I have a question for those who hate creationism

[Foxfyre]

I am technically a Creationist and advocate of Intelligent Design--which are not necessarily the same thing--and have long been on the record that neither are science and should not be taught as science.

I am also long on the record that no science teacher should ever tell a student that there is no such thing as Creationism or Intelligent Design.

I have no problem with a teacher telling students that Creatism and/or Intelligent Design are believed by many people in many cultures and both can answer questions that Evolution cannot. However they are not science and will not be included in the science curriculum and won't be a satisfactory answer on any test.

I am long on the record that there is a lot of scientific support for Evolution and it must be included in the science curriculum.

I believe an honest science curriculum will also include the concept that Evolution cannot answer all questions and there is still more science to discover than what we already know.

And I resent being told by pointy heads and anti-religionists and fanatics and numbnuts that a person cannot be a Creationist and IDer AND an Evolutionist all at the same time.

 

[edthecynic]

I believe in The Big Bang Theory.

I know the Dude that struck the match!

So you know gravity. Big deal!

 

[midcan5]

A harder question is purpose? The more we know the less we understand.


"How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people - first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving." Albert Einstein

 

[konradv]

I said "theocrats", not "Christians". There is a difference.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution. They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.

You're right.
Catholics just keep adding more pages until it fits their belief structure.

Whatever that's supposed to mean, it's THEIR book?!?! THEY assembled it and Christ said whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, so any additions were already OK'd by Jesus.

 

[konradv]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

 

[Immanuel]

I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.

But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.

Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.

Immie

similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens. Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened. Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening. From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.

Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.

There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.

Immie

 

[peach174]

DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
the Man's 50,000 years ago.
It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?  How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum

 

[Toro]

Good post. I suppose the only change I would make would be

God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.

Immie

I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.

But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.

Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.

Immie

What if that God is the Islamic God?

The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

And yet does nothing come from nothing? Where did the substance of the universe come from? How did it come to be here? Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance? Due to some cosmic accident?

If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?

An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.

 

[konradv]

DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
the Man's 50,000 years ago.
It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?* How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum

If we were designed intelligently, of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids, why do some have six codons and some only one? Wouldn't a "designer" have made it three each with two each for 'on' and 'off'?

 

[konradv]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

And yet does nothing come from nothing? Where did the substance of the universe come from? How did it come to be here? Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance? Due to some cosmic accident?

If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?

An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.

Do you want to talk about creationism or the Big Bang? I have no problem with saying God created the Big Bang and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics which flowed from it, but life itself was not directly created, rather it was the result of those laws.

 

[konradv]

DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
the Man's 50,000 years ago.
It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?* How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum

Trouble is, The Flood has never been postulated to have happened 50,000 years ago by anyone I've read. It seems someone's trying to pull a fast one here!!!!

 

[konradv]

Good post. I suppose the only change I would make would be

God created the universe and life then he allowed evolution to take over from there.

Immie

I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.

But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.

Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.

Immie

It's not all random luck. Don't forget that you've got the Laws of Chemistry and Physics working, too. If you're looking for a plan or "design", THAT'S where it is.

 

[Immanuel]

I have no problem with that, although having created a universe where the laws seem to be designed to create life from inorganic matter, I see no need of said Diety bothering to create life seperate from the creation of the universe.

But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.

Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.

Immie

What if that God is the Islamic God?

The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.

What if he is? Well, for one thing, I don't think I will qualify for the 72 virgins.

I don't think finding life on other planets would shake my faith. Hell, I don't understand the entire Word of God that I have in front of me. This would simply be something else that I want explained after entering those "pearly gates".

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
the Man's 50,000 years ago.
It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?* How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum

Trouble is, The Flood has never been postulated to have happened 50,000 years ago by anyone I've read. It seems someone's trying to pull a fast one here!!!!

The ancients had no clear record of eons of time as we pretend we do now. They made time fit their stories rather than fit stories into any concept of real time. And they could write only from their own experience. If there really was a Noah and his family, being in a flood from which no land was visible would certainly look as if the whole Earth was flooded.

From what I've read, almost all ancient cultures have a flood story in their lore. Why would that be if there had been no period or periods of massive flooding on Earth? And to the ancients of each of those cultures, they would see it as cataclysmic and universal as they had no other perspetive from which to work.

To take the ancient stories literally and omit the symbolism and story telling within them is pure folly. To dismiss them as if there is no foundation is equally short sighted.

 

[edthecynic]

But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.

Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.

Immie

similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens. Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened. Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening. From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.

Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.

There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.

Immie

Of course your "odds" are based on many false assumptions, the most obvious being that chemical reactions happen over the whole globe only one at a time in series. Or to put it in the lightning strike terms, one specific person being struck in one specific place has very high odds against it, but any person being struck anywhere in the world brings the odds down quite considerably.

 

[edthecynic]

DNA confirms for me that the Bible stories are true.
The link below shows that their was one woman at one time from which we all came from.
And confirms the Flood story during Noah's time
The Woman's 200,000 years ago.
the Man's 50,000 years ago.
It tells me that we all come from Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives.
Note where it says at least one bottleneck and a period of time where the population was reduced significantly.
Many scientific finds have correlation to the Bible yet is deliberately left out by the scientific community.

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Who was Y-chromosome Adam?* How do they relate to Genesis? | The BioLogos Forum

With Eve living 150,000 years BEFORE Adam, the odds are they didn't hook up!

Not only that but the bible says Adam existed BEFORE Eve!

 

[edthecynic]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

And yet does nothing come from nothing? Where did the substance of the universe come from? How did it come to be here? Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance? Due to some cosmic accident?

If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?

An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.

I seem to recall telling you the answer to those questions in another thread, so i can't believe you still don't know the answer. Obviously your mind is closed to the known facts.

The universe is ENERGY in some form, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is the proven First Law of Thermodynamics you referenced when you said "nothing comes from nothing." The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, you probably have a surge protector on your electrical equipment rated in "Joules" named after him in honor of this great achievement. You can repeat his experiment yourself to confirm it for yourself, therefore no faith is needed to what the substance of the universe IS.

 

[Toro]

But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.

Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.

Immie

What if that God is the Islamic God?

The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.

What if he is? Well, for one thing, I don't think I will qualify for the 72 virgins.

I don't think finding life on other planets would shake my faith. Hell, I don't understand the entire Word of God that I have in front of me. This would simply be something else that I want explained after entering those "pearly gates".

Immie

My point is that the attack on Evolution does not generally come from scientists. It comes from religious people. Why? Because it challenges their belief system on the origins of the universe, and implicitly, their belief in God as explained by their religion. This does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is necessarily correct, and most scientists know this. Instead, Evolution as a theory on the origins of man is one that best fits our understanding of the world around us through the scientific method. If a better explanation comes along, Science will abandon Evolution.

But (most) Creationists aren't interested in discovering the origins of the universe. They are interested in promoting their religion. Their agenda is to tear down the edifice of Evolution so that their explanation is the only one remaining by default.

I, like everyone else, cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. And perhaps God did initiate the Big Bang, I don't know. But if He did, it is highly likely that God is something very different than the one described in the Christian bible, or any of the holy books for that matter.

 

[Dr Grump]

And yet does nothing come from nothing? Where did the substance of the universe come from?

And yet you don't find it hard to believe that some supreme being that has always existed (from where?) went "poof" and everything was set in motion? hhhhmmmmm