descended from a particular ancestor and another group descended from the same ancestor are so great that they become different species.

I don't know how you calculate the odds you describe as "astronomical" but I don't have any difficulty in seeing this all has having happened "by chance." It seems an entirely logical process to me!

Teresa

Yes, you did explain yourself very clearly. I appreciate your answer. I do disagree with you. I've reread your answer and it appears to me that you are describing adaptation rather than evolution. Especially in your wolf/dog analogy-I have no argument that adaptation occurs, has occured, and probably will occur. But how does adaptation explain the existance of such very diverse animals? You've explained how domesticated dogs came from wolves. What about cats? Ants? Blue whales? Eagles?

Regarding mutations, aren't they generally rare? And aren't they generally unfavorable-meaning, they hurt the animal rather than help? What do you think the odds are of favorable mutation occuring after favorable mutation after favorable mutation to create all the various kinds of animal life we see?

 

[Mikelly1221]

=smartestnumber5;27343838]I do teach about something a little bit like intelligent design--in philosophy class when we do arguments for and against God's existence. (The original philosophical intelligent design arguments go back to Aquinas in the 1200s and William Paley in the 1800s. And as a philosophical argument, Palely's argument is open to serious objections.) I have no problem with this being taught in philosophy class--I teach it myself! But I do not see how the view can be said to count as science since some of its proponents admit that it can't be checked by experimental evidence and it fails to meet many of the criteria philosophers of science use to demarcate science and non-science:

* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

Could you show me how evolution meets all those criteria? I've never really heard it put forth.

Also, I've never quite understood how the intelligent design view is supposed to be presented. Who is this intelligent designer after all--how is she/he/it to be characterized? Surely there is no reason to suppose if there is an intelligent designer it is anything like the Judeo-Christian God or is a supernatural being at all. (Indeed, this in itself presents a puzzle. How can science tell us anything about that which is supernatural?) It could be the flying spaghetti monster. It could be aliens from another universe. It could be an all-powerful evil demon.
Do all of those possibilities have to be brought up and explored in class? (Would anybody be happy with their kid coming home and saying "My biology teacher told us how people came to exist today--the flying spaghetti monster aliens designed the universe and all the natural forces that led to our existence?) What about all of the philosophical arguments that demonstrate that the existence of a higher being is unlikely if not impossible--must they be talked about in biology class? Surely we can't go telling kids that maybe an evil demon created the universe without also giving them all of the counter evidence against the possibility right? But the counter-evidence is not empirical but philosophical--so now it looks like biology class is becoming philosophy class.

This might be a good topic for a comparative religions class. Now that an Intelligent Designer has been acknowledged, how has man tried to explain who this Designer is? How has this Designer revealed Himself? How are they similar/different? Great topic!

And where do we draw the line if we let in intelligent design. If it is allowed to be taught as science in science class as science, then what about other views that some people have about science? Some scientists don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. Should we teach that as an alternative to the accepted scientific view that HIV is the cause of AIDS? If kids take a psychology class, does the course have to give equal time to the scientology view that psychology/psychiatry is quackery?

Do the alternative scientists have a leg to stand on? (I have no idea if they do or not.) If not, the argument will be shot down. Same for the scientologists view. Does evolution have a leg to stand on, or are there holes in the argument that no one wants to mention or talk about? I think that evolution has been put out there as "THE ANSWER" for so long that everyone just believes it without asking questions. Personally, I haven't heard anything conclusive yet. It is easier for me to believe in an Intelligent Designer created life as we know it than "it just happened".

 

[haley123]

I am a Christian Creationist.

 

[c4a]

QUOTE=smartestnumber5;27340260]Could you please find me a legitimate scientific source that says that a theory becomes a law when it is proven true?

ETA: How could it possibly be the case that a theory becomes a law when you are saying that a law explains how and a theory explains why. How could a theory (which explains why) suddenly become something that explains how just by being proven true?

[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

No where in my statement did I say that a "theory turns into a law."
Go back, reread it S L O W L Y. I said a law can be used as evidence (paraphrasing) to support a theory's validity. A theory or hypothesis cannot be used to support a law's validity. This is because a theory or hypothesis contains conjecture or assumptions...the "why". How and why are two different questions.

Am I the only one who notices that this thread was started with the intent to discuss "creationalism" and "evolution"...has turned into a discussion on the definitions "theory vs. law"? May we get back to the original topic, please?

I believe in evolution because I have seen it-I know it exists. Cells, genes, viruses...do it all the time.

However, evolution is a process. It is something going from one state of existance (pt. A) and changing/adapting to become another state of existance (pt. B). For the evolutionary process to take place...there must already be something in existance. To me, evolution does NOT take the place of Creationalism...it just enhances it. That is science...logical.

Of course, this leads to the speculation of "Who Created?" and "Who created the Creator"? That is faith.

 

[live4christp1]

Yes I am.

 

[Mikelly1221]

[/COLOR][/B][/COLOR]

I believe in evolution because I have seen it-I know it exists. Cells, genes, viruses...do it all the time.

However, evolution is a process. It is something going from one state of existance (pt. A) and changing/adapting to become another state of existance (pt. B). For the evolutionary process to take place...there must already be something in existance. To me, evolution does NOT take the place of Creationalism...it just enhances it. That is science...logical.

Of course, this leads to the speculation of "Who Created?" and "Who created the Creator"? That is faith.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't it also be logical to say that if something exists then someone put it there, instead of saying it came about all by itself? If I see a book on a table, I say, logically "Who left the book on the table?" rather than "How did the book come out of the table?" or "How did the table make part of itself a book?" Even though I didn't see it, I have faith that someone put the book on the table, and I logically came to that conclusion.

Edit: Sorry about my computer illiteracy-I'm having a time working the quotes!

 

[TheGoofster]

First of all, yes I believe in creation 100%

Secondly, for all of you who say that Creation is nothing more than religion (or perhaps a better word being faith). Let's start at the beginning. Yes, I have faith. I have faith that God created everything just like it says in Genesis. In fact my faith in God covers all the possible questions that come with a creation. Where did energy come from? God Where did the scientific laws come from? God. My faith in God coves all the possible questions I could have.
But now let's look at Evolution. You say it's fact not faith.
OK, so how did everything begin? Billions of years ago there was a lot of dust in space. Where did that dust come from? Nobody knows. So you have faith that dust suddenly appeared (you obviously can't "prove" where the dust came from, but you believe it happened). Eventually all this dust got drawn together. Why? Where did the energy come from for this to happen? Again, you believe that it happened (faith). This new ball of dust (which contained all the material in the universe but was smaller than a period on a piece of paper - which makes no sense, but again is "believed" to be true) started spinning faster and faster - again why did it spin? Where did the energy, or driving force come from? who knows but you believe it happened.
After millions or billions of years this ball exploded (the big bang). Why did it explode? What caused it to explode? answer - you don't know but you believe it happened. From this explosion came everything, including scientific laws (like the laws of thermodynamics, etc....)
I could go on, and talk about organic life somehow forming from inorganic materials, and so on, but I'll stop here.
So what do we have?
1) People who believe that God created all things in a perfect way, all laws, and energy in a perfect ordered fashion.
2) People who believe in mysterious space dust being somehow drawn together to unexplainably start spinning, and for what ever reason exploding, and throwing out all matter that somehow decided to form itself into the incredible world that we now have.

If I were to say that I was walking along in the desert and came across a brand new computer with all the bells and whistles, and my theory for explaining how that computer got there was that after millions of years, that computer had evolved from a rock. People would call me an idiot. Obviously someone designed and built that computer, and put it there. That would be the only explanation. Yet if I look at a little baby, and say, wow, isn't that amazing. A creature a billion times more complex and intricate than any computer is here because over millions of years it evolved from mud, the same people would shake my hand and say "you got it".

I don't care if you want to believe in Evolution or Creation. But to try and say that one is based on faith (believing) in a creator, while the other is based on fact is just ridiculous. The fact is that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a creator.

I could go on for a long time about the so called facts of evolution, and give you just as many, if not more "facts" about a young Earth, but I'll stop here.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. For those that say that God created everything, but it wasn't in actual days (one day = a thousand years). Genesis tells us that on day 3 God created the plants, and on day 4 God created the Sun. A plant can live one day without the sun, but it's not going to live a thousand years. They were literal days (24 hours), and besides the context of one day = a thousand years has nothing to do with creation.

 

[Laura]

First of all, yes I believe in creation 100%

Secondly, for all of you who say that Creation is nothing more than religion (or perhaps a better word being faith). Let's start at the beginning. Yes, I have faith. I have faith that God created everything just like it says in Genesis. In fact my faith in God covers all the possible questions that come with a creation. Where did energy come from? God Where did the scientific laws come from? God. My faith in God coves all the possible questions I could have.
But now let's look at Evolution. You say it's fact not faith.
OK, so how did everything begin? Billions of years ago there was a lot of dust in space. Where did that dust come from? Nobody knows. So you have faith that dust suddenly appeared (you obviously can't "prove" where the dust came from, but you believe it happened). Eventually all this dust got drawn together. Why? Where did the energy come from for this to happen? Again, you believe that it happened (faith). This new ball of dust (which contained all the material in the universe but was smaller than a period on a piece of paper - which makes no sense, but again is "believed" to be true) started spinning faster and faster - again why did it spin? Where did the energy, or driving force come from? who knows but you believe it happened.
After millions or billions of years this ball exploded (the big bang). Why did it explode? What caused it to explode? answer - you don't know but you believe it happened. From this explosion came everything, including scientific laws (like the laws of thermodynamics, etc....)
I could go on, and talk about organic life somehow forming from inorganic materials, and so on, but I'll stop here.
So what do we have?
1) People who believe that God created all things in a perfect way, all laws, and energy in a perfect ordered fashion.
2) People who believe in mysterious space dust being somehow drawn together to unexplainably start spinning, and for what ever reason exploding, and throwing out all matter that somehow decided to form itself into the incredible world that we now have.

If I were to say that I was walking along in the desert and came across a brand new computer with all the bells and whistles, and my theory for explaining how that computer got there was that after millions of years, that computer had evolved from a rock. People would call me an idiot. Obviously someone designed and built that computer, and put it there. That would be the only explanation. Yet if I look at a little baby, and say, wow, isn't that amazing. A creature a billion times more complex and intricate than any computer is here because over millions of years it evolved from mud, the same people would shake my hand and say "you got it".

I don't care if you want to believe in Evolution or Creation. But to try and say that one is based on faith (believing) in a creator, while the other is based on fact is just ridiculous. The fact is that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a creator.

I could go on for a long time about the so called facts of evolution, and give you just as many, if not more "facts" about a young Earth, but I'll stop here.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. For those that say that God created everything, but it wasn't in actual days (one day = a thousand years). Genesis tells us that on day 3 God created the plants, and on day 4 God created the Sun. A plant can live one day without the sun, but it's not going to live a thousand years. They were literal days (24 hours), and besides the context of one day = a thousand years has nothing to do with creation.

I have no issue with people who believe that the universe was created by a deity and still think the Big Bang and evolution happened. That's what I believed when I was a Christian (specifically, a Catholic). It makes perfect sense to wonder how the Big Bang occurred.

It's quite another thing to say things like it takes more belief to think evolution is true than to think Genesis is a literal story. Evolution is absolutely based on facts, and Genesis isn't, nor is Young Earth Creationism. Young Earth Creationism isn't scientifically sound, it takes a foregone conclusion (that the earth is about 6000 years old) and tries to twist what we know about science to fit this notion.

 

[juligrl]

Why can't I believe in both?

I believe God created everything AND it has evolved over time. What's the conflict?

 

[TheGoofster]

I have no issue with people who believe that the universe was created by a deity and still think the Big Bang and evolution happened. That's what I believed when I was a Christian (specifically, a Catholic). It makes perfect sense to wonder how the Big Bang occurred.

It's quite another thing to say things like it takes more belief to think evolution is true than to think Genesis is a literal story. Evolution is absolutely based on facts, and Genesis isn't, nor is Young Earth Creationism. Young Earth Creationism isn't scientifically sound, it takes a foregone conclusion (that the earth is about 6000 years old) and tries to twist what we know about science to fit this notion.

You keep saying that but you don't provide any of these facts. If evolution were based on facts it wouldn't be called a theory. Even the most die-hard evolutionists still call it a theory because that it what it is.
We have lots of facts. Fact - the Earth is here. Fact - we have scientific laws. Fact - the sun rises every day. And so on. What Evolution and Creation do is try to explain these facts the best way they can. Some believe that the best way to explain these facts is with evolution, others believe the best way to explain these facts is with creation.
Neither evolution nor creation is provable, so we do our best to interpret what we know with theories. But neither theory is a fact, they both require belief (and again belief is what faith is all about).
So if someone wants to believe that that computer evolved from a rock, that's their choice. I'll stick to my belief that it was designed by a designer.

