Creationism theory or story?

Its a story with all the highlights of a fairy tale, poisoned apples, talking snakes, burning bushes etc.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Tony4211

 

I would say it's a theory based solely on a bunch of stories, making it a very scientifically unreliable theory. The inflation and evolutionary theories have scientific evidence backing them, creationism has some old books of magical stories.

good points...

however I see it a little differently.
Creationism is a body of stories that are based on higher science... we just have not interpeted the narrative correctly


the way i read the metaphorical stories is that "the waters of the deep" translates into Quantum physics & mechanics..

Genesis tell us that 'time' sprang forth from Earth...only because there was a consciousness to concieve 'time'

& not the mistaken idea that the Earth is the center of the Universe & was materially created in a moment in time insread of evolved or accreted from a 2nd generation Star that went super-Nova

etc etc etc

the fundamentalists have hijacked the Genesis story )creation myth(

the creation days are a Process...'god' to is a process combined with other factors, thus the 'spirit' moved across the waters, seperated the waters from the land, and life came about first in the physical waters/oceans/ponds with clay....etc etc etc

Thanks

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to [url= by Tony4211[/url]

 

Tell me something OP. Have you personally run all of the proper experiments, and kept proper notes? Have you personally observed evolution in process? And are you a peer-reviewed scientist capable of making these studies on your own?

OR. Have you just read and studied the books, and became convinced the evidence presented to you was the truth of how our species came to be?

Because if it is the latter, then you are living by faith that the evidence presented to you is honest, truthful, factual, and repeatable. And those who presented this evidence to you are beyond reproach.

I am neither a creationist, nor a christian. And although I don't completely discount evolution, I don't take it as gospel either. But even if I did, it would have to be by faith, since I haven't run all the experiments myself. Nor would I understand how for that matter.

edit on 9/29/2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

Sigh........the old Ray Comfort line "it takes more faith to believe in evolution..."

Faith.........is believing in something for no good reason

No evidence, no logical arguments.......nothing.

Here's the kicker, SCIENCE WORKS

If we couldn't trust science unless we personally and individually had ran all the possible experiences in the history of the world first, we could never trust things like flushing the toilet, using the car, turning on the television, using your iPhone, IPad, the computers, keyboards and monitors we are using to have this very debate.

But you do trust all these things. Why? because SCIENCE WORKS

But you know this already, and it just comes across as intellectual dishonesty.

Originally posted by blazenresearcher

I am not perpetuating lies. All other species follow the theory of Darwinism except Man...therefore there has to be an outside force or stimulant...be it God, Aliens, Genetic Engineering, all three or none of these...that is the question at hand.

Well seeing as there's no such thing as 'the theory of Darwinism' you are at the very least spreading misinformation. Start by at least learning the correct terms............. you'll then eventually come across information that will show you that the evolution of homo sapiens did not require Aliens or Sky Daddies.

reply to post by Prezbo369

Sigh........the old Ray Comfort line "it takes more faith to believe in evolution..."

More faith than what? I never said it took more faith.

Faith.........is believing in something for no good reason

Got a source for that? I've never seen that in a dictionary.

Here's the kicker, SCIENCE WORKS

Yes. SCIENCE does work. Know why? Because SCIENCE doesn't have an agenda. SCIENCE doesn't care how the experiments turn out. Good or bad makes no difference to SCIENCE. The results are what they are.
However, SCIENTISTS are another story altogether, aren't they? They just happen to be human. They make mistakes. They have feelings. They have character flaws. And yes, Virginia, some even have agenda's that waltz right through the "peer-review" process.

Our sciences are also ever changing. Know why? Scientists make mistakes. Scientists learn new things which change our understanding of other things. I applaud the heights that science has reached in our generation. But to blindly trust those behind it for no other reason than because they made a toilet work, or a cure that isn't worse than the disease, is not a good reason. Evolution is neither observable nor repeatable for the common man. I can't take it apart and study it the same way I can a combustion engine, or a computer.

If we couldn't trust science unless we personally and individually had ran all the possible experiences in the history of the world first, we could never trust things like flushing the toilet, using the car, turning on the television, using your iPhone, IPad, the computers, keyboards and monitors we are using to have this very debate.

This was all I wanted to hear to start with. That trust is part of the equation. Trust is simply belief in action, which equates to faith. Why is it so hard for us to admit there is an element of faith for the common man when it comes to the sciences? There are just some things we can't test for ourselves.

But you do trust all these things. Why? because SCIENCE WORKS

Actually. No I don't. I work in a field where I see and deal with the flaws in technology daily. Some things that work in theory don't work in real life (I know, I've seen and played with some of the prototypes.). And some things that theory says can't happen, do happen. But thankfully, as a group, scientists are a sharp group of people, and most things do what they're supposed to do.

But you know this already, and it just comes across as intellectual dishonesty.

The only dishonesty in this thread is the unwillingnes to admit that faith is a part of the equation. Especially for the common man. No matter how well placed we feel that faith to be, it is still faith.

