NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there anyone out there that believe in creationism on grounds other than theological. I'm being serious. Is there anyone out there that stands on creation for reasons that are NOT based in theology?

Good question. I asked that once, but never actually got any real responses. Somebody else did too, no real responses either.

Does "evolution is just stupid" count as an answer?

Actually. I may have something.

Perhaps there is a higher power. Something must've created everything from nothing. And why are we the only inteligent beings in the solar system? Could it have been that our planet was seeded?

There! Not exactly theological.

"Creationism" by definition is not simply a belief in a creator for existence, but belief in the Christian version of it. It is necessarily theological.

Actually. I may have something.

Perhaps there is a higher power. Something must've created everything from nothing. And why are we the only inteligent beings in the solar system? Could it have been that our planet was seeded?

There! Not exactly theological.

I am a theistic evolutionist so a little off topic here but as for the above idea I think our solar system is too small a sample to determine whether there is life out there or not. Knowing that the universe is far larger than we can even imagine I just assume there is life out there.

My belief in creationism isn't entirely theological.

BB and evolution have too many holes in them. I first questioned them because of my religious beliefs, but once I looked at them, I didn't need my religious beliefs to tell me that they were wrong.

I have argued creationism and am an atheist. Would this count.
What I was doing was showing that Darwinian evolution is still only a theory, not a hard truth. It is not like S(0) + S(0) = S(S(0)). It is just an idea that may be wrong.

Despite being a Christian, I'll give it a shot anyways.

Let's use the Big Bang Theory as an example. So the universe just all of a sudden exploded out of nowhere and all of a sudden everything just happened to come together to form stars and other celestial bodies.

Where did this material come from? How did something explode out of nothing? It seems very unlikely that all of a sudden something as large as the universe exploded out of NOTHING in an explosion large enough to make the universe expand at trillions of miles per second.

I believe in creationism because I believe in God, but I also find it hard to believe that the Big Bang Theory could've happened.

While we are on the topic, I feel angry every time we come to evolution or the Big Bang Theory in science. Isn't creationism a theory too? That's what evolution and the Big Bang Theory are: theories. Shouldn't public schools be teaching other possible theories so that kids can make decisions for themselves? Isn't that the main purpose of school: to help us think for ourselves and make decisions on our own? Thank the Good Lord that I could be going to a Christian school instead of a public school next year.

I think that a Robin Willaims quote fits here.

Robin: And God said "Let there be light!". Could that be a metaphor for the "Big Bang"

Fundy Robin: No, God just went "click".

I have argued creationism and am an atheist. Would this count.
What I was doing was showing that Darwinian evolution is still only a theory, not a hard truth. It is not like S(0) + S(0) = S(S(0)). It is just an idea that may be wrong.
Let's assume Darwinian theory is wrong, and that Creationism is right. It doesn't really follow, but let's let that go. So we have a creator(s)? Is that creator God? If so, this strikes me as a theological argument. If not, where did this creator come from? Evolution or Creation? And so the loop continues. Surely at some point, one comes to a Creator - theological argument; or auto-biogenesis (or equivalent for whatever race of aliens we're dealing with here). (Or, of cause, 'don't know', but that wouldn't be an argument for Creationism.

Just for the record, evolution is not cosmology. Nor is it abiogenesis. Evolution as a scientific model only deals with life after it has arisen, and makes absolutely no claims as to how the life got there. It describes, quite accurately, from my understanding of it, how life changes over time.

The Bible does not speak of where God come from and how long He has been there. However, we can assume that He has existed forever. Nothing is impossible when it comes to God.

<snip>

While we are on the topic, I feel angry every time we come to evolution or the Big Bang Theory in science. Isn't creationism a theory too? That's what evolution and the Big Bang Theory are: theories. Shouldn't public schools be teaching other possible theories so that kids can make decisions for themselves? Isn't that the main purpose of school: to help us think for ourselves and make decisions on our own? Thank the Good Lord that I could be going to a Christian school instead of a public school next year.
Mmm, I know what you mean, it makes me angry too. :headbang:

Creationism is indeed a theory*, just not one derivable from observation, experiment or a hypothesis testable by scientific methods (apparently). So it has no place in a science class, except maybe as an alternative hypothesis to evolution, which is curently the dominant theory. Of course then we'd have to bring in all the other creation myths from Hinduism, Shamenism, Zoroastroism and what have you, so that would be a fun class.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. If this thread floats, there will be others along far better able than I to argue this one.


*Though, it's only a theory by my definition - I thought to you guys it was revealed truth? ;)

Originally Posted by ClemsonTigers
Isn't creationism a theory too?

You misunderstand the definition of theory. A theory is a testable (falsifiable) scientific model that describes observations. In this sense, creationism is not a theory. No observation can falsify creationism because an all-powerful god could do anything, so that no matter what we observe a god could have made it. Thus, creationism is completely non-falsifiable.
However, philosophers of science understand that all ideas are non-falsifiable. We might be delusional, and the world is actually flat. We might be in a computer generated matrix on an earth that is the center of the universe. Nonetheless, not all theories to support ideas are non-falsifiable. For instance, Aristotle's (and Ptolemy's) theory that the earth is the center of the universe was falsified by stellar parrallax. Although it might still be the center (by my matrix example), no falsifiable model with us in the middle has withstood scientific testing.
Evolution now uses falsifiable models. (It hasn't always done so.) If the fossil record contradicts genetic testing with regards to the relationships among species (current or extinct) then the current model for evolution is false. This does not mean that evolution as a whole would be false (we can never know this), but it does mean that scientists would require another model (that may or may not include evolution).
The problem with creationist hypotheses (so far) is that all of them revert to non-falsifiable arguments (or other epistemological errors). Many simply state that an all-powerful being could have created the universe. As I said before, nothing could falsify this. Others assume that the theory of evolution is falsified by a current lack of understanding (e.g. Questions like "how did [this organ] develop?"). These arguments do not falsify the current evolutionary model; they merely indicate that we don't have complete knowledge. As Christians themsleves like to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Of course, evolution doesn't even have a complete lack of evidence. Although the fossil record has a few "holes," many sets of fossils do explain the development of different organisms and their parts.

well, I too am a Christian, some may call me a fundamentalist with my views. But after much arguing with some of my atheist colleges, I started to wonder, are all creationists believers (and I think that muslims and Jews believe in creation too, so I'm including them.) or are there a few out there with no religious standing who agree with creationism.

