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
as far as i am concerned evolution does try to claim how the earth began... hence all the molecules or whatever coming together and evolving into different things and eventually evolving into animals... i don't understand why most of u r claiming it is not about that? and to say we evolved from a species of apes? where's the proof in that? who can prove this? just like who can prove what pluto is made out of? it's all a hypothesis... so they found a bunch of ape remains that changed a bit over time and slowly became the creature we r today? apes are apes and humans are humans
Evolution only relates to organisms, not to the origins of the universe or even the origins of life. It only applies to things which are already living and reproducing. Things like the big bang are not related to evolution. Completely different branches of science - astrophysics versus biology.
Saying that humans evolved from a species of ape - well, we ARE a species of ape right now - but it does not mean that we evolved from chimpanzees or what have you. It means we share common ancestors. Say your grandmother has two children, your mother and your aunt, who each have children of their own. You are related to your cousins, but do not descend from them. You both descend from your grandmother. That's the principle at work - humans and other species of ape have ancestors in common, but the lines split, and the descendants are modern-day ape species, including humans. The proof is in skeletal remains of hominid species like homo sapiens neanderthalensis, homo erectus, homo habilis, australopithecus... all branches off the chain that eventually lead to cro-magnon man and to us, homo sapiens sapiens. While this evolution was taking place, the other branches before the early humans branched off in different directions, finding themselves in surroundings where different genetic mutations proved advantageous, meaning they evolved along a different path.
Thank you.
Amy, you can say all you want that evolution tries to claim how the earth began, but the TRUTH is that it doesn't. It's not open to opinion. Evolution has nothing to do with that.
To quote KMK:
Evolution does not address how life came to be. Evolution explains what causes the numbers of species with certain traits to increase or decrease. It is very simple--it just describes how the existing species at any given time change in population and characteristics.
I'm not sure we all understand evolution properly--it's making it hard to have a discussion.
You're probably grouping them together because many Creationists (as we've discussed here) don't believe in evolution. Creationists believe that the world was created by God, then humans were created shortly after. Evolution describes how organisms (including, but not limited to, humans) evolved to exist in their current form. It says NOTHING about how the world began; just how "life" as we know it came to be. Technically, someone could believe that God created the Earth, and STILL believe in evolution because perhaps God created the first organisms, and then nature took it from there. (I don't believe this, but I can understand how someone would. I just don't understand why Creationism & evolution have to be mutually exclusive for so many people. You can believe in God & still believe in scientific facts...) I understand that a person might not believe that evolution is responsible for the FIRST life, but I just can't wrap my head around anyone denying that life has evolved since then.
Also, many people here have shared & linked evidence of evolution, yet you are still asking "where's the proof in that?" It's right in this thread, for starters. It's here for you to explore if you were interested. You could also look into it yourself if you wanted to form an educated opinion on this matter. The fact that you continue to say "apes are apes, humans are humans" demonstrates that you aren't really listening to (or reading) what many of us are explaining to you (and reiterated by Narcissus in the post above).
As I keep saying, everyone has the right to believe what they want - but you can't twist science to support Creationism exclusively. Science supports evolution, and there are COUNTLESS examples of it, even right here in this thread.
I just can't believe that SCIENCE is up for debate. Lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of science. and math. and physics. Absurd.
P taught me a lot last night about the big bang that I didn't know. Wow, he knows a lot about that stuff. Oh, I guess I should say "knows," because he wasn't actually there when it occurred.
I just can't believe that SCIENCE is up for debate. Lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of science. and math. and physics. Absurd.
P taught me a lot last night about the big bang that I didn't know. Wow, he knows a lot about that stuff. Oh, I guess I should say "knows," because he wasn't actually there when it occurred.
If VegWeb has taught me anything, it's that VegWebbers can argue about anything.
***Off Topic***
I remember a thread where feminism was being discussed. Someone brought out the dictionary definition of feminism, and people actually said, it doesn't mean that because I don't feel it means that.
I just can't believe that SCIENCE is up for debate. Lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of science. and math. and physics. Absurd.
P taught me a lot last night about the big bang that I didn't know. Wow, he knows a lot about that stuff. Oh, I guess I should say "knows," because he wasn't actually there when it occurred.
If VegWeb has taught me anything, it's that VegWebbers can argue about anything.
***Off Topic***
I remember a thread where feminism was being discussed. Someone brought out the dictionary definition of feminism, and people actually said, it doesn't mean that because I don't feel it means that.
HAHA! For some reason, I totally believe that. ::) ;)
haha, I know!
I just read this article & found it interesting, so I thought I'd throw it in here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy
P was just telling me about this! Very interesting.
just wondering if u feel like answering... does anyone on here believe in God? or do u just accept the scientific explanation for everything?
just wondering if u feel like answering... does anyone on here believe in God? or do u just accept the scientific explanation for everything?
Do you just accept the biblical explanation for everything?
I don't just accept the scientific explanation for everything. I choose the explanation that is the most logical, well-explained, and well-supported.
I don't just accept the scientific explanation for everything. I choose the explanation that is the most logical, well-explained, and well-supported.