 

[Jenvenza]

I am definitely NOT a creationist.

I guess it is easier to believe in creationism than evolution, because if you believe everything the bible says, you would of course believe in creationism.

But with all that aside, I do not get how people can believe in it and not believe in evolution. My FIL doesnt believe dinosaurs ever exhisted. It blows my mind.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Why can't I believe in both?

I believe God created everything AND it has evolved over time. What's the conflict?

Just clarifying so I can understand: Is your belief is that God used evolution to create the world/ie. each day in the Bible represents a period of time rather than a literal day? Or that he created the first of everything and then stepped back and evolution took its course?

 

[jimmiej]

Oh yeah, and one more thing. For those that say that God created everything, but it wasn't in actual days (one day = a thousand years). Genesis tells us that on day 3 God created the plants, and on day 4 God created the Sun. A plant can live one day without the sun, but it's not going to live a thousand years. They were literal days (24 hours), and besides the context of one day = a thousand years has nothing to do with creation.

Goofster, as a brother in Christ, I really respect your opinion. However, I have two comments. I'd never considered the plants/sun issue. Makes sense. Secondly, why do you feel the "one day = a thousand years" doesn't apply here. I see no restrictions in that passage.

 

[c4a]

I have no problems with Intelligent Design being discussed in its proper context.

It is not science, therefore it should not be taught or discussed in a science class.

And not only is it not a science, it is one particular religion's viewpoint. Children in the classroom that do not believe in Christianity should never have it shoved down their throats.

It is a belief of the Christian Religion, so could properly be discussed in a classroom that is comparing and contrasting the different religions of the Worlds and how they view creation.

If parents want their children to learn Creationism along with or instead of Evolution, their church or a religiously affiliated private school would be excellent places to explore this belief.

I have no problem with creationalism not being taught in a science class.

And this is not so much aimed at you as it is at several others on this thread.

I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CHRISTIAN BASHING GOING ON IN THIS THREAD!!!:
As Christians we DO NOT own creationalism, Moses, Noah's Ark or any of the other uneducated, bigoted b.s. that is being spewed in this thread against us...we EMBRACE THEM!
Nor, do the majority of the Christians I know cram that ONLY creationalism be taught in our schools.
We are told, though, that our children may not bow their heads in the school cafeteria before lunch and SILENTLY ask the Lord's blessing. We are told that our children will be expelled from school for such practices because someone has a problem with a CHILD bowing their head in silence. We are TOLD that even though the 10 commandments are the basis of the Magna Carta, and the laws of our country they may ONLY be presented along with other legal documents ( usually by people who do not even belong to the community in question and before their rally had never even been to that community AND against the communities wishes (even with a petition that listed EVERY SINGLE VOTER IN THE DISTRICT for the hanging of the 10 commandments). We are TOLD that the band may play the "Star Spangled Banner"-however, it may NOT be sung because "Oh, Say" is an indirect reference to God-and even though it IS our national anthem...it may be insulting to those who do not believe in God.
I AM SICK & TIRED OF THIS WISHY-WASHY ONE SIDE POLITICALLY CORRECT BS!
Before bashing Christians and spouting that WE are the ones who are "creationalism's only ally...learn the facts about the major religions! Christianity has it's roots in Judism-the basis of the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people. Many of these things have been PROVEN true through archeology. (Links WILL BE LISTED BELOW!)The first 5 books are the history of Abraham-the "father" of both the Jewish linage and the Muslim (the Torah and the Koran, respectfully).
Nor are the Abramic religions (Islam, Judism, Christianity) the only religions that believe in creationalism...Hinduism, Buddhism, and the majority of the monotheistic religions belive in some form of creationalism.
If you want a thread with intersting debate that is one thing. However,if you want a thread for the purpose of belittling or verbally persecuting religous groups...then have the guts (or a set of brass ones) to name the thread what it truly is..."SLAM THE CHRISTIANS" or "Down with Christians". It is much easier (and devious) to hide one's intent though, isn't it?
I really don't care if you believe in something or if you believe in nothing-that is between you and God or you and....I guess, you. Although a belief in "Nothing" is a belief in something.

