Well, I'm sure that topic title got a lot of attention. And I'm sure a lot of theists are getting ready to thrash me, buuuuuuuuuuuut... *evil grin*
I just had a conversation with a friend reguarding religion and the theory of evolution. Scientists pretty much agree that we evolved from cavemen, and that cavemen evolved from monkeys. So, if man was made in God's image, as Christianity suggests, then wouldn't God be a monkey?
Please don't take this too seriously, because I found it to be a pretty amusing thought.
You can be sure of that alot of theists are going to agree since mathematically God is everything.
So it wasn't so much of a statement. God mathematically are HIV-virus also...
| Quote: |
You can be sure of that alot of theists are going to agree since mathematically God is everything.
So it wasn't so much of a statement. God mathematically are HIV-virus also... |
Oh, man, that gave me a good laugh. It's seem as though you didn't even bother to think that through before you posted it. Because if you actually apply that theory, then God would be a murderer, a rapist, the H-bomb used on Japan in WWII, the mole on my grandmother's ass... Are you sure you want to do that? Wouldn't that be putting God in a bad position? Not to mention that, as far as Christianity goes (which is probably the specific "god" you were referring to), the entire idea of Hell is that it's a place with the "absence of God".
And wtf do you mean, "mathmatically"? There's no math involved here.To pipe in with a little less humour, it also depends on how you interpret the Bible; whether literal or allegorical (as, this topic is entirely Judeo-Christian in scope). Image may not necessarily mean appearance.
Hanuman would agree with you completely 
Of course I'm sure to represent God as a murderer a.s.o. !!!! (n the mole ) )
It is so simple -> Let say you want to be (be is a bad word... realize yourself as) the 'Forgiver' -> then we need a murderer.
Of course this is math - the only thing is that (in Sweden at least) is it a course (or multiple actually) thats in the end of the studies.
So am I putting God in a bad position? Mathematically NO! To be in a good spot - then you need a bad one also. (much like the yin/yang thoery...) U just have to understand the function of this universe. | spinout wrote: |
Of course I'm sure to represent God as a murderer a.s.o. !!!! (n the mole ) )
It is so simple -> Let say you want to be (be is a bad word... realize yourself as) the 'Forgiver' -> then we need a murderer.
Of course this is math - the only thing is that (in Sweden at least) is it a course (or multiple actually) thats in the end of the studies.
So am I putting God in a bad position? Mathematically NO! To be in a good spot - then you need a bad one also. (much like the yin/yang thoery...) U just have to understand the function of this universe. |
Okay, you're hardly making any sense at this point. The only thing that I was able to desipher out of that is that you think to every good, there must be a bad. Okay, fine. But as far as I've seen, you've made no real connection between this and how God is supposedly in everything.
And not to mention that no one seems to have addressed the fact that Hell is (according to Christianity) supposed to be absent of God. Says it in the Bible.
You say "God is in everything."
God isn't in Hell.
Therefore, God isn't in everything.
See why it doesn't work? The only other option is would be to claim that God is in Hell too, but that would contridict the Bible. So you have the option of going against what you said yourself or the Bible.
P.S. I don't see ANYTHING in that entire post that can be even REMOTELY considered math. Aristotle would be embarrassed.Of course God is hell also (in the relative)! The bible is just a powertool - forget the bible, the days of the bible is over.
It's time to forget the myths in the bible and see what things really are.
So when is hell? As we are forcing trouble/pollution on this planet; things will only be hell here in the future. Since god is all god is putting this on himself, actually, the day you wake up n think you are not doing any good - then also you are saying god isn't any good. BUT it can also be vice versa. Wake up n think you are god n do things in a godly way -> then you are pleasing god n yourself (the same thing i.e.)
Study math n you will find why I can say this is math! But until then -> you can understand the math of yin/yang , that's good.
So mathematically-> afterlife hell can be there IF you put it on your self (sinse afterlife tend to be relative in parts), but the devil can easily be abstracted if there is a absolute side in the afterlife. Ouch that was abstract math... But still math...
Ummmm.... no... Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. It is believed that humans evolved from a common ancestor...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Ummmm.... no... Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. It is believed that humans evolved from a common ancestor... |
Reguardless, it's the same concept. If Christianity (along with several other religions) is right, it can be inturpreted that God is a monkey (or monkey-like, since you want to get technical about it). And it still goes to say, if we were made in God's image and God made "monkey-like" beings that eventually evolved into us, then He/She/It would still be monkey-like. Or you could even take it even further backwards and say that, since we were at one point, single-celled organisms, that God is an amoeba. Funny, ain't it?
| spinout wrote: |
Of course God is hell also (in the relative)! The bible is just a powertool - forget the bible, the days of the bible is over.
It's time to forget the myths in the bible and see what things really are.
So when is hell? As we are forcing trouble/pollution on this planet; things will only be hell here in the future. Since god is all god is putting this on himself, actually, the day you wake up n think you are not doing any good - then also you are saying god isn't any good. BUT it can also be vice versa. Wake up n think you are god n do things in a godly way -> then you are pleasing god n yourself (the same thing i.e.)
Study math n you will find why I can say this is math! But until then -> you can understand the math of yin/yang , that's good.
So mathematically-> afterlife hell can be there IF you put it on your self (sinse afterlife tend to be relative in parts), but the devil can easily be abstracted if there is a absolute side in the afterlife. Ouch that was abstract math... But still math... |
If God is Hell, then it would take away the entire point of Hell (which is to punish evil by being without God, and since God is supposedly all things good in this world and the next, if God were to be Hell or in Hell, then that would be putting something good in Hell, and that wouldn't really be punishment, now would it?).
AND NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID IS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM MATH. It's linear thinking (if you could even call your jumble of words that).Remember that evolution is just as unproven as Creationism. And, if you search (ask and ye shall receive), I am sure you could even find some proof for Creationism. I would put it here, but the problem is that people are so close-minded. It is always said that Christianity is close-minded, but when other people do not open up to the ideas of Christianity, does that not make them just as close-minded?
At any rate ... "I am everything", I believe that is a rough translation of "Yahweh", the Hebrew word for God.
Monkey certainly falls under the subheading of "everything"
That is really funny.. I like when people start to say evolution is not proven.. well it is and there is no way it can be compared with religion as religion is a belief, whereas evolution is a fact!
laurenrox:
Mathematicly : Of course hell don't exit if God is all (n are good)! Hitler is in heaven mathematicly! | laurenrox wrote: |
Well, I'm sure that topic title got a lot of attention. And I'm sure a lot of theists are getting ready to thrash me, buuuuuuuuuuuut... *evil grin*
I just had a conversation with a friend reguarding religion and the theory of evolution. Scientists pretty much agree that we evolved from cavemen, and that cavemen evolved from monkeys. So, if man was made in God's image, as Christianity suggests, then wouldn't God be a monkey?
Please don't take this too seriously, because I found it to be a pretty amusing thought. |
This made me giggle | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Ummmm.... no... Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. It is believed that humans evolved from a common ancestor... |
That common ancestor is believed to be primates...or did you miss that??Theologically speaking we are talking about souls here - at least thats what some might say.
