Bits & Pieces: Creationism

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Creationism

via

18 comments:

Anonymous said...: CREATIONISM - Don't confuse me with science or data, I'll believe whatever the church tells me (because it's a sin to think for yourself).; 6:35 AM, December 13, 2007
Anonymous said...: i won't argue the points either way, but you should realize that anything that purports origins -from the big bang, to God creating the earth - requires faith beyond science, because science cannot accurately predict anything non-reproducible such as long lengths of time. For the record, whether your indoctrination let's you believe it or not, there is no overwhelming evidence either for either origin viewpoint; and plenty of evidence for both theories. Neither of which is more or less scientific.; 10:14 AM, December 13, 2007
Anonymous said...: WOW!, just WOW!

DNA studies do prove evolution of living species as well as some extinct species if DNA is available. Does it prove Adam and Eve did not exist? No. Does it prove that Adam and Eve was not the first man and woman since the bible dates Adam and Eve to exist only a few thousands of years ago? Yes.

Is their a higher being? Maybe. A higher being directing how atoms, protons, electrons, etc. interact with each other - sure, why not. Its as good a theory as any.

Don't mistake my outburst as anti-religion, it is not. It is, however, anti-church. Big difference! "God created man in His own image" - That's BS. It is man that created GOD in man's image. If there is a higher being, His existance would not be anything you or I would be able to understand. And no, I don't think God is vain enough to have everyone worship Him every seventh day.

As for science not being able to predict anything non-reproducible, they seem pretty accurate on the phases of the moon, tides, solar eclipses, radioactive decay, dinosaurs. Dinosaurs???? Yea, they "predicted" they roamed the earth millions of years ago, but no one can be sure can they since they weren't there!; 2:25 PM, December 13, 2007
Anonymous said...: Very misdirected reply. You are confusing motivation behind scientific study with the actual scientific study. Christians are motivated to scientifically study the workings of the world and how the numbers should actually be interpreted as a relatively short length of time BECAUSE they believe the Bible. Evolutionists are motivated by removing any element of DIRECT supernatural intervention in the creation of this world. That's why the timeline needs to constantly extend further back in time by their theories.

And yes, I still say science can't accurately predict anything non-reproducible since there is no way to make a prediction, do an experiment, WAIT millions of years, and then see if it's right. However, phases of the moon, tides, solar eclipses can be predicted, and then you just need to wait until the next one you predicted happens to see if you're right.

There are too many variables with decay rates that a lab can't predict or properly reproduce. We can't even say exactly what the weather was like 2000 years ago, how would we know 2,000000 years ago? the weather is just one of many factors that could affect decay rate.

as for being created in God's image, I say that the paintings I do represent me(or are in my image), does that mean they look like me? Well, if abstract trees look like me, than yes.

Finally, I believe in evolution too. So do creationists, except on a micro-scale. Such as adaptation to environments, which happens much faster than you think. Don't confuse the micro-scale with the macro-scale. The macro-scale has zero evidence for, and that is required for evolution to be proved.; 12:14 AM, December 14, 2007
Anonymous said...: Hmmm, I was wondering why it is so hard to believe that a supreme being could be responsible for the evolution that scientist believe. The two ideas are not exclusionary. They could compliment each other.

But then I realized that for a "person of faith" to accept this they would have to accept a flaw in the bible, Adam and Eve was not the first people on this earth.

Do you know the bible was an oral story told from father to son for many generations before it was written down in I forget which language. Then as parchment paper deterioated, it had to copied and rewritten, and rewritten again and again. Then finally translated from the orginal language to at least a half dozen other languages before it ended up in an old form of English you or I would not even understand. That translation to English was outlawed by the church for centuries and violators were put to death if they translated the bible to English. Why? the church wanted to control the interpretation of "God's Word" (probably for their or their King's benefit).

So, could a story told through many generations orally, then written down, copied many times, then translated into various languages be the same as the orginal story? Faith will tell you YES. Science will tell you there is a very high degree of certainty that it isn't the same as the orginal story.

