Survey about creationism

[Ruby]

Re: I can tell you the truth!

TO RUBY

The truth is that the bible is a fairy tale from the old Mesopotamia, like all other mythologies about Zeus, Hercules, Ra, Baal, etc from the area around the ancient Mediterranean!

This is not a truth....it is just your opinion. While I do believe that the current bible in all it's translations has some errors or distortions, I don't believe the original Hebrew and Greek texts were myths.

However, just because the bible gives an account for creation does not mean I buy it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Yep! That's why I think all chick tracts should be burned!

Now do you really think it would be moral to subject the world to the fumes and vapours coming off of that?

 

[Ruby]

You havent studied it yet you think it's wrong. What do you base your opinion on?

While I have not studied evolution in full detail, I have looked over some of it several years back, and was taught some of it as a child. It's been quite a long time since I delved into this sort of science.....and science has always been my weakest subject....Plus, I have a terrible memory for the facts I did learn.

When I became a Christian, I grappled with the lack of logic in the bible account of creation. I wanted to know where *ape-men* fitted into the bible, and I wanted to know how scientists had reached their conclusions on the big bang theory.

I was given several books to read by my pastor. Yes, they were all books by creationists. There's no way my pastor at that time would have given me a book on evolution. I was in a very legalistic church anyway.

The books gave me good answers. I dismissed all of the evolution theories that had boggled my mind.

The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old. I know there had to have been a Creator.....that will not change, but I ponder "what if this earth is millions of years old".

Which part do you disagree with and why?

I disagree with a big bang theory as I stated above. I cannot make sense of a world...universe.... just coming into existence without a Creator. Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*................but not sure how I feel about that for now.

I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution. I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas. There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage.

That's all I can think of for now. I need to go and do some much needed sewing for my little girls Easter dress.

 

[Ruby]

Now do you really think it would be moral to subject the world to the fumes and vapours coming off of that?

 

[Dub]

I disagree with a big bang theory as I stated above. I cannot make sense of a world...universe.... just coming into existence without a Creator. Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*................but not sure how I feel about that for now.

The bing-bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Remeber, just because you cant make sense of the existence of the universe doesnt mean it cant be made sense of. Making up an answer, or believing in one that someone else has made up just because it appears to give you an answer is silly. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Chossing to believe in something just because it offers an answer is silly. Also, the 'Creator' answer, while appearing to provide an answer just misdirects the question. Saying "there was a creator" is not actually answering the question. You now have two further, unaswerable questions: 1) Who made the creator, and 2) Why did the creator make the universe. Of course, people reply "God has always been" or similar. If you can except this, why are scientific theories which propose an infinite universe unacceptable?

I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution.

Please tell me you are joking!! Its no a case of having to believe man evolved from apes, it is fact. Ignoring it and thinking otherwise is delusional.

I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas.

Planted by who? you are right in one respect; the bones dug up were ape bones (gorillas are apes too btw). Humans are apes (the third species of chimp). So of course they will be ape bones.

There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage.

Correction, we have not yet found any transitional fossils. This however, may be for a reason - punctuated equilibrium. Species will remain relatively unchaged for long periods of time - any changes are due to genetic drift. When periods of massive instability occur (climate change, natural disaster, etc) the evolutionary pressures become massive, inducing rapid periods of evolution. If a new species appears within say, 100,000 years, any of the transitional forms are extremely unlikely to become fossilised. 100,000 years is a mere blink of the eye in geological terms. I think people often greatly underestimate how rare fossilisation is. Some people it seems expect almost every animal that ever lived to be there waiting in the strata.

 

[Dub]

The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old. I know there had to have been a Creator.....that will not change, but I ponder "what if this earth is millions of years old".

In no way does there 'have' to be a creator. That is biblical properganda. Dont bother pondering about the Earth being "millions of years old". You will want to start pondering "what if it is billions of years old", then you'll be on the right track.

 

[Brian the Snail]

The bing-bang theory

Sorry...just have to say that this is one of the funniest typos I've ever seen

Now why couldn't Fred Hoyle have called it the 'Bing-Bang' theory. It would have been way cooler...

 

[Martin]

The books gave me good answers. I dismissed all of the evolution theories that had boggled my mind

They're good at that. The creationist movement has been playing this game long enough to know how to pass off their work as good science. Do you remember any of the most convincing arguments?

The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old

Good. When multiple independent dating methods yield consistent results, it's hard to doubt them. For the Earth to be less than billions of years old would require a cosmic conspiracy of massive proportions.

Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*

There's nothing in Science to say that it didn't happen that way. I don't think anyone here would find that position in any way objectionable.

................but not sure how I feel about that for now

Don't worry - we'll get there

I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution. I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas

These are all either wholly human or wholly ape, according to creationists. Interestingly enough, despite the fact that they insist there is a fundamental difference, they disagree on which is which...

There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage

The definition of species is this -

Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are
reproductively isolated from other such groups.

