Creationist survey

[Stargazer]

Why is this hard? If evolution is a fact, it should be backed up by substantive evidence. What do you mean by "seems" to fit into the tree? How do we know this to be true without a complete fossil record?

Obviously we wont have a complete fossil record, but what they do have is enough for the models they have now. With more evidence, the picture should become even more clear.

 

If that's true, then why hasn't it been done? And if it's been done, why isn't it being advertised more widely?

Evolution is rarely mentioned in mainstream media it seems.

 

Hmm... Interesting speculation. But again, there's no evidence for it.

Such it is with that which has not been observed. God has not been observed, but we do know that the hominids have changed over time. It doesn't seem like a longshoot to say they did and still do.

 

I'm pretty sure it's not. I've read about Irreducible Complexity, and I believe that it has been shown that many animals do contain organs that are irreducibly complex. Once again, I've never discussed this in a forum before, so just let me know if I'm off the mark.

Regarding macroevolution, I wonder... if evolution happens for long enough, it will sort of... not?

And what would the theory regarding the origin of the different species be like, if not for common descent? All species must have been appearing on this planet in some way, at different times, right?

[Stargazer]

While I can understand your frustration, and appreciate your passion for your very logical approach to your worldview, I ask that you please consider that maybe not ALL creationists are as bad as you think. There may be a few, one or maybe even two, that will listen and learn.

I know, and I will try to tone down my posts. I am sure I offended plenty of people. I'm not a scientist myself, just very very interested in it, and so in my discussions I have encountered people who have decided that science is evil, except for the stuff they agree with. They say science is a religion even though it's not. Someone even told me that scientists avoid criticism because they want their theories to be protected. Uhm, hello... then it wouldn't be science, actually the opposite. I will try to be more careful in the future not to assume too much.

 

Because someone is a creationist, and they don't undergo a drastric and visible change of attitude, that does not mean that they are disregarding what you say, or the evidences that you put forth.

Yeah. I can see how it's hard to change views just like that... but for me it's not that hard. I just want to know how things are and not how I want them to be.

 

Oftentimes, people have been raised to think a certain thing for all of their lives, and the thought that they have been intentionally misled into believing in a God that does not exit is not only frightening, but also maddening. Please take this into account when you start off with the attitude that it is going to be a battle. There are people every single day that walk away from their faith. Oftentimes, it is because people like you have shown them another way to look at things.

Some sort of god could well exist, however since there are no observations to show us what characteristics it has, and since I don't see it as necessary, I simply don't believe it. I could be wrong, but when I know I'm wrong, I'll change my mind, obviously. It's too vague.

 

However, I will say that if your attitude is that they will never change their minds, then you will not convince many people that your research and evidence is valid. That whole "kill them with kindness" thing really works, you know. :hihi:

I don't want to force people to think a certain way. I do want people to know more about what science really is and what it certainly isn't, otherwise some of them will automatically have the wrong view of science and scientists.

[jp3089]

Hi there Tomrod.

 

You're joking, right? There are tons of stories out there. ANY popular science magazine will suffice. Any month, any issue.

 

I'm not extremely familiar with the magazines that I assume you are speaking of, so it would help me if you had specific magazines, and articles within those magazines that I could read in order to have a better discussion about this.

 

I appreciate the links, though.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[Tormod]

I'm not extremely familiar with the magazines that I assume you are speaking of, so it would help me if you had specific magazines, and articles within those magazines that I could read in order to have a better discussion about this.

For starters, here is a list:

http://www.gettysburg.edu/academics/physics/clea/fysmags.html

 

But if you're not familiar with any of those titles I urge you to go out and get some copies of New Scientist, Scientific American, Discover, and American Scientist.

 

I cannot point you to articles simply because they are too numerous.

 

However, all of these are online so you should find plenty of stuff to read there.

[maddog]

I know, and I will try to tone down my posts. I am sure I offended plenty of people. I'm not a scientist myself, just very very interested in it, and so in my discussions I have encountered people who have decided that science is evil, except for the stuff they agree with. They say science is a religion even though it's not. Someone even told me that scientists avoid criticism because they want their theories to be protected. Uhm, hello... then it wouldn't be science, actually the opposite. I will try to be more careful in the future not to assume too much.

 

You do that just a little bit (regardless of whether we agree) and you will get a much

warmer reception from me. :hihi:

 

Yeah. I can see how it's hard to change views just like that... but for me it's not that hard. I just want to know how things are and not how I want them to be.

 

I always thought the fixation of viewpoints by Creationist were as hard and rigid as that of

Atheist, until now. Warm regards - Stargazer. ;)

 

Some sort of god could well exist, however since there are no observations to show us what characteristics it has, and since I don't see it as necessary, I simply don't believe it. I could be wrong, but when I know I'm wrong, I'll change my mind, obviously. It's too vague.

 

Hard to believe that coming from you. I accept your disbelief in God as an honest answer

which is OK with me. If you ever come across evidence to change that belief, then fine.

If not, fine. Either way, I think it is the journey that makes it exciting! :D

 

I don't want to force people to think a certain way. I do want people to know more about what science really is and what it certainly isn't, otherwise some of them will automatically have the wrong view of science and scientists.

 

Coercion is the one activity that I am against. I appreciate you declaring yourself in this

way. Very adult and wise. :rant: Freedom of speech has with it an implicit Freedom of Belief.

Even for those not in America where this protection is in the body of laws governing their

country, this internet board has a semblance of in the FAQ. Doing that is what promotes

more people to come and discuss stuff... Way to go!

 

Maddog

[Turtle]

I did a geologu field trip a dozen or so years ago. 10 days from the Columbia Gorge to Lassen, Death Valley, Yoesimite, Grand Canyon, Zion Canyon & more. One fella was along for the express purpose of learning enough "scientific" geology so he could "prove" his biblical views. Here in the West when we got a dead horse, we stop whippin it. :hihi:

[maddog]

Why is this hard? If evolution is a fact, it should be backed up by substantive evidence.

 

One does not have to prove the whole of it to make a case for a theory. In mathematics,

consider proof by induction. Start a the begining, pick an arbitrary point and prove the

next point and viola! You don't have to prove each step.

 

What paleontology attempt to do is make a case of how a certain feature or trait was

inherited and look for evidence. Much of the geologic record is still being filled in. The

missing doe not invalidate the whole theory.

 

What do you mean by "seems" to fit into the tree? How do we know this to be true without a complete fossil record?

 

A tree Stargazer was probably refering is a branching of these traits of inheritance. Say

bepedalism, what ancestor in past before which didn't have this trait. This would be the

"before/after" of the link which would be thought to be "missing".

 

... I want to accept scientific knowledge as long as it has sufficient evidence to back up its claims. I'm in the search of truth and knowledge, and I assure you that I'm not against scientific knowledge just because I question something that you are a firm proponent of. Again, my goal is not irritation, it's investigation.

...

JP

 

I contrast this with hard sciences: mathematics where thing are proved or not; physics

where hypothesis is either verified and vindicated (eventually) or discarded; chemistry

similar to physics and the softer science like anthropology, biology and psychology. Where

we hypothesize and look for evidence. Once gathered, it not so cut and dried. To analyze

the are often holes of missing evidence. How anything is concluded is a mastery of their

trade. Look up the biologist, the late Jay Gould whose theory of evolution was that the

links came in spurts. He is like a biological Carl Sagan. Read his stuff and see if it could

fit for you, or not. :hihi:

 

Maddog

[Stargazer]

I always thought the fixation of viewpoints by Creationist were as hard and rigid as that of Atheist, until now. Warm regards - Stargazer. :rant:

Of course I'm an atheist, that is, I lack belief in god or gods etc. Likewise, I lack belief in a whole bunch of things. I also see a few problems with the concept of god, however you chose to define it.

 

Hard to believe that coming from you. I accept your disbelief in God as an honest answer which is OK with me. If you ever come across evidence to change that belief, then fine. If not, fine. Either way, I think it is the journey that makes it exciting! :hihi:

The problem is of course that it may be impossible forever for us to detect a god. Another one is that some god concepts seem impossible or illogical. The way I see all the gods now is that we have invented them for various purposes throughout time, and now I'm not sure I see the use of keeping them other than to have something for certain kinds of literature. It has no place in science unless someone can define what a god is, and why it's necessary.

[Turtle]

What does it matter? It's not like learning for sure something that helps get you along in life; like fire is hot & can hurt me, or I need X amount of rebar in this bridge. The discussion as such is un-resolvable & so it's terribly inefficient to keep at it.

[justforfun]

Well, I'm not a Christian at all but I see things heading south and fast. You've got these AI enthusiasts all happy about artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence soon, and they seem oblivious to the negative consequences for the humans on planet. The Christians want a religious war (as in Iraq) and most religions seem to lean that way. Family values have become so eroded no one knows what they are any more. And be it global warming, el ninos or Santa's sleigh, the weather is freaking out. I'm not religious, but I am spiritual, so I'm optimistic in the long haul. But we're in the rough water for now, fellas.

[questor]

as far as creation, is this not a simple question? one of either two things happened. a creator created the universe or the universe ''just happened''. if the universe just happened

then a huge number of questions occur. where did the energy for the ''big bang'' come from? where did matter come from? where does the propulsive force for earth's journey around the sun come from? how was gravity made and what is it made from? i see no reason to give a creator human form or emotions since this ''force'' is all powerful, ubiquitous throughout the cosmos, and is the ''bottom line''

[Skippy]

Do you think the Big Bang theory of the universe has anything to do with the activity of a Divine Being?

The theory? Of course not. The event itself? There's always the possibility, but still, no.

Surely you know that it will always be a theory, just as Darwinian evolution will always be a theory because neither can be proven scientifically. There were no eyewitnesses to either the Big Bang or the lizard momma hatching a mammal. And, there is no real evidence that intermediate steps existed between some pre-historical ape and the first human. You can point to a picture someone drew based on a heel and ankle bone, but that is just an artist's rendering of a fictional creature that exists in the mind of someone who bows to the {dare I say it} religion of evolution.

[Biochemist]

...but that is just an artist's rendering of a fictional creature that exists in the mind of someone who bows to the {dare I say it} religion of evolution.

And it has a lot of different sects in it.

[Skippy]

Well, I'm not a Christian at all but I see things heading south and fast. You've got these AI enthusiasts all happy about artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence soon, and they seem oblivious to the negative consequences for the humans on planet. The Christians want a religious war (as in Iraq) and most religions seem to lean that way. Family values have become so eroded no one knows what they are any more. And be it global warming, el ninos or Santa's sleigh, the weather is freaking out. I'm not religious, but I am spiritual, so I'm optimistic in the long haul. But we're in the rough water for now, fellas.

Excuse me!?!? "The Christians want a religious war!?!?" I would say that you know nothing about Christians or Christianity but you beat me to it with your first sentence and with this one. A Christian does not seek out war, but he/she will not back down when a war is called for.

 

We do agree on the erosion of family values... can you agree that it is the religious in our world who are doing the most to keep family values high, while the anti-religious are the ones pushing to lower expectations of the family and society in general?

 

Your comments about the weather show that you may indeed be religious, but your religion is known as "Environmentalism." Faith in the Theory of Global Warming can also be a symptom of the religion known as "Secular Humanism" since it assumes that man is powerful enough to change the climate on earth.

[bumab]

Your comments about the weather show that you may indeed be religious, but your religion is known as "Environmentalism." Faith in the Theory of Global Warming can also be a symptom of the religion known as "Secular Humanism" since it assumes that man is powerful enough to change the climate on earth.

 

And belief in the truth of the prejudices in this paragraph is known as "head-in-the-groundism" or "ostrichism." I've also seen it under "pridefulism." PLEASE don't make generalizations about Christians based only on yourself. It's offensive, misleadings, and really bugs (to put it mildley) many of us other Christians. Read what the FIRST command in the Bible is again. Go ahead. The very first one. It's important.

[Skippy]

...Another one is that some god concepts seem impossible or illogical.

Have you ever stepped foot on an airplane? To many people, it is illogical that a 900,000 pound object can fly over 7,000 miles. To many people it is illogical that men have orbited earth in a manmade spacecraft and returned to earth unharmed.

 

You will always fail when you try to use your finite human mind to explain God. Many, many things we observe defy logic - physicists come up with quarks and 'branes' and such to explain those inconsistencies away... and they make good arguments for them. But it takes faith to believe in those unseen things.

[Skippy]

And belief in the truth of the prejudices in this paragraph is known as "head-in-the-groundism" or "ostrichism." I've also seen it under "pridefulism." PLEASE don't make generalizations about Christians based only on yourself. It's offensive, misleadings, and really bugs (to put it mildley) many of us other Christians. Read what the FIRST command in the Bible is again. Go ahead. The very first one. It's important.

What? Maybe you should read my post again. I exhibited no "pridefulism," but that is an interesting word. What prejudice do you claim in me? I made no generalization about Christians either, or if you perceived it that way I apologize. "I am the LORD your God, you shall have no other gods before me." Agreed, that is very important, THAT is why it was first. My post was dealing with the fact that way too many have fallen for lie and have strayed away from The Truth which is found in a biblical world view.