The bible says we were created in Gods image and likness. It doesnt specify wether its referring to our souls or our physical bodies.
so i'm takin the cheap way out and sayin 50/50
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Ummmm.... no... Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. It is believed that humans evolved from a common ancestor... |
That common ancestor is believed to be primates...or did you miss that?? |
No I didn't "miss that." But there's a distinct difference between "primate" and "monkey." A monkey is much more specific. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Ummmm.... no... Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. It is believed that humans evolved from a common ancestor... |
That common ancestor is believed to be primates...or did you miss that?? |
No I didn't "miss that." But there's a distinct difference between "primate" and "monkey." A monkey is much more specific. |
is someone being just a little pedantic? 
Yay i love monkeys and also God! It's a good point even if it's not too serious
A monkey is a creation of YHWH, YHWH is god only.
I don't believe in god so I find this confusing. I think evolution does not fit into Christianity. about two years ago I was with a friend and listen to a man that talked about that evolution was not proved and pointed out many weaknesses. I think I was the only one there that doesn't believed in god. Everybody thought that it was very good things that he said but I have to say that his arguments was not very good. He pointed out translations errors in the bible so that a crocodile could be a dinosaur. almost funny.
the point is that I think that they deny things that are not like the bible say as much as they can. If god is a monkey maybe he is something else when we know more.
| Peterssidan wrote: |
I don't believe in god so I find this confusing. I think evolution does not fit into Christianity. about two years ago I was with a friend and listen to a man that talked about that evolution was not proved and pointed out many weaknesses. I think I was the only one there that doesn't believed in god. Everybody thought that it was very good things that he said but I have to say that his arguments was not very good. He pointed out translations errors in the bible so that a crocodile could be a dinosaur. almost funny.
the point is that I think that they deny things that are not like the bible say as much as they can. If god is a monkey maybe he is something else when we know more. |
Not all christians believe in creationism! I am a christian and I believe in science. I think anyone who says evolution is wrong needs their heds examined however i believe that God created everything therefore he created science also. The story of Creation in the bible cannot be true literally in context it can be seen to be an illustration.I reckon in hindu relgion, they have a moneky God. They also made a few movies about that topic.
Google Hanuman for more topics.
| Fake wrote: |
I reckon in hindu relgion, they have a moneky God. They also made a few movies about that topic.
Google Hanuman for more topics. |
Hanuman is an incarnation of God....not the original form of God.
According to Hindu scriptures God can take unlimited form since he is unlimited.
Hanuman is monkey form of god.So God can be anything he wants. He can even be you! Well according to the Bible he is you. Or you are him. Anyways, live with it. The holy spirit breathes through your nostrils.
Ironically enough I think a friend of mine suggested something similar not to long ago. Jokingly of course.
I think mathematically, spinout was refering to the transitive property...
If A=B and B=C then A=C
But to say God is a monkey, you would have to accept both what Evolution says and what Creationism says, and both of those theories practically hate each other. So it's not very sound in terms of actual philosophy.
On the other hand, it's kinda funny and it makes a very good joke. 
As long as you don't try and tell it to a nun or something... that might be a sin in and of itself. 
| NovaBreak wrote: |
| But to say God is a monkey, you would have to accept both what Evolution says and what Creationism says, and both of those theories practically hate each other. So it's not very sound in terms of actual philosophy. |
While the majority of people love to side with either one of these i find myself in the minority. As a christian also it puzzles me why other chruistians and non christians insist on separating the two. Who ever said you cant have one with out the other. This theory in itself is just as obscure as the opthers | NovaBreak wrote: |
I think mathematically, spinout was refering to the transitive property...
If A=B and B=C then A=C
But to say God is a monkey, you would have to accept both what Evolution says and what Creationism says, and both of those theories practically hate each other. So it's not very sound in terms of actual philosophy. |
Well it's not that they 'hate' each other (though proponents frequently do, I admit) it's more that they are mutually exlusive. Either one is right or the other, both cannot be. | irishmark wrote: |
| NovaBreak wrote: | | But to say God is a monkey, you would have to accept both what Evolution says and what Creationism says, and both of those theories practically hate each other. So it's not very sound in terms of actual philosophy. |
While the majority of people love to side with either one of these i find myself in the minority. As a christian also it puzzles me why other chruistians and non christians insist on separating the two. Who ever said you cant have one with out the other. This theory in itself is just as obscure as the opthers |
So exactly how would you reconcile the two? Either we were created as we see now (creationism), or we evolved (evolution). To answer your question "whoever said you can't have one without the other?" - I said it. | Bikerman wrote: |
| irishmark wrote: | | NovaBreak wrote: | | But to say God is a monkey, you would have to accept both what Evolution says and what Creationism says, and both of those theories practically hate each other. So it's not very sound in terms of actual philosophy. |
While the majority of people love to side with either one of these i find myself in the minority. As a christian also it puzzles me why other chruistians and non christians insist on separating the two. Who ever said you cant have one with out the other. This theory in itself is just as obscure as the opthers |
So exactly how would you reconcile the two? Either we were created as we see now (creationism), or we evolved (evolution). To answer your question "whoever said you can't have one without the other?" - I said it. |
Well how was that which evolved...created? | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Well how was that which evolved...created? |
That is a different question (called abiogenesis). Creationism states that things were created pretty much as we see them and that evolution is either completely wrong or, at least, that it doesn't account for speciation. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Well how was that which evolved...created? |
That is a different question (called abiogenesis). Creationism states that things were created pretty much as we see them and that evolution is either completely wrong or, at least, that it doesn't account for speciation. |
Despite creationism and it's theories and it's thoughts or whatever. To evolve you have to formally "be". Correct? And if you "are" then you are capable of evolving. Lets say you trace evolution back to one tiny single-cell or atom or whatever (that is not important here), what did it evolve from? How was it created? | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Despite creationism and it's theories and it's thoughts or whatever. To evolve you have to formally "be". Correct? And if you "are" then you are capable of evolving. Lets say you trace evolution back to one tiny single-cell or atom or whatever (that is not important here), what did it evolve from? How was it created? |
As I said, we don't know. There are a number of theories. It's possible that the first 'life' originated as a chemical/electrical interaction in primative 'sludge' that created the first RNA molecules. It's possible that life was carried on meteors from outer space. There are a number of possibilities. What we DO know is that from the moment life emerged, evolution was the mechanism by which it changed to give us the variety of species that we see today. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Despite creationism and it's theories and it's thoughts or whatever. To evolve you have to formally "be". Correct? And if you "are" then you are capable of evolving. Lets say you trace evolution back to one tiny single-cell or atom or whatever (that is not important here), what did it evolve from? How was it created? |
As I said, we don't know. There are a number of theories. It's possible that the first 'life' originated as a chemical/electrical interaction in primative 'sludge' that created the first RNA molecules. It's possible that life was carried on meteors from outer space. There are a number of possibilities. What we DO know is that from the moment life emerged, evolution was the mechanism by which it changed to give us the variety of species that we see today. |
So...creationism and evolution can indeed exist together? Since we do not know of course. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| So...creationism and evolution can indeed exist together? Since we do not know of course. |
Did you actually bother to read anything I have written?