Let's assume Darwinian theory is wrong, and that Creationism is right. It doesn't really follow, but let's let that go. So we have a creator(s)? Is that creator God? If so, this strikes me as a theological argument. If not, where did this creator come from? Evolution or Creation? And so the loop continues. Surely at some point, one comes to a Creator - theological argument; or auto-biogenesis (or equivalent for whatever race of aliens we're dealing with here). (Or, of cause, 'don't know', but that wouldn't be an argument for Creationism.

The mistake that many make when they think of creationism is that they assume that there has to be a creator.

Now the universe itself exists, in some sense anyway. (Go read the by know encyclopedical length thread on reality and existence for more confusion on this point.) This means that it came into being. Not that it was created by a creator. How this could happen is a mystery, but it happened. Now if we can not explain how the universe came to come into being. (And Big Bang theory does not do this) then we have a big hole in our theories. If this is the case, then apply occams razor, and get rid of all this evolution stuff, and Big Bangs and hyperexpansion, and supernovae etc. This is all way too complicated when there is no basis for anything to exist. Just posit that the world as we perceive it came into existance, in some mysterious, inexplicable way, about 15,000 years ago.
(Change the date as you see fit) No creator, no God, no external forces.
But creationism.

"Creationism" by definition is not simply a belief in a creator for existence, but belief in the Christian version of it. It is necessarily theological.

Creationists like to promote their belief like it was a scientific theory, and some how measures up to evolution in that respect.

You misunderstand the definition of theory. A theory is a testable (falsifiable) scientific model that describes observations. In this sense, creationism is not a theory. No observation can falsify creationism because an all-powerful god could do anything, so that no matter what we observe a god could have made it. Thus, creationism is completely non-falsifiable.
However, philosophers of science understand that all ideas are non-falsifiable. We might be delusional, and the world is actually flat. We might be in a computer generated matrix on an earth that is the center of the universe. Nonetheless, not all theories to support ideas are non-falsifiable. For instance, Aristotle's (and Ptolemy's) theory that the earth is the center of the universe was falsified by stellar parrallax. Although it might still be the center (by my matrix example), no falsifiable model with us in the middle has withstood scientific testing.
Evolution now uses falsifiable models. (It hasn't always done so.) If the fossil record contradicts genetic testing with regards to the relationships among species (current or extinct) then the current model for evolution is false. This does not mean that evolution as a whole would be false (we can never know this), but it does mean that scientists would require another model (that may or may not include evolution).
The problem with creationist hypotheses (so far) is that all of them revert to non-falsifiable arguments (or other epistemological errors). Many simply state that an all-powerful being could have created the universe. As I said before, nothing could falsify this. Others assume that the theory of evolution is falsified by a current lack of understanding (e.g. Questions like "how did [this organ] develop?"). These arguments do not falsify the current evolutionary model; they merely indicate that we don't have complete knowledge. As Christians themsleves like to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Of course, evolution doesn't even have a complete lack of evidence. Although the fossil record has a few "holes," many sets of fossils do explain the development of different organisms and their parts.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Alien-Born
If this is the case, then apply occams razor, and get rid of all this evolution stuff, and Big Bangs and hyperexpansion, and supernovae etc.

Judging from your other posts, I believe you know more about the philosophy of science than this. I assume you are being sarcastic.
However, I will correct the error, even if you are joking. Occam's Razor does not mean that scientists will accept the easiest to understand explanation. It means that scientists will accept the explanation that fits observations and uses no excess variables. Creationist hypotheses must always use an excess variable (god) because the universe might just as easily be explained by already postulated natural causes. That is, no sane creationist denies survival of the fittest. If this, by itself, can explain the variety of species on earth, a creator is not neccessary. This does not mean that you should not believe in god. It means that god is necessarily a non-scientific explanation.

I think that a Robin Willaims quote fits here.

Robin: And God said "Let there be light!". Could that be a metaphor for the "Big Bang"

Fundy Robin: No, God just went "click".

I think this brings up a good point. I know some more liberal and moderate Christians that believe God was the cause for the big bang. I've even heard it put as, "God playing with his first chemistry set."

Buddhists believe in something different and I think this is a good way to sum it up (taken from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm)

There are three schools of thought regarding the origin of the world. The first school of thought claims that this world came into existence by nature and that nature is not an intelligent force. However, nature works no its own accord and goes on changing.

The second school of thought says that the world was created by an almighty God who is responsible for everything.

The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'

The mistake that many make when they think of creationism is that they assume that there has to be a creator.

Now the universe itself exists, in some sense anyway. (Go read the by know encyclopedical length thread on reality and existence for more confusion on this point.) This means that it came into being. Not that it was created by a creator. How this could happen is a mystery, but it happened. Now if we can not explain how the universe came to come into being. (And Big Bang theory does not do this) then we have a big hole in our theories. If this is the case, then apply occams razor, and get rid of all this evolution stuff, and Big Bangs and hyperexpansion, and supernovae etc. This is all way too complicated when there is no basis for anything to exist. Just posit that the world as we perceive it came into existance, in some mysterious, inexplicable way, about 15,000 years ago.
(Change the date as you see fit) No creator, no God, no external forces.
But creationism.
OK, if creationism can be defined without a creator, your argument might hold. That's not my understanding of the word, but let's just note the difference in our respective definitions and move on.

So conceptually, I would see two possible start points: creator-generated or spontaneous generation from nil. I would probably argue that these two concepts collapse into one, since the first does not deal with the creation of the creator, but let that go. I also agree, the precise timing of the start point is not relevant - 15k or 15bn years ago, it's just a bunch of zeros difference.