Now, there's a place in Siberia where you will find two separate species of greenish warblers. The differences between these two species are in colour patterns and song. They are genetically distinct. That they are different species follows from the fact that they do not interbreed. Just to the South of this place is the Tibetan Plateau and the Taklamakan and Gobi Deserts. The warblers cannot live there, but the region is encircled by mountains where they do live.

Starting from the point on that circle where the two species co-exist, we move round a little. Here we find only one of those two species. Move a little further, and we find members of that same species, but these ones are subtly different from the originals. Further still, and we find the same species, but changed slightly more. Follow this round the circle and you will see one species gradually change into the other. At any point on the circle, the warblers are only slightly different to their neighbours. But those differences mount up until they are so great that we have two separate species. Of course, since they do not interbreed, these species can only become more distinct with time.

So - there are your transitional forms, living alongside the two species between which they fall.

In any case, it simply isn't true that there are no transitional fossils. There are countless examples - Archaeopteryx being the classic example.

 

[Gregor]

No transitional forms? Hardly

There are dozens of 'transitional' fossils. Every fossil is, to an extent, a 'transitional' fossil - meaning that it shares characteristics of phylogenic ancestors.

To the extent you want to trace speciation through fossils, there are plenty of examples in:

> hominid fossils showing more erect posture, larger braincase, bigger bodies.

> horse fossils from hyacotherium (f/k/a eohippus) all the way to modern horses showing loss of toes and enlargement of structures

> whales from semi-aquatic forms through fully aquatic forms

 

[Tricky]

In any case, it simply isn't true that there are no transitional fossils. There are countless examples - Archaeopteryx being the classic example.

Not to mention whales with legs. (Yes, whales evolved from land mammals).

 

[Dub]

Sorry...just have to say that this is one of the funniest typos I've ever seen

Now why couldn't Fred Hoyle have called it the 'Bing-Bang' theory. It would have been way cooler...

Hahaha! Didnt notice that one! Sounds better tbh

 

[c4ts]

While I have not studied evolution in full detail, I have looked over some of it several years back, and was taught some of it as a child. It's been quite a long time since I delved into this sort of science.....and science has always been my weakest subject....Plus, I have a terrible memory for the facts I did learn.

When I became a Christian, I grappled with the lack of logic in the bible account of creation. I wanted to know where *ape-men* fitted into the bible, and I wanted to know how scientists had reached their conclusions on the big bang theory.

I was given several books to read by my pastor. Yes, they were all books by creationists. There's no way my pastor at that time would have given me a book on evolution. I was in a very legalistic church anyway.

The books gave me good answers. I dismissed all of the evolution theories that had boggled my mind.

The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old. I know there had to have been a Creator.....that will not change, but I ponder "what if this earth is millions of years old".



I disagree with a big bang theory as I stated above. I cannot make sense of a world...universe.... just coming into existence without a Creator. Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*................but not sure how I feel about that for now.

I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution. I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas. There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage.

That's all I can think of for now. I need to go and do some much needed sewing for my little girls Easter dress.

OK, allow me to explain. There are basically two kinds of scientific progress- there is the slow, methodical progress of experimentation, and then there is the progress of scientific theory. Theory is pretty much the basis of science as a whole. In the case of experiments, a theory is assembled based on someone else's work, and that theory is tested through experiments. Either it is refuted by the experimental data, and a new theory based on the results is provided, or any new observations about the data will be worked into the theory itself, as it is confirmed for further testing. Either way, there is progress, and no absolute truth is ever reached. Now, the other kind of progression, of pure theory, is a slightly different approach. This is the sort of theory that, while untestible, can still be confirmed or refuted by evidence. For example, the natural philosopher Gaelen had devised a theory on the workings of the motions of the bloodstream and organs in a live animal, where the heart took in air and cooked blood, and that blood served to carry psychic pneuma from the brain, only to be refuted by Harvey in the 1500's, who actually vivisected animals. Darwin's theory comes from this sort of progression, where a series of observations are made, previous scientific theory is taken into account, and a new conclusion is reached. It is no closer to an absolute truth than a theory founded in experiments and results. As you can see, scientific theory is a rational progression of thought. If previous theory is to be believed on the basis of faith, then scientific progress becomes impossible. This is bad news for Creationists everywhere, becuase each time a single flaw in the theory of evolution is found, an improved version will arise. Creationism's theory, that God made the world according to the King James Version of the bible, is not a valid scientific theory. The only supporting evidence for it is a story in a book. There is no previous theory it is confirming or refuting, no rational basis to make the theory tenable, only blind acceptance that God faked all the evidence that proves it wrong. There can be no true theoretical progression in Creationism, because refutation of the theory of evolution does not add to the Bible. Refutation of Creationist theory is not met by anything but refutation of evolution or simple denial. This means that if you try to understand evolution from a Creationist's viewpoint, you will find mostly strawmen, and you will not gain any understanding.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

DC is still arguing from popularity. Bad Cobra, you're making the smart people look like the Creationists!

What the hell are you talking about?

Peer-reviewed scientific material is more reliable then the rantings of a creationist madman who knows very little about science...

 

[Lord Kenneth]

While I have not studied evolution in full detail, I have looked over some of it several years back, and was taught some of it as a child. It's been quite a long time since I delved into this sort of science.....and science has always been my weakest subject....Plus, I have a terrible memory for the facts I did learn.

When I became a Christian, I grappled with the lack of logic in the bible account of creation. I wanted to know where *ape-men* fitted into the bible, and I wanted to know how scientists had reached their conclusions on the big bang theory.

I was given several books to read by my pastor. Yes, they were all books by creationists. There's no way my pastor at that time would have given me a book on evolution. I was in a very legalistic church anyway.

The books gave me good answers. I dismissed all of the evolution theories that had boggled my mind.

The thing is, now I question the concept that the earth is 10,000 yrs or less old. I know there had to have been a Creator.....that will not change, but I ponder "what if this earth is millions of years old".



I disagree with a big bang theory as I stated above. I cannot make sense of a world...universe.... just coming into existence without a Creator. Now, I might come to the belief that the Creator was the one who caused a *big bang*................but not sure how I feel about that for now.

I don't believe men evolved from apes. I don't believe any creature went through phases of evolution. I believe that whatever ape-man bones that were dug up were either planted or are actual bones of apes or gorillas. There are no genuine fossils found of any creature in some sort of transitional stage.

That's all I can think of for now. I need to go and do some much needed sewing for my little girls Easter dress.

Never good in science? Why am I NOT suprised?

Oh, you read some apologist book, and now you are convinced? You don't even know the basics of evolution.

Ha! Man didn't evolve from apes, man evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

 

[c4ts]

What the hell are you talking about?

Peer-reviewed scientific material is more reliable then the rantings of a creationist madman who knows very little about science...

Can you explain why?

 

[Kashyapa]

Ruby-
1. There really are a huge number of transitional forms. Archaeopteryx is a perfectly transitional form with some reptilian features, some avian (bird) features, and some transitional features that seem to be in the process of change. There's also ambulocetus, as mentioned above, along with a number of other fossils from that family that vary between land-adapted, to seallike, to whalelike. And don't forget- the definition of a species is simply that they are either unwilling or unable to interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring. There doesn't even really need to be a transitional form- a mutation of a single gene for behavior or physical morphology, if it creates a reproductive gap between two populations, can create a new species. Genetic drift and founder effect could also create a new species fairly quickly, if a population was isolated from its parent population. None of these models would even necessarily take that long of a time- two, three, maybe five generations is all it'd need. The process of evolution has been abundantly proven through genetics- the actual length of time between the present and when two species had a common ancestor can be determined with some accuracy. We have watched the formation of new species- orchids are a good example- and we have evidence that those new species are exploiting new evolutionary niches. That's evolution in a nutshell. Every branch of biology has a wealth of evidence for the accuracy of the theory of evolution; there's simply no doubt any longer in the scientific community. None.

2. I don't understand why it's possible to accept the theory of a creator versus a self-creating universe, especially when we can explain the universe's behavior very well without invoking a creator at all. Not to disrespect your beliefs, but why, precisely,is a Creator necessary? Does the universe need one, or do we? There is not a shred of evidence for anything other than a mechanistc origin for the big bang- and the body of evidence from the fields of cosmology and astrophysics is extremely convincing, even if all the answers aren't obvious yet. As Richard Dawkins said: the universe appears exactly as it would appear if there were no deity, no creator. Looking at things objectively, I'd have to agree.

Note also that we did not evolve FROM apes, but rather that we and apes share a common ancestor.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Can you explain why?

Gee, I don't know, I guess the validity of a apologist trying to rationalize their religion is the same as reproducing the observations and experiments of other scientists...

 

[Kashyapa]

DC, is there any reason that you continue to be unpleasant? I would think it's possible to refute a creationist's claims without being venomous (pun intended) about it. She's never been anything but pleasant and accepting to any of us. We should extend the same courtesy back. Now, if she had approached us like a fanatic or something, that might be one thing, but come on. Can we disagree with her and extend the same courtesy she does us?

Never good in science? Why am I NOT suprised?

Oh, you read some apologist book, and now you are convinced? You don't even know the basics of evolution.

Ha! Man didn't evolve from apes, man evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

DC, is there any reason that you continue to be unpleasant? I would think it's possible to refute a creationist's claims without being venomous (pun intended) about it. She's never been anything but pleasant and accepting to any of us. We should extend the same courtesy back. Now, if she had approached us like a fanatic or something, that might be one thing, but come on. Can we disagree with her and extend the same courtesy she does us?

No matter how she acts, she is still a virus.

 

[Martin]

Better a virus than a git.