Creationism is not about how the first life arose on earth. Creationism states that you, as a human being, are the descendant of other human beings which were created 'in a flash' by God.
If you believe in creationism then you do not accept evolution. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | So...creationism and evolution can indeed exist together? Since we do not know of course. |
Did you actually bother to read anything I have written?
Creationism is not about how the first life arose on earth. Creationism states that you, as a human being, are the descendant of other human beings which were created 'in a flash' by God.
If you believe in creationism then you do not accept evolution. |
I'm just messin with you biker-man. Im not totally sure what creationism is but I just wanted to throw in the convo that even if evolution is truth, something had to be created to evolve.Well yes. Evolution only happens when life is present. How life arose is another question entirely. There are, as I said, plenty of possibilities but we don't yet have enough evidence to be sure about which theory is most likely to be true.
The central point, however, is that creationism cannot coexist with the theory of evolution. It is one or the other. Anyone who claims that they believe in both is either delusional or telling porky-pies.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| irishmark wrote: | | NovaBreak wrote: | | But to say God is a monkey, you would have to accept both what Evolution says and what Creationism says, and both of those theories practically hate each other. So it's not very sound in terms of actual philosophy. |
While the majority of people love to side with either one of these i find myself in the minority. As a christian also it puzzles me why other chruistians and non christians insist on separating the two. Who ever said you cant have one with out the other. This theory in itself is just as obscure as the opthers |
So exactly how would you reconcile the two? Either we were created as we see now (creationism), or we evolved (evolution). To answer your question "whoever said you can't have one without the other?" - I said it. |
Bikerman - I thank you for your input but i think you have either missed or avoided the point i was making. My point was to bring up the question of separating the two ideas of creationism and evolution. Seeing as no-one was there in the first place to give a first hand account we can olnly give educated guesses as to how we all came to be but at the end of the day, well we wern't there.
Having sudied the sciences and also being a christian I find it hard to accept either as black and white arguments. The creationist theory is completely unscientific however assuming God really is the creator of everything then would it not be plausible that he created the world in 7 days? - Well of course it would be plausible - he's God. The evolutionary theory is also difficult to ingest as the odds are rediculous but it would not be impossible
I ask people to ask the question did God have created the process of evolution?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The central point, however, is that creationism cannot coexist with the theory of evolution. It is one or the other. Anyone who claims that they believe in both is either delusional or telling porky-pies. |
And why cant the coexist? They have conflicting factors and arguments - i realise that but many many ideas have conflicting ideas but still manage to coexist. | irishmark wrote: |
| Bikerman - I thank you for your input but i think you have either missed or avoided the point i was making. My point was to bring up the question of separating the two ideas of creationism and evolution. Seeing as no-one was there in the first place to give a first hand account we can olnly give educated guesses as to how we all came to be but at the end of the day, well we wern't there. |
Creationism is the belief that God created the world pretty much as it exists (either in 7 days a few thousand years ago - Young Earth Creationists - or as science says 4.5 billion years ago - Old Earth Creationists). Both YEC and OEC do NOT believe in evolution. Some OEC believe that evolution does happen but not according to the theory and that new species are not created. Therefore creationism and evolutionary theory are mutually incompatible - you cannot have both, by definition. THAT is the point and I neither missed it nor ignored it.
The argument that because we were not there we can only guess, is a ridiculous argument. Science works by making predictions and seeing if the theory works. Evolution is observable in the lab - the idea that the theory of evolution is a 'guess' is very silly indeed.
| Quote: |
| Having sudied the sciences and also being a christian I find it hard to accept either as black and white arguments. The creationist theory is completely unscientific however assuming God really is the creator of everything then would it not be plausible that he created the world in 7 days? - Well of course it would be plausible - he's God. The evolutionary theory is also difficult to ingest as the odds are rediculous but it would not be impossible |
If you have studied science and cannot answer your own question then you have not studied very hard. Of course the world was not created in 7 days. It's not plausible, it's silly.
Evolutionary theory is not difficult to ingest - it's very simple.
Radiation (in the main) causes damage to DNA. The damage accumulates and is passed on to offspring. Nearly always this damage is bad for the organism but just occasionally it produces a change which is beneficial to the organism and that organism is therefore more likely to breed and pass on the genetic change. Over a long period of time these changes add up to the point where a completely new species is formed (ie one which cannot reproduce with members of the original species). This process is constant. We can observe this happening and we HAVE observed it happening.
What is difficult or implausible about that?
| Quote: |
| And why cant the coexist? They have conflicting factors and arguments - i realise that but many many ideas have conflicting ideas but still manage to coexist. |
They cannot coexist because creationism specifically rejects evolution. They are, by definition, incompatible. | Bikerman wrote: |
| irishmark wrote: | | Bikerman - I thank you for your input but i think you have either missed or avoided the point i was making. My point was to bring up the question of separating the two ideas of creationism and evolution. Seeing as no-one was there in the first place to give a first hand account we can olnly give educated guesses as to how we all came to be but at the end of the day, well we wern't there. |
Creationism is the belief that God created the world pretty much as it exists (either in 7 days a few thousand years ago - Young Earth Creationists - or as science says 4.5 billion years ago - Old Earth Creationists). Both YEC and OEC do NOT believe in evolution. Some OEC believe that evolution does happen but not according to the theory and that new species are not created. Therefore creationism and evolutionary theory are mutually incompatible - you cannot have both, by definition. THAT is the point and I neither missed it nor ignored it.
The argument that because we were not there we can only guess, is a ridiculous argument. Science works by making predictions and seeing if the theory works. Evolution is observable in the lab - the idea that the theory of evolution is a 'guess' is very silly indeed.
| Quote: | | Having sudied the sciences and also being a christian I find it hard to accept either as black and white arguments. The creationist theory is completely unscientific however assuming God really is the creator of everything then would it not be plausible that he created the world in 7 days? - Well of course it would be plausible - he's God. The evolutionary theory is also difficult to ingest as the odds are rediculous but it would not be impossible |
If you have studied science and cannot answer your own question then you have not studied very hard. Of course the world was not created in 7 days. It's not plausible, it's silly.
Evolutionary theory is not difficult to ingest - it's very simple.
Radiation (in the main) causes damage to DNA. The damage accumulates and is passed on to offspring. Nearly always this damage is bad for the organism but just occasionally it produces a change which is beneficial to the organism and that organism is therefore more likely to breed and pass on the genetic change. Over a long period of time these changes add up to the point where a completely new species is formed (ie one which cannot reproduce with members of the original species). This process is constant. We can observe this happening and we HAVE observed it happening.
What is difficult or implausible about that?
| Quote: | | And why cant the coexist? They have conflicting factors and arguments - i realise that but many many ideas have conflicting ideas but still manage to coexist. |
They cannot coexist because creationism specifically rejects evolution. They are, by definition, incompatible. |
Bikerman what I think you are missing here is that creationism as a word describes ones beliefs. Creationism as an organized belief is what you are talking about. I believe in both evolution and the idea that somewhere along the line we were created. Or should I say life was created. You say creationism is this and this and is against that and that, but no matter what "creationists" think, I can have the idea and belief that we were created while still accepting evolution. So we call that creationism. Do you see? | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Bikerman what I think you are missing here is that creationism as a word describes ones beliefs. Creationism as an organized belief is what you are talking about. I believe in both evolution and the idea that somewhere along the line we were created. Or should I say life was created. You say creationism is this and this and is against that and that, but no matter what "creationists" think, I can have the idea and belief that we were created while still accepting evolution. So we call that creationism. Do you see? |
The point is that we DON'T call that creationism. Creationism is a specific belief system. It's not what I say, it's what creationism is defined as. If your beliefs are different then you are not a creationist - you can call yourself something different. Most Christians, for example, believe that God in some manner is responsible for the creation of the universe. They are NOT, however, creationists.
If you believe that we (by which I mean homo-sapiens) were created by God then, yes, you are a creationist. You cannot, in that case, possibly also believe in evolution. The two are exclusive - it is one or the other.
If you believe that God created the first single-cell lifeform, on the other hand, then you CAN accept evolution since evolution has nothing to say about how life started. But if you believe this you are NOT a creationist. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Bikerman what I think you are missing here is that creationism as a word describes ones beliefs. Creationism as an organized belief is what you are talking about. I believe in both evolution and the idea that somewhere along the line we were created. Or should I say life was created. You say creationism is this and this and is against that and that, but no matter what "creationists" think, I can have the idea and belief that we were created while still accepting evolution. So we call that creationism. Do you see? |
The point is that we DON'T call that creationism. Creationism is a specific belief system. It's not what I say, it's what creationism is defined as. If your beliefs are different then you are not a creationist - you can call yourself something different. Most Christians, for example, believe that God in some manner is responsible for the creation of the universe. They are NOT, however, creationists.
If you believe that we (by which I mean homo-sapiens) were created by God then, yes, you are a creationist. You cannot, in that case, possibly also believe in evolution. The two are exclusive - it is one or the other.
If you believe that God created the first single-cell lifeform, on the other hand, then you CAN accept evolution since evolution has nothing to say about how life started. But if you believe this you are NOT a creationist. |
Once again, if I believe life was created, that thought is creationism. I believe in creationism, because there is nothing else to call it. I'm not going to make up a different word because these guys already say they believe in creationism and it is this. You are correct I am not a creationist in the fashion you speak of ..evolution doesnt exist..blah blah. I believe life was created. Thats creationism in my view. I believe in evolution. There is both of the thoughts existing together right there. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Once again, if I believe life was created, that thought is creationism. I believe in creationism, because there is nothing else to call it. I'm not going to make up a different word because these guys already say they believe in creationism and it is this. You are correct I am not a creationist in the fashion you speak of ..evolution doesnt exist..blah blah. I believe life was created. Thats creationism in my view. I believe in evolution. There is both of the thoughts existing together right there. |
Your view of what 'creationism' means is not really the issue. There is an agreed definition of the word which is generally accepted and is NOT the same as the one you are using.*
If you want to play Humpty-Dumpty with words then that is your prerogative but it doesn't make for useful debate. In debate we try to use a generally agreed form of words, otherwise it is impossible to convey meaning accurately. In this case I am using the generally agreed meaning of the word 'creationism/ist'. | wiki wrote: |
| Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
There is another potential meaning for the word - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_%28soul%29 but this generally refers to the soul and is not, I think, the version intended in this thread.
*In a similar way to which the words Islam and Islamist mean different things | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Once again, if I believe life was created, that thought is creationism. I believe in creationism, because there is nothing else to call it. I'm not going to make up a different word because these guys already say they believe in creationism and it is this. You are correct I am not a creationist in the fashion you speak of ..evolution doesnt exist..blah blah. I believe life was created. Thats creationism in my view. I believe in evolution. There is both of the thoughts existing together right there. |
Your view of what 'creationism' means is not really the issue. There is an agreed definition of the word which is generally accepted and is NOT the same as the one you are using.*
If you want to play Humpty-Dumpty with words then that is your prerogative but it doesn't make for useful debate. In debate we try to use a generally agreed form of words, otherwise it is impossible to convey meaning accurately. In this case I am using the generally agreed meaning of the word 'creationism/ist'. | wiki wrote: | | Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
There is another potential meaning for the word - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_%28soul%29 but this generally refers to the soul and is not, I think, the version intended in this thread.
*In a similar way to which the words Islam and Islamist mean different things |
Well like I said, to my knowledge there is no word that would describe, I believe that we were created, better than creationism. And for the sake of the debate I have been telling you that by me saying creationism I do not mean what you have taken as the agreed form of the word. I have been trying to convey to you what I mean when I say creationism because there is no better word. As far as Im concerned, the only thing that should be agreed upon about the word creationism is that it is the belief that life was created. Not all the beliefs that go along with it. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Well like I said, to my knowledge there is no word that would describe, I believe that we were created, better than creationism. And for the sake of the debate I have been telling you that by me saying creationism I do not mean what you have taken as the agreed form of the word. I have been trying to convey to you what I mean when I say creationism because there is no better word. As far as Im concerned, the only thing that should be agreed upon about the word creationism is that it is the belief that life was created. Not all the beliefs that go along with it. |
But the point is that we do not use the word that way. You are free to do what you like, but it simply means that what you say is incomprehensible because the rest of us mean a different concept when we use the word. What is wrong with the words 'religious', 'theist' or 'Christian'? All those terms imply that life was created by a divinity. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Well like I said, to my knowledge there is no word that would describe, I believe that we were created, better than creationism. And for the sake of the debate I have been telling you that by me saying creationism I do not mean what you have taken as the agreed form of the word. I have been trying to convey to you what I mean when I say creationism because there is no better word. As far as Im concerned, the only thing that should be agreed upon about the word creationism is that it is the belief that life was created. Not all the beliefs that go along with it. |
But the point is that we do not use the word that way. You are free to do what you like, but it simply means that what you say is incomprehensible because the rest of us mean a different concept when we use the word. What is wrong with the words 'religious', 'theist' or 'Christian'? All those terms imply that life was created by a divinity. |
Are you serious? There is no set in stone definition to a word as to where it cannot be used for anything else. The point is unless you provide me with the word I should be using, then we are both ignorant to the actual word that should be used. As ignorant as we are, I am using the best suitable word and defining how I am using it to you. So how is that incomprehensible unless you are refusing to comprehend? | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Are you serious? There is no set in stone definition to a word as to where it cannot be used for anything else. The point is unless you provide me with the word I should be using, then we are both ignorant to the actual word that should be used. As ignorant as we are, I am using the best suitable word and defining how I am using it to you. So how is that incomprehensible unless you are refusing to comprehend? |
I have given you several such words. You are guilty of something I call humpty-dumpty syndrome. You think that you can impose meaning on a word simply because you think it is a good idea. I have explained what creationism means - look it up in a dictionary. I am not ignorant about the word - you are. It is not that I cannot comprehend your meaning. You could say to me - from now on I am going to use the word 'knee' instead of 'arm'. I would understand your meaning, but nobody else would and your use of words would still be wrong. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Are you serious? There is no set in stone definition to a word as to where it cannot be used for anything else. The point is unless you provide me with the word I should be using, then we are both ignorant to the actual word that should be used. As ignorant as we are, I am using the best suitable word and defining how I am using it to you. So how is that incomprehensible unless you are refusing to comprehend? |
I have given you several such words. You are guilty of something I call humpty-dumpty syndrome. You think that you can impose meaning on a word simply because you think it is a good idea. I have explained what creationism means - go an look it up in a dictionary. I am not ignorant about the word - you are. It is not that I cannot comprehend your meaning. You could say to me - from now on I am going to use the word 'knee' instead of 'arm'. I would understand your meaning, but nobody else would and your use of words would still be wrong. |
It would not be wrong because there is an arm and a knee. There is (according to you) no such word that implies the belief one thinks life has been created without all of the jibberish creationism drags along with it. Since I do not know the word. And YOU do not know the word. I use the closest word available and explain to you in which fashion I am using the word. Other people are capable of reading that as well.
