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

[C1ay]

I wouldn't say that a Dr. Seuss book carries the same weight as the bible...

Can you imagine worshipping Sam-I-Am, the one who eats green eggs and ham?

[niviene]

Can you imagine worshipping Sam-I-Am, the one who eats green eggs and ham?

 

Hallelujiah... But, the story is metaphor, of course... by "eating green eggs and ham" they really mean to say that eating poisoned food is the path to righteousness.

 

*dies from food poisoning*

 

Well, that religion didn't last. :naughty:

[Kukucan]

I'd worship Sam-I-Am before some invisible man who is everywhere at once. :naughty:

[Kukucan]

...but skip the green eggs and ham.

[Biochemist]

A good thing too, that Dr. Suess didn't have a hand in writing the Bible. Imagine...

 

...and on the Seventh Day, she tried an apple on for size

Adam got to hear of it and thought "Boy, that wasn't wise!"

So they got kicked out the garden for not listening to the Boss

He looked at all the monkeys and figured: "No great loss"

 

But the bastards were persistent, they just wouldn't die!

pests, famine, hunger, it's not as if He didn't try!

So he cast them in the desert where they were all to toast

and for 40 years the monkey had to listen to him boast...

This is probably not as bizarre as you think. A lot of the ancient Hebrew text was carried in oral tradition until it was transcribed to written form between 2000 and 1000 BC. I suspect most of it was in poetry, as it makes recitation more consistent over the centuries (it keep the words in cadence.) Some even think that the Aramaic translations of Jesus' pararbles (mostly recorded in the New Testament in Greek) may have been in poetic form, again to aid in memorization and transmission.

[C1ay]

...but skip the green eggs and ham.

I'll second that. I don't like that green ketchup they came out with either. It just creates a very unappetizing feeling.

[Queso]

i havn't tried it..nor do i have any desire to. i love ketchup though.

so now that we're completely off topic, i'd like to ask what is the difference between ketchup and catsup? is it just the word, or....?

[niviene]

i havn't tried it..nor do i have any desire to. i love ketchup though.

so now that we're completely off topic, i'd like to ask what is the difference between ketchup and catsup? is it just the word, or....?

 

catsup was the original. ketchup evolved from catsup due to environmental factors. It has the same ancestors as mustard, some say, but there is a missing condement, allegedly.

[infamous]

catsup was the original. ketchup evolved from catsup due to environmental factors. It has the same ancestors as mustard, some say, but there is a missing condement, allegedly.

And what are those environmental factors? And which comdiment are we missing?

[niviene]

And what are those environmental factors? And which comdiment are we missing?

 

Perhaps you missed Darwin's ketchup evolution theories....

[Fishteacher73]

Perhaps mayo.... It kinda smells like the primordial soup....

[Boerseun]

Right... so much for the Omnipotent Fish and the Motherless Tortoise.

 

To make a long story short, eMTee, to come back to your original question: The reason it is easier to believe in Evolution than Creationism, is because Evolution (Capital E) is happening around us, is verifiable, and can be tested and checked in labs around the world. Fruit flies evolve in very short time spans, especially the genetic coding for the colour of their eyes. Thus Mendelsohn's laws can be demonstrated in a couple of weeks in successive generations of fruit flies. You only have to look at our domesticated animals to see evolution in action, although the process that brought cattle, sheep and pigs to our fields is artificial selection imposed upon a population, not natural selection. But, if in nature it would have been beneficial to a species (cattle) to have all aggression bred out of them, it would have happened naturally, in any case. The reason there is no intermediate species between Man and the Apes, does not disprove evolution - because Man did not descend from the Apes. Man and the Apes descended from a Common Ancestor, who, together with a much older version of rodent descended from an even older Common Ancestor, who, together with more primitive mammals descended from another Common Ancestor, ad infinitum. You will see similar genetic coding in your own genes, and even trees and insects.

