Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists

To be fair, it can be hard to read the "other side". I'm about half way through some book on dinosaurs, paluxy foot prints and the like by, IIRC, Morris. It is not exactly "fun" reading.You do have to have some interest to keep plugging through.However, I think that individuals here demonstrate that not only are "evos" more knowledgeable about the science viewpoint (as you'd expect) but they seem to be more know about the oppossing viewpoint as presented by the likes of AIG, ICR and even Hovind and crowd than those who support that side.Given that the AIG etc. side is pretty simplistic compared to the real world perhaps that's not so hard. Absorbing a bit more material on the general topic isn't hard if you've already grappled with the complex and voluminous information on the science side.

And that is why a large number of believers are against creationism. When people are taught ignorance and have it inclucated into them that if the science stuff is true then God doesn't exist their faith can be shattered by the truth.There is no reason why you can't maintain a belief in God and Christ as evidenced by many believers here who do while still understanding what we have learned through science.The majority of believers have maintained their faith while still understanding and accepting scientific results. Good luck.( a small note: creationist can be term meaning God created everything . That rather open meaning isn't useful in the context of the discussions here. The more restricted meaning is usually the one used -- a person who believes in a 6 day creation, young earth etc.)

Of course it makes sense that there is confusion. From my point of view that is something that the literalists are doing deliberately.However, how to you, personally, decide what is correct?There is an immense store of information spanning several sciences. Some of it is simple enough, but much of it is complex and requires a lot of background. If you care enough to want to know what is more likely to be correct how do you manage that? What do you learn about, from whom? How do you take that knowledge and apply it to coming to your own conclusions?

I think there are resources here that you can use too. Some of the people here actually know stuff (unlike yours truely). We have "resident" biologists, geneticists and geologists.Many of them are generous with their time in trying to help. You might want to make use of that.Are you attempting to organize how you approch it? That is, are there specific questions that you think are core?One example that I would use is the age of the earth thing. I have stated before that I'd have a tough time accepting evolutionary theory if the earth were only 6,000 years old. Therefore I would put that one high on my list of things to sort out. The side effect is that some of the demonstrations of the reasonableness of evolutionary theory is the correlation between the dates of fossils and the relationship of genetic differences. If the fossil dating isn't acceptable to someone then they can't make sense out of the correlation can they?After that, the question that might be asked is: what is the real nature of the fossil evidence? Are there "transitionals"? What the heck do I, as in me the individual, think one would look like? Why do I think that?What do you think of that?(added by edit)
Above I'm not talking about the theory of evolution by the way. After you think you have enough information to accept that the evolution of life on earth probably happened then you may consider explanations of how it happened. That is tougher actually. I think it requires a lot more work to understand what it is saying and decide if it is plausible.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-09-2004 05:31 PM

You think you can put limits on God? Doesn't it occur to you that this method makes it more interesting for God (if it really is "random" so he doesn't know the details of what will happen) or it is just how his actions appear to us (if he does know ).After all that everyone has said about God and his power you come along and decide what he can and can't do or will or won't do?

Why, Contra, to you attack Christianity? If someone is willing to leave others alone in their beliefs or non-beliefs why can't you do the same?

Well, as much as I don't see any value in attacking a persons beliefs there is a limit. This is a choice you have to make. You can't have the common "literal" (though of course it isn't when you dig into what people use for interpretation) interpretation and the modern scientific consensus. That's the whole point of this forum.I'm sure your faith is of great importance to you. If you think that it has to be based on a literal reading of Genesis then you need to make a decision right now. If the faith is overwhelmingly important then stop your studies. The literal reading can not stand up.If your faith is deep and sophisticated enough to be able to work with a non-literal reading of the Bible then you will save yourself time and pain by dropping the literal approach before you start. When I asked what you think I mean about the approach not the result of your studies.I think you have two steps to work through as far as evolution is concerned. The first is to determine if you think it happened or not. Only then do you start to work out how it happened. The first is comparatively simple. The second is trickier.

There seems to be a lot of room for personal judgement in the amount of literalism.I have one friend who is a minister who "sort of" seems to believe in God but also seems to me to be iffy on the divinity of Christ. However, that doesn't diminish the value of the Bible to her at all.I have another friend who is a regular church goer and on the board of the church. She is a complete atheist. There is still value in the church to her and her family.There is room for a lot of latitude. It seems to me, as an outsider, that a reasonable Christian position is on taking the existance of God and Christ as true. After that the details of the stories don't really count. The message is what counts.

I don't have a problem with going to church. If I had time I might drop in now and then.She says the church board seems to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy as far as belief goes. It is possible that she isn't the only one there. (she speculates that there may be no believers on the board in fact).She had to turn down the chairpersonship of the board cause she is already waaaaay too busy.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-11-2004 02:21 AM

And again, no support. And again, moving on, running for cover.

It seems possible that she really doesn't get a lot of what you are saying. It is also possible that she is using the questions as a way of focussing on some things you haven't thought through.In any case, when you are asked questions what is your problem with answering them? Frequently we don't understand each other and it takes a lot of back and forth to clearify it. I think that's better than assuming we do understand or putting words in another's mouth.As an example, we have had whole threads attempting to clarify what "complexity" is and no one has defined it yet. Therefore when you use the word we are left with a hole in the communication.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-14-2004 01:08 AM

No, Buz, "complexity" is not a simple word. Without a precise definition of it the discussion can not continue. When someone talks in quantitative terms about something they have to supply a way to actually calculate the quantities involved. No one, you included, has supplied that.I read over the exchange and you are not clear. There are lots of ways of interpreting what you said. What we find when we keep asking questions is that you don't know exactly what you mean. If you did you could just explain.

Then Schraf can try to help you see what she needs to understand. We'll wait then.

Uneducated is one word for ignorant. I guess this just is another example. Both of ignorance and Buz ducking yet again.

I do get cranky now and then.