Creationism

The advancement or ability of a higher power being greater than our understanding says nothing about whether or not it had anything to do with creation, let alone whether or not said creation was begotten from intelligent or purposeful design. I would be ignorant given the vastness of the universe to think that something much larger than ourselves does not exist. Whether or not it is god is remains to be seen. Moreover, even if intelligent design gains some favour down the road it still doesn't explain any anatomical inconsistencies. It is assumed that features follow some sort of logical and practical function. You could say that some physiological inconsistency has some purpose not yet known to us, but there has to be an upper limit to what you can suggest it does. That being said inefficiencies are just that; they're shortcomings that imply imperfection, and this calls into question the so called power of god. And with god called into question everything religious scripture and authority says can be called into question.

 

That is only the explanation if you choose to believe in convenience.
Sorry, but the "God works in mysterious ways" argument isn't gonna give you pole position in this debate, or any debate for that matter.

 

Ok, if the "god works in mysterious ways" thing is gona tick you guys off, then I won't bring it up, but here is some information that supports the 6000-10000 year theory: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/58/

 

While it might tick someone off it's more along the lines of an empty rationale. If we don't accept "god works in mysterious ways by making Charles Manson kill all those people" we shouldn't accept it on it's own. All it is is an empty rationalization. You're no better off saying that then you are "oh well cupcakes did it".

 

Okay, I will be sure to look deeper into my facts before I use them next time, that was a mistake on my part. And belive me, I make many mistakes, as I am only an ameture at this.

 

It's funny how much trouble this thread has caused. I suppose what made me create this thread in the first place was that someone I know said that an animal existed "as god made it". This pissed me off to no end. Science has proven almost beyond a doubt that the theory of evolution is sound. It makes me so angry that people can still be so stubborn and idiotic to believe that life just spontaneously appeared in it's entire complexity what 6000 years ago? Even though we have a MOUNTAIN of evidence to prove otherwise. Also the fact that the opposing camp has zero evidence to the contrary.

Then, creationists try to change society to fit their teachings/lies. That pisses me off. There will be no creationist displays in the Ulster museum whilst I draw breath. It is far too much of an insult against humanity.

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

I don't believe that a superior being created human life. I don't even believe in a superior being. I just simply believe in evolution. I take no more part in this argument with the way it is going. Might as well start a Atheists vs Christians thread while you're at it.

I believe in evolution and science. None of that "On the first day," stuff.

 

Thank God there' s no creationism believers in France ! I didn' t even know zip about creationism until 2 months ago and quite frankly it pisses me off to no end. Religion is a matter of faith and should stay out of school. IMO trying to twist the facts so that they literally fit the bible genesis is an insult both to science and to faith. Especially when all that BS is fed to unsuspecting children who' ll take it as the truth since it all comes from the mouth of a teacher, it' s just plain and obvious proselytism in my book.

Religious people have all my respect, creationism doesn' t.

 

I was taught both in my school. I didn't even realize it was a problem until I told a friend of mine years later. It always pissed me off because of the Eve story that is usually tied in. lol...

Anyway, I don't believe in teaching creationism. I grew up in a very religious right-wing republican town, maybe the reason why it was taught in the first place after the law basically said you can't. It offends a lot of people's religions and it shouldn't be taught.

About it, I'm evolution for a few reasons. One, the bible was written a hundred years after Jesus' death. Historical fact, people who have pitchforks and torches. Also, to point out another thing, only rich white people and monks could write back then, well and merchants. Not many woman, and probably not many others. With this, the bible is going to be written in the point of view of the person who wrote it and beliefs of that person will be in that book, not the person who said it, or Jesus words.

I believe in god, I don't believe in religion and especially not creationism or the bible.

 

I never really found creationism's basis reasonable or even provable. At least the basis of evolution is far more understandable in the scope of the reality we live in.

