Creationists: What exactly is your problem...

Greetings.

Well....as one who believes in a creator God, I can tell you honestly that I have no problem with evolution. But rather, it is DARWINISM that I reject.

Evolution is simply a scientific theory. I have no problem with that at all. Darwinism, on the other hand, seems to be a worldview built around the scientific theory. That is what I find issues with.

Evolution is a reasonable explaination for HOW the universe and all life within it came to be. But it does not address WHY it happened. For me personally, I have a hard time believing that this all happened by accident with no intelligent reason behind it.

So that's basically what it is for me. I'm perfectly fine with the science of evolution. However, I do not accept the worldviews that have been attached to it.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

Remember adaptation is not evolution.

You're right, it's the first step.

Show me 1 species that evolved from another and do it step by step with facts only.

I can show you an observed instance of speciation. Or more.
How about you look here?

You can't it has never been done and as far as humans go we have archaeological evidence to show "modern" humans here more then a million years old.

It's been done and we've actually changed quite a bit due to both genetic drift and adaptation. And remember, 1 million years isn't really a big deal when you're dealing with billions. And where is your proof that modern humanity is 1 million years old?

And the theory of evolution says humans are no more then 250,000 years old (max) yet on yahoo news they say they found tools and such that are 500,000 years old.

Excuse me, where in the 'theory of evolution' does it say that?
Evolutionary theory is quite a simple statement:
Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. (from wiki, but a good definition nonetheless)

It doesn't say how old specific organisms are. However, I cannot address the claim without a direct link.

Hey i believed in evolution at one time until i studied it and ancient history and the taboo ancient history.

You clearly didn't study it closely enough. And 'taboo ancient history'? Like Atlantis and all of that? Not exactly scientific...

Originally posted by Lightmare
Greetings.

Well....as one who believes in a creator God, I can tell you honestly that I have no problem with evolution. But rather, it is DARWINISM that I reject.

Exactly what is "Darwinism"?

Evolution is simply a scientific theory. I have no problem with that at all. Darwinism, on the other hand, seems to be a worldview built around the scientific theory. That is what I find issues with.

I'm sorry, how is there a worldview built around "the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations" (from wiki)?

Evolution is a reasonable explaination for HOW the universe and all life within it came to be.

I'm sorry, but it isn't. Evolution is an explanation for the speciation that occurs after life arises. Evolution is biology, it has nothing to do with how the universe came to be or how life came to be, merely with how different species came to be.

But it does not address WHY it happened. For me personally, I have a hard time believing that this all happened by accident with no intelligent reason behind it.

This isn't really a question for an evolution thread, but I'll address it I guess. Science deals exclusively with 'how'. If you think there has to be a 'why' then we can discuss that in a thread about religion or philosophy.

So that's basically what it is for me. I'm perfectly fine with the science of evolution. However, I do not accept the worldviews that have been attached to it.

So your problem isn't with 'Darwinism' it's with skeptical secular naturalism. Alright, not a problem for this thread, but you can look below in my sig and talk about the existence of the divine in another thread if you'd like.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Adaptation is not evolution but if you believe it is as 1 poster or part of it then i must agree to say (based on this) that evolution is fact.
And what i meant by taboo ancient history is not Atlantis i did say history not myth or possible history.What can i give you as an example...............i think there was a book called forbidden archeology (can't remember off-hand) ok had to look it up lol it is and it's by Michael Cremo.

That is just one example of what i called taboo ancient history. As far as the 250,000 years let me correct that it was Darwin that said about 150,000 years ago man came on the scene ans a science news article that said the human genome is no more then 250,000 years old.

But until i can remember where i read that science news article i can't use it for anything more then hear/say.
However there are many example you can find and i'm sorry but your link gave me nothing, i will admit i skimmed so if you can point it out for me or hold off till i have the time to read every little thing then ok.


Yet they say that maybe the raptor dinosaurs evolved into modern birds if so show me every step be it a raptor or snake or anything that became a cat,dog,bird,stick bug or whatever.

Adaptation is a dragon fly that was 2 foot long (millions of years ago) and is now only a few inches. Is that what you call evolution? If so i must agree that evolution is fact.

reply to post by GunzCoty


If you're using Forbidden Archaeology I'd suggest rethinking your position. Cremo grossly misrepresented his sources and many of his claims are unfounded. While it's nice that he provided a list of sources, I don't think he ever actually expected people to check his work.

