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

[Queso]

i ay ay, somebody brought back that gong thing again.

[Kukucan]

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

Isn't that jalapeno ketchup? I've never tried it, but do like hot sauce sometimes.

 

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?

The platypus' closest releatives include the two species of echidna, the long-beaked echidna (found in New Guinea) and the short-beaked echidna (found in Australia).

[Kukucan]

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?

The platypus and echidnas are actually monotremes, not marsupials. Monotremes are "egg-laying mammals", and are said to be the most primitive mammals on the planet.

 

Just because two different species have similar morphological characteristics does not in itself mean that they both descended from a common ancestor with that specific trait(s). In the case of the platypus (a mammal) and the duck (a bird), the fossil record does not support them being related.

 

Sometimes two unrelated species will evolve similar traits, and this is called "convergent evolution". Here are a few examples:

• humans and birds are both bipedal

• the wings of insects, birds and bats

• the body shape of dolphins, sharks, and penguins

[Boerseun]

Zohaar, you say "the platypus has the bill of a duck". :friday:

Now... the platypus has a bill resembling that of a duck. The same way a shrew has a tiny little snout resembling an elephant's trunk, but definitely does not prove him to be a member of the elephant family. The closest they get is to both be mamalia. The closest eyeball in the animal world to a human eyeball is that of an octopus, now, the fact that they resemble each other, implies in no way at all any close genetic relationship. The simple fact is that sometimes evolutionary pressure requires similar solutions.

With the rest of your theory of extraterrestrial interference, all I can say is that Occam's razor would apply here as well. For any inexplicable phenomena, the simplest hypothetical explanation is most likely the truth: If the ancients built pyramids that we can't build today, is it more likely that either:

a) We haven't figured out the proper way to do it yet, or

;) Extraterrestrials who have successfully escaped our scientific probing came to Earth, built the pyramids for no apparent reason, and then went on their merry way again?

[Kukucan]

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.

The "supposed skulls of extinct races" or human/alien hybrids. That was simply caused by "head binding", a practice of wrapping the heads of infants, which changes the shape of the skull as it grows. In the Americas this was often done to signify nobility.

 

And the artifacts, it is mostly a case of seeing what one wants to see. Nothing convincing there.

 

As far as the whole "alien" ;) thing, it still fails to answer pretty much the same question which creationism fails to answer:

 

If god created us, who created god?

 

If we were put hear by aliens, who put them wherever they were put?

[Boerseun]

This whole thread is actually a failure of logic and debate.

Look at the premise: What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

 

Now ask yourself, who's asking the question?

 

If somebody defending evolution were to ask it, he/she'd ask: What makes Evolution so hard to believe in, and creationism so easy? Just the other way around.

Coming back to the original question, Creationism is actually a lot easier to believe than evolution, seeing as it taxes the brain a heck of a lot less. It's easier just to believe blindly in the whole Creation premise, than to have faith in the seemingly senseless, blind process of evolution.

So, the only way in which either side is going to see the other side's version, is if one side can convince the other side of its' opinion. And I've been in waaaaayyyyy too many Evolution/Creationism debates to have any hope of a sensible conclusion to this.

 

Carry on, debate further, but I don't see light at the end of this specific tunnel.

[Queso]

yeah, we don't usually let threads get this long either. it's a catastrophy that's sometimes fun to watch.

[Stargazer]

It's actually not easy at all to believe in the Genesis creation myth. It has no support at all from evidence, and furthermore it's a myth, as I'm sure we all know. It may be pleasant to believe in it because of whatever reason, but it's not easy to make it fit with reality.

[C1ay]

Isn't that jalapeno ketchup?

I wish it was because I love hot and spicy. Unfortunately the green catsup is just dyed that color with food coloring. It really looks a lot like baby excrement ;)

[eMTee]

If god created us, who created god?

he is the alpha and omega..this is somthing that requires faith alone, and I choose to go with it.

[Boerseun]

he is the alpha and omega..this is somthing that requires faith alone, and I choose to go with it.

 

Dude... dude... dude...

 

Something that "requires faith alone" does not belong in a scientific forum. Period.

Believing in it is your prerogative, I'm not denying you that. But trying to defend it, by definition a science-orientated forum is a wrong choice. Scientists do not believe things or phenomena or anything else on "faith alone". We need empirical evidence, repeatable experiments, etc.

[Tormod]

In fact, stating "I just know that this is the way it is" is a violation of our site rules...

[eMTee]

Wow...I didn't know I violated the rules when I sayed that, interesting.

[C1ay]

Wow...I didn't know I violated the rules when I sayed that, interesting.

Have you even bothered to read the rules? See #4 under Behavior....

[DAK]

<So, the only way in which either side is going to see the other side's version, is if one side can convince the other side of its' opinion.>

 

Or one could look at the whole thing as degrees of truth since any discussion of divinity transcends the intellect by definition. The question throughout the ages is the relevance of reason, logic, and the intellect to the reality and nature of God... ie. is mans capacity to think, know, and reason actually a quality of Divinity?

 

As far as I know, withouth answering the question

 

is the source of conciousness {the capacity to be aware, know, feel, sense, or speak- an a priori to all human experience} a personal self or a Divine quality {spirit?} within man??

 

we cannot discuss evolution as a godly process. If there is a god {omnipresent, in all, is all} we are not separate from it... it is impossible to "step out" and measure or observe.

 

Therefore the real question is: "Is there a god"? That is unless you believe god is other than the above {ancient beliefs with gods of weather, sun, etc}.

 

DAK

[Zohaar818]

http://spamlink removed

 

MY last post on the subject..it's up to you now to believe or disbelieve accordingly...

 

-Amen

-Zohaar818

 

Sorry Zohaar, I couldn't find any content at that link, only a sales pitch for some book. There weren't even any free chapters available, just pure spam which isn't allowed.

 

C1ay

[DAK]

I think part of the problem, Zohaar, is that "creationism" here seems to mean a narrow definition... and that definition seems to be one deemed to be from the "Christian Fundamentalist" camp.

 

It's easy to see why that would happen, since 'Creationism" in our society has come be attached to Christian Fundamentalists thanks to media exposure. From my point of view, I'd use a totally different context {the one you use with that link} when dealing with that faction, than I would if dealing with someone without the attachment to certain biblical passages and a potentially falacious interpretation of such, and more interested in the concept itself. Many would say "who would care except that faction?" Well, that's exactly the problem, 'Creationism" if looked at in that way gets little attention... and for good reason. There are a few words in a 2000 year old text???

 

My comment would be that to dismiss 'creationsim' based on the fundamentalist viewpoint is easy but a mistake. The question remains "is there a greater power of conciousness affecting things"? As usual the fundamentalists are a two edged sword... on the one hand they keep the 'idea' alive... on the other some of their assertions are so easily dismissed as to make it easy to drop the whole thing.

 

I would propose that the real question is: Does a greater power, field, god, whatever, exist?? Because if so, how could it NOT be {and have done so in the past} affecting evolution?? There is plenty of buzz around about possible similarities between the emerging view of the 'unified field' in physics and explaination of reality by mystics, sages, avatars {Christ, Buddha, etc}, through history. It should also be noted that a "Church"... Catholic or otherwise IS NOT divine... it is a human institution. As your link points out {and any honest person would agree} churches sin like everyone else. Like the evolution issue however, that fact does not preclude potential truths in original religious teachings OR the existance of god.

 

I enthusiastically recommend these three books for those interested in the "science meeting spirituality" concept:

 

http://www.veritaspub.com/

 

DAK