You are here

Are there any creationists here?

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 believe that's taking their views out of context.

I know you weren't specifically talking to me - but I wasn't specifically talking about just you or people simply in this thread, either.
I was mostly commenting to the people who don't believe in God, because they're right: some people do deny what's in front of them, and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

If I took your views out of context, then I don't think I fully grasp what your views on the subject are.

0 likes

So did I just comedy fail, there?

I got it, a_i_s.  Comedy WIN.

0 likes

a_i_s & dessie - You're both real horrorshow.

0 likes

a_i_s & dessie - You're both real horrorshow.

What does that mean? :/

0 likes

I chose it in honor of horror movie month.  It pulled double duty.  (Cause I'm horrorshow, too.  8-) )

horrorshow   

adjective

COOL. Origin: "horrorshow" is the phonetic spelling of a Russian word meaning "excellent." Entered Western pop culture with the 1960's book A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess and the movie adaptation directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Real horrorshow = very cool

0 likes

I chose it in honor of horror movie month.  It pulled double duty.  (Cause I'm horrorshow, too.  8-) )

horrorshow   

adjective

COOL. Origin: "horrorshow" is the phonetic spelling of a Russian word meaning "excellent." Entered Western pop culture with the 1960's book A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess and the movie adaptation directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Real horrorshow = very cool

Oh. I thought you were telling me what I said was stupid and scary.  haha.

0 likes

Ha!  No.  Not me. 

Now, go out and spread the word of horrorshow.  ;)b

0 likes

I chose it in honor of horror movie month.  It pulled double duty.  (Cause I'm horrorshow, too.  8-) )

horrorshow   

adjective

COOL. Origin: "horrorshow" is the phonetic spelling of a Russian word meaning "excellent." Entered Western pop culture with the 1960's book A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess and the movie adaptation directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Real horrorshow = very cool

I remember when we read that book in school and we were talking about the words Alex used and what they meant. One of the students in our class who spoke Russian told us that horrorshow sounded like the Russian word for cool/excellent and they teachers were like, "really?! thanks for telling us!" it was pretty funny.

that is all. i am not getting into this debate.

0 likes

*off topic*  yeah I think all the slang in Clockwork Orange was based on russian words (possibly slang - I can't remember know as it's a while since I read that book).  It's a fantastic book once you get your head round the slang in it.

0 likes

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! :)

If we can't define what god is then we can't proove or refute the existence of a god beyond the concept. We can't even say what the concept is. And surely then the word loses all meaning, no?

0 likes

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! :)

If we can't define what god is then we can't proove or refute the existence of a god beyond the concept. We can't even say what the concept is. And surely then the word loses all meaning, no?

I disagree. I think the point is that God is beyond what any word can encapsulate. The word is not meaningless; it is inadequate.

0 likes

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! :)

If we can't define what god is then we can't proove or refute the existence of a god beyond the concept. We can't even say what the concept is. And surely then the word loses all meaning, no?

I disagree. I think the point is that God is beyond what any word can encapsulate. The word is not meaningless; it is inadequate.

When no language can accurately describe God the concept can be anything and becomes entirely subjective.

0 likes

When no language can accurately describe God the concept can be anything and becomes entirely subjective.

Agreed!

This topic makes me think of a plankton, trying to guess what's outside the ocean... theology fills psychological needs for those who embrace it; it has nothing to do with actual reality, IMO. We just don't have the equipment to 'get' the underlying nature of the universe, any more than the plankton can converse knowledgeably about the fragile and complex ecosystem within a rainforest...

We can make stuff up, to satisfy our human need to feel like we understand the world/ are 'favored children' within it, and to limit the (frightening) Great Unknown... but assuming that our inventions-- about Jehovah or Allah or (god/dess of choice)-- somehow accurately reflect the ultimate infinite reality of the universe? I think that's pretty far-fetched. Darwinism, to me, has nothing to do with religion, except that-- for some folks-- it seems to threaten the conflicting beliefs that they've already decided to hold... and for others, it provides an inspiring window into how things work around here, and how freakin' beautiful it all is... which can certainly inspire profound religious feelings!

