Are there any creationists here?
Posted by asleep on a sunbeam on Sep 14, 2009 · Member since Aug 2009 · 287 posts
Sorry if this has been done before but I'm curious if there are any?
And if so why are you vegan/vegetarians?
Also I've just watched this brilliant debate. I have never seen him before, only heard about him. He has been very polite and understanding however this woman just doesn't seem to understand what evoultion is.
A debate between him and a creatish. Perhaps there are one where he's not so polite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs
i think that video just proves what bs evolution is... u almost have to have faith in evolution in the same way u have to have faith in God... facts cannot prove evolution... it's all a hypothesis... sorry i know that certain people in this forum only want to hear from PG but i thought i would voice my opinion (since PG is not the only person commenting on this issue)... we were never apes... we did not evolve from apes... we might be similar to apes (dna wise) ... but we r not... case closed
i think that video just proves what bs evolution is... u almost have to have faith in evolution in the same way u have to have faith in God... facts cannot prove evolution... it's all a hypothesis... sorry i know that certain people in this forum only want to hear from PG but i thought i would voice my opinion (since PG is not the only person commenting on this issue)... we were never apes... we did not evolve from apes... we might be similar to apes (dna wise) ... but we r not... case closed
Hopefully this is not true as I know very little on this subject! But I read today that although our DNA is 96 percent the same as an ape it is also 50 percent the same as bananas so I guess we are half banana. Some guys I know are even a little more banana than that!
Thinking about this is terms of the evolutionary picture that is presented in the development of modern man I ask again where would the process of natural selection or survival of the fittest be to the advantage in what we now see as mankind? Is he actually in his present form more able to survive than previously? How has natural selection produced a creature who now cannot even survive the enviroment he has polluted around him? It seems that natural selection should have foreseen this and we would see in mankind a type of filtering system for the dirty air and water in which he has to survive. Maybe this is even now occuring?
Natural selection cannot foresee anything. It's not like that. It is just adjusting to the present conditions, not future ones. If the pressures of pollution were great enough that people started dying, then YES, people with stronger respiratory systems (for example) would outlive others and reproduce, making more pollution-resistant people. But the environmental pressure would have to be very great.
You're not going to see human beings evolving in front of your eyes because evolution can take huge amounts of time. Using your analogy, if your family or a population of human beings lived on a mountainside, and the conditions were harsh enough that having long legs was a determining factor for survival, then yes, evolution would happen. If shorter-legged individuals could still survive (though with more difficulty) then evolution probably wouldn't occur--not enough pressure. But YOU as an individual are not going to spontaneously grow long legs because you have already been born! You will either cope with the conditions or not.
amy, facts DO prove evolution. We can watch evolution taking place very simply. We can't verify what happened the day modern man came into existence, but evolution does not purport to do that, like jessacita said earlier. What you are taking issue with is not evolution but the origins of life (human life, in particular).
amymylove - it's not that I don't want to hear from people in general, it's just that debating creationism seems pointless to me. However, I'm taken by how printerguy expresses his thoughts and I thought I'd dip a toe into this thread to hear what he had to say.
PRINTERGUY!!! I'M CALLING YOU OUT! That is NOT a "short presentation". :P It's over an hour. I've watched the first part of it. I found the original (?) website for it (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/), where it's in segments. I'm in the first 10 minutes or so. I got frustrated when the geo-engineer kind of misstated something about adaptation/evolution and the engineer misexplained physics - so I took a break, but I'll watch the whole thing. It might take me a week. Thanks for the response.
i think the whole evolution/ natural selection thing is a fact i just don't think we were once apes that evolved into what we r today... i think that's where creationism and evolution are divided imo
I began watching the documentary PG posted. I did notice the same thing that hh said about not knowing the definitions of adaptation vs. evolution, and a couple other details, but I think it's a pretty decent overview so far of the different viewpoints.
What I take issue with (somewhere in chapter 5?) is how people say that, since the conditions on the universe are exactly right to support life as we know it (i.e., we're not too close or far from the sun, Earth has the right atmospheric composition, etc), that means that there must be a creator. I think that's just plain backwards.
