NationStates Jolt Archive

What's the creationists problem with Evolution?
I've been wondering about this for quite a while, but i think they insist that Creation and Deluge according to Genesis would be real because it also mentions the Fall of Man. Without the Original Sin, there is no justification for Jesus Christ. Poof. That's it, isn't it? Please correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it's that way. Otherwise, from my perspective their opposition seems very pointless... they just seem to refuse it.

Well anyways... here are some typical misconceptions of Creationists:

1.) They have no idea what "Evolution" is all about.
The Creationist definition typically not only is about biological evolution - but it also includes topics such abiogenesis, the age of the Earth, big bang, cosmic, stellar and planetary evolution - basically everything that contradicts their belief. Please note that these involve a multiplicity of different scientific fields of which some have little or nothing to do with each other. The only thing they have in common is that they contradict their belief into a young Earth.

Btw, i'm referring to this article for an explanation about what exactly is evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution).

2.) Creationists often distinguish between "Bad Science" and "Good Science"
Due to the forementioned misconception, for Creationists there exist certain types of "Bad Science", such as Archaeology, Astrophysics, Biology, Geology, Mineralogy and Paleontology. Creationists are continuously trying to refute these sciences and replace them with their pseudoscience (i.e. nonsense like "Creation Science", "Flood Geology" or "Baraminology").
However, most Creationists refrain are not completely against science, since there exists "Good Science" which has added all the convenient inventions into their life. This is very inconsistent IMHO. Either accept science as a whole, or don't and go back into the stone age! :mad:

3.) The claim that "Atheism" or "Evolutionism" are religions.
Atheism is not a religion, it's a lack of the same. And as mentioned in point #1, "Evolution" per Creationist definition is a very heterogeneous collection of scientific fields which don't constitute a religion, either.

4.) The claim that Evolution states the laws of physics should be "evolving".
I don't know where they got this from, but it's utter nonsense. Science states that the laws of physics which are governing the universe have been like they are today since the dawn of the universe. This is prettymuch supported by all the fields of science. Creationists on the other hand insist that there is an anthropomorphic god which has been occasionally messing around with laws of physics according to his will. This is however not consistent with our universe.

5.) The claim that Evolution is "just a theory"
I recommend looking up the definition for scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) . :P

6.) The claim that Creationism is based on the same evidence as Evolution.
What Creationists do is discard every evidence that happens to contradict their conclusion which they don't want to change. :(

7.) The claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would prevent Abiogensis.
Guys? When will you EVER LEARN IT?!?

8.) The claim that the carbon-14 method is used for radiometric dating of rocks.
This is utter nonsense. C-14 is used for dating the age of bones which are younger than some 50,000 years or so. The methods used for dating rocks are uranium/lead, potassium/argon and rubidium/strontium. Seriously.

9.) Creationists are generally very uneducated about evolution-related topics.
Apart from the forementioned misconceptions, I've seen all kinds of really embarassing claims by Creationists, and no end seems to be in sight (no offense!). I seriously suggest reading some text books to these people. Anyways, here are some very amusing examples i picked up:

- the claim that evolution states that mammals would have directly evolved from fish (no scientist claims that, really!)
- the claim that it's impossible to know from the fossils if an animal is a mammal or not (well, it is possible...)
- the claim that Ambulocetus natans would be a crocodile (anatomy?)
- the claim that Louis Pasteur's disproval of spontaneous generation would disprove abiogenesis (hello?!?)

10.) Creationists usually claim the biblical Deluge really happened and that there would be plenty of evidence (Where?). Guys, please... have you ever considered the following reasons for it's impossibility (you should be thankful that i'm doing this ;) ):

- There is not enough water on Earth for a global flood. If there was, where did it come from, and where did it go to afterwards?

- There is no geological evidence for a global flood. If you think fossils and sediments are evidence for a global flood, then you evidently have no understanding of even the most simple basics of geology.

- Dendrochronology date back to circa 10,000 years and ice core samples date back to over 700,000 years, and neither say anything about a global flood.

- Who says it's possible to build such a gigantic wooden boat and maintain it with just such a small number of people, and who says it would survive such an event?

- It would have been impossible for the ark to to hold all animal species of the world. All the millions of insect species would never have found room in it. And if you add all the *known* extinct species, the figure gets even higher.

- It would have been impossible to feed all these species during the flood and afterwards, and it would have been impossible of preventing them from feeding on each other.

- How do you explain that there are more extinct species than living ones if you assume that they were all saved from the flood on board of Noah's Ark. Just for your information, Dinosaurs are not the only extinct group of animals.

- How do you explain the present-day (and fossil) distribution and restriction of certain types of animals? For example why are there Marsupials in Australia, and why have fossils of horses never been found in Antarctica and Australia?

- Some species of animals do not have two genders, they are hermaphrodites and some even reproduce via parthenogenesis. Talking about pairs...

- The Deluge would have been an extreme population bottleneck. There is no evidence for such a bottleneck in the gene pool of the living species, and it's unlikely that they would have recovered from it.

- Most aquatic ecosystems would have died because of the change of salinity.

- Most plants would not have survived the year of flood.

So... that's it. Now it's your turn, Creationists. Tell me what you have on your heart...

(Disclaimer: i know that there are various types of Creationism, don't get me started on that. I'm opposing Young Earth Creationism here in the first place!)

Simple, creationists want creationism to be right, and try to delude themselves and others into thinking there is a rational basis for belief that it is right.

What is going on in the minds of Creationists?

This (http://www.transbuddha.com/osaka/osakaphone.html)

Incidently, not all Creationists are Christian. Jews and Muslims believe the Almighty created the Universe as well and believe in it the way Genesis tells it ... with some differences, mind you, such as we believe science is the key to understanding Creation, not the other way around ... but still ...

Don't discount us all because of one faction of one loony cult. Mmkay?

What is going on in the minds of Creationists?

This (http://www.transbuddha.com/osaka/osakaphone.html)

LOL, good one!

Incidently, not all Creationists are Christian. Jews and Muslims believe the Almighty created the Universe as well and believe in it the way Genesis tells it ... with some differences, mind you, such as we believe science is the key to understanding Creation, not the other way around ... but still ...

Don't discount us all because of one faction of one loony cult. Mmkay?

Well, Creationism like it is protracted by Christian fundamentalists in the US is without an equal example in the rest of the world...

Well, Creationism like it is protracted by Christian fundamentalists in the US is without an equal example in the rest of the world...

True! I find it disturbing as well. Believe me, though, that there is no way to get it through to them. No amount of scientific evidence for a universe that's older than 6,000 years and not even a lengthy, well thought out, scholarly dissertation on how Creation in Genesis actually is supposed to be studied helps.

A Christian Fundie with reason is like a fish with a bicycle. Nobody knows how he got it and he damn sure don't know how to use it.

That's pretty much EVRYTHING my fundie semi-friend (90% of the time he's a typical fundie, 5% of the time he's whining or being a bad DM, and 5% of the time he's cool, REALLY cool, unless someone even MENTIONS the Bible) says. You summed it up PERFECTLY!

Electrical impulses controlling motor function and thought processes for RAM.

Memories and critical thought as well as logic and reasoning.

And like all other humans,faulty perceptions that they believe are correct.

Much the same as non-creationists. ;)

That's pretty much EVRYTHING my fundie semi-friend (90% of the time he's a typical fundie, 5% of the time he's whining or being a bad DM, and 5% of the time he's cool, REALLY cool, unless someone even MENTIONS the Bible) says. You summed it up PERFECTLY!

Hehe, i know what kind of people you mean. :)

*bump*

(i wonder why Creationists don't dare replying to this :D)

I just don't see why creationism and evolution have to be completely separate. Can't we say something created us and we have evolved from there?

Creationist.. Well, most of them believe the Word of God is the Word of God. Full stop. Everything else is just foolish thinking, because God's thoughts are higher than ours.

And they can only rationalize what they think happened in the past. No one is 100% sure what really happened. Unless you lived through all that. And most religious texts are pretty grey on the past or the ancient times before man.



But to go to the extent of going to court and all, to fight the rights for creationism to be taught and evolutionism to be banned is stupidity.

Evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible, Koran, Talmud etc., so they think it's wrong.

NINTH AMENDMENT PEOPLE!!!

First of all, I'd like to thank you guys that don't have any Christian friends for stereotyping all of us. I'm glad that you speak on behalf of what Creationists believe. If it weren't for you guys, a lot of evolutionists would be really confused. Actually, I am really confused, because before now, I had no idea that I thought about evolution that way. I'm glad someone explained it to me.

There will be a following post responding to the posts from before this one.

Point of order. The Ninth simply prevents the Government from creating a state religion. No real "seperation" is written or implied.

As for the rest, good show. I can't stand literalists. However, when in a debate, respect your opponent. There have already been several offensive statements. I've been taught that, in debate, insulting your opponents is a loss for you. No matter how much evidence you have on your side.

To creationist: Remember folks, their is more support for the Theory of Evolution than the Theory of Gravity. Open your minds!

I wonder where the Creationists came up with the idea that the world is 6,000 years old. What is it about that number anyway?

I wonder where the Creationists came up with the idea that the world is 6,000 years old. What is it about that number anyway?
Maybe god told them? I think my mom said it was in the bible but I didn't bother to check.

Point of order. The Ninth simply prevents the Government from creating a state religion. No real "seperation" is written or implied.In referring to the Ninth, I mean that the Creationists seem to be disobeying it by assuming that everything that isn't in the Bible ought not to exist.

Also, you asked why no creationists are responding? It's obvious. Computers, the Internet, and NS aren't mentioned in the Bible. Therefore they are immoral, wrong, and evil. Therefore, no good Creationist can use them.

I wonder where the Creationists came up with the idea that the world is 6,000 years old. What is it about that number anyway?

Well, there was an infamous guy named James Ussher during the 17th century which derived from his studies of the Old Testament that the date of Creation should be October 23rd, 4004 BC. He started with that...

Maybe god told them? I think my mom said it was in the bible but I didn't bother to check.I've never seen it in the Bible. Okay, I only read Genesis, and not all of that because it goes on forever, but still...

Well, there was an infamous guy named James Ussher during the 17th century which derived from his studies of the Old Testament that the date of Creation should be October 23rd, 4004 BC. He started with that...4004 BC = 6,005 years ago

If so, the studies were written in 2000. Which is strange because the guy died in the 16-1700s.

Just kidding.

The figure of 4004 BC is derived from the geneology listing at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, or something similar. The Matthew one lists all the generations between Abraham and Jesus, and everything before that is recorded in Genesis, somewhere.

And yes, it's true that a lot of the people who are loudly against evolution don't understand it. They claim, for example, that microevolution is different to macroevolution. No. That's like saying a word is different from a sentence. Small changes build up to lead to larger changes, which lead to still larger changes, which eventually lead to a genetic code different enough to be called a new species. It's not sudden.

That said, there are holes in evolutionary theory too. Of course there are. Nothing in science is certain. If it were, we'd still be using Newtonian physics. We'd still be convinced that blood did not circulate the body. We put aside ideas that don't hold up to examination, whether that examination is done in a laboratory or by looking at what's already happened.

So there's gaps in the theory of evolution. Maybe we'll plug them someday. Maybe they're examples of divine intervention when things started going wrong. But really, I don't see why they want God to have to work so hard -- wouldn't a sensible deity just set up a simple system at the beginning and arrange everything so that it would evolve to the current state by itself? I mean, if you're omniscient and omnipotent, all you need to do is precisely place everything in the first fraction of a second, and it'll all do everything you need it to.

-- yes, the above paragraph is ignoring quantum uncertainty. I happen to think uncertainty is an artefact of our perception of the universe, not an actual built in effect. But that's just my opinion. We'll know if I'm right when we build our own universes.

Yay for generalizations!

what are the gaps in evolution (theory) anyway? :confused:

what are the gaps in evolution (theory) anyway? :confused:

Well, there are a few nifty questions unanswered, we can't deny that. Like, what are the ancestors of turtles. Or how can birds have evolved from dinosaurs if their fingers are 2.3.4, while those of the theropod Dinosaurs are 1.2.3 (and are they really that way?). Or for what purpose did the reptile Tanystropheus have it's long neck. But well, we don't know everything...

... and unanswered questions is what research is about, isn't it? :)

What's the creationists problem with Evolution?
I've been wondering about this for quite a while, but i think they insist that Creation and Deluge according to Genesis would be real because it also mentions the Fall of Man. Without the Original Sin, there is no justification for Jesus Christ. Poof. That's it, isn't it? Please correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it's that way. Otherwise, from my perspective their opposition seems very pointless... they just seem to refuse it.

Well anyways... here are some typical misconceptions of Creationists:

1.) They have no idea what "Evolution" is all about.
The Creationist definition typically not only is about biological evolution - but it also includes topics such abiogenesis, the age of the Earth, big bang, cosmic, stellar and planetary evolution - basically everything that contradicts their belief. Please note that these involve a multiplicity of different scientific fields of which some have little or nothing to do with each other. The only thing they have in common is that they contradict their belief into a young Earth.

Btw, i'm referring to this article for an explanation about what exactly is evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution).

2.) Creationists often distinguish between "Bad Science" and "Good Science"
Due to the forementioned misconception, for Creationists there exist certain types of "Bad Science", such as Archaeology, Astrophysics, Biology, Geology, Mineralogy and Paleontology. Creationists are continuously trying to refute these sciences and replace them with their pseudoscience (i.e. nonsense like "Creation Science", "Flood Geology" or "Baraminology").
However, most Creationists refrain are not completely against science, since there exists "Good Science" which has added all the convenient inventions into their life. This is very inconsistent IMHO. Either accept science as a whole, or don't and go back into the stone age! :mad:

3.) The claim that "Atheism" or "Evolutionism" are religions.
Atheism is not a religion, it's a lack of the same. And as mentioned in point #1, "Evolution" per Creationist definition is a very heterogeneous collection of scientific fields which don't constitute a religion, either.

4.) The claim that Evolution states the laws of physics should be "evolving".
I don't know where they got this from, but it's utter nonsense. Science states that the laws of physics which are governing the universe have been like they are today since the dawn of the universe. This is prettymuch supported by all the fields of science. Creationists on the other hand insist that there is an anthropomorphic god which has been occasionally messing around with laws of physics according to his will. This is however not consistent with our universe.

5.) The claim that Evolution is "just a theory"
I recommend looking up the definition for scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) . :P

6.) The claim that Creationism is based on the same evidence as Evolution.
What Creationists do is discard every evidence that happens to contradict their conclusion which they don't want to change. :(

7.) The claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would prevent Abiogensis.
Guys? When will you EVER LEARN IT?!?

8.) The claim that the carbon-14 method is used for radiometric dating of rocks.
This is utter nonsense. C-14 is used for dating the age of bones which are younger than some 50,000 years or so. The methods used for dating rocks are uranium/lead, potassium/argon and rubidium/strontium. Seriously.

9.) Creationists are generally very uneducated about evolution-related topics.
Apart from the forementioned misconceptions, I've seen all kinds of really embarassing claims by Creationists, and no end seems to be in sight (no offense!). I seriously suggest reading some text books to these people. Anyways, here are some very amusing examples i picked up:

- the claim that evolution states that mammals would have directly evolved from fish (no scientist claims that, really!)
- the claim that it's impossible to know from the fossils if an animal is a mammal or not (well, it is possible...)
- the claim that Ambulocetus natans would be a crocodile (anatomy?)
- the claim that Louis Pasteur's disproval of spontaneous generation would disprove abiogenesis (hello?!?)

10.) Creationists usually claim the biblical Deluge really happened and that there would be plenty of evidence (Where?). Guys, please... have you ever considered the following reasons for it's impossibility (you should be thankful that i'm doing this ;) ):

- There is not enough water on Earth for a global flood. If there was, where did it come from, and where did it go to afterwards?

- There is no geological evidence for a global flood. If you think fossils and sediments are evidence for a global flood, then you evidently have no understanding of even the most simple basics of geology.

- Dendrochronology date back to circa 10,000 years and ice core samples date back to over 700,000 years, and neither say anything about a global flood.

- Who says it's possible to build such a gigantic wooden boat and maintain it with just such a small number of people, and who says it would survive such an event?

- It would have been impossible for the ark to to hold all animal species of the world. All the millions of insect species would never have found room in it. And if you add all the *known* extinct species, the figure gets even higher.

- It would have been impossible to feed all these species during the flood and afterwards, and it would have been impossible of preventing them from feeding on each other.

- How do you explain that there are more extinct species than living ones if you assume that they were all saved from the flood on board of Noah's Ark. Just for your information, Dinosaurs are not the only extinct group of animals.

- How do you explain the present-day (and fossil) distribution and restriction of certain types of animals? For example why are there Marsupials in Australia, and why have fossils of horses never been found in Antarctica and Australia?

- Some species of animals do not have two genders, they are hermaphrodites and some even reproduce via parthenogenesis. Talking about pairs...

- The Deluge would have been an extreme population bottleneck. There is no evidence for such a bottleneck in the gene pool of the living species, and it's unlikely that they would have recovered from it.

- Most aquatic ecosystems would have died because of the change of salinity.

- Most plants would not have survived the year of flood.

So... that's it. Now it's your turn, Creationists. Tell me what you have on your heart...

(Disclaimer: i know that there are various types of Creationism, don't get me started on that. I'm opposing Young Earth Creationism here in the first place!)
Creationists believe that God created the earth in 7 days. However, the Bible mentions that no one knows how long a day is to God, and since there was no one around for those first 5 days, no one knows how long it took. The part about original sin and all that you mentioned is pretty correct from what I can tell.

1. First off, your wikipedia article included ambiogenesis and the age of the earth in it's discussion, so scratch those off for me. If you don't include the big bang, you can't possibly explain how you think the universe was created. This makes the theory of evolution, and all of us non-existent. You have to get us here somehow.

2. We don't denounce the "bad sciences", we just don't follow their teachings on how old the earth is and how old species are.

3. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god or higher being. Due to the fact that it is a belief, that makes it a religion. It has no real religious practices or teachings (except for the one main teaching), but then again the only teaching of Christianity (not Catholicism, Baptism, Methodism, Pentacostalism) is that Jesus died for our sins and we should follow his teachings. Due to the fact that atheism is widespread and deals with God, that makes it a form of religion. Evolutionism is not a religion, it's an area of science.

4. The laws of physics CAN be altered. The big bang itself defied the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Once again, no big bang, no us (according to you).

5. If evolution weren't just a theory, then it wouldn't be called the theory of evolution. Nothing can be proved, according to science, so you can't say that evolution is 100% correct. You never saw it, so you can't say that it happened.

6. Creationism isn't based on the same evidence as evolution, so I don't know which "Creationist" you're talking about.

7. When will we ever learn the 2nd Law? It states that everything in the universe moves toward a state of higher entropy. In a closed system, you can move toward less entropy, but the universe itself makes up for this gain of order by moving towards less entropy. S (the symbol for entropy) can be positive, but overall, it will be negative. This part of the law can't be defied.

8. Carbon-14 is used for dating bones and such. It has been observed as not accurate in cases. I thought we weren't bringing the age of rocks into this? (Review your #1).

9. Once again, which 16 yr. old Creationist are you talking to? Anyone who has taken Intro Bio 2 can disprove at least 2 of those claims. Meet some more Creationists.

10. There may be a lack of explanation for Creation. Creation shouldn't be treated as a scientific fact. Those of us who are Christians have faith in what the Bible says. Christianity is a religion based on believing in what is not visible in everyday life. I'm a Christian, and I believe that Jesus died for our sins and if we follow Him, we'll end up in heaven. If this isn't right, is something bad going to happen to us? I'd rather take the chance and be right (which I think I am) than not take the chance and be wrong. The Bible says that hell will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine, and there will be no end to it (in different words, obviously). There is no disadvantage that I can see that would discourage me from following Jesus, and I believe that He did save me from hell.

That is why I believe in Creation.


With natural selection and genetic drift, those things have been visible in the last couple thousands of years, if not less. I do believe in these things, just not in the rest. The Bible doesn't discount these, and in fact says nothing about them. That's probably because Darwin wasn't alive 5,000 years ago.

Yay for generalizations!No! All generalizations are bad! ;)

i'd just like to note that i see no difference between creationism and evolutionism, all they require is a little open-mindedness and they could very easily be exactly the same thing. God bless.

Creationists believe that God created the earth in 7 days. However, the Bible mentions that no one knows how long a day is to God, and since there was no one around for those first 5 days, no one knows how long it took. The part about original sin and all that you mentioned is pretty correct from what I can tell.

1. First off, your wikipedia article included ambiogenesis and the age of the earth in it's discussion, so scratch those off for me. If you don't include the big bang, you can't possibly explain how you think the universe was created. This makes the theory of evolution, and all of us non-existent. You have to get us here somehow.

2. We don't denounce the "bad sciences", we just don't follow their teachings on how old the earth is and how old species are.

3. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god or higher being. Due to the fact that it is a belief, that makes it a religion. It has no real religious practices or teachings (except for the one main teaching), but then again the only teaching of Christianity (not Catholicism, Baptism, Methodism, Pentacostalism) is that Jesus died for our sins and we should follow his teachings. Due to the fact that atheism is widespread and deals with God, that makes it a form of religion. Evolutionism is not a religion, it's an area of science.

4. The laws of physics CAN be altered. The big bang itself defied the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Once again, no big bang, no us (according to you).

5. If evolution weren't just a theory, then it wouldn't be called the theory of evolution. Nothing can be proved, according to science, so you can't say that evolution is 100% correct. You never saw it, so you can't say that it happened.

6. Creationism isn't based on the same evidence as evolution, so I don't know which "Creationist" you're talking about.

7. When will we ever learn the 2nd Law? It states that everything in the universe moves toward a state of higher entropy. In a closed system, you can move toward less entropy, but the universe itself makes up for this gain of order by moving towards less entropy. S (the symbol for entropy) can be positive, but overall, it will be negative. This part of the law can't be defied.

8. Carbon-14 is used for dating bones and such. It has been observed as not accurate in cases. I thought we weren't bringing the age of rocks into this? (Review your #1).

9. Once again, which 16 yr. old Creationist are you talking to? Anyone who has taken Intro Bio 2 can disprove at least 2 of those claims. Meet some more Creationists.

10. There may be a lack of explanation for Creation. Creation shouldn't be treated as a scientific fact. Those of us who are Christians have faith in what the Bible says. Christianity is a religion based on believing in what is not visible in everyday life. I'm a Christian, and I believe that Jesus died for our sins and if we follow Him, we'll end up in heaven. If this isn't right, is something bad going to happen to us? I'd rather take the chance and be right (which I think I am) than not take the chance and be wrong. The Bible says that hell will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine, and there will be no end to it (in different words, obviously). There is no disadvantage that I can see that would discourage me from following Jesus, and I believe that He did save me from hell.

That is why I believe in Creation.


With natural selection and genetic drift, those things have been visible in the last couple thousands of years, if not less. I do believe in these things, just not in the rest. The Bible doesn't discount these, and in fact says nothing about them. That's probably because Darwin wasn't alive 5,000 years ago.At last, a creationist! Antheridia, we appreciate your post, even if we disagree with it.

i'd just like to note that i see no difference between creationism and evolutionism, all they require is a little open-mindedness and they could very easily be exactly the same thing. God bless.Explain please.

At last, a creationist! Antheridia, we appreciate your post, even if we disagree with it.
I respect the fact that you respect my opinion. We need more people that respect each other and let each other speak.

Creationists believe that God created the earth in 7 days. However, the Bible mentions that no one knows how long a day is to God, and since there was no one around for those first 5 days, no one knows how long it took. The part about original sin and all that you mentioned is pretty correct from what I can tell.


1. First off, your wikipedia article included ambiogenesis and the age of the earth in it's discussion, so scratch those off for me. If you don't include the big bang, you can't possibly explain how you think the universe was created. This makes the theory of evolution, and all of us non-existent. You have to get us here somehow.

Well, i don't include big bang because it doesn't have any effect on biological evolution. Evolution occured billions of years after the universe came into existence. And the way it came into existence is irrelevant for evolution.


2. We don't denounce the "bad sciences", we just don't follow their teachings on how old the earth is and how old species are.

So, you don't accept them. But you accept others that do not contradict your faith. That however is inconsistent.


3. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god or higher being. Due to the fact that it is a belief, that makes it a religion. It has no real religious practices or teachings (except for the one main teaching), but then again the only teaching of Christianity (not Catholicism, Baptism, Methodism, Pentacostalism) is that Jesus died for our sins and we should follow his teachings. Due to the fact that atheism is widespread and deals with God, that makes it a form of religion. Evolutionism is not a religion, it's an area of science.

You contradict yourself... that's it. You say it is a belieft, and that makes it a religion. A belief is not a religion.


4. The laws of physics CAN be altered. The big bang itself defied the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Once again, no big bang, no us (according to you).

LOL! Where can the laws of physics be altered? Can you travel faster than the speed of light?


5. If evolution weren't just a theory, then it wouldn't be called the theory of evolution. Nothing can be proved, according to science, so you can't say that evolution is 100% correct. You never saw it, so you can't say that it happened.

Well, again, you prove you have no idea what a scientific theory is. It's also called "theory of gravity" and "theory of relativity", and those are "just theories", yeah? You can't say they are real, can you? ;)


6. Creationism isn't based on the same evidence as evolution, so I don't know which "Creationist" you're talking about.

I'm talking about Young Earth Creationism. Actually, most other kinds of Creationism as well...


7. When will we ever learn the 2nd Law? It states that everything in the universe moves toward a state of higher entropy. In a closed system, you can move toward less entropy, but the universe itself makes up for this gain of order by moving towards less entropy. S (the symbol for entropy) can be positive, but overall, it will be negative. This part of the law can't be defied.

Huh? How very weird! It says in a closed system (i.e. the universe) entropy can only increase. So how could overall entropy be negative?!?


8. Carbon-14 is used for dating bones and such. It has been observed as not accurate in cases. I thought we weren't bringing the age of rocks into this? (Review your #1).

Well, i do because you Creationists state the world was mere 6000 years old. Geologists know (even without radiometric dating) that it got to be far older than that. The point is that theory fits so well into the rest of science. Which Creationism doesn't. It's something inconsistent that cannot exist in our universe.


9. Once again, which 16 yr. old Creationist are you talking to? Anyone who has taken Intro Bio 2 can disprove at least 2 of those claims. Meet some more Creationists.

Well, the Creationists here in the forums.


10. There may be a lack of explanation for Creation. Creation shouldn't be treated as a scientific fact. Those of us who are Christians have faith in what the Bible says. Christianity is a religion based on believing in what is not visible in everyday life. I'm a Christian, and I believe that Jesus died for our sins and if we follow Him, we'll end up in heaven. If this isn't right, is something bad going to happen to us? I'd rather take the chance and be right (which I think I am) than not take the chance and be wrong. The Bible says that hell will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine, and there will be no end to it (in different words, obviously). There is no disadvantage that I can see that would discourage me from following Jesus, and I believe that He did save me from hell.

That is why I believe in Creation.


With natural selection and genetic drift, those things have been visible in the last couple thousands of years, if not less. I do believe in these things, just not in the rest. The Bible doesn't discount these, and in fact says nothing about them. That's probably because Darwin wasn't alive 5,000 years ago.

LOL, you didn't even mention a single word on the inconsistency of the Deluge story. Why don't you even dare to touch it? And i'm asking you, if you acknowledge that evolution took place in the past few millennia, why can't you accept it already happened millions of years before? Where's the problem?

10. There may be a lack of explanation for Creation. Creation shouldn't be treated as a scientific fact. Those of us who are Christians have faith in what the Bible says. Christianity is a religion based on believing in what is not visible in everyday life.

Think about it. You are believing into something (that the bible is to be taken literal) which evidently is not true. Thus you are deluding yourself.

I'm a Christian, and I believe that Jesus died for our sins and if we follow Him, we'll end up in heaven. If this isn't right, is something bad going to happen to us? I'd rather take the chance and be right (which I think I am) than not take the chance and be wrong. The Bible says that hell will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine, and there will be no end to it (in different words, obviously). There is no disadvantage that I can see that would discourage me from following Jesus, and I believe that He did save me from hell.

That is why I believe in Creation.

Well, here's the reason i don't believe into Creation: i would be living a lie then.

Well, i don't include big bang because it doesn't have any effect on biological evolution. Evolution occured billions of years after the universe came into existence. And the way it came into existence is irrelevant for evolution.



So, you don't accept them. But you accept others that do not contradict your faith. That however is inconsistent.



You contradict yourself... that's it. You say it is a belieft, and that makes it a religion. A belief is not a religion.



LOL! Where can the laws of physics be altered? Can you travel faster than the speed of light?



Well, again, you prove you have no idea what a scientific theory is. It's also called "theory of gravity" and "theory of relativity", and those are "just theories", yeah? You can't say they are real, can you? ;)



I'm talking about Young Earth Creationism.



Huh? How very weird! It says in a closed system (i.e. the universe) entropy can only increase. So how could overall entropy be negative?!?



Well, i do because you Creationists state the world was mere 6000 years old. Geologists know (even without radiometric dating) that it got to be far older than that. The point is that theory fits so well into the rest of science. Which Creationism doesn't. It's something inconsistent that cannot exist in our universe.



Well, the Creationists here in the forums.



LOL, you didn't even mention a single word on the inconsistency of the Deluge story. Why don't you even dare to touch it? And i'm asking you, if you acknowledge that evolution took place in the past few millennia, why can't you accept it already happened millions of years before? Where's the problem?
1. If you don't mention the big bang, HOW DID WE GET HERE????? Explain that to me. There's no biological evolution if there is nothing to evolve.

2. I'm a biology major. I accept the cell processes and other concepts of biology, just not how it dates the earth and species and how we came about.

3. Will you define religion for me then?

4. Is the speed of light the only aspect of physics? Isn't physics related to the universe? That's a real question, I've never taken an upper level physics course (1st year college student).

5. Theories are how we explain things. They are not LAWS are they?

6. I don't remember what was being argued with the young earth creationism.

7. I got my signs mixed up. Why don't you just shoot me and get it over with? I forgot that you've never made a mistake in your life.

8. Creationism doesn't fit exactly into science, like I said in my LAST PARAGRAPH. It is a faith thing. If it "cannot exist in our universe", then why don't we just eliminate all systems of belief that are untrue? Perhaps because that's ridiculous. People are entitled to believe what they want, and others shouldn't make fun of them because of that (hmmm, I wonder who I'm talking about).

9. Do I even need to respond to the claim by the other creationists in the forum?

10. The "Deluge" is the only explanation of how the world was created that doesn't involve a big increase in energy that created the universe. I didn't touch most of it, because 30 minutes had already passed while I was typing my first rebuttle. I wanted to finish it in a timely manner. I'll try to go back and talk about them.

3. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god or higher being. Due to the fact that it is a belief, that makes it a religion. It has no real religious practices or teachings (except for the one main teaching), but then again the only teaching of Christianity (not Catholicism, Baptism, Methodism, Pentacostalism) is that Jesus died for our sins and we should follow his teachings. Due to the fact that atheism is widespread and deals with God, that makes it a form of religion. Evolutionism is not a religion, it's an area of science.


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Atheism is NOT a religion.

Let's recap,

Theism: belief in a divinity.
Atheism: belief that there is no divinity
Christianity: Religion with theist belief
Buddhism: Religion with atheist belief

Belief =/= religion

You can be atheist and not be religious
You can be religious and be atheist
You can be religious and be theist
You can even be theist and not be religious!

I'm going to shower. Keep up with your rantings.

1. If you don't mention the big bang, HOW DID WE GET HERE????? Explain that to me. There's no biological evolution if there is nothing to evolve.

Well, the universe started with big bang, yes. And? This alone contradicts Creation since it was 13.7 billion years ago, not 6000 years ago.


2. I'm a biology major. I accept the cell processes and other concepts of biology, just not how it dates the earth and species and how we came about.

If you are a 'biology major', you should be knowing that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. And we have awfully lot of our anatomy in common. And think about all the fossils of earlier hominids (Lucy, Peking Man, Neanderthal etc.) It's only logical to assume that we have a common ancestor. If you are denying that then either bring me valid arguments why it is not like that (which don't exist), or you have that "good science" / "bad science" nonsense again.


3. Will you define religion for me then?

East Canuck answered it. :)


4. Is the speed of light the only aspect of physics? Isn't physics related to the universe? That's a real question, I've never taken an upper level physics course (1st year college student).

Well, yes. And?


5. Theories are how we explain things. They are not LAWS are they? Well, and? These theories have been verified via observations and experiments? They are sufficiently explaining the way the universe works. If they were wrong (i.e. do not meet observations/experiments), we would discard them and replace them with better ones. This happened with previous theories.


6. I don't remember what was being argued with the young earth creationism. Well, you claim you are a Young Earth Creationist, aren't you?


7. I got my signs mixed up. Why don't you just shoot me and get it over with? I forgot that you've never made a mistake in your life.
Well, that's ok. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes (yes, really!).


8. Creationism doesn't fit exactly into science, like I said in my LAST PARAGRAPH. It is a faith thing. If it "cannot exist in our universe", then why don't we just eliminate all systems of belief that are untrue? Perhaps because that's ridiculous. People are entitled to believe what they want, and others shouldn't make fun of them because of that (hmmm, I wonder who I'm talking about).

Well, you make the claim that we must not explain certain things scientifically because they contradict your faith. Believing into something without knowing it better is forgivable, but believing into it while knowing it better is folly...


9. Do I even need to respond to the claim by the other creationists in the forum?
Well, i find them as amusing as they are scary, to be honest.


10. The "Deluge" is the only explanation of how the world was created that doesn't involve a big increase in energy that created the universe. I didn't touch most of it, because 30 minutes had already passed while I was typing my first rebuttle. I wanted to finish it in a timely manner. I'll try to go back and talk about them.

Since when is Deluge is about how the world was created? Read in the bible. God got sick of what was happening on Earth and wanted to destroy all life... and so on. Hello? Even in the bible that has nothing to do with Creation, it happened a few pages later. You should know that. :rolleyes:

Creationists believe that God created the earth in 7 days. However, the Bible mentions that no one knows how long a day is to God, and since there was no one around for those first 5 days, no one knows how long it took. The part about original sin and all that you mentioned is pretty correct from what I can tell.

Ok, a few things I'd like to see:

1. Scriptual evidence that the day being refered to in either creation story is anything but a normal 24 hour day.

2. Reasoning as to why something that is not actually a day be refered to as a day, providing you cannot find any textual evidence

1. First off, your wikipedia article included ambiogenesis and the age of the earth in it's discussion, so scratch those off for me. If you don't include the big bang, you can't possibly explain how you think the universe was created. This makes the theory of evolution, and all of us non-existent. You have to get us here somehow.

Actually, you can say something that makes a lot more sense than calling upon an untestable, supernatural being:

"I don't know"

We assume we exist because we are here to experience these things. Challenging Big Bang Theory does not challenge the theory of evolution. Same thing for the current theory of abiogenesis.

2. We don't denounce the "bad sciences", we just don't follow their teachings on how old the earth is and how old species are.

The thing about science is that it isn't a cherry-pick routine. You take all of it or none of it. All of it is as equally valid because it all derived from the scientific method.

Unless, of course, you can use that self-same method to show that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old and life isn't 1 billion or more years old.

3. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god or higher being. Due to the fact that it is a belief, that makes it a religion. It has no real religious practices or teachings (except for the one main teaching), but then again the only teaching of Christianity (not Catholicism, Baptism, Methodism, Pentacostalism) is that Jesus died for our sins and we should follow his teachings. Due to the fact that atheism is widespread and deals with God, that makes it a form of religion. Evolutionism is not a religion, it's an area of science.

Atheism is the passive lack of belief in any god, gods, or other supernatural force. Antitheism is the belief that there is no god, gods, or other supernatural forces. Get it right.

By the way, having a belief does not make something a religion. Having a belief makes something a philosophy, religions require something a bit more organized than that.

4. The laws of physics CAN be altered. The big bang itself defied the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Once again, no big bang, no us (according to you).

The laws of physics, at least as far as demonstrated, are immutable in that any and all cases in which they apply they work exactly the same.

Also, I would like to see some clarification on how exactly the Big Bang violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (It seems creationists of all stripes have a field day with this law...if only they actually understood it).

5. If evolution weren't just a theory, then it wouldn't be called the theory of evolution. Nothing can be proved, according to science, so you can't say that evolution is 100% correct. You never saw it, so you can't say that it happened.

His point is that all of science is one of three things:

1. Observed Fact (eg. The mechanism that drives evolution, things falling when dropped on the surface of our planet, mechanics in general, etc)

2. Hypothesis (eg. Naturalistic Intelligent Design, Multiverse Hypothesis, etc)

3. Theory (eg. General Relativity, Quantum Theory, etc)

"Laws" as creationists are so fond of citing that evolution is not, fall under the category of observed fact. Laws are generally simple mathematical formulae that describe an observed action. This is why you have the Law of Universal Gravitation (Which of course, is not absolute, there are situations where it does not work, which is what General Relativity went to fix) which addresses the behavior of a gravity field but makes no attempt to explain why.

7. When will we ever learn the 2nd Law? It states that everything in the universe moves toward a state of higher entropy. In a closed system, you can move toward less entropy, but the universe itself makes up for this gain of order by moving towards less entropy. S (the symbol for entropy) can be positive, but overall, it will be negative. This part of the law can't be defied.

True, but, like most creationists, do you think entropy has anything to do with disorder in the laymen's sense of the word?

8. Carbon-14 is used for dating bones and such. It has been observed as not accurate in cases. I thought we weren't bringing the age of rocks into this? (Review your #1).

Which cases are you talking about? As far as I am aware, there are no cases in which a perfectly scientific explanation for the failure of C14 dating does not exist.

9. Once again, which 16 yr. old Creationist are you talking to? Anyone who has taken Intro Bio 2 can disprove at least 2 of those claims. Meet some more Creationists.

Just as it is the same with pretty much anyone who only knows a portion of the science, as is the case with 99% of the people you meet on the internet, many online creationists are 13-20 year olds who don't know poppy about biology.

10. There may be a lack of explanation for Creation. Creation shouldn't be treated as a scientific fact. Those of us who are Christians have faith in what the Bible says. Christianity is a religion based on believing in what is not visible in everyday life. I'm a Christian, and I believe that Jesus died for our sins and if we follow Him, we'll end up in heaven. If this isn't right, is something bad going to happen to us? I'd rather take the chance and be right (which I think I am) than not take the chance and be wrong. The Bible says that hell will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine, and there will be no end to it (in different words, obviously). There is no disadvantage that I can see that would discourage me from following Jesus, and I believe that He did save me from hell.

Why? Why have faith?

It appears you are a victim of Pascal's Wager, one of the most oft disproven reasons for being a theist in the history of philosophy. What if you are still wrong? What if Her Infinite Majesty the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the real creator and Goddess of existance? What if you being a Christian pisses her off and, when you die, she'll spend eternity anally penetrating you with her horn?

That is why I believe in Creation.

On faith? On blindly believing in something with absolutely no empirical evidence?

We lock people up in institutes for less than that.

With natural selection and genetic drift, those things have been visible in the last couple thousands of years, if not less. I do believe in these things, just not in the rest. The Bible doesn't discount these, and in fact says nothing about them. That's probably because Darwin wasn't alive 5,000 years ago.

Of course, this makes the un-based assumption that the world is no older than 5,000 years or whatever arbitrary number you may come up with.

I wasn't sure of what you were referring to as the "Deluge", but I guess that is a fault of my vocabulary.

However, I love how you argue my points with "Well, And?". You're a very good debator.

I have errands and I don't feel like arguing. You believe what you want to, and I'll believe what I want. Don't disrespect others that are different from you.

I wasn't sure of what you were referring to as the "Deluge", but I guess that is a fault of my vocabulary.

Oh ok, i assume that you are non-native speaker, then. It's all good.


However, I love how you argue my points with "Well, And?". You're a very good debator.

I have to admit, i'm non-native speaker, too. And i sometimes have trouble with my argumentation, too, really.

I have errands and I don't feel like arguing. You believe what you want to, and I'll believe what I want. Don't disrespect others that are different from you.

Well, it's ok when it's just about belief of individuals. But think about what happened with Galileo Galilei. And look what's happening in Kansas. If Creationists enforce their on biologists and all the other scientists that they must not teach/reasearch anything that contradicts their belief, then we will return into the medieval ages again. And that would be very sad. :(

Those of us who are Christians have faith in what the Bible says. Christianity is a religion based on believing in what is not visible in everyday life. I'm a Christian, and I believe that Jesus died for our sins and if we follow Him, we'll end up in heaven. If this isn't right, is something bad going to happen to us? I'd rather take the chance and be right (which I think I am) than not take the chance and be wrong. The Bible says that hell will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine, and there will be no end to it (in different words, obviously). There is no disadvantage that I can see that would discourage me from following Jesus, and I believe that He did save me from hell.

That is why I believe in Creation.


So you're a 'just in case' Christian? Well... at least you're logical. Sort of. I can understand your point of view. Back when I was Catholic they used to make us very aware of the consequences of not following Jesus.

It just sounded too much like a way to keep the masses in line, for my tastes.

At last, a creationist! Antheridia, we appreciate your post, even if we disagree with it.

Actually, I'm the first Creationist to reply to this thread. *aherm*

3. Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god or higher being. Due to the fact that it is a belief, that makes it a religion. It has no real religious practices or teachings (except for the one main teaching), but then again the only teaching of Christianity (not Catholicism, Baptism, Methodism, Pentacostalism) is that Jesus died for our sins and we should follow his teachings. Due to the fact that atheism is widespread and deals with God, that makes it a form of religion. Evolutionism is not a religion, it's an area of science.


I'm seeing two flaws with this line of reasoning: 1) it equates belief with religion, 2) it equates the absence of a thing with one more way in which a thing can be expressed. Neither are true. If I have a belief that eating too many jelly donuts will make me fat, that's not a religious article of faith, but it is a belief. To use Augustinian logic, the absence of good is most definately not the same thing as one more way to express goodness, since that conflates good and evil.


10. There may be a lack of explanation for Creation. Creation shouldn't be treated as a scientific fact. Those of us who are Christians have faith in what the Bible says. Christianity is a religion based on believing in what is not visible in everyday life. I'm a Christian, and I believe that Jesus died for our sins and if we follow Him, we'll end up in heaven. If this isn't right, is something bad going to happen to us? I'd rather take the chance and be right (which I think I am) than not take the chance and be wrong. The Bible says that hell will be worse than anything you could possibly imagine, and there will be no end to it (in different words, obviously). There is no disadvantage that I can see that would discourage me from following Jesus, and I believe that He did save me from hell.

That is why I believe in Creation.


That is a terrible reason to be a Christian, my friend. As I recall, on the day of judgment, God will not just look at what you do, but why you do it. "Because I didn't want you to punish me" is a terrible justification for doing the right thing, because it could just as easily have led you to do the wrong thing. If a principle can justify both just and unjust actions, it is a flawed operating principle.

The trouble withe evolution for most creationists is that people tend to believe in it because of all the nature programmes with flashy graphics on the telly without actually knowing anything about it. So without absolute prrof in evolution etc. these people will stick to what they know best which is the Bible, and you can't knock them for that.

Damnit, people ...

Christians do not have a lock on Creation! Stop assuming all Creationists are Christian!

Judaism: Creation as per Genesis ch.1-3
Christianity: Creation as per Genesis ch. 1-3
Islam: Creation as per Genesis ch. 1-3

How about the Chinese Pan Gu taking an ax to break forth from his confinement in a cosmic egg? When he died he became the wind, mountains, land, and rushing waters.

How about the Choctaw Nanih Wiya? It was from this mound that the Creator fashioned the first of the people. These people crawled through a long, dark cave into daylight.

How about Pele following the star and using her magic stick to create Hawaii?

How about the Hindu Divine One, residing in his egg?

Remember the stories we used to tell around the campfire about Coatlique getting pregnant by an obsidian knife through which she produced moon and stars?

How about those late night chit-chats with dad about the Zulu Ancient One, known as Unkulunkulu?

Let's not forget those nutty Ainu, who say that in the beginning, the world was nothing but a quagmire. Nothing could live there. But in the six skies above and in the six worlds below dwelled Gods, demons, and animals. In the foggy and hanging skies of the lower heavens, demons lived. In the star-bearing and high skies of the clouds lived the lesser Gods. In the skies of the most high lived Kamui, the creator God, and his servants. His realm was surrounded by a mighty metal wall and the only entrance was through a great iron gate. Kamui made this world as a vast round ocean resting on the backbone of an enormous trout. This fish sucks in the ocean and spits it out again to make the tides; when it moves it causes earthquakes.

I could go on for pages and pages and pages.

Stop assuming Creation = Christian.

You have a point there, Keruvalia. But, as i pointed out earlier, Christian Young-Earth Creationism as it can been seen in the US is without an equal example in the rest of the world. Have you heard of radical Ainu and Hindu fundamentalists protesting against evolution being taught at school? i don't think so...

Damnit, people ...

Christians do not have a lock on Creation! Stop assuming all Creationists are Christian!

Judaism: Creation as per Genesis ch.1-3
Christianity: Creation as per Genesis ch. 1-3
Islam: Creation as per Genesis ch. 1-3

How about the Chinese Pan Gu taking an ax to break forth from his confinement in a cosmic egg? When he died he became the wind, mountains, land, and rushing waters.

How about the Choctaw Nanih Wiya? It was from this mound that the Creator fashioned the first of the people. These people crawled through a long, dark cave into daylight.

How about Pele following the star and using her magic stick to create Hawaii?

How about the Hindu Divine One, residing in his egg?

Remember the stories we used to tell around the campfire about Coatlique getting pregnant by an obsidian knife through which she produced moon and stars?

How about those late night chit-chats with dad about the Zulu Ancient One, known as Unkulunkulu?

Let's not forget those nutty Ainu, who say that in the beginning, the world was nothing but a quagmire. Nothing could live there. But in the six skies above and in the six worlds below dwelled Gods, demons, and animals. In the foggy and hanging skies of the lower heavens, demons lived. In the star-bearing and high skies of the clouds lived the lesser Gods. In the skies of the most high lived Kamui, the creator God, and his servants. His realm was surrounded by a mighty metal wall and the only entrance was through a great iron gate. Kamui made this world as a vast round ocean resting on the backbone of an enormous trout. This fish sucks in the ocean and spits it out again to make the tides; when it moves it causes earthquakes.

I could go on for pages and pages and pages.

Stop assuming Creation = Christian.

Unfortunately, Christianity (TM) seems to have registered "Creationism" as their own... or at least... they like to act like it.

Thus - Creationism always degenerates to Christian 'creation'...

Open Chicken Sandwiches

These tasty sandwiches are good as a snack on their own or they can be served as part of a picnic spread.

Serves 6

Ingredients
6 thick slices of bread or a large French stick cut lengthways, then cut into 6 pieces and buttered
3 hard-boiled (hard-cooked) eggs, the yolk sieved & the white chopped
25 g/1 oz/ 2 tbsp butter, softened
2 tbsp English mustard
1 tsp anchovy essence (extract)
250 g/9 oz/2 cups grated Cheddar cheese
3 cooked, skinless chicken breasts, chopped finely
12 slices each of tomato and cucumber
pepper

Method
Remove the crusts from the bread (optional).

Reserve the yolk and the white seperatly from 1 egg.

In a large bowl, mix the remaining egg with the softened butter, English mustard and anchovy essense (extract) and season well with pepper.

Mix in the grated Cheddar cheese and chicken and spread the mixture on the bread,

Make alternate rows of the egg yolk and the egg white on top od the chicken mixture. Arrange the tomato and cucumber slices on top of the egg and serve.

COOK'S TIPS
To soften butter, let it stand at room temperature for 30 minutes or, if you are short of time, cream it in a bowl with a fork. Alternatively, there are now varieties of soft butter available from supermarkets.

If you prefer a less spicy flavour, use a milder mustard. Add mayonnaise if wished and garnish with watercress.

VARIATION
Add 50 g/1.75 oz finely chopped grilled (broiled) bacon to the chicken and cheese mixture for a crunchier texture.

mmmm.