Same here. And there are lots of people on VW who believe in god(s).
just wondering if u feel like answering... does anyone on here believe in God? or do u just accept the scientific explanation for everything?
i believe in God. I believe everyone has their own unique relationship with the divine and may refer to God with different names. I don't know if we can understand what "God" is, per'se. For me, trying to understand God is like going outside and trying to catch a gust of wind in my hands, look at it, and then attempt to give it definition. In essence though, i believe there is an intelligence and consciousness "higher" (is the best word i can come up with) than ours (in the same way a parent may have greater vision then the child is capable of).
In regards to science. I may be willing to accept theory but i try to be mindful that i'm choosing to accept information without at the same time actually knowing this information first hand. Theories are extended, tested, later verified even - and then with all of that, can later to be proven incorrect. Theories/science can be tainted by who is doing the experiment. It's not unheard for experiments to be tainted to obtain desired results. Scientists are human, thus fallible. Sometimes they're honest, sometimes they're liars, sometimes they may overlook things, different scientists may come to different conclusions on the same theory due to using slightly varied testing guidelines, scientists don't always agree *gasp*.
So much back and forth argument about how faith is different then science but at the end of the day - if you don't know something for yourself - then you are giving faith that the information being provided is accurate. For the claims that people can't "know" God and how faith isn't science - it's very ironic that "faith" - is required to believe in science.
Amazing that! :)
I think it's interesting how no one can formulate a cohesive rationale explaining creationism. The only arguments we've gotten so far are along the lines of:
(a) The Big Bang Theory is flawed, so creationism is true and evolution is wrong.
(b) Humans and apes are not the same, that's just dumb--evolution is wrong!
(c) Humans are destroying the earth and harming ourselves, so evolution is wrong and creationism is right!
(d) Lots of scientists believe in god. So there.
(e) The bible says it's true.
I mean, really? Meanwhile, those of us who acknowledge the validity of evolution have explained where the concept originated, how it can be proven, and where it can be seen in our daily lives. Evidence of evolution exists on the macroscopic and microscopic levels. Scientists use all branches of science--they can see it in our DNA sequences, in our morphology, in our behaviors, and through remnants of earlier life.
There is not even one shred of similar evidence for creationism. Which is expected, because creationism is faith-based, not reason-based. To the creationists here--am I wrong to say that you adhere to your faith because you FEEL that god has a presence in your life, and you FEEL that the bible is true? That's what faith means--believing in something for the sake of believing in something--it's a gut instinct. Don't try to pretend like creationism is a scientific theory that can be proven. It isn't, and it's not meant to be.
Scientific evidence of evolution exists regardless of any religious framework. You can't deny it. It's one of the most simple and reasonable scientific theories there is. Whether or not you believe in creationism has no bearing on the fact that evolution occurs.
sirdid--faith is required to believe in science, but the difference is that this faith came about through logical evaluation. I have faith in any scientist who I know to be objective and thorough. Creationists have faith in a book which is accurate only according to the book itself and their church leaders............who got the info from the book and THEIR church leaders............There is a difference between well-reasoned trust and blind faith.
And I have to pull this out: faith, according to the most common definitions I found, is trust in something for which their is no proof or material evidence. "Faith in science" is probably a misuse of the term. For example, when you have faith that a person will succeed in something, you're saying that you don't know for certain if they will, but you have the highest expectations and really HOPE they will.
just wondering if u feel like answering... does anyone on here believe in God? or do u just accept the scientific explanation for everything?
I believe in "God" (my conceptualization of the greater force at work in the universe is almost certain to differ from those of others - thus the quotes), and I beleive in science.
These beliefs do not have to be exclusive to religion.
I sort of think that strict creationists are short-changing God. It's like they think he's all powerful, just not all powerful or smart enough to come up with something as elegant and complex as evolution or physics...
I mean c'mon... He's God!
I mean, do I have to start quoting Screeching Weasel lyrics here?
What? I do? Okay:
If you've ever question beliefs that you hold you're not alone
but you oughtta realize that every myth is a metaphor
in the case of christianity and judaism there exist the belief
that spiritual matters are enslaved to history
the buddhists believe that the functional aspects override the myth
while other religions use the literal core to build foundations with
see half the world sees the myth as fact
while it's seen as a lie by the other half and
the simple truth is that it's none of that
and somehow no matter what the world keeps turning
somehow we get by without ever learning
science and religion are not mutually exclusive
in fact for better understanding
we take the facts of science and apply them
and if both factors keep evolving
then we continue getting information
but closing off possibilities makes it hard to see the bigger picture
consider the case of the women whose faith helped her make it through
when she was raped and cut up left for dead in a trunk her beliefs held true
it doesn't matter if it's real or not cause
some things are better left without a doubt and
if it works then it gets the job done
somehow no matter what the world keeps turning...
Off topic, Screeching Weasel is playing Riot Fest in Chicago next week.
I believe in both God and I know science is real.