If the conditions were just slightly different, life as we know it wouldn't exist. I think the conditions are a precursor to the life, not vice versa--this is what evolution says too. I don't believe someone thought, "OK, I want these particular creatures to exist, so I'm going to establish the proper conditions." I think the conditions are what they are, and life evolves which can live under those conditions. If the Earth's atmosphere were slightly different, we wouldn't have humans, we would have some different life, perhaps.
It's no coincidence that geologic/astrologic conditions support human and animal life, and I think that is a testament to evolution, not creationism.
What I take issue with (somewhere in chapter 5?) is how people say that, since the conditions on the universe are exactly right to support life as we know it (i.e., we're not too close or far from the sun, Earth has the right atmospheric composition, etc), that means that there must be a creator. I think that's just plain backwards.
If the conditions were just slightly different, life as we know it wouldn't exist. I think the conditions are a precursor to the life, not vice versa--this is what evolution says too. I don't believe someone thought, "OK, I want these particular creatures to exist, so I'm going to establish the proper conditions." I think the conditions are what they are, and life evolves which can live under those conditions. If the Earth's atmosphere were slightly different, we wouldn't have humans, we would have some different life, perhaps.
It's no coincidence that geologic/astrologic conditions support human and animal life, and I think that is a testament to evolution, not creationism.
Exactly!
I'm glad you agree! It's just happenstance that humans exist. We're nothing special! If things happened differently, we wouldn't be here. Sometimes I think people just don't want to face that reality because it's kind of bleak and scary--it's nicer to think we were created because someone decided we were important.
I'm glad you agree! It's just happenstance that humans exist. We're nothing special! If things happened differently, we wouldn't be here. Sometimes I think people just don't want to face that reality because it's kind of bleak and scary--it's nicer to think we were created because someone decided we were important.
the statement above is a presumption at best, but cannot be known as fact.
even if - for the sake of argument - we say that everything we know about evolution is correct - we cannot at the same time speak for how evolution came about. For all we know - there may be a grizzly old grey bearded supernatural being, sitting back in his cozy recliner - and he intentfully put into motion a chain of events that he knew at some point to culminate in what now equates with "humanity"
can anyone really say?
I am sorry but I thought an hour was fairly short for a presentation covering such a large topic.
I think in my first post I said something that has been verified by the different posters and that is we find different well educated people on both sides of this issue. The evolutionists say that the creationists are wrong, and often call them close minded to their ideas which are based on scientific principles, such as, as they present, the law of entrophy and the creationists say the evolutionists are wrong, and close minded to their position as well. Now who are we to believe?
As KissMeKate says she believes that the conditions on Earth which support human life point to evolution, which JessaCita agrees with, while well-educated professors state their belief that this points to a Ceator. Each has their opinion, and there is really no evidence on this point which says one is right and the other is wrong. I think we would have to agree that either side could be right, that is, there could be a Creator who planned everything or there might not be. KissMeKate has the right and the freedom to say "I don't believe someone thought, "OK, I want these particular creatures to exist, so I am going to establish the proper conditions." But by saying this she thus limits her own mind to that possibility and closes it to any investigation of the creationists position and evidence which they may suggest to prove their point. This is why there is no profitable dialogue between creationists and evolutionists, as I have seen it, because each side is too quick to condemn the others views and close their minds to any possibility of them being wrong and the other side being right. Both sides.
The idea of me growing longer legs was just my attempt at lightening up the discussion even though I wish it would happen. But the question of why mankind evolved into it's present form still is an issue which I have not resolved in my mind. I don't see how the idea of survival of the fittest has produced the condition in mankind which we now see. It seems through natural selection man should be able to fly or something dramatic like that. That would be something would really help with his survival. But to me anyhow it seems that early man has many advantages over us today. He was much more in tune with his enviroment, more able to gather foods and live off the land, so to say. Even his physical makeup, although shown to be somewhat like a monkey in form was such as he would be able to survive in his enviroment better. How is it that modern man in his buisness suit and hairless body, well most of us anyhow, is exactly an improvement on his ancestors? And why is it that as man's mind has evolved, in adjusting to present conditions, as KissMeKate has suggested it has produced a world which is almost to the point of destroying this evolving creature when it should be doing just the opposite. Although early man is presented as some sort of primitive caveman mixed with ape like creature whose brain was supposedly much smaller and less capable of higher thought, why is it that he lived in a way which we might say was in a way to protect his own existence by not destroting all the life giving elements around him?
These are just questions, not from a creationist to evolutionist but just questions which come to my mind when this issue is rumbling around in my thick skull.
I am sorry but I thought an hour was fairly short for a presentation covering such a large topic.
Perhaps. It'll be easier to watch now that I found the site with the segments. Shorter segments at a time seem easier than an hour all at once.
To expand on why I don't see the use of debating creationism (although I like sharing thought-out perspectives) is that all religions have different creation stories. It's not even as simple as academic theories versus religion, because the religions disagree with each other about creation. I think people are free to believe what they want. As long as the argument doesn't involve teaching creationism in science classes in school, to each their own.
I tend to agree, hh. I really don't care what creation story/theory people choose to believe in (and honestly, it doesn't have that much impact on our daily lives anyway). I do get frustrated when evolution is categorized as just another theory alongside the religions, though--evolution is based in measurable data, and creationism can never be demonstrated in any impartial scientific way. They're not on the same playing field. Creationism is a story.
The elephant in the room, to me, is this: If we consider it unethical to teach creationism in schools--if we give people the "option" to believe in it--then how much validity does it have?
I guess I can't wrap my brain around putting my faith in one story when there are thousands of different stories to explain the same thing. They can't all be valid. But everyone thinks theirs is right.
And why is it that as man's mind has evolved, in adjusting to present conditions, as KissMeKate has suggested it has produced a world which is almost to the point of destroying this evolving creature when it should be doing just the opposite.
It is simply not true that man has evolved almost to the point of destroying itself. This might be true, on a long-term global scale, but in terms of the factors which encourage or prevent reproduction, humans have very few obstacles to procreation--that's why we're in trouble! Worsening environmental conditions might affect our long-term health, but evolution does not deal with this. Most people reproduce before the environment takes a toll on our bodies, so it's not a determining factor. Also, if you look at the history of man, we are living longer than we ever have, which favors evolution categorically. (Not to say that humans have evolved in a measurable way in the past 1000s of years, necessarily.....but we are better and better at surviving!) There is no way that we can say that human beings of the past were advantaged in terms of survival.
Again, as I said earlier, evolution doesn't anticipate environmental catastrophes. It is adjusting to present conditions. If an environmental catastrophe does occur, on a global scale, then evolution may very well occur.
I tend to agree, hh. I really don't care what creation story/theory people choose to believe in (and honestly, it doesn't have that much impact on our daily lives anyway). I do get frustrated when evolution is categorized as just another theory alongside the religions, though--evolution is based in measurable data, and creationism can never be demonstrated in any impartial scientific way. They're not on the same playing field. Creationism is a story.
The elephant in the room, to me, is this: If we consider it unethical to teach creationism in schools--if we give people the "option" to believe in it--then how much validity does it have?
I guess I can't wrap my brain around putting my faith in one story when there are thousands of different stories to explain the same thing. They can't all be valid. But everyone thinks theirs is right.
I see people's view's on creationism/ID as having incredibly profound impact on our lives. I can respect that many people may not believe in any form of "after life" or intelligent creator - and they may function just fine w/o those distinct beliefs. While - for many others - it's not just a belief - it's a "feeling" a "connection" - it's not science and it doesn't have to be. Take for example an arbitrary instance when someone gets a gut instinct about a loved one being injured - only to find out moments later their gut was correct. It's a connection to something that we don't understand at the moment and certainly don't have a science for - at the moment - but that doesn't make it any less ~real~. There's a lot that happens that there's no science for - but that doesn't take away the reality of the experience. For many others, they might not even feel that connection - maybe they believe just because they feel they have to have *something* to believe in - but regardless of what one believes and the inner motivation for their beliefs - our beliefs play a tremendous role in how we interact with and shape the world on a daily basis.
