Okay, my bad. I got that from a religious friend of mine. She said it dealt with 6000 or so years, starting with Genesis. I guess it must have been implied, not stated. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by Pappy’s daughter
Well, uniformitarians use the theory of evolution as evidence for what they believe in, and catastrophism uses the Bible the same way.I really don’t want to get into this any more than I already have. Like I already said once, some people prefer the theory of evolution and some prefer creationism. Take my advice and get two science books that talk about evolution. One that was written by a uniformitarian and one written by a catastrophist.
Again, this is about creationalism and evolution, not geological theories based on them. You’re going off on tangeants about a completely different area of study.
I am a Christian. I believe that God created this world. Evolutionists believe that over the course of billions of years is how this world was created. I said it takes great faith to believe in either view because it’s true. It takes faith to believe that God created the world, it takes faith to believe that evolution is how the world was formed. Believe in whatever you want to, but I believe in God.
Well, acceptance of the evolution theory as a plausible explanation and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. It hardly requries “faith” to indicate that you agree that this theory or that theory is the most likely or plausible explanation of something. Again, faith is something related to religion. I think you’ve simply confused the meaning of the word.
If I look like I’m repeating myself, that’s because I’m fighting for my beliefs (ooooh, the dreaded “b” word again, ooooh) just as you are! Why else would we be posting so much to prove that the other is wrong (or doesn’t have enough info on the subject)?
Well, it would be a much more interesting debate (or “fight”, as you term it) if you provided any amount of sources backing up your “belief”. We’re doing this because it’s interesting and stimulating, of course. Why do we do anything? 
This is my last post. I’m obviously the only one here who believes in creationism. Right now I’m sort of flustered, and I really don’t want to get banned. So please at least try to understand what I’m saying. I’m going to try to understand what you said too. Thank you.
Whoa whoa, calm down! Nobody’s going to ban you or assassinate you in the dead of night for believing in creationalism. This whole debate really is kinda interesting. I hope that if you reply again you provide some backing up of points. Danke.
Actually there was a scholar at Cambridge sometime in the last millenia that did all the math behind it and it came down 6000 years and it stuck to that. That led to a lot of problems when people started figuring out the Earth was way way way older. In fact, the religious atmosphere of the time caused Darwin to hesitate with the release of the Origin of Species and made him write only a 1 sentence reference to human evolution in the entire work.
Originally posted by Pappy’s daughter
[b]Believe in whatever you want to, I don’t care. I have done research on both sides of these theories. I choose to believe in creationism and you can choose to believe in what you want. If you want references from me, get the book “Exploring Creation with General Science”. That’s where I got the whole Cumberland Bone Cave thing. I obviously don’t know everything about this subject, I’m only a teenager! I’ll probably look into the subject more.If I look like I’m repeating myself, that’s because I’m fighting for my beliefs (ooooh, the dreaded “b” word again, ooooh) just as you are! Why else would we be posting so much to prove that the other is wrong (or doesn’t have enough info on the subject)?
This is my last post. I’m obviously the only one here who believes in creationism. Right now I’m sort of flustered, and I really don’t want to get banned. So please at least try to understand what I’m saying. I’m going to try to understand what you said too. Thank you. [/b]
sigh No you’re not. This is what usually happens in a fairly religious vs science (biology?) debate, when someone new participates. You’re not going to get banned by stating your opinion, but since a lot of people here are hardcore skeptics, athiests, or extremely educated in the science department (that whole geology and biology thing was way over my head), they honestly want you to back up your opinion, just as if it were the other way around. No one is ganging up on you, and you’re obviously reading this in the wrong frame of mind if you’re getting flustered.
Some people here believe in God and creationism and whatnot, but not everyone participates in these discussions do they? You’re getting badgered because we can’t understand where you’re coming from on this. Don’t feel bad.
And ah well whatever. I’m half and half so I’m not gonna go “religious zealot” on anyone. it was written by people and not God, so, and well it was stated much much earlier the Bible was only figurative, apparently. I just stated what I thought I knew.