I also agree that God "created" science.
it makes no sense that someone could say God created the universe, but not science.... hello.
evolution is real. I may not know a lot about it (this thread has taught me some things), but I know there is enough evidence to prove it's real.
sirdid--faith is required to believe in science, but the difference is that this faith came about through logical evaluation. I have faith in any scientist who I know to be objective and thorough. Creationists have faith in a book which is accurate only according to the book itself and their church leaders............who got the info from the book and THEIR church leaders............There is a difference between well-reasoned trust and blind faith.
And I have to pull this out: faith, according to the most common definitions I found, is trust in something for which their is no proof or material evidence. "Faith in science" is probably a misuse of the term. For example, when you have faith that a person will succeed in something, you're saying that you don't know for certain if they will, but you have the highest expectations and really HOPE they will.
the disconnect for me (and i'm just speaking for me personally, not trying to dictate what any else's thought process should be) is how might I ascertain if someone's research was objective and thorough? (rhetorically asking). If i understand you correctly (let's face it - i rarely do, right, hehe, anyhow..) you, seeming to be of greater scientific intellect, are probably more familiar with specific researchers - thus possibly translating into a greater comfort with a given researcher's work? But for me, in regards to this matter - i don't imagine I have the same ...intellect, passion, so for me - while i may believe something as "true" - i have to be honest to myself and say that i'm extending a bit of faith that the material put forth is accurate. Different people may have different levels of understanding in regards to what is actual fact.
Personally, i don't subscribe to the creationism theory but i'll forgo my reasonings because that would be an enitrely different thread unto itself.
I’ll accept your viewpoint of there being a difference between well-reasoned trust and faith – but I think it depends on one’s view of the the context of the word “faith”. I too looked up the word “faith” on dictionary.com (not for the purposes of being an *ss, but just out of curiosity) and there are 8 different definitions for the word (although some of the definitions seem very similar). In reading the definitions provided – I’ll agree that my use of the word “faith” may be slightly off from the technical definitions offered. While I feel my usage is close enough to make sense for the point I was attempting to make, I certainly don’t want to get into a “proverbial” war of the right/wrong usage of the word so I’ll accept that my usage/view of the word can be seen as subject.
edited to add ("eta") - that while i don't personally subscribe to Creationism, i accept the possibility that - maybe i'm wrong and creationism is correct and that when i pass i'll be like "oh cr*p!". Having a separate Creationism thread might be fun, but not merely for the intent of trying to discredit those who believe in it - but rather instead - for the exchange of different views. I imagine this thread would have to die down some for anyone to have the energy to take part in a Creationism thread though.
the disconnect for me (and i'm just speaking for me personally, not trying to dictate what any else's thought process should be) is how might I ascertain if someone's research was objective and thorough? (rhetorically asking). If i understand you correctly (let's face it - i rarely do, right, hehe, anyhow..) you, seeming to be of greater scientific intellect, are probably more familiar with specific researchers - thus possibly translating into a greater comfort with a given researcher's work? But for me, in regards to this matter - i don't imagine I have the same ...intellect, passion, so for me - while i may believe something as "true" - i have to be honest to myself and say that i'm extending a bit of faith that the material put forth is accurate. Different people may have different levels of understanding in regards to what is actual fact.
I did research for a couple years with my university as a part time job, but that's neither here nor there. Any intelligent person should be able to discern the factors which make for good research. Did you learn the scientific method in school? (serious!) You would want to look at the controls the person used, and the data itself, and see if the conclusions really follow from that data. You would want to look for things like mistaking correlation for causation. You would want to look at whether the study was peer-reviewed. You would want to consider whether the researchers might have some bias based on their affiliations. Come on, you know this!
Besides, the things we are talking about here are hardly petty little experiments that Joe Shmoe did in his lab. We are talking about major scientific theories and laws. Thousands and thousands of people have researched them, and thousand upon thousands more depend on using them as a tool in other research.
Not being educated about something is not an excuse! And just because YOU base your trust in science on faith, does not mean the rest of us do. I don't. You can't generalize your own experience and say "science requires faith."
... like two chickens clucking back and forth....so i'm done clucking with you on this specific train of thought of this thread.
i stand by my words (all nonsense about appropriate usage of the word "faith" notwithstanding...). i'm not really partial whether you agree or not - as i've said before - the validity of my statements pertaining to "faith" versus "science" and the correlation between the two is not contingent upon your acceptance.
we've rambled on about the same concept for about a page or two - let's stop boring everyone with redundancy, let people gather their own opinions on the same - and move on...
and_it_spoke & dessie - You're what I (& I think JessaCita) were talking about. It doesn't seem that creationism and science have to be exclusive. Science can be straight forward and still fit with faith. It doesn't need to be skewed to make it fit. If I had faith, I think I'd fit in closer to your world views.
I sort of think that strict creationists are short-changing God. It's like they think he's all powerful, just not all powerful or smart enough to come up with something as elegant and complex as evolution or physics...
I mean c'mon... He's God!
while there are people who have contributed to this thread that (a) believe in creationism and (b) do not necessarily believe in evolution - i don't recall any of these people short-changing God by even suggesting this "God" is not smart/powerful or strong enough to create evolution or physics. Saying they don't personally believe in evolution does not constitute them believing "God" is not powerful enough to enact evolution. I believe that's taking their views out of context.
So did I just comedy fail, there?
Pages