I could say to you "He is very Christian." That would mean he has habits of a man who follows the christian religion. Now if you and I had an understanding, that one of our friends is named Christian. It could then mean he acts like our friend named Christian. Im sorry I dont have links to provide you or any scientific data but for God's sake man deflate your ego balloon.
and....something you call humpty dumpty syndrome?! You are doing exactly what I am doing with the word creationism because humpty dumpty syndrome would mean not being able to sit on top of a wall! | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| It would not be wrong because there is an arm and a knee. |
But your use of the word would be wrong. If you refer to your arm as your knee, or vica-versa, then you are using the word wrongly. If you use the word 'creationist' to refer to a belief which includes acceptance of evolution then, again, you are using the word wrongly. Simple.
| Quote: |
| There is (according to you) no such word that implies the belief one thinks life has been created without all of the jibberish creationism drags along with it. |
Where did I say that? I said exactly the opposite. I suggested several words - 'religious' and 'theist' being two such words. | Quote: |
| Since I do not know the word. And YOU do not know the word. I use the closest word available and explain to you in which fashion I am using the word. Other people are capable of reading that as well. |
But you use a word which means one thing to mean something different. Why not simply call yourself a theist - we can all look that up in a dictionary and see what it means. If you call yourself a creationist then we look that up and see that it means you do not believe in evolution.
| Quote: |
| I could say to you "He is very Christian." That would mean he has habits of a man who follows the christian religion. Now if you and I had an understanding, that one of our friends is named Christian. It could then mean he acts like our friend named Christian. Im sorry I dont have links to provide you or any scientific data but for God's sake man deflate your ego balloon. |
I have no ego balloon - I am simply asking you to use words correctly. If you post in a forum that you are a Christian and what you actually mean is that you act like a person called Christian then you would be deliberately being obtuse (as well as grammatically incorrect because the correct word would be 'Christianite').
| Quote: |
| and....something you call humpty dumpty syndrome?! You are doing exactly what I am doing with the word creationism because humpty dumpty syndrome would mean not being able to sit on top of a wall! |
Well, I pointed out that I have coined the phrase.* As far as I know the phrase 'humpty dumpty syndrome' is not in general use so there is no chance of confusing it. The word 'creationist' however, IS in general use and there is a generally agreed definition of the word (which I have already given you and which you can look up in a dictionary).
You wish to use that word to mean something different. That is, as I say, up to you, but your use of the word is then wrong and misleading.
*'When I use a word', said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I want it to, neither more nor less'
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in totalreally??...you win man. no use in explaining if you do not wish to understand
| Bikerman wrote: |
*'When I use a word', said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I want it to, neither more nor less' |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| really??...you win man. no use in explaining if you do not wish to understand |
Neocreationism is creationism minus the religious baggage, apparently | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
*'When I use a word', said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I want it to, neither more nor less' |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | really??...you win man. no use in explaining if you do not wish to understand |
Neocreationism is creationism minus the religious baggage, apparently |
LOL...that's what they would like you to believe - it's untrue. The most 'important' form of neo-creationism is the Intelligent Design movement. They frequently claim to be non religious but that is not true. Check the Discovery Institute out - they are the main proponents of ID and are almost exclusively Judeo-Christian creationists with new hats on.
I'll not go on about this any more because there is another thread in the forum on this exact issue - Intelligent Design. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: |
*'When I use a word', said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I want it to, neither more nor less' |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | really??...you win man. no use in explaining if you do not wish to understand |
Neocreationism is creationism minus the religious baggage, apparently |
LOL...that's what they would like you to believe - it's untrue. The most 'important' form of neo-creationism is the Intelligent Design movement. They frequently claim to be non religious but that is not true. Check the Discovery Institute out - they are the main proponents of ID and are almost exclusively Judeo-Christian creationists with new hats on.
I'll not go on about this any more because there is another thread in the forum on this exact issue - Intelligent Design. |
But in the context Bryan seems to be expressing its a better discription is it not ?
why not just give him my answer several threads back ? LOL
the importance to you is most, but most is not all encompassing ,but as you say its for a different thread. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| But in the context Bryan seems to be expressing its a better discription is it not ? |
Not sure about that - I suspect Bryan is indeed religious and believes in a 'God'. I can, however, only assume that based on other postings so I am not sure. | Quote: |
why not just give him my answer several threads back ? LOL
the importance to you is most, but most is not all encompassing ,but as you say its for a different thread. |
Hmm. The problem is that I don't know any 'neocreationists' who are not religious. There may well be some but I've never come across them. Creationism itself is inherently religious - there has to be a creator. Any 'neocreationist' argument that does not include a Divinity of some kind would seem to be on very dodgy ground. If, for example, we assume an 'alien' is the creator then how did the alien arise? Did the alien evolve or was it created? If it was created then we are trapped in a circular argument. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | But in the context Bryan seems to be expressing its a better discription is it not ? |
Not sure about that - I suspect Bryan is indeed religious and believes in a 'God'. I can, however, only assume that based on other postings so I am not sure. | Quote: | why not just give him my answer several threads back ? LOL
the importance to you is most, but most is not all encompassing ,but as you say its for a different thread. |
Hmm. The problem is that I don't know any 'neocreationists' who are not religious. There may well be some but I've never come across them. Creationism itself is inherently religious - there has to be a creator. Any 'neocreationist' argument that does not include a Divinity of some kind would seem to be on very dodgy ground. If, for example, we assume an 'alien' is the creator then how did the alien arise? Did the alien evolve or was it created? If it was created then we are trapped in a circular argument. |
It is hard not to agree with you , but I would not see the "alien" thing as a circular argument, but as just another rung on the ladder of understanding our place(ment) in the universe.
