1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Strange Thing about Creationism

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Many Sages One Truth, Jun 25, 2011.

  1. Many Sages One Truth

    Many Sages One Truth New Member

    Messages:
    728
    I often see the Evolution vs Creation debate, but one thing I cannot help notice is that Creationism seems to be less about proving a creation, and more about proving the Bible's account of creation as literally true.

    Surely if Creationism was only about proving a creator it would be inclusive of Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, and others with other creation myths. Instead all I see is an attempt to prove the Bible's account as science.

    That brings me to the question of the thread- is Creationism more about proving a creator, or more about Creationists wanting to believe that the Bible should be taken entirely literally?
     
  2. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    26,759
    they dont try to prove a creator because they cant so its not even tried

    they also have faith so they are not concerned with lack of evidence for a creator



    many creationist do but at the same time those who do are a minority who follow "young earth creationism"
     
  3. Skwim

    Skwim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,260
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Creationism is more about trying to prove evolution wrong. There is no proving creationism right because it can't be done, so the only alternative is to attack evolution. It's a situation well recognized by both sides, but for obvious reasons only admitted by evolutionists.
     
  4. Storm

    Storm ThrUU the Looking Glass

    Messages:
    44,609
    Religion:
    UU/ panentheist/ neopagan/ process theology
    I couldn't disagree more. They're desperate for evidence because they don't have faith.
     
  5. elmarna

    elmarna New Member

    Messages:
    1,414
    Faith is found in beliefs. While man searchs to confirm his beliefs he is wanting the reassurance he has the right way of seeing his beliefs wise.
    Science has 1 way of looking for answers to questions so many wonder about.
    Logic of the mind can figure out with the ability god gave you.
    The foundations of you will respond in which you think is the better way to support this thread. My beleifs looks at god as the essence of life.
    How god has come to "be" is not something I could immagine questioning.
    I am just glad to be a part of life!
     
  6. Straw Dog

    Straw Dog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,547
    I'm with you on this one. If they were totally comfortable in their faith then evidence would be unnecessary to confirm it. It's because these God-believers are logical thinkers that they desire evidence to confirm their beliefs. Whether any evidence does confirm them is a different topic.
     
    elmarna likes this.
  7. Storm

    Storm ThrUU the Looking Glass

    Messages:
    44,609
    Religion:
    UU/ panentheist/ neopagan/ process theology
    1) Logic and faith are not mutually exclusive.
    2) I'd hardly describe YECs as "logical thinkers."
     
  8. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Messages:
    10,814
    Why did the Lungfish never develop lungs (Swim bladder doesn't count, and why didn't it develop legs like the other fish who aparently developed lungs, Tiktaalik didn't have anything close to bearing weight) but other fish were apparently able to breath air? When did Milk and breast-feeding evolve from egg-laying? Do Platypuses and Echidnas truly come from the same root, and where is the evidence of it? I think the Evidence points to far more gaps in the theory of macro-transition based on "random mutation", so the only plausible alternative is for a "Guiding Hand". There is indeed evidence of "Speciation" in a sense, such as in fruit flies, in which the base DNA can radically change in a few generations to a new type within the "kind" so that interbreeding with "old" populations results in mostly infertility. However, there's no proof that a fruitfly can evolve into something totally different. Even fake fossils like "Archaeoraptor" have been brought in, it seems Evolutionists are in fact more concerned about trying to prove the Bible wrong then being consistent.

    What basis is the evidence that the shift from 24 to 23 chromosomes happened on its own? It happens with 1/1000 humans to have a chromosome fusion, but its hardly beneficial, and likely wouldn't become the mainstream population in any situation. If science has no answers for this, is it fair to say "It just happened so believe it?" How is that different than what Creationists are accused of?
     
  9. Straw Dog

    Straw Dog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,547
    I meant Creator-believers in general. You might be surprised that even YECs need to utilize logical thought to manage their businesses and other complicated endeavors of life. They may not apply the same logical focus when analyzing their scientific or theological understanding of things for various cultural and personal reasons, but they cannot be labeled entirely 'illogical'.

    I agree that logic and faith are not mutually exclusive. For example, you can have blind faith that a lover truly has feelings for you simply because they say that they do or you could logically deduce by their actual behavior and history whether their actions reflect their declaration of affection. The latter example requires faith based on probability and it's still an act of trust without total certitude.
     
  10. Android

    Android New Member

    Messages:
    135
    You mentioned there needs to be a "guiding hand", well there is, it's called natural selection. It's the reason why these non beneficial mutations don't become mainstream in populations. Mutations like this result in a phenotype with a lower genetic fitness which means they are not favoured.
    On the rare occasion that a beneficial mutation occurs, ie; one that increases the genectic fitness, the phenotype IS favoured and DOES eventually become mainstream in the population.

    Is that really so hard to comprehend?
     
  11. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Messages:
    10,814
    If you can prove evidence of a single beneficial mutation which naturally selects itself into the dominant survivable trait and answer my other questions, then yes it wouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

    But what's hard to comprehend is when all this theory relies on a big....theory, without any evidence whatsoever. None.

    Microgenetics, proven. Easily. Epigenetics is giving Lamarck a due comeback.

    Macrogenetics, fantasy without any shred of proof whatsoever and is purely bent on attacking the Bible and would be thrown out of most scientific fields if it weren't for that.
     
  12. Straw Dog

    Straw Dog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,547
    Let's take your premise then that there isn't adequate evidence to support evolution via natural selection. If you reject all theories based on absence of evidence then it must surely follow suit that any God hypotheses must also be rejected due to lack of any evidence whatsoever to support them. Then what are we left with? An empty vacuum of knowledge? You seem to agree that evidence is crucial to accepting any theory so where does the evidence lend us?
     
  13. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Messages:
    10,814
    The evidence lends that there is no evidence to support the theory of Macro-evolution whatsoever, and that the only viable alternative is that there was a series of base "kinds" that were set up by a previous life form.

    Essentially, as your post supports a little bit, the concept of "Macro-evolution" is nothing but a reaction against the idea of "Creationism", and the same standards that would get called frauldulent with other things, are allowed to pass because of this.

    The macroevolution tagline is "Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen"...gee that sounds familiar.
     
  14. Straw Dog

    Straw Dog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,547
    I disagree that macro-evolution is merely a secular reaction against creationist thought. It's a logically and mathematically consistent theory based on micro-evolution. My angle in this particular argument is that I'm willing to grant that the evidence doesn't support the theory of macro-evolution.

    Even if this theory is completely baseless, it still doesn't lend any credibility to creationist hypotheses. I can personally come up with several other viable options to explain the origin and development of life. It could have been planted here by advanced extraterrestrial life. It could have been crafted by a hyper-advanced artificial intelligence that evolved out of an infinite multi-verse. It could have even been brought here by asteroids harboring the basic chemistry of life. There are many possibilities before a deity even becomes a likely probability.

    Then there are billions of possible deities that could have done it. There's at least several hundred thousand million variations of deity that human culture has been able to imagine, but even more hypothetical possibilities beyond the human imagination. My point is that even if evolution failed completely as a theory then creationism would still not be the most viable alternative due to its lack in coherency and evidence.
     
  15. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Messages:
    10,814
    What one may call "Ancient Astronaut theory" is not far removed from my own beliefs...
     
  16. Straw Dog

    Straw Dog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,547
    At any rate, neither of us have definitive proof of any one particular theory or hypothesis of the formation of human life. I think it is wiser to go off modern scientific facts and theory rather than ancient speculations based on mythology. As far as I'm concerned the evidence does support an evolutionary and abiogenetic view of things. If evidence does surface to support an alternative theory then we should all be open to it, but alas I have seen no evidence nor sufficient reason to believe that life, or specifically human life, was intelligently designed so I remain skeptical.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2011
  17. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Messages:
    10,814
    If we go off "scientific fact" then we conclude that there's no evidence to support macro-speciation, only micro. Microevolution is proven fact, but the idea that fish can become mammals is hocus pocus stuff that lacks even the most minute shred of any perceivable evidence, and it is because of this reason why one can successful conclude that Macroevolutionary Theory would not fly as a standard theory if it weren't for its anti-bible implications.

    When the day comes that "Scientific fact" proves that fish can walk and develop true lungs (lungfish swim bladders only work against macro-evolution) , when the day comes that all the "Missing Links" come forward, when the day comes that its proven how reptiles start MILKING (ever think about that one...milk...explain it..) I'd say any theory saying it "Just happens because of random mutation" is....science of the gaps.

    So we can conclude that microevolution is proven, and that macro-evolution, according to Epigenetic studies, may be downright impossible due to "genetic boundaries". Can "Science" explain why there's hundreds of thousands more base pairs in humans than chimps? Did those arise from "Natural selection?" I don't think so.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2011
  18. Android

    Android New Member

    Messages:
    135
    There is no theory of macro evolution, just evolution.
    If you agree there is evidence for "micro"evolution but not "macro"evolution, then you are deluded. It's like believing in eggs but not chickens!
    Furthermore, to claim there is no evidence supporting this, tells me you are either totally ignorant on the subject or you're being intentionally dishonest.
    So which is it?
    ** edit **
    If you are merely ignorant, thats fine. But if you're intentionally lying to whoever reads this to defend your religion, then we have a problem.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2011
  19. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Messages:
    10,814
    Why don't you show a link that conclusively shows the evidence of Macro-speciation instead of calling me a fool/liar. I am claiming that you cannot. However, if you think that screaming "There's evidence" counts as evidence, carry on.
    Would you like some links to articles on Epigenetics? I'm guessing not.

    And the reader can type in "Macroevolution" to see the difference. Obviously Kosherzombie understands the difference.

    The liar is the one who says that Macroevolution is not separable from the concept of Micro, the liar is the one who says that there's proof of Macro-speciation, and that's my claim. I challenge you to present a single source that PROVES with evidence all of the missing links and the explanation for milk and such as I've asked.

    You don't think you can just brush off the specifics do you?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2011
  20. Android

    Android New Member

    Messages:
    135
    You don't need a link, you need an education.
    Try your local university.
     
    David M likes this.
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted