What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Hmmm. I couldn't agree with you guys more, except for the part where you say Chopin or Van Gogh is outside the realm of logic. Logic doesn't exclude art, it includes it.

 

There's an enormous amount of logic involved in the re-creation we call art. We use what is to envision what life could be like. That's the romantic view of art.

 

The look in a child's eyes when he/she grasps something or sees something wonderful is very beautiful and why anyone would say that is outside the realm of logic I don't understand. It is logical, at least to me, to appreciate that look.

 

I explicitly stated that perceptions were included in the use of logic.

It's the only tool we have to comprehend the world. It involves the use of perception and conception.

And I'd love the perception of a cold beer going down my throat right now.

[eMTee]

from a *purely* theological aspect with an all powerful God, the book says he did NOT flatten the mountains!

 

I did not say that God flattened the mountains, he didn't flatten the mountains before the flood, and during the flood. I just am stating that I believe the world was a whole lot flatter before the flood than after..

"the structure of the Earth was a whole lot diffrent than today.

 

looking at the Earth today, the reality that there is not enough water to do this, is plainly a smack in the face...it sticks out like a sor thumb. I agree with you..and never would disagree.

[Queso]

wtf are you talking to yourself? the structure of the earth wasn't that different at all, if you're talking biblical times. the only differences were a few feet here and there.

I agree with you..and never would disagree.

this is your menacing problem, emptee, you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong. a very childish trait you carry, one i can not stand.

[eMTee]

Oh..but don't we all carry childish traits.

[Queso]

not all. (you're trying to say you can determine something about 6 billion or so humans :hihi: )

and that is besides the point. nice way to change the subject!!

the point is, you can not and will not admit when you are wrong.

what do they call this?? i think it's ignorance.

so what else do you have to say about floods, god, and dinosaurs? your posts are very amusing. that makes up for their lack of knowledge and thought. :)

 

:hihi:

[Kukucan]

Aside from deciding what scriptures in the Bible mean, you also have the apocrypha (sp?) and a number of books that , if I recall, the Counsel of Nicea decided were not part of the holy bible. Many of these books as to my understanding were conteporary accounts of the early Christian movement. Has there been any support or vocalization to reconcile these books into "The" Bible?

Like the Nag Hammadi codices...

[Shirwany]

Greetings folks:

 

I am not sure if the lead statement reflects sociological data. I have always thought that dogmatic belief is easier to acquire for our species. In other words, seeking "patterns" in nature are what humans a very good at doing. That ability, most likely hardwired in our brains, must have given us a significant survival advantage. Today, that hardwiring gets in the way and we "see" patterns where there are none. The training of science, in part, is the deconditioning from our "pattern seeking" proclivity. The better questions might be:

 

"How do we accept the many complex lines of evidence supporting evolutionary biology and reject the seductive allure of Creationism/Intelligent Design etc.?"

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Shirwany,

"How do we accept the many complex lines of evidence supporting evolutionary biology and reject the seductive allure of Creationism/Intelligent Design etc.?"

Well, by seeing the pattern in the data. :naughty:

[Zohaar818]

Shirwany,

Well, by seeing the pattern in the data. :naughty:

 

To put it euphemistically, that's an interesting statement...

You know , in the higer [and absolute] sciences all theories are valid until an anomaly is discovered, unearthed, or observed at whch time the theories are revised or discarded.

But not so in the realms of archeology or even paleontology...despite dozens of artifcats, fossil remains and archeological structures which fall outside of accepted or standard theories the orhtodox 'ologists'still continue to push their world view on the rest of us, irrespective of physical evidence at hand.

Evolutionists still have not found the intermediate primate..the missing link, that shows the beginnings of what would be our modern brain. Evolutionists can't agree whether neanderthal was wiped out, bred out, hunted out or eventually subsumed into the genetic pool of cro-magnon..[believing more than a few of us possess a recessive gene inherited from some ancestral intermingling between the two species; neanderthal dna

But I digree...I call your attention to the following website;

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm

 

...one more from an admittedly biased source who still manages to raise questions none .. not even the ID-er's... have dared to mention...which makes me wonder what lies behind the passions being posted here..

 

And here ar e two more sites which shouild gi ve pause to ponder..before launching off on another quest to be proven the most faithful or skeptic of the bunch.

Creationism has its flaws, of which a literal interpretation of the Bible only compounds,but the Darwinists have a lot of inconsistencies to account for which...so far, they can't.

 

http://www.unexplainedearth.com/web_links.php

 

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm

 

Lastly. i would remind everyone that the human brain is notorious for seeking order even when there is none..and in creating a self-myth as a way of finding meaning in what may actually be devoid of meaning..and I direct that to both camps.