I personally could not begin to define a Divinity without conjecture (Im definately no prophet), but can see mankind given enough time becoming Divine in the sense of becoming superhuman compared to us today, they could share with us as much as we share with bacteria , these evolved humans could be godlike compared to us , would I be wrong in assuming for a godlike being to exist in the universe we observe now then Life and Time is all thats needed ?But the point is where does such a Godlike intelligence itself come from?
If you assume that mankind could become 'Godlike' by our present standards given time (not an unreasonable assumption) that's fine. The argument was, however, in the context of neo-creationism, that some Godlike alien is responsible for our creation. If this is true then the natural question that follows is 'what Godlike alien was responsible for the creation of the Godlike alien that created us'? At some point the Godlike alien must have evolved on it's own, or do we simply go on and on assuming more Godlike aliens creating each other?
At some point, therefore, evolution must have produced an advanced species to kick the whole thing off. My point is that, given evolution seems to have done that here one Earth, what is the point of assuming Godlike aliens are responsible? There is absolutely no evidence to support that contention whereas there is abundant evidence for evolution. It seems that all this argument succeeds in doing is pushing back evolution to some mythical historical alien species - which is a bit silly.
My word this all got a bit out of hand.
Bikerman: Yes technically you are right and all your points are true and valid but dont trip yourself up with the "Humpty Dumpty Theory" & then when called up on it try and explain it away, its insulting to everyones intelligence including your own.
Just in the way you have put your own definition on "Humpty Dumpty Theory" let others put use other phrases to describe something that has no term to accuratley describe it. It doesnt matter if its wrong. This whole thread became a pissing match over who was right and who was wrong over the use of the english language because you refused to let a misused term go.
We all know what you meant by "Humpty Dumpty Theory" after you explained it. One can read into things more deeply than just the text on the page and get a better understanding of it. you seemed unwilling to go beyond the face value of what was being written.
When things get pedantic it just becomes silly. It seems quite obvious that you knew exactly what Bryan_Bezzle was getting at but refused to address the point he was trying to make instead bullying him in to submission over your knowledge of english.
I'm tired of this discussion now as it was about something interesting but has now turned into an english grammer debate. What a shame.
| irishmark wrote: |
My word this all got a bit out of hand.
Bikerman: Yes technically you are right and all your points are true and valid but dont trip yourself up with the "Humpty Dumpty Theory" & then when called up on it try and explain it away, its insulting to everyones intelligence including your own. |
I didn't trip anything up. I explained that I was coining a phrase, I used the phrase and then I explained what the phrase meant. Where is the problem? - the phrase was, and is, completely appropriate. | Quote: |
| Just in the way you have put your own definition on "Humpty Dumpty Theory" let others put use other phrases to describe something that has no trem to accuratley describe it. It doesnt matter if its wrong. This whole thread became a pissing match over who was right and who was wrong over the use of the english language because you insisted on using that to turn the discussion into something else. |
You miss the point completely. Bryan was using a word which is already defined, to mean something completely different. That meant that he couldn't express himself clearly and what he said made no sense. I thought he would realise this, accept the correction and move on. He chose not to. | Quote: |
| We all know what you meant by "Humpty Dumpty Theory" after you explained it. One can read into things more deeply than just the text on the page and get a better understanding of it. you seemed unwilling to go beyond the face value of what was being written. |
No. I was unwilling to accept a word which means one thing being used as if it meant almost the opposite. That is not unreasonable.
If you want a fuller explanation then I'm willing to give it.
The reason I insisted on that particular word being used correctly (the word 'creationist') is that I debate creationists a lot. They are often conniving and quite dishonest (I am not levelling that at anyone here), and it is not unknown for a quote in one debate to re-appear weeks or months later in another thread attributed incorrectly. I was, and am, unwilling to have any posting of mine quoted in another posting which states that evolution and creationism are compatible. This is because it is quite possible that such a posting would turn up, misquoted, in this or even in other forums, distorted, to make the point that I had either said or accepted such a thing myself. It's sad that I feel the need to do that, I agree, but it has happened to me before and I am anxious to minimise the chances of a repeat.
| Quote: |
| When things get pedantic it just becomes silly. It seems quite obvious that you knew exactly what Bryan_Bezzle was getting at but refused to address the point he was trying to make instead bullying him in to submission over your knowledge of english. |
And what point was that exactly? Perhaps you can explain it because I didn't see any point. What I saw was someone who doesn't know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, trying to argue that creationism and evolution are compatible. That's not a point, it's a mistake - they aren't. Apart from that I saw no point. Did I miss something? | Quote: |
| I'm tired of this discussion now as it was about something interesting but has now turned into an english grammer debate. What a shame. |
Well, if I were to be really pedantic I would point out that the dispute was not a matter of grammar, but a matter of semantics. However, I'm not, so I won't.You know what..I was just trying to get a point across....didn't have the word for what I actually wanted to say...used a term and described in what fashion I was using the word and in what fashions I was staying away from with the word...like irishmark said, the topic was changed from what we were actually debating, to a word that I used and how I shouldn't misuse it. Ill say that I misused the actual meaning of the word, but then again I had no other word to use. And to say creationists are often conniving and quite dishonest is an arrogant statement. You tell that to the millions of church goers and genuine good people who believe in God and then see if you feel like standing behind your statement.
Anyways, if you were to trace time back all the way to the actual beginning, our imaginations can not even begin to conceive how it all began. Evolution takes care of how life blossomed and moved on, while creation takes care of how it was well..created. Like you say though..who created the creator? Also, what begat the materials for evolution to occur? Has life always existed in the universe or was it a lot of big rocks that had chemical reactions to create it? Was there a big pile of nothing and all the sudden a rip came through that brought one rock and when the rip expanded more rocks came? Was there an ancient race that created life on certain planets? Well where did they come from?
We cannot begin to populate our brains with the right thoughts to manifest how everything began because we are still proud of our digital watches. (thanks mr. adams) We have a long way to go technology wise that will make us an overall smarter race, but how it all began..we may never know.
Bikerman - You are being pedantic. Simply - you are. I'm sorry but by that last responce it just shows you to be so.
Dude - If someone tells a joke where the comedy is based on a play on words do you then act like a kill-joy andv tear the joke apart? This is the impression you have given.
I dont wanna tear you apart with this, I'm sorry if i have offended you but man - you just need to relax. This is a forum where opinions are being shared and discussed. Certainly i think anyone with an ounce of intelligence would welcome being corrected for the misuse of terminology.
But to turn an entire thread around bacause of semantics? Come on! Cant you see that that's being a little childish. Can we please now get this thread back to what it was about?
And please, Bikerman, please, Try to resist the urge to fragment this reply and take it apart like you tried to with the last one. As most of it showed you hadn't really listened to what was being said.