I don't see a correlation between "choosing whether or not to teach the subject matter in schools" and "validity of the subject matter". I don't want to speak for anyone else on this thread but for myself - my desire not to have "theology" taught in science - is because i don't think it's appropriate for science - but i do see merits in the material being offered in a (hopefully) well rounded theology class. In no way would i consider the subject matter not valid.
What one person may see as "a story" - another person may see as "their reality" . There are many people that have claims of very profound experiences - things we cannot begin to explain, physic phenomena, out of body experiences, near death experiences, deep meditations, all of these things we can easily scoff at if we haven't personally experienced them but at the same time - w/o having those experiences ourselves - how can we say what is a "story".
Not all spiritual philosophies mandate belief in one central God or spearhead or "story", if you will. There are many spiritual philosophies that are just the opposite, that believe that we (as humans) cannot possibly know the absolute truth - as such, we all see different shades of what amounts to essentially the same thing, and are encouraged to look within ourselves and trust in our own experiences. We might call it by different names, define it in different ways, have different and unique relationships with it - but that quintessential "it" still boils down to the same thing. A good analogy might be this, simply - my mother. To me and my siblings - she is seen as "mother". Despite all siblings seeing her as mother - it's safe to say that each sibling each has their own unique experiences/relationship with "mother". But branching out even further, mother is not only "mother" - mother is also "daughter" ... "wife"..."friend" ... "co-worker"..."random person on the train", etc etc etc - same person - but you could ask 100 different people and they'll all give you some semblance or theme of continuity when describing "mother" while at the same time - each telling their own individually unique perception of "mother".
I understand the reasons for believing in a creation story. I never said those feelings were not existent or valid. I don't think that has any bearing on the stance I posted--about whether evolution can be lumped in among creation stories. I still maintain that it cannot, for the reasons you just outlined.
Well, sure, if there was a comparative religion elective class, creation myths from different world religions would have their place. Creation myths are not science. There is a certain process for developing scientific theories that is not met by creation myths. I don't care if religion is addressed in public schools. I think there is a lot of fear and violence based around religion, so a comparative religion class might be a good thing. The argument to teach creationism in science classes has gone to the Supreme Court and has been defeated, but the argument is still being made. Evolution is based on evidence; creation myths are based on faith. They belong in different classes - science and comparative religion, respectively. Science classes should be reserved for theories and laws based on scientific principles.
(I use "creation myth" as an anthropological term.)
I agree--I think there is definitely a place for a comparative religion class. That would take some of the misunderstandings about religion out of the picture, one would hope. But I think such a class should be taught along the same lines as a history/sociological class--like, here are the religions, and here is what their tenets are, and here is where they originate, etc. Which is waaaaaay different than anything to do with evolution, which is science. Like hh said, there are certain criteria for what qualifies as scientific evidence, and that does not include strong feelings, traditions, or gut instincts. Just two different "disciplines," so to speak.
Agreed. In my mind, a comparative religion elective would be taught by a history teacher.
Some very good points have been made in the previous posts but a couple I would like to comment on. I think the argument for man evolving to the point where he now lives to a greter age than in previous generations would not hold much water in countries like Botswana or Malawi in Africa where the average age at death in about thirty. Obviously in our countries the age is much greater but it is not because of evolution but rather because of the advances in public health, cleanliness etc. Ask a creationist and as was discussed in an earlier post the Bible describes people such as Noah as living to the age of 900. Is there any evidence of this, or do we just have to accept everything by faith while evolutionists say their beliefs are solely based on good science? Yes there is evidence as I mentioned before and which can be seen by our own eyes, touched by our own hands. Take a trip to Turkey and close to Mount Ararat is a government built and run tourist center at the site of what has been accepted by their govenment and by many people in this world as the remains of the very ark which Noah built! You can see this evidence online without making the trip by going to the website of Wyatt Archaeological Research. Now close to this site was found an ancient foundation and stone fences marking out what appears to be a farm. There near that home was a gravesite which was raided by treasure hunters after it was discovered by the folks from WAR. In those graves were bodies of people over twelve feet tall! I know personally the people who have found these things. They have stayed in my home. I know them to be honest down to earth folks with no agenda besides to discover the truth. There did not make a fortune from any of their many discoveries. I myself did not know what to make of this evidence and was doubting it all until I saw them with my own eyes.
The other point I wanted to make was dealing with teaching creationism in the public school system. I do not agree with this myself which is not a position most Christian's would take. I think the public school system should not be influenced in any way by any religion. Maybe comparitive religions would be okay but even then I don't know if this could be presented in a way which presents each religion in a clear light. That is it seems there would always be some sort of slant put on the religions teachings which may not rightly represent what each religion actually believes. I know in the religion of which I believe there are so many factions each holding a little different philosopy that it would be almost impossible for anyone to really know which factions represents what this particular religion actually believes. I think anything dealing with religion should be left for either the schools of that particular religion to teach their children or for the parents to teach at home.
The last point I want to make, for tonight at least, is the thought that is being presented that evolution is based on scientific principles while creationism is based solely on faith. Now as I mentioned before I have no training in science to be able even to understand the scientific basis of evolution but I have seen many scientists who base their evidence for creation on what they call scientific principles. How do we understand how these scientists, some who even taught evolution, now from their own scientific inquiry have decided to believe in the creationist model?
Now how do I decide if this certain book is the word of God and another book may not be classified as such. ... Part of my decision is based on the accuracy of the history and prophetic parts of the Bible. … to keep it short I believe the Bible has, with a one hundred percent accuracy rate predicted historical events thousands of years prior to their actual occurrence. That doesn't take any faith to believe just an understanding of historical events and then comparing that understanding to the words of Scripture and then asking well how is that possible that the Bible predicted these things before they happened.
Interesting – thank you. My take is– I’m not personally familiar with the aspects that you refer to – in regards to events that the Bible has predicted (mostly not familiar w/the Bible in general, aside from in a broad manner of understanding). Not being familiar w/the specific events nor the passages that you feel correlate to these events – I then wonder to myself … were these passages very specific in their predictions or, were the passages a bit vague – thus lending themselves open to interpretation of how they might apply to current, modern day events.
With that being said, I’m honestly not suggesting it’s one or the other. I’m not suggesting the Bible is spot on in it’s predictions nor am I suggesting that people merely filled in the gaps where convenient. I would have to be more familiar with said passages and events to gather my own opinion on the same. Even if it was “filling in the gaps” – that doesn’t necessarily mean I’d find it inaccurate. I have had a few dreams that were total gibberish at the time of the dream. However, events unfolded later that day that symbolically related to each aspect of the dream – quite perfectly. So again, it would come down to, for me – personal opinion.
But in reading your words, it at least makes me curious about that aspect and thus, I’m just sharing what my next sequence of thoughts would then be.
But then the Bible is not just a history book. It is also a book dealing with character development. It gives stories and principles which are for the purpose of teaching how to live a godly life and guidance of how to achieve this goal.
The above may be true – but from my perception – the power of the Bible to provide guidance lay in one’s acceptance of the Bible as being the word of God. Otherwise, while it can still serve as guidance – as well as could any book (not to insinuate the Bible is just any book, or not) but then perhaps – w/o the same “profound” affect.
It is unfortunate that many calling themselves Christians do not use the Bible for this purpose and therefore give a bad example to those who do not understand what real Christianity is.
In a technical sense, I always viewed “being Christian” as belief that Christ is the son of God”. As far as what Christ actually taught (I imagine that an Agnostic view of Christ teachings might differ even more widely) and who is or is not actually following Christianity – I guess to me, that might perhaps be a different discussion.
Although this does imply the exercising of faith on my behalf yet it is by experiencing it that I testify to the truth of the God's Word, ( the words that God spoke to men to write down), as a power to help change my life and make me a better person. I know that may not satisfy you as to your question but I don't want to sound preachy. If you have any more direct questions about this I will try to answer them.
This makes sense to me – thank you. I put ~a lot~ of weight on “experience”. Who knows how much different my personal faith might be if not for the personal experiences that I fall back on. You haven’t sounded preachy – at all, and my questions are asked without expectations – in that, whatever your reply – I’m appreciative of the information and personal insights that you may offer – and in that – I am “satisfied”
That does not quite equate to an age of 900 years like the first man was claimed to live but there were other factors. The purity of the environment was one. The Bible states that in the beginning everything was very good. No pollution, no poisonous additives in the food, the soil was much more healthy than today, the water and air more pure. How much this would add to the live span, I don't know. There also some other things which are harder to explain such as the condition of the atmosphere previous to the flood. We hear today about the dangers of holes in the ozone layer. Radiation plays a great part in the aging of people today but evidence seemed to show that there was more of a barrier protecting the people from the harmful effects of this radiation.