The fact is that easily the majority of genetic coding is rubbish. And, like a computer program, there are sequences for "Start" and "Stop". Your cells will only execute genetic commands between "Start" and "Stop" sequences. Once it hits a "Stop", it will stop, and let the genetic gibberish flow until it hits another "Start". Now, your DNA is very susceptible to UV-light, UV-light unfortunately being of the proper frequency to interfere with "Start" and "Stop" sequences. So, if a UV-beam knocks a "Stop" sequence off its perch, your cells won't realise that it was supposed to stop executing the genetic instructions. The result is malformations, genetic errors being executed in the form of cancer, growths, etc., and sometimes, just sometimes, the random growth might be beneficial. The statistical odds of having a beneficial growth happening in such a random manner is enormous, granted. But that's exactly why for the first three billion years the most advanced forms of live on Planet Earth were blue-green algae. For the first 75% of Life on Earth, green snot in shallow ponds was the best this process could come up with. But, once it starts, there'd be no stop - seeing as any adaptation that is (quite by accident) beneficial, it gives the individual animal an edge over others of its species, therefore it will have a statistical advantage over the others, therefore its accidental adaptation will be passed on to the future generations. Pretty soon, the whole population will have benefitted from this one animal being struck accidentally by some fluke of a Cosmic Ray.

So - as far as I am concerned (and this might sound slightly arrogant), there is no issue. I don't believe in Evolution, as you imply in your question. I simply know that Evolution is the process driving Life. I can take it to my lab and test it. I also know that there is a deeper reason for me not wanting to marry an ugly girl. Subconsciously I don't want to taint my genes with a girl with buck-teeth. That's evolution in action, however discriminatory.

Now on the other hand, from the Creationist point of view, I will try to keep an open mind and say "Okay, here's a bunch of people with a certain belief. They can't prove it. I'll reserve my judgement until I see Cosmic fingerprints on the Moon. Why do they believe it?" Don't you think there's a much deeper reason why there's an almost universal need to believe in a Higher Being? Don't you think it might stem from our childhood fears, where we need the protection and consolation from an adult, somewhere we can pass our responsibilities to? I think in all honesty that the religious impulse should be studied by psychologists, as a rather deep-seated fear of reality, a fear to take your responsibilities as an adult seriously. I think this issue should be passed to the realm of psychology, and taken out of the realm of physics. I mean - look at it objectively for a second:

1) There is a certain set of self-correcting rules governing the Universe. Granted, we still have a long way to go before we can say that this set of rules is complete, but we're getting there. This is an open system, open for scrutiny and criticism, as a matter of fact, it is scrutiny and criticism that drives development of this set of rules. Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, this set of rules rules out the possibility of Life After Death. Which means that you have to be righteous and fair in This Life, 'cause this is the only chance you're ever gonna get.

2) There is a certain set of cast-in-stone rules that govern the Universe. It was written thousands of years ago, and we trust the translations over centuries to be correct, free of errors, either semantically or metaphorically. This set of rules is not self-correcting, as a matter of fact, wherever this set of rules encounters an equally valid set of rules, the results are things like 9/11, or the Middle East for the last how many years. Northern Ireland is another case in point. The actual writings in these sets of rules exclude the claims to validity of every other set of rules imaginable, including physics. This set of rules do not deny the belief in a Life after Death, as a matter of fact, that's the carrot being dangled in front of the believers - and that's how you explain a suicide bomber. So - if your particular set of rules tell you to destroy the heathen (any believer in any other given set of rules) you will be rewarded in the next life.

Now - which of these sound more probable? See, it's not so hard to get Evolution. It's not so hard to "believe" in science. Once you compare the two (as Creationists want to do in order to disprove it) and you judge the value of your comparisons on the weight of the authority your argument is resting on, Creationism falls apart in a tangled mess of self-justification. You cannot prove a book whilst using that book as the sole authority for your proof. Say, for instance, I have a book saying 1+1=3, and if I believe any other result, I'll go to hell. Now if I were to convince you of the fact that 1+1=3, seeing as I care for your soul, you'll tell me, "No, 1+1=2". So, now we're deadlocked. My only proof is the book that tells me that 1+1=3, however unlikely it may sound. And I can't give any credit to your point of view, 'cause then I'll go to hell after my eventual death. You can pick up two stones and show me that one stone plus one stone is actually two stones. And your experiment is repeatable in every lab in the world, or wherever there's two stones. Now what do I do? I can either blow you up in a final effort to prove my point (and gain eternal life as a Martyr in doing it) or I can be an adult and admit my mistake.

It's your choice.

Sorry.

[Zohaar818]

..All right, I'll look at it. ;)

Incidentally, the first site pointed out that some of the dating methodologies were weak, at best, and some of your latest posts deal heavily with conclusions based upon dating. If some of the assumptions behind these methodologies are false or possibly false, I'd say that before we can conclude anything using dating, we'd need to solidify the assumptions.

 

Like I said, both sides of the argument tend to argue faith and not fact...YES..there is a problem with the dating methodology...which could explain a lot of the anomalies.

And both sides are guilty of distortion to prove their case.

 

But what gets me is the tendency to ignore everything that is too hard to explain..and that goes especially for the evolutionists.

What is the duck-billed platypus' closest relative/ancestor?

Where did that lens come from in Egypt?

See what I mean...they all remark that its fascinating, and then move on to something else...even when it is obvious that the existence of such evidence controverts pet theories.

 

No wonder there is still an argument going on ...

[Boerseun]

But what gets me is the tendency to ignore everything that is too hard to explain..and that goes especially for the evolutionists.

What is the duck-billed platypus' closest relative/ancestor?

Where did that lens come from in Egypt?

See what I mean...they all remark that its fascinating, and then move on to something else...even when it is obvious that the existence of such evidence controverts pet theories.

 

No wonder there is still an argument going on ...

 

I am missing your point here. The "tendency to ignore everything that is too hard to explain..and that goes especially for the evolutionists" seem to me to be a bit off the mark. Evolution is specifically designed to explain hard-to-explain issues in a non-hocus-pocus way. And, with the Scientific Method being self-correcting by design, the Theory of Evolution will stand until a better theory comes forward. And I garuantee you that if a better theory (non-hocus-pocus, empirical, provable) comes forward, all self-respecting scientists will agree that Evolution has served its purpose, and move forward and accept the New Theory. That's the way it works. But the Creationists will fight any new theory as well. That's the way Creation Science works.

Okay - the Duck-billed Platypus is a Marsupial, and seems to have split off from its relatives very long ago to fill a specialised environmental niche. It seems to be an evolutionary dead-end street, because no other animals appear to have followed it down that specific path. But, being a Marsupial, it has family all over Australia, albeit not very recent, so they don't appear much alike. But - the kangaroo, wombat, koala, every animal with a pouch, is related to it to some degree.

An equally relevant example would be the three-toed sloth of the Amazon. Now there's a living freak show if you've ever seen one - but it's family of yours', nonetheless.

Darwin was old, and probably had BO, and probably picked his nose in public and grossed out little kids, but he was no fool.

I can't comment on the lens in Egypt, 'cause I haven't read up on it. But I will appreciate it if you could send me a link or something, and I'll check it out.

[Zohaar818]

I am missing your point here. The "tendency to ignore everything that is too hard to explain..and that goes especially for the evolutionists" seem to me to be a bit off the mark. Evolution is specifically designed to explain hard-to-explain issues in a non-hocus-pocus way. And, with the Scientific Method being self-correcting by design, the Theory of Evolution will stand until a better theory comes forward. And I garuantee you that if a better theory (non-hocus-pocus, empirical, provable) comes forward, all self-respecting scientists will agree that Evolution has served its purpose, and move forward and accept the New Theory. That's the way it works. But the Creationists will fight any new theory as well. That's the way Creation Science works.

Okay - the Duck-billed Platypus is a Marsupial, and seems to have split off from its relatives very long ago to fill a specialised environmental niche. It seems to be an evolutionary dead-end street, because no other animals appear to have followed it down that specific path. But, being a Marsupial, it has family all over Australia, albeit not very recent, so they don't appear much alike. But - the kangaroo, wombat, koala, every animal with a pouch, is related to it to some degree.

An equally relevant example would be the three-toed sloth of the Amazon. Now there's a living freak show if you've ever seen one - but it's family of yours', nonetheless.

Darwin was old, and probably had BO, and probably picked his nose in public and grossed out little kids, but he was no fool.

I can't comment on the lens in Egypt, 'cause I haven't read up on it. But I will appreciate it if you could send me a link or something, and I'll check it out.

 

Points well taken so let me explain...I am saying that both camps tend to cite what suits them and ignore what doesn't..or to fill in the gaps of knowledge with intuitive guesswork..such as the platypus argument you just put forward. The platypus has the bill of a duck..doesn't that make him as equally related to the duck family as his pouch does to the marsupials? And isn't it just a guess that it split off from a common genus a long time ago..without citing the genus or showing some relatively intermediate fossil relative to back it up?

Evolution has points in its favor..and I tend to agree with the main tenets of the thinking as to how one species evolved into another..but the time scales are wrong and the anomalies in the geologic record make it impossible to accurately date any fossil by taking a sample of the rock layer it was found in as a dating mechanism.

 

http://www.strangemag.com/erraticenigmatics.html

 

As for the egyptian lens...here's the relevant site

http://www.archaeologyanswers.com/some_original.html

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Archeology.html

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/

 

Now..you know my theory..I am fully confident that we have been, as a species, tampered with by off-planet intelligences and the we have ancient texts to tell us the very same thing. Why we tend to doubt the IQ or best intentions of our ancestors is beyond me. They built pyramidic structures the likes of which and the precision of which we cannot duplicate today, developed law, astronomy, higher math, euclidian geometry..all without computers , mind you...imagine the mental faculties of our forefathers from 35,000 years ago, 10, 000 years ago. When they say they were visited by star gods, who fell to earth, set up nations, turned tribe against tribe, sought gold, demanded the blood of cattle, came from such and such a place in the solar system..yada yada..why do we think it is al a fairly tale?

When the Bible tells the same story it is all skipped over...we prefer angels to be God's companions, not ET's and grays...and so what if flying discks are mentioned in the Bible, the koran, Hopi legend, Aztec murals....it's all nonsense to some.

And forget that more and more video evidence and more and more officials of rank are coming forward to admit there are things in our skies we have zero control over.which defy earthly explanation..an unbroken record of UFO activity dating back through the centuries into ancient artwork..why is this all harder to believe than Creationsism or Evolution from star-dust [as the theory goes]?

[Zohaar818]

Points well taken so let me explain...I am saying that both camps tend to cite what suits them and ignore what doesn't..or to fill in the gaps of knowledge with intuitive guesswork..such as the platypus argument you just put forward. The platypus has the bill of a duck..doesn't that make him as equally related to the duck family as his pouch does to the marsupials? And isn't it just a guess that it split off from a common genus a long time ago..without citing the genus or showing some relatively intermediate fossil relative to back it up?

Evolution has points in its favor..and I tend to agree with the main tenets of the thinking as to how one species evolved into another..but the time scales are wrong and the anomalies in the geologic record make it impossible to accurately date any fossil by taking a sample of the rock layer it was found in as a dating mechanism.

 

http://www.strangemag.com/erraticenigmatics.html

 

As for the egyptian lens...here's the relevant site

http://www.archaeologyanswers.com/some_original.html

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Archeology.html

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/

 

Now..you know my theory..I am fully confident that we have been, as a species, tampered with by off-planet intelligences and the we have ancient texts to tell us the very same thing. Why we tend to doubt the IQ or best intentions of our ancestors is beyond me. They built pyramidic structures the likes of which and the precision of which we cannot duplicate today, developed law, astronomy, higher math, euclidian geometry..all without computers , mind you...imagine the mental faculties of our forefathers from 35,000 years ago, 10, 000 years ago. When they say they were visited by star gods, who fell to earth, set up nations, turned tribe against tribe, sought gold, demanded the blood of cattle, came from such and such a place in the solar system..yada yada..why do we think it is al a fairly tale?

When the Bible tells the same story it is all skipped over...we prefer angels to be God's companions, not ET's and grays...and so what if flying discks are mentioned in the Bible, the koran, Hopi legend, Aztec murals....it's all nonsense to some.

And forget that more and more video evidence and more and more officials of rank are coming forward to admit there are things in our skies we have zero control over.which defy earthly explanation..an unbroken record of UFO activity dating back through the centuries into ancient artwork..why is this all harder to believe than Creationsism or Evolution from star-dust [as the theory goes]? I don't get it.

Didn't anything cited on the links [there must be a dozen that i've posted by now] doesn't anyone have a comment? Do you agree they tend to fall outside of common theory?

That's exactly what i mean by folks ignoring the obvious in favor of guesswork.

[Zohaar818]

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/dragon9/UNOFFICIAL.html

 

Another site to make you go ..hmmmm