I would love to debate this further, because everytime you run into a dead end you'll fall back on faith or a challenge to prove the unprovable. And when the unprovable cannot be proved, you'll conclude that the opposite has just been proved.; 6:42 AM, December 14, 2007
Anonymous said...: big bang theory... what came first the chicken or the egg??? if Adam just banged Eve, we wouldn't be here...lol; 7:35 AM, December 14, 2007
Anonymous said...: woohoo, your comment about the retelling of the bible being not accurate - read up on the dead sea scrolls, which have direct quotes from several of the original books of the bibles, and they date back to as far as 335 bc. So your theory that "the church (being established long after 335 bc) wanting to control the interpretation of God's Word" has a flaw of it's own. But don't let that get in your way.

Adam and Eve were the first humans on this earth, according to creationist, but they weren't the first living things. Read up on your creation story before you criticize it so ignorantly.

And last I heard, scientists were still looking for "the missing link", a transitional fossil, that would beyond a doubt prove that humans evolved from primates. So basically, evolutionists accept "on faith" that humans did indeed evolve from primates, as they don't have a direct fossil record of it. I don't really see how this is structurally different from a creationist accepting "on faith" that humans were created by a supernatural being in his own image.; 2:22 PM, December 14, 2007
Anonymous said...: Warren, sorry I didn't put any dates in my church controlling the interpretation of the bible, that happened many centuries after Christ was born. The point is from the first words of the bible to it being translated into English's took hundreds and hundreds of years. Can't send the kids to the supermarket with an oral shopping list and expect them remembering the same items after an hour, let alone hundreds and hundreds of years.

Hmmm, Adam and Eve being the first "Humans" on earth. I'll assume HomoSapiens is what you mean. According to the bible adam and eve existed about 6000 years ago. Yet we have proof that Homosapiens existed long before that.

Here is a shocker for you, Humans did not evolve from primates! They evolved in parallel with a common ancestor. That must be the common link you're talking about that we cannot find. But here you go again, claiming that since it cannot be found it must be false.

Lastly, what makes your faith being correct? There are many faiths in this world. People are killing in the name of their God. people interpreting their religion (read - "their church") have caused more death in this world then all disease.

I love this quote because it sums up my whole point between religion and church:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi"

Churches, regardless of which faith you belong to, kill people. Not religion! Stop going to church and be more religious. Loks of lesson in the bible worth learning. Ten commandments, great stuff. The church killing people because they won't convert or priests fondling little boys and when discovered the church doesn't expose them, they shuffle them off to another (unsuspecting) parish and deny to bring them to justice. Double standard? Sure, that's why they wanted to control what was in the bible.

It's been fun arguing with you sheep, followers of church's views and interpretations. But don't forget to have an independant thought every now and again.; 7:39 AM, December 15, 2007
Anonymous said...: My cat's breath smells like cat food.; 3:49 PM, December 15, 2007
Anonymous said...: Woohoo, clearly you're in the habit of sidestepping the evolution/creation debate in favor of a blatant hangup with the church. i will pretend to not be offended by your ignorant blanket statements that attempt to define the err of hundreds of millions of Christians around the world. I do hope the clever, cliched and rehashed sentiments you use help you feel comfortable with your life decisions. but please, when you tell me to think for myself, realize the hypocritical nature of it.

I think you should define in your own head what "thinking for yourself" means. Because by your definition of it seems to mean you either have to share the same view as you about things, or for a very strict definition you need to have had absolutely zero influences.

Now back on topic, I will say that even regardless of biblical accounts of the beginning, there are many scientific evidences for a young earth which has been directed by a purposeful design. And I will continue to stress the point that nothing has been definitely proved for either side, because it can't be. what you cling to as proof for millions of years is through a dating method, and you need to have some pretty damn sturdy faith in that method. me on the other hand have seen the projected dates rescinded and changed so many times, and i've seen a multitude of fallacies therein that i could not make a statement like: "Yet we have proof that Homosapiens existed long before that."

once you start disseminating your beliefs you might realize how indoctrinated you are into evolution. you might even realize how many snippets of evidence really can be interpreted in reasonable ways that are never presented.; 7:11 PM, December 15, 2007
Anonymous said...: The sheep wrote: "...are many scientific evidences for a young earth which has been directed by a purposeful design."