So. If I'm not a christian. And I'm not a creationist. Just what the hell am I? I'm glad you asked that question.
Both sides of this never-ending debate have issues that just aren't workable for me. It is doubtful creationism will ever change. It is what it is. But evolution, like all the branches of science, will evolve into a whole new theory. Of that, I'm sure.

reply to post by Klassified


Your responses are so well thought out. I commend you on that. Even though we are on opposite sides of the fence on this issue, it is obvious from your responses that we are in agreement concerning the element of faith. My take on why it is so difficult for the scientific community to admit that they are placing their faith in SOMETHING, is that it indicates weakness to them. It takes the power to be ones own god away and plants it firmly in the hands of another. Personally, I believe faith is the exact opposite of weakness. It takes quite an enormous amount of strength and fortitude to put your trust in something unseen.

More faith than what? I never said it took more faith.

My bad you're right, the actual line is "it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe (the claims made in the) bible". Its still a Ray Comfort line.......

Got a source for that? I've never seen that in a dictionary.

How else would one describe blindly taking claims with no evidence as absolute truth?

Yes. SCIENCE does work. Know why? Because SCIENCE doesn't have an agenda. SCIENCE doesn't care how the experiments turn out. Good or bad makes no difference to SCIENCE. The results are what they are.
However, SCIENTISTS are another story altogether, aren't they? They just happen to be human. They make mistakes. They have feelings. They have character flaws. And yes, Virginia, some even have agenda's that waltz right through the "peer-review" process.

Sooooo Julia do these scientists you speak of have an agenda? or are they just imperfect humans with character flaws (?). Because those two claims are very different. Do you have any sources for either?

Our sciences are also ever changing. Know why? Scientists make mistakes. Scientists learn new things which change our understanding of other things. I applaud the heights that science has reached in our generation. But to blindly trust those behind it for no other reason than because they made a toilet work, or a cure that isn't worse than the disease, is not a good reason. Evolution is neither observable nor repeatable for the common man. I can't take it apart and study it the same way I can a combustion engine, or a computer.

Yep, science is going to continue to improve our understanding of the universe, and wont ever stop. The ONLY thing that corrects science, is MORE SCIENCE. No-one blindly trusts science, the trust and confidence people have in it has been earnt through repeated and colossal improvements of understanding the universe we live in. Notice this is the complete opposite to faith.

This was all I wanted to hear to start with. That trust is part of the equation. Trust is simply belief in action, which equates to faith. Why is it so hard for us to admit there is an element of faith for the common man when it comes to the sciences? There are just some things we can't test for ourselves.

Trust is earnt, faith is given freely. Faith is merely gullibility.


`

Actually. No I don't. I work in a field where I see and deal with the flaws in technology daily. Some things that work in theory don't work in real life (I know, I've seen and played with some of the prototypes.). And some things that theory says can't happen, do happen. But thankfully, as a group, scientists are a sharp group of people, and most things do what they're supposed to do.

Nobody is saying all scientific work is 100% absolutely perfect, but as you say "thankfully, as a group, scientists are a sharp group of people, and most things do what they're supposed to do"

The only dishonesty in this thread is the unwillingnes to admit that faith is a part of the equation. Especially for the common man. No matter how well placed we feel that faith to be, it is still faith.

Any ignorance from the 'common man' is still just that, ignorance......

So. If I'm not a christian. And I'm not a creationist. Just what the hell am I? I'm glad you asked that question.

I think you are confusing me with somebody else......

Both sides of this never-ending debate have issues that just aren't workable for me. It is doubtful creationism will ever change. It is what it is. But evolution, like all the branches of science, will evolve into a whole new theory. Of that, I'm sure.

Evidence is what separates 'both sides', one has mountains of it, the other has none whatsoever.

And scientific theories tend not to evolve into whole new theories. New information may be added, and other information discarded, but physics wont suddenly become chemistry and evolution wont suddenly become creationism.

I get the feeling you are one of those folk who are ignorant on what exactly constitutes a scientific theory.

reply to post by micmerci


You can't spend decades in the bible, and involved in the church from its bottom to its top, and come away without learning certain truths about life.

Life itself is a walk of faith. There's no way around it, no matter how hard you try. I better stop there, and save it for another thread, or I'll be way off topic. And the staff will have their way with me.

reply to post by Prezbo369

How else would one describe blindly taking claims with no evidence as absolute truth?

Personal experience is not blind. It can be misguided and misinterpreted. But it isn't blind. Obviously, many folks feel they have seen enough evidence in their personal life to place their faith in a creator. And personal testimony from others in the form of books, and people with similar personal experience confirms, for them, that what they have come to believe is true.

Your personal experience is built around the same type of evidence you accuse christians of blindly accepting. Books and peer reviewed papers with supporting testimony from "experts" in the field all say they have seen the same results from experiments repeatedly. And hence, they firmly believe their findings are true.