I'm not a very good writer because my brain works with images and ideas - not words. But in response to some things that I gleaned over from several of you, I formulated a theory of my own...and later found a website which not only supported my theory but filled in several blanks for me. I'm not saying it's right, but it makes a lot more sense than other things I've heard. Unconventional, yes - slightly sounding like a modified version of animism (sp?)

Here is a rather long c/p from a page of it:

Just a clarification: Eternon is the term applied to a quanta of subatomic energy.

Consciousness:

If we toss a stick in the air, it always falls back to earth. If we kindle a fire, it always brings forth heat. Humans were prompt to realize that nature obeys certain rules. Before long, the successful application of such rules to the construction of dependable machines suggested that the whole universe was nothing but a huge mechanism. This led to an inaccurate, but still pervasive, vision of the world. On one side, matter: dumb and perfectly obedient to the great natural laws. On the other, spirit: intelligent and creative, though preferably reserved to humans who are so clever at dominating matter.

Adding to the misconception, is the apparent passiveness of most things and beings. If we kick a stone or cut a flower, neither starts screaming nor tries to run away: they show no signs of feeling or reacting. Even particles tend to follow what we want them to do. When we turn on the light, electrons never disappoint us by refusing to flow in our wires. When we build refineries, molecules never fail us by suddenly producing water instead of gasoline.

www.eternism.com...



When you think about the quintillion or so atoms in a grain of sand, up to the 50,000 BILLION billion stars (or so) in the universe, you really see that all of humanity is nothing but "a mote of dust in the morning sky" it's really odd that we think we're the proverbial center of the universe.


Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13

I am not religious. I do not believe in creationism, although creationism has just as much logic going for it as evolution does. It takes just as great a leap of faith to be an athiest as it does to be superstitious. This debate is just a war of dogmas. I prefer to keep my mind open. Maybe there is a third alternative that one has yet to think of??

Deuteronomy, your last sentence is key... "Maybe there is a third alternative that one has yet to think of??"

The argument for intelligent design falls in the center of this and should be considered in my opinion. There are several theories that are all worth considering. Personally I'm open minded about creation, evolution and ID.

Thanks for kicking off the thread OP - star 4 U

You pro evolution types are highly amusing. Someone even said math is not useful in biology. I am guessing this individual never had a biochemestry class. Genetics is ultimately bio chemistry.

Originally posted by majestictwo

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13

I am not religious. I do not believe in creationism, although creationism has just as much logic going for it as evolution does. It takes just as great a leap of faith to be an athiest as it does to be superstitious. This debate is just a war of dogmas. I prefer to keep my mind open. Maybe there is a third alternative that one has yet to think of??

Deuteronomy, your last sentence is key... "Maybe there is a third alternative that one has yet to think of??"

The argument for intelligent design falls in the center of this and should be considered in my opinion. There are several theories that are all worth considering. Personally I'm open minded about creation, evolution and ID.


Thanks for kicking off the thread OP - star 4 U

I am an open minded person. I have no problem with creationism or intelligent design. Maybe evolution is true but any one who says that evolution has been proven is greatly mistaken. Which is why it's called the "theory" of evolution. These 'scientific' types are just as much given to dogma as any religious zealot. They make me laugh.

You guys do know that evolution (at least on a micro level) is 100% proven in a closed lab study, right? futurismic.com...

There is no more saying evolution is just a theory any more. Eventually your going to have to admit it like the church did with heliocentrism (earth revolving around the sun). However...intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive, I completly accept that there is a possibility something may have designed DNA at the start of it all but evolution would DEFINATLY be the mechanism progressing the intelligent design.

If I want to give you power
I speak in the language of Faith,
If I want to restrict your power I speak science.

Prior to publication of Origin of the Species by Darwin
there was the one 'known' case of extinction, the dodo bird.
The next two hundred years so much was made of this that no one
noticed the thousands of other extinctions to occur for the first time in human history.


Henry Ford, and other industrialists, took up evolution as a justification
for predatory business practices. For the next hundred years
the world marveled at how Successful Ford was and no one
noticed the thousands of smaller businesses eaten,
and now there seems to be a famine of
small business.


Professor Dawkins took up evolution as an explanation of pop culture defining the 'meme.'
Everyone spent the next 40 years chasing Fads, and no one noticed that
the family was going extinct and cultural heritage disappearing.


You'll have to forgive me if I'm suspicious of the intentions
behind this so called debate between a theory
and the oldest religion in the history
of the world.


Come back when evolution has an actual book of applied sciences,
like optics. The Catholic church has no problem with optics,
could it be that we are just too primitive to
understand Evolution, or is that
what you think already.