Originally posted by Evangelion
Now this has turned into a big creationism is crap and so is evolution arguement/
Well, I’ve said that it’s not scientific and other people have said that it shouldn’t be taught in schools for that very reason, with which I completely agree. It seems like you’re still trying to equate creationism with science, except now you’re basically saying “well, different people believe different things, so they’re equal because both have people who believe in them, and the theory of evolution is really no different from religion as a result of that.” But that’s absolutely wrong. You can have some people who believe in the theory of gravity and some that don’t, but in the meantime, things still fall down and not up, and, by the rigorous scientific method which requires evidence, the theory of gravity holds. Gravity isn’t something that you “believe” or “disbelieve.”
The debate right now is not over whether creationism is “bad” or “crap,” it’s really over whether it’s “scientific” as compared to, say, the theory of evolution. It isn’t. The whole notion of “creation science” is nonsense; it’s inherently self-contradictory. That does <i>not</i> necessarily mean that <i>religion itself</i> is nonsense or that the concept of religious creation is “crap,” that means that trying to pass off religious doctrines as science, claiming that they are valid by the scientific method, and thereby attempting to discredit actual science is intellectually dishonest. Every time religion tries to intrude into the territory of science, it’s going to lose, just like it lost back in the Middle Ages when the church claimed that the sun revolved around the earth. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, in no way intrudes upon religious territory, as shown by the fact that the Catholic Church (for instance) has acknowledged that it’s a perfectly reasonable “explanation of god’s works” or something like that.
Originally posted by Evangelion
And what else is there besides creationism and evolution? Aliens? I don’t get it.
You’re missing the point again. There are literally thousands of different versions of creationism, all equally substantiated (i.e. not at all) from a scientific point of view. That’s why you should not equate creationism with science.
You know, scientists and theologians have been disputing this theory ever since Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species…I seriously doubt a bunch of people on a messageboard are going to prove either idea correct. =P
As for my 2 cents, I personally don’t give a crap what anyone else believes, but I believe in the fossil record.
The fossil record isn’t something that one either “believes” or “disbelieves.” That’s like saying that you “believe” that things fall down and not up.
Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
[b]Well, I’ve said that it’s not scientific and other people have said that it shouldn’t be taught in schools for that very reason, with which I completely agree. It seems like you’re still trying to equate creationism with science, except now you’re basically saying “well, different people believe different things, so they’re equal because both have people who believe in them, and the theory of evolution is really no different from religion.” But that’s absolutely wrong. You can have some people who believe in the theory of gravity and some that don’t, but in the meantime, things still fall down and not up, and, by the rigorous scientific method which requires evidence, the theory of gravity holds.The debate right now isn’t that creationism is “bad” or “crap,” it’s over whether it’s “scientific” as compared to, say, the theory of evolution. It isn’t. The whole notion of “creation science” is nonsense; it’s inherently self-contradictory. That does <i>not</i> necessarily mean that <i>religion itself</i> is nonsense or that the concept of religious creation is “crap,” that means that trying to pass off religious doctrines as science, claiming that they are valid by the scientific method, and thereby attempting to discredit actual science is intellectually dishonest. Every time religion tries to intrude into the territory of science, it’s going to lose, just like it lost back in the Middle Ages when the church claimed that the sun revolved around the earth. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, in no way intrudes upon religious territory, as shown by the fact that the Catholic Church has acknowledged that it’s a perfectly reasonable “explanation of god’s works” or something like that.
You’re missing the point again. There are literally thousands of different versions of creationism, all equally substantiated (i.e. not at all) from a scientific point of view. That’s why you should not equate creationism with science. [/b]
-
I was basing that comment on what the girl said, which was “the theory of evolution is crap”. And no, I don’t believe I was saying that, it just seemed from her post that she was comparing creationism and evolution, and that’s the examples I stuck with.
-
and again I was going with her comment. She was talking about Christian creationism vs evolution, and I conveniently disregarded the rest (more like forgot, because they haven’t been mentioned at all).
And ok not equating creationism with science. Check. I just automatically do that, all the time, sorry.
A lot of creationists believe Earth is 6k to 10k years old simply because someone found that out by measuring the timespan of key events in the bible. However, they assume that there was no interval between some events without further thought. I don’t take these seriously, for these are the ones who say that fossil records and geology were created by the devil to trick humanity.