 

its true creationsm isnt provable or even understandble. it takes faith to believe in it and your own personal believes. but evolution isnt even understand able. No one has proof of evolution being real. I dont get how people can understand that. Im not trying to bash im just asking can you explain it to me? I believe that god created the wrold. I just want to try to understand what proof people have of evelution

 

Okay, firstly we need to define 'proof', and to do that, we need an understanding of basic scientific method. To do so, I'll introduce a 'False score', where undoubtable fact is rated as 0, while something that is false is rated as 100. Firstly, a theory is made by a scientist. At this point, the false score is extremely high (99.99 reoccurring). It's possible that it's true, but it's just a theory, and has nothing to back it up. Then he does research to find evidence for and against the theory. If there is evidence for the theory, then he makes it into a report and publishes it, making that false score a 99, so there is a relatively good chance of it being true. This means it is noteworthy enough for peers to read the paper, and do their own research on it, attempting to disprove it. If they are unable to do so, then the theory gains weight, and becomes higher in truth. For each person who tried to disprove it, let's divide the false score by 1.2. If five people review it, the false score becomes 40, meaning it's becoming more respected as a theory in the scientific community. Of course, there's still a good chance it's wrong, so more people review it.

A scientific theory is one that makes predictions, and doesn't just make up possible solutions. For example, let's say I throw a hard boiled egg at a wall. As it is hard-boiled, it doesn't crack and make a mess. I make the theory "That wall is special, and doesn't break eggs thrown at it." That theory has an inherent prediction of "Any eggs thrown at it will not break". I can test this by throwing many eggs of all kinds at it, and seeing if they break. A bad theory would be "That wall is special, and did not break that particular egg at that point in time because it is special", because that does not leave any room for testing my hypothesis.

Coming back to the false score, the scientist's theory makes predictions. Later, the predictions are tested. If one test of a prediction yields a negative result, then the theory needs reworked to explain WHY that one test didn't work. If, however, the predictions are correct, it subtracts from the false score. Let's say that each prediction that comes true divides the false score by 1.2 as well. Suddenly the chance of it being false becomes small.

Let's say that in addition to the initial five who reviewed it, ten more review it too. Also, the predictions came true so far. Let's make that 10 predictions too. Now the false score is around 1. The theory is looking fairly solid, and is fairly controversial, so there are a lot of people trying to disprove it. Let's say fifty people try and fail to disprove it. Also, thirty more predictions have come true. Now the false score (the chance of it being false) is 4.80402... × 10^-7. No matter how many people review it, and no matter how many times the predictions are proven correct, it'll never get to that 0 chance of being false. There is always the chance someone will appear and say "here's why it's wrong!" and provide strong evidence against it. This may even happen with something widely regarded as fact, such as gravity. However the chance of it being wrong is extremely small. Smaller than the likelihood of being a victim of fire-ants.

This is where evolution stands. It had been tested over and over again, yet there are no deep-rooted flaws that have been discovered. The predictions evolution made are in the fossil record. It has stated that no animal should be out of the order it states, and every animal that has been found has been in order. No human bones next to dinosaurs. However there's still the chance that all of this is coincidence, and evolution is wrong. That's what people mean by "evolution is just a theory". Also, if there are flaws, the theory is quickly expanded on to explain those inconsistencies, and the expansion goes through the above process. It's how science works, and it makes the theory credible enough to be believed.

In contrast, Creationism has many flaws, and only explains the past. It makes no predictions on what should happen. For example, let's see its take on the fossil record. It had no comment on the record, but when the record is revealed, it says that the record is the way it is because all the dinosaurs fell to the bottom when the water flooded the Earth. However this is only if the record is intact. If the record is ever muddled, then the argument is "See? That's because the water mixed everything up." For the six days of creation, it made the prediction "Everything will point to the Earth being 6000 years old". Yet when it's turned out to be wrong, the argument instead becomes "Six days meant millions of years."

The theories are being revised, and that's valid. However the predictions are not correct, and the revisions are made only after the result is known, and are not re-tested. In many cases, predictions are not made. It just doesn't have as much credibility as a scientific theory.

 

First : ^ what (s)he said

Then, Evolution :
Every life form is made of cells. Every cell contains a DNA molecule.
That DNA molecule is a code which describes the life form as a whole. A program code is made of a bunch of 0 and 1, a DNA code is composed of a bunch of codons : A, C, G, T (Adenosine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine). When cells replicate sometimes a "bug" can occur in the process, an A will become a T or whatever. It' s called a mutation. If this happens to your reproduction cells (ovula or spermatozoid) then the mutation will be passed onto your child' s DNA (but it won' t necessarily change anything, I' ll explain why). Since it' s all random some mutation are lethal, some are inconsequential and some will lead to new traits. It happens very rarely, which is why evolution takes generations and generations (forget the X-men crap).
Furthermore when we reproduce the male brings one branch of the DNA to the child while the female brings the other. The codons are organized in pairs, one comes from the father and one from the mother. An allele is a group of codons which defines a trait of the individual. They come in pairs too but only one of them is manifested into a trait. Which one ? Depends which trait we' re talking about. My blood type is O, which means both my parents are O. It' s like a card battle, O is the weakest card (it' s a recessive trait) and can only "win" if the other allele of the pair means O too. Those "card battles" are the reason a mutation will not necessarily manifest itself as a new trait. Am I making any sense ? It' s even more complex than that but I' ll leave it there. All of this is proven solid fact.

To summarize evolution is random. In the eyes of a scientist we don' t have eyes in order to see, we can see since we got eyes somehow. Of course people who have faith don' t believe anything is random, and even some scientists are beginning to wonder if all of those bug are really that "random", it seems like a convenient way to say "we don' t know". That' s what they are researching about now, they don' t think it' s God' s will manifesting, they think there' s a deeper biological mechanism involved.

Furthermore we still don' t know how the very first cells appeared on earth, we only have theories. We know how the basic elements needed to form a cell got here, but we don' t know how they ended up assembling into a cell somehow. I guess a believer can see God's will there.

 

Okay then here is somthing to ask. How do you think earth and space was created?

 

Well there's the Big Bang theory, and so far that appears to be rather solid. Past the big bang, I'm not sure. Stephen Hawking said something about gravity doing it, but I haven't read up on it yet.

Why do you ask?

 

because everything was created. you answer one thing then that forms another qustion. How was gravity made? how was air made?nothing was just there it had to be created. does that make sence?

 

Yes. The mere concept of causation is a logical fallacy. However this applies to God as well, so I can't see how it helps the case in favour of Creationism. It's just a problem we have to look for an answer to. But it has nothing to do here, because it can be asked of God too. So if the claim is made "God created the universe", then the problem of "what created God" also comes into play. The usual reply to this is "God is eternal, so he does not need a creator." The appropriate rebuttal to that is "If we can say God is eternal, then there is no need for God in the first place, because we can just say that the Universe is eternal instead, cutting out the need for a creator."

There is a valid argument for the existence of God based on this fallacy, and you can read it here. That article is written by the owner of KHV, and it is a strong argument. However it isn't Creationism, so it has no real place in this thread.

 

You have a good point there. Though to me evolution just doesnt make sence but then again neither does my belif to you correct? We dont have FULL proof of evolution it hasnt been FULLY proven it has happened right? nothing can be proven in my eyes it all lays in faith.

Gata love life and all the confusion @_@

 

Science and Faith aren' t incompatible. My advice would be "stop trying to interpret the genesis literally so that it "fits" (hum,hum) scientific evidences and try to be on the lookout for metaphors instead, religious text are meant to be metaphors about life' s meaning and the meaning you want to give to your life".

If gravity can' t be proven to you then try jumping out of the sixth floor, it' ll be fun I promise ! ^^