Both of these cases would stand up in a court of law simply because of the overwhelming amount of testimony. And extraneous evidence such as these same people made a toilet work, so they must be right about evolution, would be thrown out.

Sooooo Julia do these scientists you speak of have an agenda? or are they just imperfect humans with character flaws (?). Because those two claims are very different. Do you have any sources for either?

Both. There are some good scientists out there with good intentions. There are also some who happen to be in the position of controlling the flow of information, and the peer review process, who's intentions are not so good imo. The wright brothers, Nikola Tesla, and George Ohm, to name a few could testify to this. Since they were treated very unkindly to say the least by the consensus of their day.

Yep, science is going to continue to improve our understanding of the universe, and wont ever stop. The ONLY thing that corrects science, is MORE SCIENCE. No-one blindly trusts science, the trust and confidence people have in it has been earnt through repeated and colossal improvements of understanding the universe we live in. Notice this is the complete opposite to faith.

Actually, most people blindly trust science. And their faith isn't completely without merit. You and I, and many of the people on ATS might take the time to read a peer-reviewed, or white paper on the latest findings in a given field, and decide for ourselves whether Seagate's perpendicular Recording Technology works as promised. But 99% or more of the population will not. And why should they? Their refrigerator works fine. Their car runs good.

But advancements in technology are immediately evident. Other scientific advancements take a long time to show themselves for what they truly are. Pseudo-science. Ask the families of people who died from taking medications no longer available that went through rigorous testing and peer-review before they were approved by the FDA. Ask them if they feel their "trust" in medical science has been betrayed.

What I notice, is that your faith is very unwavering, and you aren't afraid to act on your beliefs. This is good, but it can be double edged.

Trust is earnt, faith is given freely. Faith is merely gullibility.

This is where you're in error. Trust and faith are, for all intents and purposes, synonymous. Faith and trust are simply putting legs to your beliefs. Which you have done. Both must be earned. It merely comes down to what requirements each individual has to be convinced enough of something to trust it.

Evidence is what separates 'both sides', one has mountains of it, the other has none whatsoever.

No. Different kinds of evidence is what seperates both sides. And truthfully, not all that different. Christians hold a hypothesis in their hand called the bible. It comes with dead and living witnesses, so to speak. They make a choice to put that hypothesis to the test. And through testimony, and personal experience, they choose whether there is sufficient evidence to merit their trust(faith).

You hold in your hand books and peer reviewed papers from the worlds most renowned scientists, that have testified(testimony) the hypothesis is based on solid evidence. And now meets the criteria for a scientific theory.
You read it, you discuss it, you get testimony from others such as yourself who state their own trust in what you have read. You now perceive this as enough evidence to put your trust(faith) in. Even though you haven't repeated even a handful of the experiments it took to prove the theory.

I get the feeling you are one of those folk who are ignorant on what exactly constitutes a scientific theory.

Oh but I do. Hence my stance on this whole matter.

You and I could have this exchange ad infinitum. I respect your stance. And believe you are entitled to it. Just as much as I believe christians are entitled to theirs. And I am entitled to disagree with both of you.

reply to post by blazenresearcher


I am going to go out on a limb here and say that a lot of scientists and engineers will profess a belief in "god" when pressed because they are terrified of being labeled in a way that ruins their opportunities for social and political advancement by the rest of humanity.

I spent 6 years in Colorado Springs, and only 1 of my neighbors and 2 of my work friends knew I was basically agnostic, because not "believing" is career suicide in a town like Colorado Springs.

I'll be honest -- I am not that altogether more open about my lack of belief in Phoenix, AZ either. We are only a a few hundred years on armed believers killing unbelievers. Even today, non-believers are passed over for job-promotions, and excluded from political life by virtue of their lack of belief in "god."

Frankly -- when I hear a physicist talk about his spiritual belief, I recognize the code, and I'd be willing to bet that more often then not -- their spiritual beliefs have very little in common with any particular sect or religion. Their spiritualism is social camouflage.

Originally posted by Tony4211

 

The point of this thread is to show that a creationist has no right to say evolution is wrong because they have no observable evidence (which it obviously does), while at the same time itself has no observable evidence whatsoever.

The point of your thread is to show creationist have no right to say evolution is wrong? Why? It's irrelevant if someone is creationist or not, when commenting on evolution. Science is happy when people try to falsify a theory. Why do you feel threatened by people, you believe to be wrong about God? God is weighing on your heart. Seize this moment.

What is to be thought of the opinion that attributes the first formation of things to a fortuitous combination of matter, in other words, to chance?

"Another absurdity! Who that is possessed of common sense can regard chance as an intelligent agent? And, besides, what is chance? Nothing."

The harmony which regulates the mechanism of the universe can only result from combinations adopted in view of predetermined ends, and thus, by its very nature, reveals the existence of an Intelligent Power. To attribute the first formation of things to chance is nonsense for chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would cease to be chance.