WOW, I even suggested that, but used the word "might" instead of the definitive "has" because as you said (but don't truly believe): "continue to stress the point that nothing has been definitely proved for either side"

You see, I conceded that there might be a higher being controlling everything. You keep stating that I am totally against the possibility of that higher being. Does that make you feel better? Does it make you feel superior to me? Because that is what the whole church think is suppose to make you feel. Where do you think the origin of "being holier than thou" come from. Why did the church feel justified killing people if they were heathens? Because they were "holier than thou".

YES, I do have a blantant hangup about the church (not religion). Why? Because of sheep like you. No, not all the people that go to church, just some of the ones I've met either in person or on-line like here.

Sorry to ruin your Sunday, but it's only like every other day of the week. Before you get all heated up about that one, keep in mind that I mean if you put special emphasist on Sunday, why not the other six days of the week. Or, are you only holy one day out of seven? Maybe it's OK to be evil the other six days as long as you confess on the seventh...

I'm done trying to educate you. Darwin's law was not entirely correct. Some people take a step backwards.; 7:01 AM, December 16, 2007
Anonymous said...: After you're done cursing at me, go say three Hail Marys; as if reciting some words is needed for God to know you're truely sorry. Come one, He is everywhere, knows everything. He'll know if you're really sorry for your sins. He knows if you've been naughty or nice, just like Santa!; 7:09 AM, December 16, 2007
Anonymous said...: Hey Sheep, this is a fun website:
http://www.creationtheory.org/BibleStudy/SkepticTheology101.xhtml; 5:18 PM, December 16, 2007
Anonymous said...: Opps, it doesn't post in it's entirety.

http://www.creationtheory.org/BibleStudy/SkepticTheology101.xhtml; 5:20 PM, December 16, 2007
Anonymous said...: woohoo, i don't know if you're still reading this, but again i guess i need to correct your blatant ignorance. Now, where to begin?

First Sunday is taken as a symbolic day. It could just as well be any other day. And in fact it originally was Saturday. Symbolics are very important. But Sunday is not an end all and be all. It is a tool in the same way the half time locker room is a tool in football. For the Christians that are only dedicated to their faith 1 day a week, well that's not real faith. A Christian is deemed such because they go to Church.

Secondly, I am a sheep in the sense that I have strong faith, but not in the sense that you would like to use in a derogatory way. When you make a claim like someone not being able to think for themselves, you assume that you actually do, which is incredibly presumptuous because everyone reinforces their biases by selectively acquiring information based on their personal opinions. and all other thoughts are typically nitpicked apart.

and this is also where your presumption has blinded you. I strongly am against the belief that I, or any Christian has the right to be holier than thou, unlike what you pigeon-holed me as. Christians are no better than non-Christians in the same way Americans are no better than Africans. We are all people, and we are all susceptible to folly.

Next, I don't believe in Hell Mary's but I guess you also presumed I was Catholic, either that or you have no clue about the divisions within the Christian faith.

And lastly, back on the topic of evolution/creation: I used evidences correctly. Think about this, if you are in court, there are evidences presented that try to convince the jury of whether someone is innocent or guilty. So yes, there are many evidences for creation, and many for evolution, but neither can be concluded because there is no overwhelming evidence that can cause either to be called a fact.; 10:11 AM, December 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: sorry, correction: i meant to say a christian in not deemed such because they go to church; 10:13 AM, December 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: You just have to have the last word do you?

I have to take a wild guess here. You live in one of those "fly-over" states. Not meant a derogatory, my brother-in-law lives in one. He is a devote catholic, believes in the rhythm method. He trust God to dictate the number of children he should bring into this world. God must have a high opinion of him as he has 11 children. One of them severally Downs syndrome. Never had the early test to detect this, he had faith.

Another prediction, you're anti-choice (you may call it pro-life). If so, did you ever have sex without the expectation of fathering a child?; 6:55 PM, December 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: alright, i actually will respond once again. you have an amazing gift for baiting me to respond.

I'm actually from Canada, and I live in Korea right now.

I am disappointed with the trials in life I go through, such as illness and death, etc.; however I do not believe this life is the end all be all. Besides, if you ask most people, the times they most often pray are when there's trouble. it helps us avoid complacency.

and as far as choice is concerned. I respect a person's choices to an extent. but I don't agree with all the choices in the same a mother usually won't agree to her child smoking. she realizes the greater implications, and ramifications.; 9:23 AM, December 20, 2007

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Creationism

18 comments:

About Me

Blog Archive