God's not a monkey, thats retarded. God is god. In other words he's the creator of the universe.
| irishmark wrote: |
| Can we please now get this thread back to what it was about? |
So what exactly is your point then? You haven't really made any point that I can respond to.
I did not 'turn the entire thread around' on an issue of semantics. Surely you can see that the definition of the word 'creationist' is absolutely central to this thread? This is a philosophy and religion discussion forum, therefore the meaning of words is important. I do not pick-apart the use of words simply for the sake of it, but if we cannot agree what we mean by a word which is critical to the whole debate, then what chance is there of getting anywhere with the debate?
Anyway, I repeat, what exactly is your point?
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:30 pm; edited 3 times in total | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| You know what..I was just trying to get a point across....didn't have the word for what I actually wanted to say...used a term and described in what fashion I was using the word and in what fashions I was staying away from with the word...like irishmark said, the topic was changed from what we were actually debating, to a word that I used and how I shouldn't misuse it. Ill say that I misused the actual meaning of the word, but then again I had no other word to use. And to say creationists are often conniving and quite dishonest is an arrogant statement. You tell that to the millions of church goers and genuine good people who believe in God and then see if you feel like standing behind your statement. |
Oh yes, I stand by the statement completely. For example you are being conniving and dishonest right here. You didn't *miss* the meaning of the word creationist - I explained it to you several times and you simply refused to accept it. That is not the same thing, is it? I also gave you several words to use instead, remember? 'Theist' being one. You simply chose to ignore them and now you repeat the lie that there were no appropriate words. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | You know what..I was just trying to get a point across....didn't have the word for what I actually wanted to say...used a term and described in what fashion I was using the word and in what fashions I was staying away from with the word...like irishmark said, the topic was changed from what we were actually debating, to a word that I used and how I shouldn't misuse it. Ill say that I misused the actual meaning of the word, but then again I had no other word to use. And to say creationists are often conniving and quite dishonest is an arrogant statement. You tell that to the millions of church goers and genuine good people who believe in God and then see if you feel like standing behind your statement. |
Oh yes, I stand by the statement completely. For example you are being conniving and dishonest right here. You didn't *miss* the meaning of the word creationist - I explained it to you several times and you simply refused to accept it. That is not the same thing, is it? I also gave you several words to use instead, remember? 'Theist' being one. You simply chose to ignore them and now you repeat the lie that there were no appropriate words. |
Well aside from your childish "I was right you are wrong" game, I was actually trying to debate you on something that was fun to talk about. You changed up because when I first came on this forum you always were up for a debate, and very realistic about it all as well. Now you only look to make believers look dumb, pick apart everything everyone says grammatically, and for some reason I thought you were better than, calling names. Conniving is an atheist who chooses not to believe in God, and belittles people who do because you feel you made the right choice. Dishonest would be me if I didn't say I thought you were above all of this.
Bottom line is...it doesnt matter the wording, you know what I was trying to explain. My misuse of the word shouldve been a footnote instead of your argument. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
Well aside from your childish "I was right you are wrong" game, I was actually trying to debate you on something that was fun to talk about. You changed up because when I first came on this forum you always were up for a debate, and very realistic about it all as well. Now you only look to make believers look dumb, pick apart everything everyone says grammatically, and for some reason I thought you were better than, calling names. Conniving is an atheist who chooses not to believe in God, and belittles people who do because you feel you made the right choice. Dishonest would be me if I didn't say I thought you were above all of this.
|
It seems to me that the only point you made was that creationism and evolution can co-exist. That point, as I explained, is wrong. I called you no names - I pointed out that your statement that there were no words to use for your belief is dishonest, since I gave you several. | Quote: |
| Bottom line is...it doesnt matter the wording, you know what I was trying to explain. My misuse of the word shouldve been a footnote instead of your argument. |
I don't know what you were trying to explain - that's the whole point. Once we get past the definition of creationism then I don't see what you are saying.
Let's take your previous posting: | Quote: |
| Anyways, if you were to trace time back all the way to the actual beginning, our imaginations can not even begin to conceive how it all began. Evolution takes care of how life blossomed and moved on, while creation takes care of how it was well..created. Like you say though..who created the creator? Also, what begat the materials for evolution to occur? Has life always existed in the universe or was it a lot of big rocks that had chemical reactions to create it? Was there a big pile of nothing and all the sudden a rip came through that brought one rock and when the rip expanded more rocks came? Was there an ancient race that created life on certain planets? Well where did they come from? |
All you have given is a series of questions. I don't honestly see what point you are making. I'm not being dishonest, I just cannot see what you are trying to say.If you want specific answers to those questions then;- We don't know how life arose. The study of this is called abiogenesis. There are several possibilities - it may have arisen through electro-chemical interaction in the early oceans. It may have been carried on meteor/comet/asteroids.
- The materials for abiogenesis were formed when the Solar System condensed about 4.55 Billion years ago.
- We don't know if life exists elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically it would seem to be likely, but we have no direct evidence.
- Rocks are the result of previous stellar explosions (Novae and Supernovae). The Earth formed as clumps of rock were attracted by gravity and 'stuck'. The current best theory is that 2 similar sized planets smashed together to form what we now call the Earth and Moon.
- There is no evidence that an alien civilisation created life on our planet. There are lots of 'conspiracy' theories that claim this happened - these started with the publication of 'Chariot of the Gods' by Eric Von Daniken. The book is a pile of nonsense and has been refuted, point by point, several times.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | irishmark wrote: | | Bikerman - I thank you for your input but i think you have either missed or avoided the point i was making. My point was to bring up the question of separating the two ideas of creationism and evolution. Seeing as no-one was there in the first place to give a first hand account we can olnly give educated guesses as to how we all came to be but at the end of the day, well we wern't there. |
Creationism is the belief that God created the world pretty much as it exists (either in 7 days a few thousand years ago - Young Earth Creationists - or as science says 4.5 billion years ago - Old Earth Creationists). Both YEC and OEC do NOT believe in evolution. Some OEC believe that evolution does happen but not according to the theory and that new species are not created. Therefore creationism and evolutionary theory are mutually incompatible - you cannot have both, by definition. THAT is the point and I neither missed it nor ignored it.
The argument that because we were not there we can only guess, is a ridiculous argument. Science works by making predictions and seeing if the theory works. Evolution is observable in the lab - the idea that the theory of evolution is a 'guess' is very silly indeed.
| Quote: | | Having sudied the sciences and also being a christian I find it hard to accept either as black and white arguments. The creationist theory is completely unscientific however assuming God really is the creator of everything then would it not be plausible that he created the world in 7 days? - Well of course it would be plausible - he's God. The evolutionary theory is also difficult to ingest as the odds are rediculous but it would not be impossible |
If you have studied science and cannot answer your own question then you have not studied very hard. Of course the world was not created in 7 days. It's not plausible, it's silly.
Evolutionary theory is not difficult to ingest - it's very simple.
