Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Evolution vs. Creationism


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 Fatstep

Fatstep

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 05:19 PM

Well, since I apparently broke a rule in the evolution poll by answering someone's question I will post this here.

What makes you favor your view, and what led to you coming to this conclusion.

I believe in creationism with a mixture of science.

I was born into a Christian household, but that is not what led me in to believing in creationism. I have far different views on science than my mother and father, I am enthralled by knowledge and have just come to my own theories throughout my lifetime.

#2 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 05:51 PM

Well, since I apparently broke a rule in the evolution poll by answering someone's question I will post this here.

What makes you favor your view, and what led to you coming to this conclusion.

I believe in creationism with a mixture of science.

I was born into a Christian household, but that is not what led me in to believing in creationism. I have far different views on science than my mother and father, I am enthralled by knowledge and have just come to my own theories throughout my lifetime.


It's admirable that you have that mixture of science, because creationism has nothing to do with science at all.

#3 ughaibu

ughaibu

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1471 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 06:45 PM

Evolution is an observed and documented fact, there is less reason to deny evolution in favour of creationism than there is to think sardines live in tins.
  • Buffy, Erasmus00, TheFaithfulStone and 2 others like this

#4 TheFaithfulStone

TheFaithfulStone

    Rockin'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1488 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 08:53 PM

Evolution is an observed and documented fact, there is less reason to deny evolution in favour of creationism than there is to think sardines live in tins.


Wait - wait, what?

You mean they don't?!

TFS

#5 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 09:01 PM

Stupid not being able to rep ughaibu again... :hihi:

#6 Monomer

Monomer

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 748 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 10:07 PM

I've been noticing a lot lately that more people are claiming to not believe in the literal six days of creation, but are accepting evolution without denying the existence of god. They believe god got things going with the big bang, and then let evolution take its course.

Christian faith in the other good book - opinion - 10 February 2007 - New Scientist

Observed and documented facts are difficult to deny, and it's usually narrow-minded, fundamentalist christians that will dismiss science so they don't compromise their faith.

Not long ago I read a debate between Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project and a believer in god and evolution, and Richard Dawkins. Some might find it an interesting read.

God vs. Science -- Sunday, Nov. 05, 2006 -- Page 1 -- TIME

#7 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 10:38 PM

I've been noticing a lot lately that more people are claiming to not believe in the literal six days of creation, but are accepting evolution without denying the existence of god.

Indeed. It's not a smart argumentative tactic to continue representing a position repeatedly proven false. So much for the christian church and pope's infallibility...

We weren't wrong, we were just waiting for proof to glom onto so we could be right.


I understand belief, but I do not understand belief against clear evidence.

#8 C1ay

C1ay

    ¿42?

  • Administrators
  • 6488 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 10:55 PM

I've been noticing a lot lately that more people are claiming to not believe in the literal six days of creation, but are accepting evolution without denying the existence of god. They believe god got things going with the big bang, and then let evolution take its course.


I think this group is scarier than the biblical creation believers. At least those that believe in biblical creation can claim they were led down that path as the result of some soothsayer with a stylus and a piece of papyrus that claimed divine inspiration.

The later group has absolutely nothing to support the reasons for their belief. There is no evidence to prove that there was in fact a big bang and there's even less to prove that it had a cause, divine or not. They seem to me more anxious to believe anything that supports what they think the truth should be as opposed to whatever the truth really is.

#9 TheFaithfulStone

TheFaithfulStone

    Rockin'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1488 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 11:56 PM

I don't understand why people think faith means believing things you know aren't true.

;)

TFS

#10 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4233 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 03:13 AM

C1ay, I prefer by much the second group because the first is to me much scarier (such an ignorance of science is scary!). The second group thinks by itself analyzes and sees that the only place left for god is to have created the big bang, where is the problem? They don't have proof, the other group neither, so? That's why it is called belief...

#11 rocket art

rocket art

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 04:03 AM

I've been noticing a lot lately that more people are claiming to not believe in the literal six days of creation, but are accepting evolution without denying the existence of god.


The Mayan Calendar, which is considered more accurate than the gregorian, may be of interest. From its base was computed the concept of 7 days and 6 nights that correspond as cycles. However it is relative to the "consciousness of an era. From the main base, known as the cellular consciousness, a single 'cycle' took 1.62 billion years, until "Consciousness" evolves into mammalian, familial, tribal, cultural, national, planetary, galactic... Our present Consciousness, now at level of 'Galactic,' would the take 360 days for every 'cycle'.

They also had a 365 day calendar, but was used only for tax purposes.

#12 Fatstep

Fatstep

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 06:37 AM

The Mayan Calendar, which is considered more accurate than the gregorian, may be of interest. From its base was computed the concept of 7 days and 6 nights. However it is relative to the "consciousness of an era. From the main base, known as the cellular consciousness, a single 'day' could take more than 2 billion years, until "Consciousness" evolves into mammalian, familial, tribal, cultural, planetary, galactic... Our present Consciousness, which I may recall as 'Planetary' would the take 360 yrs for such Mayan 'day'.

They also had a 365 day calendar, but was used only for tax purposes.


Are you referring to people who say "The Bible doesn't say how long the 7 days were, it could've been 4 billion of our years since the modern day had not been defined," if so then I kind of agree.

#13 rocket art

rocket art

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 07:05 AM

Are you referring to people who say "The Bible doesn't say how long the 7 days were, it could've been 4 billion of our years since the modern day had not been defined," if so then I kind of agree.


The Mayan calendar is more mathematicaly precise (and yet holisticaly attuned to 'consciousness') to the movement of the planets, stars and galaxy than hearsay or blind faith.

(pardon, I needed to revise my previous post which was not as accurate when I reviewed it from the source just now)

#14 Monomer

Monomer

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 748 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 05:23 PM

C1ay, I prefer by much the second group because the first is to me much scarier (such an ignorance of science is scary!). The second group thinks by itself analyzes and sees that the only place left for god is to have created the big bang, where is the problem? They don't have proof, the other group neither, so? That's why it is called belief...


Yeah, I'd have to agree. The second group has at least opened their mind and accepted the evidence of science.

#15 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 08:29 PM

I was brought up Catholic, and went to a Catholic school until 8th grade. I was never taught that Evolution was incorrect, and was never exposed to fundamentalist Christianity. When I began going to public High School, I took Biology. During the chapter on evolution, one of the kids at my table made a remark that "this is all balony." I looked at him quizzically.

"What?"
"Evolution is balony."
"Wait... You don't think that evolution is accurate?"
"No."
". . . What? How can you not believe in evolution? What do you believe?"

I went on to discover that he was a Southern Baptist, Creationist, and thought that the Earth was only 6,000 years old. This was what got me angry.

"How can you think the earth is 6,000 years old?! We have scientific evidence, radiocarbon dating, that shows us that the Earth is billions of years old!"
"Balony."

I nearly grabbed him around the neck. How can someone just shrug off scientific fact? At that point, a girl at that table, who was a fellow Atheist, perked up. She was also dumbfounded. I was relieved that someone else saw where I was coming from. He must be a minority, I thought. No one else can believe something like that. I turned around to the table behind me and asked the nearest student "are you a Christian?"

"Yes."
"What kind?"
"Non-denominational."
"Ok, do you believe in evolution?"
"No."

I stared at him in disbelief. I polled a few more kids, half of them were fundamentalists. I was shocked. Sure, there are some nuts out there, but how could so many people be so blind? This was my revelation. This was why I joined Hypography, to protest ignorance like that. This is why I'm so grateful for this community, and so eager to defend evolution.
  • Eclogite likes this

#16 rocket art

rocket art

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 09:47 PM

This is supposed to be the 21st century and I will bluntly say this - to tie the link between evolution and creation, science and 'religion', consider the probability of extraterrestrial intervention.

A fundamentalist will never deny the existence of a god, but for someone to deny the existence of other sentient beings other than on our small planet would be worse. A scientist will insist on evolution, but for someone to insist that only humans existed in a vast galaxy would be worse.

#17 TheFaithfulStone

TheFaithfulStone

    Rockin'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1488 posts

Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:03 PM

Lancaster, that is a terrifying story.

TFS