These, in and of themselves– I can’t imagine having that much of an affect – if only because we’ve only really been living in this industrial age the past 200+ years or so. For all of humankind before that – I would imagine the environment to be just as pure, no pollution, additives in food, healthy soil (depending on the land, etc) – and people were living lives much shorter then they are today (of course – due to modern age medicines and whatnot).
I could explain more at another time if you are interested. We read in the verses above that God in His wisdom decided that man's live after the flood would be limited to around 120 years which is about as old as people live today.
This also doesn’t make much sense to me, because up until this current period in time – the lifespan was much much shorter. Even with that consideration, we’re still a very considerable leap from 120 years being “the average”. But in your passage above, you said “…would be limited”, not “would live to”. So maybe I’m looking at this incorrectly – maybe instead of saying “ok, man should live to 120 or so” maybe it’s more of “man will live till he lives, but no longer then 120 years or so” (thus “limited”)….just playing devil’s advocate against myself – which I think is a healthy thing to do.
All these factors played a role in limiting the length of man's life. Now, is there any evidence of this. Well there is. In his quest to find the landing place of Noah's ark there was quite a bit of other related objects or interesting sites found. It is important to note that the area where these things are found has not changed much for thousands of years and is also not very inhabited. So things that were there a long time ago have been undisturbed.
The story (or events) of Noah’s Ark were said to have taken place – how long ago – at least 2,000 going back to Christ, but then another few thousand I think before that – if not longer? With that, the question I might ask myself is – can we way with certainty – what areas were or were not inhabited over the period of 5,000 years (very rough guess in terms of timeline)?
Anyway while searching they came upon what appeared to be an old farmstead with stone fences and an old foundation for what appeared to be a house. Thinking that this was close to the landing place for the Ark, which is now an historic site protected by the government of Turkey, the thought arose that maybe this was the farm of Noah himself which he set up after leaving the Ark!
Was there reason to think this was “Noah’s farm” per’se, as opposed to any farmer who might have lived in that area at that given time?
What they did find was two graves, near to the house with grave markers and such. … But what they also found was skeletons around twelve feet tall! The bones were taken also and are in museums in the area. I have only seen pictures of these and videos of the grave sites but it gives credence to the claims of giant people who may have lived to older ages to get to such sizes. These pictures and videos are available and I guess you could go to the actual site if it is allowed now.
The 12 foot skeleton – that *sounds* interesting, thank you – definitely warranting further investigation on my end to see whatever I can come across on the internet, about the same.
There is no part of the Bible that says man should eat meat. The original diet was stated as vegan, vegetables were added a little later. Meat was allowed under certain strict guidelines only after the flood and was only supposed to be a temporary arrangement until the crops could be made to grow again. There were times when God tried to bring the people back to a vegan diet, such as in their wanderings in the wilderness after leaving Egypt but they lusted after flesh so he allowed them to follow their own desires. I think today God is trying once more to have people understand the benefits of a vegan diet, through the warnings of mad cow disease etc and through the teachings of such groups as vegweb. My church follows a strict vegan diet and teaches others through cooking schools how to adopt that lifestyle.
This doesn’t sound right. I remember many years ago, I was having a conversation on some dating sight – and I quoted scripture which I believed was in favor of a vegetarian diet and the people came back at me with many alternative scriptures in favor of eating meat. I’ll have to see if I can find those at some point.
I’m not sure I can agree about mad cow disease potentially being indicative of God trying to have people understand the benefits of a vegan diet – by that same logic – could not one conclude that the potato famine in Ireland in 1840 was God’s way of steering people away from eating potatoes?
It is late again and I still have to get up early. If you have any other questions please feel free. Any comments on these replies would also be appreciated.
Pleasure chatting with you!
Pages