Radiation (in the main) causes damage to DNA. The damage accumulates and is passed on to offspring. Nearly always this damage is bad for the organism but just occasionally it produces a change which is beneficial to the organism and that organism is therefore more likely to breed and pass on the genetic change. Over a long period of time these changes add up to the point where a completely new species is formed (ie one which cannot reproduce with members of the original species). This process is constant. We can observe this happening and we HAVE observed it happening.
What is difficult or implausible about that?
| Quote: | | And why cant the coexist? They have conflicting factors and arguments - i realise that but many many ideas have conflicting ideas but still manage to coexist. |
They cannot coexist because creationism specifically rejects evolution. They are, by definition, incompatible. |
Bikerman what I think you are missing here is that creationism as a word describes ones beliefs. Creationism as an organized belief is what you are talking about. I believe in both evolution and the idea that somewhere along the line we were created. Or should I say life was created. You say creationism is this and this and is against that and that, but no matter what "creationists" think, I can have the idea and belief that we were created while still accepting evolution. So we call that creationism. Do you see? |
That is probably the post that started it all. I was defending the word creationism being used to explain I felt creation happened and I didn't want to imply I also believed in everything else a "creationist" believes in because I didnt honestly know that much about creationism as an organized belief. Thats all, just trying to explain what was meant. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| That is probably the post that started it all. I was defending the word creationism being used to explain I felt creation happened and I didn't want to imply I also believed in everything else a "creationist" believes in because I didnt honestly know that much about creationism as an organized belief. Thats all, just trying to explain what was meant. |
OK - I accept that clarification and I hope you can understand why I was so insistent that the word has a deeper meaning | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | That is probably the post that started it all. I was defending the word creationism being used to explain I felt creation happened and I didn't want to imply I also believed in everything else a "creationist" believes in because I didnt honestly know that much about creationism as an organized belief. Thats all, just trying to explain what was meant. |
OK - I accept that clarification and I hope you can understand why I was so insistent that the word has a deeper meaning |
Its water under the bridge. I understand.and peace reigned yet again.....
What are peoples thoughts on him being an aquatic monkey 
I presume you are referring to the aquatic ape hypothesis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
....Not sure why theres a double post off me here..... if a Mod would be so kind
Yes and No , I dont really know enough about the implications of the points it makes to judge them much further than face value, but do wonder if any points could have a real basis on our evolution , or it its all just a nice story to try to marry science with myth, possibly global flooding. No, it's nothing to do with the flood hypothesis. The aquatic ape hypothesis was proposed by Hardy 45 years ago and most recently developed by Elaine Morgan. It's based on the fact that humans differ from our primate ancestors in important ways such as moving bipedally, being naked and sweaty, our swimming and diving abilities, fat babies, big brains and language. The hypothesis is that these are best explained by assuming that our ancestors lived on the edges of water, rather than in savannah or forest. More recent evidence - such as the fact that the human brain needs fatty acids such as Omega3, which are most commonly available from fish, is seen as support for the hypothesis.
I'm sceptical about it myself but there are certainly grounds for treating the hypothesis seriously.
David Attenborough examined the hypothesis in a radio series for the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml Very enjoyable link... thank you
But given the aparrent strength of it , whats to be sceptical about ? .
There`s no God
I`m atheist and I belive in science That's just an idiotic thing to say. You can no more easily disproove the existance of god than any one else can proove it.
It would be like someone comming here and saying i dont believe in science.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
Very enjoyable link... thank you
But given the aparrent strength of it , whats to be sceptical about ? . |
Plenty. The archaeological evidence in support of the AAH is poor to non-existent, whereas there is plenty of fossil evidence that would indicate savannah or jungle habitats. | irishmark wrote: |
That's just an idiotic thing to say. You can no more easily disproove the existance of god than any one else can proove it.
It would be like someone comming here and saying i dont believe in science. |
No. It would be like someone coming in here and saying 'there IS a God'
oops...they do it all the time don't they. | Bikerman wrote: |
| irishmark wrote: | That's just an idiotic thing to say. You can no more easily disproove the existance of god than any one else can proove it.
It would be like someone comming here and saying i dont believe in science. |
No. It would be like someone coming in here and saying 'there IS a God'
oops...they do it all the time don't they. |
Which is equally idiotic in a thread such as this. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | Very enjoyable link... thank you
But given the aparrent strength of it , whats to be sceptical about ? . |
Plenty. The archaeological evidence in support of the AAH is poor to non-existent, whereas there is plenty of fossil evidence that would indicate savannah or jungle habitats. |
Is this because no one has looked for it ?
On reading a little about "lucy" I happened across an article on Robert Walter ( I think he helped date lucy )
| Quote: |
Although Walter continues to work with hominid discoveries, he has also branched off into a new and independent investigation, studying early human migrations from Africa to other parts of the world. In a 1999-2000 field exploration of an area in Eritrea called the Danakil Depression, Walter found stone tools and animal fossils along an ancient, perched shoreline that he describes as “the bathtub ring of the Red Sea.” These artifacts and fossils were deposited 125,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period when sea levels were six meters higher than they are today and when the climate was warmer and wetter.
This discovery, Walter said, provided “the earliest evidence of human occupation of a coastal marine environment.” The geological context of these tools suggest that early humans butchered large land animals and harvested edible shell fish in what amounts to the earliest “surf and turf” feast discovered so far. An adaptation to a seafood-rich diet by 125,000 years ago marks an important, perhaps defining, shift in early human behavior. This site also provides some of the first evidence of where the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa might have taken place. Such coastal routes, it is now thought, allowed rapid expansion of human populations throughout Eurasia and even Australia between 100,000 and 60,000 years ago.
|
Full article.......
http://www.case.edu/news/2005/3-05/waltersages.htm
He dates ancient hominids and traces humans back through ancient shorelines, maybe this guy allready knows where he is likely to find a truly remarkable human evolution defining discovery, or maybe I just have water on the brain 
| irishmark wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | irishmark wrote: | That's just an idiotic thing to say. You can no more easily disproove the existance of god than any one else can proove it.
It would be like someone comming here and saying i dont believe in science. |
No. It would be like someone coming in here and saying 'there IS a God'
oops...they do it all the time don't they. |
Which is equally idiotic in a thread such as this. |
Idiocy in a "Is God a Monkey" thread............could we do without it | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| He dates ancient hominids and traces humans back through ancient shorelines, maybe this guy allready knows where he is likely to find a truly remarkable human evolution defining discovery, or maybe I just have water on the brain |
No - it does seem to provide some evidence. I'm sceptical, but not dismissive of the idea. Conversations I've had with those more qualified than me tend to be equally sceptical, but, as in all science, evidence is king and if sufficient evidence for the hypothesis accumulates then it must be a serious contender.As pessoas acreditam mais em dinheiro do que em DEUS
| edysite wrote: |
| As pessoas acreditam mais em dinheiro do que em DEUS |
People believe in money more than God ?? | laurenrox wrote: |
Please don't take this too seriously |
Haha, nice thought... thinking that a whole forum wouldn't take a discussion about god serious.