However, I would also see a potential alternative - some form of closed loop, whereby the end point becomes the starting point and so on.

The Bible does not speak of where God come from and how long He has been there. However, we can assume that He has existed forever. Nothing is impossible when it comes to God.

I've always wondered why people can accept that their God has always existed, yet seem to balk at the idea that the universe could, in some form, be infinite.

Is there anyone out there that believe in creationism on grounds other than theological. I'm being serious. Is there anyone out there that stands on creation for reasons that are NOT based in theology?[Sigh] can't really. It's like the Explain sin without bringing up religion thread. My reply. Sure, if you can explain why it's against the law to Murder someone and do not bring up any legal reference. :p

My opinion (with religion references) is that God Created Life, The Universe, and Everything. Evolution is just man's way of explaining the processes. There is nothing that states it cannot be one or the other.

I've always wondered why people can accept that their God has always existed, yet seem to balk at the idea that the universe could, in some form, be infinite.really? never encountered anyone like that... yet.

really? never encountered anyone like that... yet.

What? I mean, people say 'The universe couldn't have just popped out of nowhere, someone had to have created it,' but then they go right ahead and say 'God (who has always existed) did it'. Why can't the universe/matter have always existed, then?

What? I mean, people say 'The universe couldn't have just popped out of nowhere, someone had to have created it,' but then they go right ahead and say 'God (who has always existed) did it'. Why can't the universe/matter have always existed, then? nope... after all, Infinite does not mean without beginning, just without end. even Evolutionist believe in the Big Bang Theroy which states that all matter was compressed at one point before it was released by the Gargantuan Explosion. when Asked what was there before the Big Bang, a Majority of the researchers still balk at that one.

A few came up with the idea of an expanding/contrating universe

My belief in creationism isn't entirely theological.

BB and evolution have too many holes in them. I first questioned them because of my religious beliefs, but once I looked at them, I didn't need my religious beliefs to tell me that they were wrong.

Same here. It's pretty logical to assume that SOMETHING must have set the universe in motion, whether you believe in evolution or not. Honestly, I think that God gave creatures the ability to change, and to adapt but not the ability to mutate into completely different species. If you look at a cell, and all the processes it carries out, all the changes it goes through, you can't help but think that it can't have just up and decided to perfom those things by itself.

It's pretty logical to assume that SOMETHING must have set the universe in motion, whether you believe in evolution or not.

I don't see why that something can't be a momentary event, or even chaos, rather than being, arbitrarily, a complex, omnipowerful God. It seems illogical to assume that because something must have started it, that something must be God.

nope... after all, Infinite does not mean without beginning, just without end. even Evolutionist believe in the Big Bang Theroy which states that all matter was compressed at one point before it was released by the Gargantuan Explosion. when Asked what was there before the Big Bang, a Majority of the researchers still balk at that one.

A few came up with the idea of an expanding/contrating universe
Just a quickie. (Darwinian) evolution is about life on Earth. Big bang is about how the Universe started. Belief in one does not imply belief in the other. OK?

Carry on.

I've always wondered why people can accept that their God has always existed, yet seem to balk at the idea that the universe could, in some form, be infinite.

The Universe can't have always existed. The second law of thermodynamics, when applied to a closed system(the universe without a god input) over infinite time, says that all matter will break down and decay. If the universe has infinite age, nothing would still exist.
The big bang model attempts to explain certain observations, and at the same time satisfies entropy(the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

before i became a christian, i didn;t quite believe in evolution due to my own research on the topic. this pretty much summarizes what i have found out.

#Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.
Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave Said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man...so what's the difference?

Autocraticama, just because a few examples ended up being invalid does not mean that the whole science is invalid. You list all the examples of false "missing links," and claim that because none of the ones you listed is the true missing link, the missing link must not exist. However, I could just as easily list many more false prophets who have claimed to be Jesus come again. The fact that these are not Jesus does not mean that a real Jesus does not exist (even though we haven't detected him).
Furthermore, this analogy is imperfect because we are not still searching for a missing link, while we are still "Wating for Godot" (if you will). Scientists need not search for one missing link because in fact, they have found many (as evolution, instead of catastrophism, would imply). Although you attack one finding of a neanderthal, scientists have found thousands of neanderthal fossils. You must discredit all of these, showing that somehow these hominids were purely human, when in fact they all have definitely different skeletal structures from any human (arthritic or otherwise).
Lucy, unlike you may claim, was not a strange chimpanzee. Her pelvis bone (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/pelvis.html) totally dispels this notion. Unless she was the type of mutant that creationists claim does not exist, she must have been an ape-human intermediary.
You might also want to visit this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/) for further information about all of your counter-arguments, as well as examples that you fail to consider. Particularly, click on the link "Creationist Arguments" to see scientific explanations of your examples and more.

You might think that this is linked to theology, so I'm sorry if it wasn't the kind of answer that you're looking for, but I find it much harder to believe that everything came together like this by chance, when you consider how intricately things work, and how balanced everything is. I think it makes more sense to believe in a creator force behind it. But I know that there are those who disagree, and that's fine. It's personal, I guess.

You might think that this is linked to theology, so I'm sorry if it wasn't the kind of answer that you're looking for, but I find it much harder to believe that everything came together like this by chance, when you consider how intricately things work, and how balanced everything is. I think it makes more sense to believe in a creator force behind it. But I know that there are those who disagree, and that's fine. It's personal, I guess.

On the other hand, humans only survived because we have such large brains. We are actually fairly badly 'designed', spinal damage, osteoarthritis, depression, anxiety disorders and extemely difficult child birth, are all 'design' flaws in humans because we suffer them so frequently.

My view is that we evolved in such a way as to be the best adapted to our evolutionary niche. We never lost our flaws, because they generally don't prevent us from passing our genes onto the next generation!