I take the rest of them with utter respect. I’m still an evolutionist, though.
Pappy’s daughter, its not nearly as simple as two different people ‘fighting for their beliefs’. Evolution isn’t a belief; its a fact. Faith in God is a belief.
Originally posted by AngelOfTheLion
CC, those are possibly the worst examples of biased propaganda I have ever seen. They don’t even address a lot of the evidence, and there wasn’t any actual evidence for creationism in it.
We all realize that. You’re a little new here, so search the archives for Chic Tracts and you’ll see where we all stand on that garbage.
Originally posted by AngelOfTheLion
And besides, doesn’t the theory of creationism, or The Bible state that the Earth is 6,000 years old? I’m not too sure, don’t quote me on it, but I’m fairly certain that it was a fairly low number. If that was the case, how do they explain fossils from before that age? Radiocarbon dating can date fossils which are over 6000 years old.
There was someone who determined the exact age of the universe according to the Bible down to the minute. The largest error in this calculation is a literal interpretation of the Bible, since a vast portion of it is symbolism which was commonly understood at the time of its writing and has since been forgotten.
I’m trying to find some information about the exact age of the universe idea, but haven’t yet.
Edit: Curtis, while evolution is indeed far more factual than a belief in a higer being, it is not absolute, hence the word “theory”. Now, don’t take my use of the word theory to mean that evolution shouldn’t be accepted, but that science changes over time in response to new evidence.
Originally posted by demigod
Curtis, while evolution is indeed far more factual than a belief in a higer being, it is not absolute,
That’s true only in a sense that renders the word “absolute” meaningless. As I wrote earlier in the thread, “nothing can be “entirely proven.” After all, just because objects have always fallen down since the beginning of time doesn’t “entirely prove” that they always will. Nonetheless, that theory can be shown, by means of that evidence, to be generally true or true beyond a reasonable doubt, concepts which amount to the exact same thing as “entirely proven” as far as all human experience and perception are concerned.” Trying to downplay the theory of evolution by pointing to the word “theory” and making general statements completely ignores what stands behind the notion of a “theory.” It’s also inaccurate, since evolution itself is a fact, and the “theory” part refers to the model offered to explain it.
Originally posted by Evangelion
[b]Now this has turned into a big creationism is crap and so is evolution arguement. Both parties seem to be guilty now Essentially it comes down to what we want to believe, and what we want to believe in, and what we know…I don’t believe anyone has any right saying religious people are stupid or weak for believing in God who created the earth, but at the same time, I don’t believe anyone has any right to dismiss science and what it has taught us, in the same context.And what else is there besides creationism and evolution? Aliens? I don’t get it. [/b]
<font size=“7”>WE WERE CREATED BY THE XEL’NAGA!!!</font>
Believe in whatever you want to, I don’t care. I have done research on both sides of these theories. I choose to believe in creationism and you can choose to believe in what you want
I believe in Creationism AND Evolution
That is, I believe that god sparked life and it’s developed from there.
It sounds like what you’re trying to say is that you believe in instantaneous creation of man, and non-existance before his arrival.
I’m sorry, but that’s about as absurd as claiming that the sun doesn’t exist.
See I knew it
See, she knew it!
I exist on my own side of the issue.
I do not believe in ‘evolution’ in the sense of one species becoming another species.
That said, I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old (though I suppose humanity might be that old). Furthermore, I do not believe all species spontaneously POPPED into existence at the same time.
One species at a time, just the forms get better with each new type that appears.
There is no such thing as a better or less good organism. Merely a more fit organism. Fitness is based on the organism’s ability to survive and reproduce. Different environmental conditions affect an individual organism’s ability to reproduce and survive and these determine if a phenotype at a given time is good or bad.
Obvious example: sickle cell anemia is a deadly recessive genetic disease. However, being heterozygous for the sickle cell allele makes one immune to malaria, a disease which kills millions worldwide _every_year.
Speciation doesn’t arise directly out of evolution but by reproductive isolation, which can arise through divergences that can be affected by differing selective pressures that push organisms that were once in one population into phenotypically diverse populations occupying different niches.
Bout time they banned evolution! I hate it! I mean, look at Jurassic Park 3, those velociraptors were no where near as cool as the Velociraptors in JP1. Fuck evolution!
Explaining things or making my point is not something I’m very good at. This is in regard to my earlier posts. I re-read them, and my argument was weak. Just another example of how stupid I can be. Sorry if I was annoying the crap outta you guys. I still recommend picking up that book, “Exploring Creation with General Science”. It can explain things a lot better than I can.
That’s all I needed to say. I’ll just go crawl under a rock now…
"For many people, evolution represents a threat to their beliefs in the sudden creation of all life by a creator. Attempts to legislate the teaching of the Blibical view of creation in science classes, however, violate the First Ammendment of the Constitution as an establishment of religion. To circumvent this problem, opponents of evolution have devised the strategy of calling their teachings “creation science” , supposedly the scientific study of special creation. The word God does not always appear in definitions of creation science, but the word creator often does. In March 1981, the Arkansas state legislature passed a law (Act 590) requiring that creation science be taught in public schools for equal amounts of time as evolution. The ACLU challenged this law and it was overturned in a federal district court in 1982. A similar law passed in Lousiana in 1981 and was later overturned. The Louisiana case has since been appealed and brought to the US Supreme Court , which upheld the ruling of the lower court in 1987. Amont other legal problems they raise, both the Arkansas and Louisiana laws have been found to be unconsitutional under the First Amendment.
What is creation science? Why shouldn’t it be taught in science classes? Shouldn’t science be open to new ideas? These questions all center on teh issue of whether creation science is a science or not. As typically applied, creation science is not a science; at best, it is a grab bag of ideas spruced up with scientific jargon . One of the original definitions found in the Act 590 if the Arkansas law, which defines creation science as “the scientific evidence for creation and inferences from these scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate that (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing, (2)The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals (4) Separate ancestors for man and apes (5) explanation of the Earth’s geology by catastrophism inculding the occurrence of a world wide flood and (6) a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds (Montagu 1984 376-377)”.
None of these statements is supported by scientific evidence and creationist writers generally use very little actual evidence to support their views. Some have written that the Biblical Flood can be supported by teh fossil record. Earth’s past is essentially recorded by the order in which different levels of earth and fossils are found. In general, that is, thedeeper a fossil is found ,the older it is. Creationists explain this order as being caused by the flight of animals from the Flood. As the waters rose, they say birds flew, and small mammals ran up the mountains to escape drowning; these creatures were therefore drowned at high elevation [note from Sin: proof?]
Isn’t this proof creation science? No. Think about the Flood scenario for a moment and you will see that it just doesnt’ make sense. Why didn’t the winged reptiles fly away like the birds did? Why are single-celled organisms found earlier than multi-celled organisms of similar size and overall shape? Why did large heavy creatures such as giant tortoises and hipopotami survive? Why did certain fish die before others when they were just as swift and good at swimming? Why didn’t the small fast dinosaurs survive? The fossil record , in short, provides ample evidence to reject the Flood hypothesis.
The main “scientific” work of the creationists consists of atempting to find fault with evolutionary theory. The reasoning is that if evolution can be rejected, then special creation must be true [note from Sin: which isn’t scientific since 1 wrong thing doesn’t explain something happening if the other thing you’re disproving is supposedly wrong]. This strategy actually uses an important feature of scientifc research by attempting to reject a given hypothesis. The problem is that none of creationists’ attacks on evolution has been supported by scientific evidence. Ceratinly some predictions of evolutioonary theory have been proven incorrect, but that is to be expected because science is a dynamic process. The asic finds of evoltion, however, have been supported time and time again.
Another problem is that this method works only when the hypothesis and its alternative cover all possible cases. Are evolution and special creation by a single creator the only possible explanations?
Remember, to be scientific a hypothesis must be testable.
On an emotional level, the doctrines of “creation science” attract many people. Given the concept of free speech, why shouldn’t CS be given equal time? The problem with equal time is that it assumes both ideas have equal merit. Considering that some people might think the earth is flat, giving equal time to that belief in a geography or geology class is absurd. "
-The Human Species , An introduction to Biological Anthropology, John H. Relethford.