David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy






Evolution? Corporate Industrialization? Sociology? Family values? Your confusing me. I dont know what your point is or what your trying to corelate with these ideas.
Your first statement is a little silly. Faith is stronger than science? They are two completly different things.

One thing I dont understand about bible thumpers is that they can accept other aspects of science but then throw away the parts they dont like. Its like believing in bio chemestry but not believing gravity.

Originally posted by TheKnave

One thing I dont understand about bible thumpers is that they can accept other aspects of science but then throw away the parts they dont like. Its like believing in bio chemestry but not believing gravity.

These are belittling and dismissive thoughts.
Are we here to watch you flourish your cape or do you have something to say?
I particularly like your spelling of Chemistry.


David Grouchy

Species do not change into other species. Features can change, ex: some men have grown tits. That doesn't make them a new species. Give one example of species changing, it doesn't exist, not even closely. Which human is evolved over another human? Only racist think this way. See where this is heading?

The more we learn about biology the more implausible evolution becomes. Start with the single cell, there is no reason to discuss anything more "advanced" because the single cell is more advanced than anything mankind can conceive of.

Never said I was a good speller. Expect many more spelling errors.

I dont mean to be so hostile but from my experiences with people of "faith" means to not use your free will and intelligence. It means you accept something because your told to. Critical thinking is the only safeguard against ignorance. I believe science, and science says evolution occurs. I do not believe this because they say its true. I believe this because the evidence prooves it. Faith has no evidence. As the moto of this site...deny ignorance.

Edit for the above poster proof of evolution: futurismic.com... how many times do I have to post this...

Originally posted by TheKnave
Never said I was a good speller. Expect many more spelling errors.

I dont mean to be so hostile but from my experiences with people of "faith" means to not use your free will and intelligence. It means you accept something because your told to. Critical thinking is the only safeguard against ignorance. I believe science, and science says evolution occurs. I do not believe this because they say its true. I believe this because the evidence prooves it. Faith has no evidence. As the moto of this site...deny ignorance.

Edit for the above poster proof of evolution: futurismic.com... how many times do I have to post this...

I like this quote.
It's a masterpiece of self incrimination.
But let's not go there, I'm not here to score points.
I do have something to say about how 'Critical thinking'
is used in the above paragraph. Purely constructive, if you'll hear me.
Critical thinking used by someone who has a list of taboo subjects
is only going to give results within the list of approved subjects.
Further it leaves one in the position where they are proud
of their critical thinking while simultaneously eating
propaganda whole and unexamined, cause
everyone just 'knows' that subject is 'bad.'

I think we should widen the horizon
of what critical thinking can be
applied to, including our
own presumptions.


David Grouchy

wUyiQufyiK0

This is the Vatican Astronomer
in an interview, if you are not
too delicate to actually give
audience to the enemy.


David Grouchy

reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13


As has been pointed out numerous times before, theory has a different connotation in science than it does in everyday language. A theory is an explanation for an observed phenomenon. In this case the observed phenomenon is evolution, the theoretical part is the mechanism through which evolution occurs.

reply to post by 2XOHsurf


We actually have observed species evolving into other species. Take for example the species of wildflower known as goatsbeard or the cichlid fish of Lake Nagubago, or the Faeroe Island house mouse. There are more, these are just some of the more clear cut cases.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
My problem with evolution is:

Evolution is an untestable theory hence it is not science but rather philosophy.

No it's not. It's a scientific theory providing the best explanation of observations based on current knowledge, and subject to change or even rejection as new data comes to light - it makes predictions which unfortunatly cannot likely be shown correct within a human lifetime, given that the evolutionary process is normally assumed to take milions of years. But meet me again in 2,000,000AD and we'll see

(unlike religions which will never ever accept any change to their bronze age protestations)

Evolution implies gradual change.

which is what we see happening

When did single cell animals become multi-celled?

Over tens of millions of years. That's the problem: humans aren't conditioned to understand the vast lengths of time in which life has evolved on Earth. That said, there are reasoned suggestions that evolution may occur in fits and starts, perhaps due to changes in solar radition - such that a new species may evolve in just a few tens of thousands years. ie a wolf could evolve into a dog within the timespan that modern humans have been on Earth. Hmmm, oooh! Woof!

Evolution implies that members of one species can give birth to a genetically radical offspring

Not at all! It implies that over a unimaginable period of time, a group of a given species living in isolation and in a changing environment may very gradually change to adapt to that changing environment into a different species - whilst members of the same species in an different region not subject to the same enviromental changes do not change at all (because they have not need to)