I used the word design not to suggest that we actually have a designer, but to suggest that if someone where to design human beings, we'd probably be better designed!

Judging from your other posts, I believe you know more about the philosophy of science than this. I assume you are being sarcastic.
However, I will correct the error, even if you are joking. Occam's Razor does not mean that scientists will accept the easiest to understand explanation. It means that scientists will accept the explanation that fits observations and uses no excess variables. Creationist hypotheses must always use an excess variable (god) because the universe might just as easily be explained by already postulated natural causes. That is, no sane creationist denies survival of the fittest. If this, by itself, can explain the variety of species on earth, a creator is not neccessary. This does not mean that you should not believe in god. It means that god is necessarily a non-scientific explanation.

You are more than slightly begging the question here. Occam's razor does simply mean that in the absence of any other criteria of selection between competing ideas choose the simpler. The interpretation you put upon the consideration of good old Guilherme is that that is used in modern science. Not the formulation as it originally was.
If you are going to object to creationism from strictly within the modern scientific mindset, then you have already pre-decided the outcome. This is clearly begging the question.
I am of course, playing devil's advocate here, I am not a creationist
Survival of the fittest, by the way, does not explain in any way whatsoever the variety of species. It explains the adaptation of species to their environment, on the condition that there is some, unexplained in Darwinian evolution, means of generating a wide range of candidates for natural selection to operate on. Creationism is not just about the variety of species anyway. It is about how the universe came to be as it is. If you look at onew smal aspect of this only, then yes, one can say that the scientific theory is no more complex than creationism. However if you look at the whole picture, this argument is clearluy false.

What is being challenged here is more than just evolution, although creationists generaly do not realise this. What is being challenged is the whole of the scientific endevour. Believers in science, and that is what they are, will point to the success of science in generating results. Believers in religion will do likewise for religion. The scientist then says there is no scientific evidence for religious claims. This again is begging the question, there only has to be faith in the results for religion to be self validating in the same sense that science is.
This is the reason that, despite all "evidence" being in favour of evolution, this "evidence" is simply irrelevant to the debate.

I, nevertheless have faith in science, and do believe this evidence. I was just presenting one look at the case for creationism.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
You are more than slightly begging the question here. Occam's razor does simply mean that in the absence of any other criteria of selection between competing ideas choose the simpler. The interpretation you put upon the consideration of good old Guilherme is that that is used in modern science. Not the formulation as it originally was.
If you are going to object to creationism from strictly within the modern scientific mindset, then you have already pre-decided the outcome. This is clearly begging the question.

Actually objecting to creationism from a modern scientific mindset is not begging the question. This is like saying that objecting to "1+1=3" from the mindset of mathematics is begging the question. This is not the case because mathematics is not designed to automatically reject this idea; it merely rejects it because of the results of its theories. In the same way, modern science is not designed so that scientists won't find a creator, they simply have not found one. Therefore, postulating a creator (without positive evidence) will always be extranuous no matter what else scientists find. Thus, Occam's razor rejects the idea until it explains something that nothing else could possibly explain. The most basic way that this would happen is if scientists actually find a god.
Of course this interpretation is the modern one. At the same time that science has been advancing, so has epistemology. We now understand more "tricks" of argument (fallacies) that we won't allow to convince us of something that is not necessarily true, or necessarily probable. The arguments in your first post contain some of these fallacies. For instance, you cannot claim that a certain theory is better than existing ones just because it explains things more simply by forcing all observations to agree with it. Non-falsifiable theories like creationism must show a great deal of proof because they are dead ends to the scientific process.

Survival of the fittest, by the way, does not explain in any way whatsoever the variety of species. It explains the adaptation of species to their environment, on the condition that there is some, unexplained in Darwinian evolution, means of generating a wide range of candidates for natural selection to operate on. Creationism is not just about the variety of species anyway.

Survival of the fittest does explain the variety of different species because species that sometimes mutate evolve more quickly, filling all the available niches. In this way, Darwin's theory predicts post-facto that a great variety of species should exist. This, along with the real predictions which Darwinian theory has made, empirically show that it is most likely true.

It is about how the universe came to be as it is. If you look at onew smal aspect of this only, then yes, one can say that the scientific theory is no more complex than creationism. However if you look at the whole picture, this argument is clearluy false.

As I said before, creationism is not an "equivalent theory" to the theories of modern science because it is a dead end. Because nothing can falsify it, it requires more definite proof than a lack of falsification (which happens whether the theory is correct or not).

...why are we the only inteligent beings in the solar system? ...

Except to point out that, from a Darwinian & longterm standpoint, if Ants & roaches are a ten, we'd be lucky to be called a 4. They may not have advanced technology*, but they know what they're doing, and they're really goddamn good at it, whereas humans seem to try a new thing every two or three generations.


*This is an excellent idea on their part. If Ants had control of nukes, the world would be destroyed within the hour.

I believe in creationism because I believe in God, but I also find it hard to believe that the Big Bang Theory could've happened.

While we are on the topic, I feel angry every time we come to evolution or the Big Bang Theory in science. Isn't creationism a theory too? That's what evolution and the Big Bang Theory are: theories. Shouldn't public schools be teaching other possible theories so that kids can make decisions for themselves? Isn't that the main purpose of school: to help us think for ourselves and make decisions on our own? Thank the Good Lord that I could be going to a Christian school instead of a public school next year.

No, it isn't a theory. A theory has supporting evidence that can be tested. If you come up with a hypothesis (literally 'less than a coherent idea') that cannot be tested then a hypothesis is all it will ever be. That's why the longest running scientific competitor to the Big Bang was the Steady State hypothesis. It never became the Steady State theory because you can't test evidence that the universe never looked different because there isn't any.

By the same token there isn't any evidence that God created the world 6,000 years ago and when he did that he decided to make it 4,000,000,000 years old in its very first instant. If you can't test that evidence then it isn't a theory. If God comes down from the sky and says "I made the world 6,000 years ago," and then takes questions from the audience then creationism will be a theory. It will still be only a theory, but it will be a damn good one with lots of supporting evidence.