The universe is infinite; the human cortex is finite. We're NOT gonna be able to explain everything, with our paltry human faculties... I think it's pointless to argue whether what *I* made up is better than what *you* (or whoever) made up, lol! The myth of the 'just one' answer has plagued humanity for centuries, and regrettably is seen WAY too much within the evolution 'vs.' religion issue... there is no inherent conflict between these two categories-- there are only multiple windows, through which we sometimes catch a glimpse of something true. No one (creationists nor anyone else) owns the whole thing named 'Truth'... believing otherwise, in my opinion, is just plain old wishful thinking.

0 likes

When no language can accurately describe God the concept can be anything and becomes entirely subjective.

Agreed!

This topic makes me think of a plankton, trying to guess what's outside the ocean... theology fills psychological needs for those who embrace it; it has nothing to do with actual reality, IMO. We just don't have the equipment to 'get' the underlying nature of the universe, any more than the plankton can converse knowledgeably about the fragile and complex ecosystem within a rainforest...

We can make stuff up, to satisfy our human need to feel like we understand the world/ are 'favored children' within it, and to limit the (frightening) Great Unknown... but assuming that our inventions-- about Jehovah or Allah or (god/dess of choice)-- somehow accurately reflect the ultimate infinite reality of the universe? I think that's pretty far-fetched. Darwinism, to me, has nothing to do with religion, except that-- for some folks-- it seems to threaten the conflicting beliefs that they've already decided to hold... and for others, it provides an inspiring window into how things work around here, and how freakin' beautiful it all is... which can certainly inspire profound religious feelings!

The universe is infinite; the human cortex is finite. We're NOT gonna be able to explain everything, with our paltry human faculties... I think it's pointless to argue whether what *I* made up is better than what *you* (or whoever) made up, lol! The myth of the 'just one' answer has plagued humanity for centuries, and regrettably is seen WAY too much within the evolution 'vs.' religion issue... there is no inherent conflict between these two categories-- there are only multiple windows, through which we sometimes catch a glimpse of something true. No one (creationists nor anyone else) owns the whole thing named 'Truth'... believing otherwise, in my opinion, is just plain old wishful thinking.

I just realised where I got that all from.
A.J. Ayer. Interesting fellow.

0 likes

When no language can accurately describe God the concept can be anything and becomes entirely subjective.

Agreed!

This topic makes me think of a plankton, trying to guess what's outside the ocean... theology fills psychological needs for those who embrace it; it has nothing to do with actual reality, IMO. We just don't have the equipment to 'get' the underlying nature of the universe, any more than the plankton can converse knowledgeably about the fragile and complex ecosystem within a rainforest...

We can make stuff up, to satisfy our human need to feel like we understand the world/ are 'favored children' within it, and to limit the (frightening) Great Unknown... but assuming that our inventions-- about Jehovah or Allah or (god/dess of choice)-- somehow accurately reflect the ultimate infinite reality of the universe? I think that's pretty far-fetched. Darwinism, to me, has nothing to do with religion, except that-- for some folks-- it seems to threaten the conflicting beliefs that they've already decided to hold... and for others, it provides an inspiring window into how things work around here, and how freakin' beautiful it all is... which can certainly inspire profound religious feelings!

The universe is infinite; the human cortex is finite. We're NOT gonna be able to explain everything, with our paltry human faculties... I think it's pointless to argue whether what *I* made up is better than what *you* (or whoever) made up, lol! The myth of the 'just one' answer has plagued humanity for centuries, and regrettably is seen WAY too much within the evolution 'vs.' religion issue... there is no inherent conflict between these two categories-- there are only multiple windows, through which we sometimes catch a glimpse of something true. No one (creationists nor anyone else) owns the whole thing named 'Truth'... believing otherwise, in my opinion, is just plain old wishful thinking.

Very eclectic and well rounded thoughts presented above - i like them!

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments