Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 4:11 AM
326 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 323 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,266 Year: 23,872/21,208 Month: 1,837/2,468 Week: 346/822 Day: 6/66 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Embarrassed Creationist
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 69 (187807)
02-23-2005 2:21 PM


--sorry im very new and wasn't sure where to post this--

WOW! O.O

i have been here for a few hours reading, looking, and thinking about posting (ok i made one post).

I would call myself christian, well Roman Catholic actually, and I think of myself as a creationist. After reading posts on here from others who say they are creationists, I am embarrassed to call myself one, geez! I realize people make errors (I'm really good at this, as you can probably see from my grammar), and the scientists have thier own language, but come on! The creationists make some generalized opinions and think they are stating facts that even I can see are wrong.

This will be a learning expierience for me and that is why I am here. I hope to say something but for now I will sound like a evolutionist so I'm just going to keep reading. Some of this stuff is really funny.

After talking smack I will now open myself up for it.
I am a creationist because of a few simple reasons/personal opinions on the issue.

1. I do not think that either side of the issue has definate 100% proof, and reguardless on what side of the fence you are on requires some ever so small amount of faith in your side of the arguement. even if it is just faith that science will find the answer and is on the right path. If I personally am going to pick a side and use faith, my faith goes to God a creationism. I could be wrong (it happens multiple times daily), and then I would have to switch sides.

2. The other probable reason for me is that I am not a positivist. Positivism is not the only philosophy out there when it comes to reasearch, and I believe Positivism is esentially flawed (because it relies on observation and objectivity).

other than that evolution sounds great.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 02-25-2005 12:34 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2005 2:01 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 02-25-2005 4:22 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Buzsaw, posted 02-26-2005 3:48 PM Vercingetorix has responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 69 (188296)
02-24-2005 10:28 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 69 (188313)
02-25-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vercingetorix
02-23-2005 2:21 PM


Vercingetorix writes:

1. I do not think that either side of the issue has definate 100% proof, and reguardless on what side of the fence you are on requires some ever so small amount of faith in your side of the arguement.


This is true, but it is also true of ANY scientific theory. It is not the realm of Science to "prove" anything. That is reserved for Mathematics. All that science can do is support a theory with enough evidence so that it reaches the point where it can be accepted as fact. The Theory of Evolution is one of those. Also it is important to realize that there is no "Theory of Creationism" and even if the TOE (Theory of Evolution) is shown to be flawed, it doesn't confirm Creationism.

Vercingetorix writes:

If I personally am going to pick a side and use faith, my faith goes to God a creationism.


One of the things that people generally fail to understand is that the TOE says NOTHING about the existence/non-existence of god(s). There are a great number of people that are able to accept the TOE and still worship their god without any problem. This isn't a "either/or" situation.

This message has been edited by Rand Al'Thor, 02-25-2005 01:12 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-23-2005 2:21 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 69 (188334)
02-25-2005 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vercingetorix
02-23-2005 2:21 PM


If I personally am going to pick a side and use faith, my faith goes to God a creationism.

Here's a radical idea: Side with both your faith and the evidence, and go with God and evolution. Why, after all, are they incompatible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-23-2005 2:21 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 2:50 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3576
From: Chicago Suburbs
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 5 of 69 (188343)
02-25-2005 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
02-25-2005 2:01 AM


the frog writes:

Here's a radical idea: Side with both your faith and the evidence, and go with God and evolution. Why, after all, are they incompatible?


While I can understand why atheists would have trouble understanding why a religious person might feel uncomfortable with the theory of evolution, I think this question has been answered many many many many times by creos on this board.

The reason some people reject evolution is because it says nothing about god, and that is exactly the problem. I think evolution would have received more praises if it has a footnote that says "Mutation, which is the backbone of the theory, is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2005 2:01 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 3:04 AM Lammy has responded
 Message 7 by Nighttrain, posted 02-25-2005 3:06 AM Lammy has responded
 Message 14 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 8:26 AM Lammy has responded

    
custard
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 69 (188345)
02-25-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Lammy
02-25-2005 2:50 AM


Hector reborn writes:

I think evolution would have received more praises if it has a footnote that says "Mutation, which is the backbone of the theory, is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other."

Doesn't the Fine Tuning argument do just that? I'm surprised I haven't seen this argument presented more frequently. It certainly would seem to be harder to refute than the typical creation argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 2:50 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:41 AM custard has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 7 of 69 (188346)
02-25-2005 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Lammy
02-25-2005 2:50 AM


Hi,VC, at least you are willing to look at all sides. That`s a pretty good start.

Hi, Hector, why should atheists have trouble understanding a religious person being uncomfortable withe the TOE? After all, that`s where many atheists started, deep in the heart of religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 2:50 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:55 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3576
From: Chicago Suburbs
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 69 (188353)
02-25-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by custard
02-25-2005 3:04 AM


custard writes:

I'm surprised I haven't seen this argument presented more frequently. It certainly would seem to be harder to refute than the typical creation argument.


Just how many typical creos do you know that actually know what "mutation" is?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 3:04 AM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 3:46 AM Lammy has not yet responded

    
custard
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 69 (188356)
02-25-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Lammy
02-25-2005 3:41 AM


Just how many typical creos do you know that actually know what "mutation" is?

Touche. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:41 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3576
From: Chicago Suburbs
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 10 of 69 (188357)
02-25-2005 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Nighttrain
02-25-2005 3:06 AM


Nighttrain writes:

Hi, Hector, why should atheists have trouble understanding a religious person being uncomfortable withe the TOE? After all, that`s where many atheists started, deep in the heart of religion.


If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to support creationism in some of my posts. The reason is because I've been trying very very hard to think like myself a few years back (christian fundy). I must admit that the result is very surprising.

Rule #1: There is a god.
Rule #2: God is actively influencing the world.

I ask you this. Are the atheists, who started out on the religious side, really putting these 2 rules into consideration when dealing with a fundy?

Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Nighttrain, posted 02-25-2005 3:06 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 4:35 AM Lammy has responded
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 02-25-2005 11:06 AM Lammy has not yet responded
 Message 50 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 1:05 PM Lammy has not yet responded

    
custard
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 69 (188366)
02-25-2005 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Lammy
02-25-2005 3:55 AM


Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".

Nice observation. I know that blind faith is certainly my stumbling block, but I think there are better, certainly less falsifiable, arguments for creationists that they could be using: fine tuning for one.

The ID argument is slightly more palatable if it was argued from the 'God the Clockmaker' angle, and human evolution was the inevitable result of initial design and the creation of the right conditions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:55 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 4:46 AM custard has responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3576
From: Chicago Suburbs
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 69 (188371)
02-25-2005 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by custard
02-25-2005 4:35 AM


custard writes:

The ID argument is slightly more palatable if it was argued from the 'God the Clockmaker' angle, and human evolution was the inevitable result of initial design and the creation of the right conditions.


Here is something to think about. If we take the ID path, how far do we go back before we say "ok, this is where it all began"?

The problem with ID is you can never know when the natural world ends and the realm of the supernatural begins.

Before ToE, creation myths were all that people had. So, according to ID back then, they would have drawn the line that seperates history and prehistory.

After ToE, ID would draw the line somewhere between abiogenesis and the first events of evolution.

What if tomorrow we find out that abiogenesis is a natural process? Do we keep pushing back the line? If so, why even bother?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 4:35 AM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 4:55 AM Lammy has not yet responded

    
custard
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 69 (188375)
02-25-2005 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Lammy
02-25-2005 4:46 AM


god the watchmaker

What if tomorrow we find out that abiogenesis is a natural process? Do we keep pushing back the line? If so, why even bother?

I don't see how that invalidates the argument that god is still the source for design of existence as we know it; especially if conditions sympathetic to (wrong word, but tired sorry) abiogenesis and life as we know it are inherent in the design.

The problem I see over and over again is that most creationists set the bar to far forward because they get caught up in literalism. Why set a bar at all.

Who knows, maybe abiogenesis not only occurs, but it occurs much more frequently than we think BECAUSE that is the fundamental nature of reality as created by god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 4:46 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2173 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 69 (188423)
02-25-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Lammy
02-25-2005 2:50 AM


quote:
The reason some people reject evolution is because it says nothing about god, and that is exactly the problem. I think evolution would have received more praises if it has a footnote that says "Mutation, which is the backbone of the theory, is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other."

But no scientific theory has a footnote like that, so why would you expect just this one to and not all the others?

I mean, would the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Helocentric Solar System be more be more palatable to Creationists if we had footnotes like "Bacteria reproducing inside a body which release toxins to cause illness is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other.", or "The physical laws which deal with planetary orbits and mass are caused by the Almighty Christian god and no other."?

Or, do they accept these because they would look like idiots if they didn't?

Also, in what way does concluding that God is the cause of something increase our understanding of a phenomena?

Lastly, if you are a Roman Catholic, are you not aware that the Pope declared it OK to accept Biology these days?

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-25-2005 08:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 2:50 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 9:52 AM nator has responded
 Message 31 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 4:30 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 15 of 69 (188462)
02-25-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by nator
02-25-2005 8:26 AM


haven't figured out how to quote yet so bear with me.

SCRAFINATOR SAID "Lastly, if you are a Roman Catholic, are you not aware that the Pope declared it OK to accept Biology these days?"

yeah, and after reading a lot of posts it seems like Catholic Schools teach biology better than public ones.

RAND AL'THOR SAID "It is not the realm of Science to "prove" anything.
CRASHFROG SAID "Side with both your faith and the evidence, and go with God and evolution. Why, after all, are they incompatible? "
RESURRECTED HECTOR SAID "Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything,"

I think that Science and the scietific method are both part of the Positivist Philosophy, and there fore trying to PROVE!
C-Frog and R-Hector both talk about EVIDENCE. evidence leads to proof and there fore DOES PROVE, Science Proves.
C-Frog: I don't think that God and Evolution are incompatable (in fact, most catholics i know think that God created the world through evolution). it is unacceptable for me because of faith. if something can be proven no faith is needed, if you ever need faith in science, because it is not proving anything it is junk science (like phrenology). if you can't prove it, by repeatable observation it shouldn't be science.

look i think that creationism is the least likely scenario, but if i am true to my scientific roots, TOE is more likely, but until proven, still wrong.

FAITH, has no place in SCIENCE!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 8:26 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 10:04 AM Vercingetorix has responded
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2005 11:40 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 12:28 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 35 by nator, posted 02-25-2005 6:54 PM Vercingetorix has responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017