Despite being a Christian, I'll give it a shot anyways.

Let's use the Big Bang Theory as an example. So the universe just all of a sudden exploded out of nowhere and all of a sudden everything just happened to come together to form stars and other celestial bodies.

Where did this material come from? How did something explode out of nothing? It seems very unlikely that all of a sudden something as large as the universe exploded out of NOTHING in an explosion large enough to make the universe expand at trillions of miles per second.

I believe in creationism because I believe in God, but I also find it hard to believe that the Big Bang Theory could've happened.

While we are on the topic, I feel angry every time we come to evolution or the Big Bang Theory in science. Isn't creationism a theory too? That's what evolution and the Big Bang Theory are: theories. Shouldn't public schools be teaching other possible theories so that kids can make decisions for themselves? Isn't that the main purpose of school: to help us think for ourselves and make decisions on our own? Thank the Good Lord that I could be going to a Christian school instead of a public school next year.


it didn't explode out of nothing! everything was already there! it was just an infinitsmal point known as singularity. there is also a quantum physics view of what there was before the big bang, but i don't know it well enough to explain it.

That's a good question. I just wonder....how could this all be a coincidence? The earth itselt, to me, seems so.....well thought out.

Creation is a very old theory. And it doesn't make sense.

Saying evolution is stupid, is like saying heliocentric ideas are wrong. And if you say Heliocentric ideas are wrong, then you really are an inbred hick. Keep an open mind people.

The purpose of school is to educate you. If we could teach all theories, I want to see the earth's core is made out of Uranium theory taught. I want the, "Humans at one time lived in water," theory. Etc. But their not taught. Why? because some of them are not accepted by SCIENTISTS.

No, creation is not a science. It doesn't have anything supporting it. The earth's uranium core is suppored by science, it would explain the magnetic field, reverse polarities, etc. Evolution has evidence. Similar genetics. Hummanoid, etc. Creation? A black book.

You christian folks should be on the grounds of the big bank theory, and that god created that instead of humanity. Like, maybe god set everything in motion. And that god is only semipotent, but potent enough to cause a change.

We aren't the only ones out there in space. There is sign of primitive life on mars. The reason their all gone is because their core has cooled.

Autocraticama, just because a few examples ended up being invalid does not mean that the whole science is invalid. You list all the examples of false "missing links," and claim that because none of the ones you listed is the true missing link, the missing link must not exist. However, I could just as easily list many more false prophets who have claimed to be Jesus come again. The fact that these are not Jesus does not mean that a real Jesus does not exist (even though we haven't detected him).
Furthermore, this analogy is imperfect because we are not still searching for a missing link, while we are still "Wating for Godot" (if you will). Scientists need not search for one missing link because in fact, they have found many (as evolution, instead of catastrophism, would imply). Although you attack one finding of a neanderthal, scientists have found thousands of neanderthal fossils. You must discredit all of these, showing that somehow these hominids were purely human, when in fact they all have definitely different skeletal structures from any human (arthritic or otherwise).
Lucy, unlike you may claim, was not a strange chimpanzee. Her pelvis bone (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/pelvis.html) totally dispels this notion. Unless she was the type of mutant that creationists claim does not exist, she must have been an ape-human intermediary.
You might also want to visit this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/) for further information about all of your counter-arguments, as well as examples that you fail to consider. Particularly, click on the link "Creationist Arguments" to see scientific explanations of your examples and more.

I think the big question is: if evolution is so great, why would people need to fake evidence?
plus, there is still unanswered questions about things like chirality/abiogenesis

before i became a christian, i didn;t quite believe in evolution due to my own research on the topic. this pretty much summarizes what i have found out.

#Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.
Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave Said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man...so what's the difference?
Yay! More PRATTs. Do us all a favor and learn some goddamn science and actually listen to scientists instead of listening to braindead snake oil salesmen who distort the truth, misunderstand things, or just outright pull shit out of their asses.

Now let me refute your points.

Heidelberg Man: That's a case of making shit up. No scientist claims that H. heidelbergensis is the same as H. sapiens.
Nebraska Man: A journalist expanded it as a human. No scientist ever thought of it as one.
Piltdown Man: Well gee, there was one goddamn hoax. Never mind the hundred-odd hoaxes perpetrated by creationists that are still touted after being disproven.
Peking Man: The originals were blown up when Japan invaded China, but there still are casts.
Neandertal Man: While the type specimen had arthritis, the other hundred or so specimens don't and are distinct from H. sapiens.
Cro-magnon man: No one ever argued that this was anything other than early H. sapiens. Listen to science for once.


If I seem pissy, its because I've seen these same arguements close to one thousand times.

I believe in both evolution and the big bang theory. I don't know what caused the big bang, their are various theories (18 dimensions anyone?) and maybe a creator was involved somewhere, but its almost impossible to tell. The same goes for what started off life on earth (or life in the universe as there is the possiblity of simple life travelling from somewhere else). But once they have started I understand resonably well how we get where we are. And as to the person who asked why there was no life in the rest of solar system, its because its too hot or too cold or no atmosphere, or too much or too little gravity, or acidic atmosphere, or gaseous.
I think the big question is: if evolution is so great, why would people need to fake evidence?
for fame/money

Actually. I may have something.

Perhaps there is a higher power. Something must've created everything from nothing. And why are we the only inteligent beings in the solar system? Could it have been that our planet was seeded?

There! Not exactly theological.

Newsflash, particles can be created from nothing.

QED, knumskull.

and another thing - people here claim that god has always existed, have you ever considered the universe has always been in existance? In a cycle of big bang - big crunch ad infinatum forever forwards and backwards in time.

Heck, I just don't understand why people thing saying a currently indescribable event was caused by an unexplainable being makes anymore sense than the problem in the first place.

slartibartfast-awesome a HHGTG reference, that series kicks @$$.

I have read up on the big bang. a simplified way to say it: Once upon a time, near infinite light energy mysteriously appeared in an explosion. Some was transformed into matter in a ratio of (Einstein's) e=mc^2, and the entire universe's matter was created from it. Once it had expanded enough, the energy wasn't concentrated enough anymore and no more matter appeared.

the big bang stands out to me as THE most literal explanation of "Let there be light". That Moses wrote this as the first part of the creation story thousands of years ago, as opposed to something like "let there be stuff", seems like a HUGE coincidence.

also, "day" as used in genesis, in the original language, has three meanings: 12 hour day, 24 hour day, or era/epoch. The "evening and morning" parts can also refer to "start and finish".

I used to believe creationism without question. Then I began to question everything, and did some research. Now I believe it, not by faith, but because it makes more sense than anything else.
(evolution has plenty of issues, as does abiogenesis; natural selection makes plenty of sense, but has its limits)

I know im gonna get flamed, but thought this was worth saying anyhow. and yes, Ive read LOTS from talkorigins. I believe it is the best site of its kind.

My belief in creationism isn't entirely theological.

BB and evolution have too many holes in them. I first questioned them because of my religious beliefs, but once I looked at them, I didn't need my religious beliefs to tell me that they were wrong.

I don't think that the theory of relativity is right. Therefore there are purple elephants in my yard.

Seriously, science has holes in it - you know why? Because we don't claim to have all the answers yet. The difference between science and Creationism? Scientific theories change to meet new evidence. Creationism starts with a foregone conclusion which (due to theology, and theology alone) will not be changed, no matter what evidence comes along.

I have argued creationism and am an atheist. Would this count.
What I was doing was showing that Darwinian evolution is still only a theory, not a hard truth. It is not like S(0) + S(0) = S(S(0)). It is just an idea that may be wrong.

There is nothing in science that is a "hard truth", it is all "only a theory". Does that mean we should discount all science and go back to living in the caves?

Is there anyone out there that believe in creationism on grounds other than theological. I'm being serious. Is there anyone out there that stands on creation for reasons that are NOT based in theology?

I believe in Creationism because all of the fossil evidence supports it.

I believe in creationism because I believe in God, but I also find it hard to believe that the Big Bang Theory could've happened.

You are confusing "creation" with "Creationism."

While we are on the topic, I feel angry every time we come to evolution or the Big Bang Theory in science. Isn't creationism a theory too? That's what evolution and the Big Bang Theory are: theories. Shouldn't public schools be teaching other possible theories so that kids can make decisions for themselves? Isn't that the main purpose of school: to help us think for ourselves and make decisions on our own? Thank the Good Lord that I could be going to a Christian school instead of a public school next year.

Only scientific theories should be taugh in a science class. Creationism is a lay-theory, which is not the same as a *scientific* theory.

I don't know what level of school you are in, but if it is anything beyond 8th grade, I despair at your science education.

You might think that this is linked to theology, so I'm sorry if it wasn't the kind of answer that you're looking for, but I find it much harder to believe that everything came together like this by chance, when you consider how intricately things work, and how balanced everything is. I think it makes more sense to believe in a creator force behind it. But I know that there are those who disagree, and that's fine. It's personal, I guess.

Again, you are confusing "creation" with "Creationism."

Nothing is impossible when it comes to God.

Except the manipulation of human free will...

Wow...I killed this thread.

Guess that's evidence of Natural Selection...

I believe in Creationism because all of the fossil evidence supports it.


care to elaborate a bit?

it may take me a while to reply, but ive got a decent background in both geology and biolgy (though, i am pretty rusty at the geo part of it) and i think i have heard most of the arguments against evolution, but wouldnt mind hearing something new.

most of the creationist arguments agains evolution have very valid counter arguments, but the main problem is that you often need a decent understanding of biology to fully comprehend them, and, well, i dont think ive ever met a creationist-biologist.

While we are on the topic, I feel angry every time we come to evolution or the Big Bang Theory in science. Isn't creationism a theory too?

No.

Lets take a Cake. this is the only cake to exsist. no other cake came before it, for it is the first... no other cake to come after it for there is no recipie and no baker (died and no one watched him make this cake.)

We can, by means of scientific deduction, break it down to it's primary ingrediants.... Flour/baking powder, eggs, water, sugar.... or even further down to it's chemical properites....

by doing so, we can then try to recreate it and perhaps make another cake just like it. but we always fail... just come short of creating a perfect Cake... only substandard copies.

are we to then assume that there was no original baker? that all the ingredients some how fell into a mixing pot and was baked though random means?

Life appeared on Earth. we didn't see the origins... we didn't see the process... and there is no real 'proof' of any creater... just what he/she created. we look at fossils, we study the Genome... we break it down... and try to recreate life. We have succeeded in some areas but we haven't gotten the 'recipie' just right yet.


while in the cake example we think it rediculous because we can, in reality see the baker... we see the process... but again, what if we never see the baker... we never see the process does then the baker become non-exsistant and only a figment of delusional people?

(posted on another thread... but why the heck not...)
Ok, in place of my Baker (and half baked example)

Intelligent Design and the Human computer thread got me thinking one night. The thread about the human body being a computer made me think about some similarities between us and the computer/technologies of today.

Let’s start with...
the power supply
Computers & Robotics need electricity... without it, performance... well there is none.

Humans need food, water and oxygen to produce the 'bioelectric' energy needed to function properly... deny any of these and performance starts to go down.

Internal workings.
CPU:
Computers & Robotics have a processor that calculates and regulates the information given to the CPU.

Humans have brains... it's our CPU... our processor so to speak.

Circuitry:
Computers & Robotics wires, cables and integrated circuits are everywhere in the pc.

Humans have the Nervous system, a complex series of ‘wires’ that relay information to our CPU (Brain)

Cooling System:
Computers & Robotics have fans inside… some larger systems use water or temperature controlled Air Units. Should the system get to Hot, performance goes down.

Humans have sweat and our Respiratory systems… these are used to regulate heat keeping us in operational temperatures.

Input Devices.
Computers & Robotics Floppy Drives, Keyboards, Microphones, touch pads/screens, optical cameras/scanners…

Humans Taste, Touch, Sight, Hearing, Smell… Our Input Devices….

Memory
Computers & Robotics depends on how much we install.

Humans depends on how much we train ours…

Storage devices.
Computers & Robotics Hard drive, and external storage methods such as Diskettes, CD, Tapes, punch cards…

Humans our brain, and external Storage methods such as Paper and writing implement, Tapes, CD, Computers…

Output Devices
Computers & Robotics Monitors, Printers, Speakers and Disks (CD and otherwise.)

Humans Speech, writing, motions…

Protection
Computers & Robotics MacAfee… Norton’s…

Humans: Immune system…

Structure
Computers & Robotics have their cases, their superstructure…

Humans have bones and skin.

Articulation.
Computers & Robotics joints and servos…

Humans muscles and Joints.

Programming
Computers & Robotics what ever the programmer puts in.

Humans school anyone?

Form
Computers & Robotics function biased form. Over the centuries, we design computers and Robots to perform specific duties… different ‘versions’ are being worked on each day. Robots designed to paint cars cannot do the same as robots designed for healthcare or for under sea exploration. Computers are getting faster and smaller with each new ‘generation’… also man is constantly trying to build Robots in a humanoid form. But first starting with animal/insect like bodies and are slowly working their way up the ladder.

Humans and other life on this planet are also function oriented. People who live in higher climates are physically different than people who live in valleys… for instance, their lung capacity is different. Each Generation of ‘Humans’ are living longer. Evolution can be said to be earlier versions of the current form. As each form fails in its trial… it becomes obsolete… or extinct. And in the case of Christians… are we not ‘made’ in God’s Image? For some of the others, Man is the highest form one can achieve on earth.

Reasoning.
Computers & Robotics every year we hear more and more of A.I. becoming reality. Video Games and Movies utilize computers that react in a more ‘human’ like method. Programmers are programming Robots to react to their environment… adapt and ‘learn’ through outside stimulus… Wi-Fi/remote allows the exchange of information without the need for cables… and each new ‘program’ teaches the Robot something new.

Humans *whistles*

We talk about Robots building/programming Robots… artificial Humans… Bio-ware… A.I. … how would the Ultimate Robot view us… as their creator? Or a foiled evolutionary path? We go through different Versions of computers… (TSR 80’s anyone, or perhaps the ENIAC?) And each new version is different than the last… what about the evolution of Life… could it not be said that each ‘version’ is a bench mark in the creation of life on Earth? We create Computers and Robots with a sophistication that almost rivals the human body, yet believe that we, ourselves are a product of chance?

We talk about Robots building/programming Robots… artificial Humans… Bio-ware… A.I. … how would the Ultimate Robot view us… as their creator? Or a foiled evolutionary path? We go through different Versions of computers… (TSR 80’s anyone, or perhaps the ENIAC?) And each new version is different than the last… what about the evolution of Life… could it not be said that each ‘version’ is a bench mark in the creation of life on Earth? We create Computers and Robots with a sophistication that almost rivals the human body, yet believe that we, ourselves are a product of chance?

Curious, isn't it, that your description of the developing sophistication of machines so closely represents the theory of evolution?

The early 'big name' machines dominated the market by virtue of being better at 'what they do' than their competitors, who were gradually squeezed out of the market. Thus, one or two big companies remained... and, when they began to stagnate, they were challenged by other branches from the same original root, or by 'invader' competitors, from outside of the previously 'safe environment'.

So - 'environmental' forces (in this case, the environment is the world of commerce, and the entities we are really looking at are the maufacturers... the software/hardware are actually just 'characteristics' of those 'beasts') force the survival of the fittest, who become the dominant entities, until they either kill each other off (which leaves one 'entity' with even greater domain of domination), or are displaced by an 'outsider'.

For all your arguments - the parallel actually lends more credence to 'Evolution' as a theory, than to the idea of a 'creator'.

Curious, isn't it, that your description of the developing sophistication of machines so closely represents the theory of evolution?

The early 'big name' machines dominated the market by virtue of being better at 'what they do' than their competitors, who were gradually squeezed out of the market. Thus, one or two big companies remained... and, when they began to stagnate, they were challenged by other branches from the same original root, or by 'invader' competitors, from outside of the previously 'safe environment'.

So - 'environmental' forces (in this case, the environment is the world of commerce, and the entities we are really looking at are the maufacturers... the software/hardware are actually just 'characteristics' of those 'beasts') force the survival of the fittest, who become the dominant entities, until they either kill each other off (which leaves one 'entity' with even greater domain of domination), or are displaced by an 'outsider'.

For all your arguments - the parallel actually lends more credence to 'Evolution' as a theory, than to the idea of a 'creator'.

Only if you discount the fact that computers were in fact created by intelligent beings rather than by random chance.

I think there are probably a great number of people who believe in creationism on grounds other than theological. The problem is that a person who discovers creationism through non theological means is bound to explore religion after reaching the conclusion that creationism is true. Once they become religious, no one believes that their view on creationism didnt come through theological means anymore.

Only if you discount the fact that computers were in fact created by intelligent beings rather than by random chance.

I don't see why you have to discount that? Evolution, as a theory, doesn't imply that humans arrived by 'random chance' - but are a logical step on the road of the survival of the fittest.

The computer industry, as with every other commercial arena, thrives on the same principle.

Now - if there were no other similar lifeforms on this planet, there might be a better argument. As it is, a 'human' is not greatly removed from many other members of the animal kingdom - close enough to lend credence to the idea of the 'fittest' lifeform thriving.

I don't see why you have to discount that? Evolution, as a theory, doesn't imply that humans arrived by 'random chance' - but are a logical step on the road of the survival of the fittest.

The computer industry, as with every other commercial arena, thrives on the same principle.

Now - if there were no other similar lifeforms on this planet, there might be a better argument. As it is, a 'human' is not greatly removed from many other members of the animal kingdom - close enough to lend credence to the idea of the 'fittest' lifeform thriving.

Because computers are created. It obviously resembles creationism more than evolution. Evolution does not have intelligent creators, just random mutations.

eh, its kinda a stretch, but if you take into effect sexual selection, you can sorta make an iffy claim that the population itself is guiding it's evolution.

maybe.

but then you just get screwy things like peacocks, fancy guppies, and other such critters that look pretty at the expense of becoming more likely dinner items.

Because computers are created. It obviously resembles creationism more than evolution. Evolution does not have intelligent creators, just random mutations.ok... but how was the FIRST computer created? was it just random peices thrown together until it worked, won't that, in the mind of sentient computers, seem like random mutations? What about viruses, a change in the program, adding a periphial device... in the 'mind' of the computer, won't that be mutations since it doesn't happen to all PCs?

and in the fact that now, people can reprogram computers and and functions though wireless means, can it be possible that each random mutation is a change the 'programmer' or 'creator' is adding into the 'system'

And here's another point. Give computers the same time Man has. and with the sentient Computers that will now be around. what would they say? we know computers have creators because we know who created them. but would they? would they accept that creatures were responsible for their perfect race? or would they say that they too Evolved without any help to the lifeforms that they are?

"Creationism" by definition is not simply a belief in a creator for existence, but belief in the Christian version of it. It is necessarily theological.
true, true, but that does not mean our support must be purely theological. i don't know if this counts, but i have some scientifical evidence, other than simply "something so complicated must have been designed by God" that punches some very nasty holes in darwinian theory. unfortunately, i don't have time to explain here, so please, please, PLEASE email me at greenleaf_r@hotmail.com if u want to hear the evidence. i also have to get some of the details straight in the mean time. God bless y'all, hope to hear from u soon.

ok... but how was the FIRST computer created?Depends when you start calling it a computer. The AppleIIE, the first (popular) computer for general people, wasn't that great a leap from it's predecessors. Before that, computers were largely glorified abacodes (or whatever the plural of "abacus" is... my greek isn't up to spec lately) of differing usefulness. Since there's no essential difference in function, a real slide rule/abacus would be a less complicated computer without too big a leap in imagination. Those're organized ways to count stones, which is a better way to keep track of them than just hoping you have as many as you did before.

They're all the result of trying every idea that crosses your head, keeping the ones that work, and forgetting the rest- that is the whole and the entirety of the process of evolution.

It gradually got more complicated, and over a mere six or ten thousand years, we went from keeping track of rocks/apples in our heads to the basis of damn near all electronics and mathematics. Given bacteria that reproduce every 20 minutes or so, and a couple billion years, ending up with crappy things like ants, bees, and cockroaches at the pinnacle of creation would be comparatively shoddy work. If you think humans are beating out the bugs, then I'll be happy to humor you, but only if you'll do me the favor of remembering that we're dealing with really big numbers here.

Only if you discount the fact that computers were in fact created by intelligent beings rather than by random chance.
Ever heard of evolving circuits? They're computers that "evolve", so to speak, instead of being designed. And they work far better than anything people come up with.

Ever heard of evolving circuits? They're computers that "evolve", so to speak, instead of being designed. And they work far better than anything people come up with. :D and who or what created the first "evolving" circuit?

:D and who or what created the first "evolving" circuit?
Humans made the program that allows the circuits to form, and then picked out the ones that work. Given that life is almost a certainty with the laws of physics, this is equivalent to making the universe and then seeing what happened.

There's also a computer program, called "Antina" or something, that is an example of evolution in action. It was in a recent issue of some magazine, Discover I think. Anyways, the programs that result from this experiment are extremely close to being what could be defined as life.

Lets take a Cake. this is the only cake to exsist. no other cake came before it, for it is the first... no other cake to come after it for there is no recipie and no baker (died and no one watched him make this cake.)

We can, by means of scientific deduction, break it down to it's primary ingrediants.... Flour/baking powder, eggs, water, sugar.... or even further down to it's chemical properites....

by doing so, we can then try to recreate it and perhaps make another cake just like it. but we always fail... just come short of creating a perfect Cake... only substandard copies.

are we to then assume that there was no original baker? that all the ingredients some how fell into a mixing pot and was baked though random means?

Life appeared on Earth. we didn't see the origins... we didn't see the process... and there is no real 'proof' of any creater... just what he/she created. we look at fossils, we study the Genome... we break it down... and try to recreate life. We have succeeded in some areas but we haven't gotten the 'recipie' just right yet.


while in the cake example we think it rediculous because we can, in reality see the baker... we see the process... but again, what if we never see the baker... we never see the process does then the baker become non-exsistant and only a figment of delusional people?


I was planning on posting something VERY similar to this until I read it. Posting it now just seems like wasted effort as it is damn near identical to yours.

Mine involved a Pocket Watch instead of Cake though, plus it had a old man in dire need of a cup of coffee and a psych institute...

I was planning on posting something VERY similar to this until I read it. Posting it now just seems like wasted effort as it is damn near identical to yours.

Mine involved a Pocket Watch instead of Cake though, plus it had a old man in dire need of a cup of coffee and a psych institute...Post yours... if it's better (most likly it will be,) i'll delete my cake one. I like my computer/human one tho.

I was planning on posting something VERY similar to this until I read it. Posting it now just seems like wasted effort as it is damn near identical to yours.

Mine involved a Pocket Watch instead of Cake though, plus it had a old man in dire need of a cup of coffee and a psych institute...
Oh God no. Not the unmitigated pile of crap that is the Watchmaker arguement. Do us all a favor and take Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker out of the library and read it.

Oh God no. Not the unmitigated pile of crap that is the Watchmaker arguement. Do us all a favor and take Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker out of the library and read it. :D I wonder if that's how the backwards running clock got invented?