To imply that an abundance of fractals and golden-mean geometry to be seen everywhere in Nature is evidence of intelligent design seems misguided. All it proves is that that observation reveals patterns that only intelligent beings could appreciate....it doesn't necessarily imply that an intelligence was needed to create them in the first place. If anything it implies to me that the nature of the universe is such that any God attempting to create within its framework would be Bound by those rules, not outside of them...and that the rules, rather than being summoned into being from an all-knowing God, are nothing more or less than the way things work...have always worked, and always will work. Period.

To imply that we are in the thrall of a God who flooded the earth to avenge the wickedness of creatures HE created and that his angels had sired children with [as quoted in genesis 6], is to take myth for literal truth.even against the advice of the authors. IT is a metaphor..get it? A tool for teaching truth, science, and wisdom through the use of metaphor [and gematrian code].

And besides....what Bible are we using to debate with anyway..the protestant, The Catholic, The King James, The New Standard...just whch of the translations is the unaltered, un-nuanced Word of God that we should all be taking as gospel?

 

If anyone has answers to this let me know..and if any ID-er out there want his position put forward but doesn't want the criticism or the insults to his intelligence directed at his/her person in reply to the posts..I'd be glad to play devil's advocate and take your side in a debate against a hard-line skeptic/anti-creationist and see how far we move the discussion along. Understand that I will not be citing the Bible as the word of God,,since I can't honestly take that view..but I will be using it as reference if only to tie metaphor to proven scientific fact... to underline what i feel are the issues to be stated for 'intelligent design'.

-Sincerely

[Zohaar818]

http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html

 

I ask you to read this link and then give yourself a gut check..how 'easy' is it to believe in evolution now?

[C1ay]

http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html

 

I ask you to read this link and then give yourself a gut check..how 'easy' is it to believe in evolution now?

What a bunch of hogwash. There's no scientific support for any of the suppositions at that link. Claims like "The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour." and "Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created." prove nothing. I found the whole thing quite humorous.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

zohar818,

To put it euphemistically, that's an interesting statement...

.

You write beautifully (like the beauty in a thistle) but I don't understand your point. I checked out the first of the 3 links you gave and liked what I saw and hope all of it was true. Much of it I have already questioned myself. The second link required joining. I don't join that easily. The third link to the paranormal I admit I didn't bother with. Extrasensory perception can wait until I exhaust normal perception.

 

Are you saying that a lot of evidence that contradicts a theory doesn't constitute a pattern? Are you saying that the use of pattern recognition is not a tool that we should use?

Or, are you saying that not all things fall into a pattern? If that is so, then they are unique in the universe. Each of us IS unique but we all are part of the pattern called Human.

 

We don't lose our individuality because we are one of a kind.

 

Is this a new variation on the old (contradiction in terms) theme, "there are no absolutes"?

 

Or are you saying that a giant ship from space came down and dropped species onto the planet after each big catastrophic event? If so, that just pushes the problem off-world like life coming down to earth on a meteor. The problem of where and how that life came to be still is there to deal with.

[eMTee]

http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/eng...7evidences.html

 

I ask you to read this link and then give yourself a gut check..how 'easy' is it to believe in evolution now?

 

What a bunch of hogwash. There's no scientific support for any of the suppositions at that link. Claims like "The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour." and "Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created." prove nothing. I found the whole thing quite humorous.

 

When I read about the evolutionary "origin of the universe"..and just listen to them explaining how it all happened...I find it quite hilarious. somwhat scifi claiming itself to be scientific

[Queso]

When I read about the evolutionary "origin of the universe"..and just listen to them explaining how it all happened...I find it quite hilarious. somwhat scifi claiming itself to be scientific

 

 

because you don't have an open mind.

[C1ay]

When I read about the evolutionary "origin of the universe"..and just listen to them explaining how it all happened...I find it quite hilarious. somwhat scifi claiming itself to be scientific

What evolutionary origin of the universe? Are you calling the big bang evolution?

[eMTee]

What evolutionary origin of the universe? Are you calling the big bang evolution?

I'm calling the whole process evolution.

 

I now will and do understand the view of evolution not being always one thing turning into a completely other thing (such as monkey to man), but also consider the process of a not so extreme change (such as 2 strait hair cats having a springy hair cat by a mutation of the genetics) also to be a form of evolution.

 

It just seems that every time i hear about evolution, it never comes without the extreme evolution view...and it always has this wacko philosophy of origin of somthing added in. So I grew this thought of it always being to the exxtreme of things, and that it's all pointing to the question of origine (seeing that is like one of the biggest questions out there. And it always seems to take God out and throw him away.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

originally Posted by eMTee:

And it always seems to take God out and throw him away.

A very honest reply, eMTee. But Why? Perhaps the opposite is true. If God exists and is responsible for existence, then He doesn't need my recognition or yours or anyone's. He's obviously strong enough to get by without that. On the other hand, if God is literally 'in all things', then it is our job to understand those things thereby coming to know him. Wouldn't you agree?