Either way, you'll be in my prayers.

Links promised are below. Oh, and for all the Unbelievers (Atheist)-I kept the religous owned sites to a min. for you -you're welcome.
Sodom & Gamorrah
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/466227/sodom_and_gomorrah_has_archeology_found.html?cat=37
All about Archeology
www.allaboutarchaeology.org/bible-archaeology.htm


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

 

[TheGoofster]

Goofster, as a brother in Christ, I really respect your opinion. However, I have two comments. I'd never considered the plants/sun issue. Makes sense. Secondly, why do you feel the "one day = a thousand years" doesn't apply here. I see no restrictions in that passage.

The scripture in Peter (2 Peter chapter 3) is actually talking about the Second coming of Christ. It's talking about the fact that no one knows when this will happen. A lot of people want to try and put a time for when it will occur, but nobody knows. It's also talking about God's patience, and this is where the verse comes in that says a day is as a thousand years. God is not bound to time like we are, whereas we get impatient, he doesn't. When Christ returns it will be unexpected.
I think a lot of the confusion comes in because it does talk about creation, but it is using creation to demonstrate God's power. That He who created all things is all powerful and that He has a special plan that is not like man's plan. Then it says that Christ will return, but nobody knows only God, and that for Him, time is unlike it is for us. The reference of a day = a thousand years is not referring to the creation.

Another thing to consider about Theistic Evolution (where God set everything in motion, but then let it evolve on it's own). That is not a very powerful or wise God. The God I serve is all powerful, He doesn't need to depend on confusion, accident, trial and error, and death to get what he wants. The God I serve is wise enough and powerful enough to get it right the first time. Evolution depends on trial and error, mutations, mistakes, and death. Romans 5:12 says "that by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world and DEATH by sin". Before Adam sinned, there was no death in the world. That is not compatible with Theistic Evolution.

 

[Mikelly1221]

Regarding Christian-bashing, while there may have been some Christian-bashing posts, most of the people who have responded to my posts have been respectfully disagreeing, and I hope I have done the same.

Goofster, excellent post!

 

[juligrl]

Just clarifying so I can understand: Is your belief is that God used evolution to create the world/ie. each day in the Bible represents a period of time rather than a literal day? Or that he created the first of everything and then stepped back and evolution took its course?

Sure - both, I think. I'm comfortable with both scripture and science and could see how a big bang = there was light (night & day come later - in my mind that's the planets and stars and stuff getting organized just as our creator (God) wanted them). I believe that a biblical "day" isn't a day, but a period of time instead. I also believe that everything was created according to a plan and the strongest and fittest species survive and continue to evolve. I also do believe that everything - including humans were created by God. If that doesn't confuse you then I don't know what will!

 

[Kath2003]

So what do we have?
1) People who believe that God created all things in a perfect way, all laws, and energy in a perfect ordered fashion.
2) People who believe in mysterious space dust being somehow drawn together to unexplainably start spinning, and for what ever reason exploding, and throwing out all matter that somehow decided to form itself into the incredible world that we now have.

You missed out part of #2: "...and are still trying to find the answers to all those questions".

If I were to say that I was walking along in the desert and came across a brand new computer with all the bells and whistles, and my theory for explaining how that computer got there was that after millions of years, that computer had evolved from a rock. People would call me an idiot. Obviously someone designed and built that computer, and put it there. That would be the only explanation.

The computer is an inanimate object. It isn't and never was, nor will it ever be, alive. It doesn't have the power to change it's form, it contains no life. At best, this is a really bad analogy.

Yet if I look at a little baby, and say, wow, isn't that amazing. A creature a billion times more complex and intricate than any computer is here because over millions of years it evolved from mud, the same people would shake my hand and say "you got it".

"...and here's the evidence".

Oh yeah, and one more thing. For those that say that God created everything, but it wasn't in actual days (one day = a thousand years). Genesis tells us that on day 3 God created the plants, and on day 4 God created the Sun. A plant can live one day without the sun, but it's not going to live a thousand years. They were literal days (24 hours), and besides the context of one day = a thousand years has nothing to do with creation.

You know there are plants which don't need the sun to survive, right?