Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[Esav Benyamin]

It makes me obscurely happy when I see or hear about someone reading Gould. I also really like the writing he did about baseball.

He couldn't even resist mentioning baseball in his science articles. But I was born in the south Bronx, so I can't exactly hold him being a Yankees fan against him.

Another author I like is Jared Diamond. The Third Chimpanzee was a great book. Here's a current article about him: Diamond polishes position on ancient-modern culture war

 

[liamstrain]

That's the only thing that makes sense. Just like the Earth was created before humans. The animals that need to live on humans were created after humans.

Remember too though, that early forms may NOT have been dependent on humans. The ones now are. They evolve too - there are many examples of co-evolution (one organism evolving with another, either in competition, an arms race, or cooperation (or parasite).

Evolution is not always towards more complex creatures, nor are they always improvements. Evolution just means "change over time", not "improvement" or "complexity."

 

[Raylas]

I believe in non christian evolution and science. Not gonna raise up my reasons for it, that's just me.

You may now continue to your meaningful discussions.

 

[dryhands]

I believe in creation from nothing. Why? God is infinitely greater than we could ever possibly understand. So why should we be able to rationalize or understand how he works? In other words, God is infinite, he is not bound by what we can see and understand, therefore it doesn't make sense for him to do it in a finite way.

 

[Chris Pierce]

Remember too though, that early forms may NOT have been dependent on humans. The ones now are. They evolve too - there are many examples of co-evolution (one organism evolving with another, either in competition, an arms race, or cooperation (or parasite).

Evolution is not always towards more complex creatures, nor are they always improvements. Evolution just means "change over time", not "improvement" or "complexity."

You're preaching to the choir. I understand that it is likely that these viruses developed along with humanity or after humanity. My question was for creationists who believe that everything that exists now was created in the first 6 days of existence (the "literal" interpretation of Genesis 1)

 

[liamstrain]

I believe in creation from nothing. Why? God is infinitely greater than we could ever possibly understand. So why should we be able to rationalize or understand how he works? In other words, God is infinite, he is not bound by what we can see and understand, therefore it doesn't make sense for him to do it in a finite way.

What makes you think god is greater than we could understand, or that he wouldn't provide us with a method to understand what he has done? How do you know he is infinite, and finally, since you think we couldn't understand anyway, why do you think it doesn't make sense for him to do something in a finite way - couldn't he chose to do whatever he wanted (making sense to us isn't a criteria in his methodology).

Essentially, you have not at all answered why you believe what you believe and why you do not believe the evidence around you.

I'm not trying to pick on you here... but you specifically tried to say why, then contradicted yourself and didn't answer the question - so I'm still trying to understand why you believe what you do. Can you shed any light here? Is your belief based on the bible? Tradition? An evaluation and dismissal of other creation myths, other gods, or science?

 

[JustAFleshWound]

I posted this on page one, but I thought that I'd ask again since no one had responded.
I know that the author of this is obviously very biased against Creationism, and while I don't approve of his tone, he brings up a very good point. Will some one who believes in Creationism please explain to me how communicable diseases exist?

I don't think any rational creationist would say that bacteria and viruses don't evolve. It is something that we see every day. It is not proof for Darwinism in my book.
And I should say, I've studied Evolution as it is currently taught, and evolution as outlined in The Origin of Species. So I'm not just ignorantly following my religion.

 

[Daft Slice 1986]

I believe in creation from nothing. Why? God is infinitely greater than we could ever possibly understand. So why should we be able to rationalize or understand how he works? In other words, God is infinite, he is not bound by what we can see and understand, therefore it doesn't make sense for him to do it in a finite way.

If something did not come from nothing and God created everything, what was around before God to create God? Saying God is "infinite" sounds like a cop-out. Time is relevant, so something had to come before God to create that being. Then what created the God or being that created God?

 

[JustAFleshWound]

If something did not come from nothing and God created everything, what was around before God to create God? Saying God is "infinite" sounds like a cop-out. Time is relevant, so something had to come before God to create that being. Then what created the God or being that created God?

It is impossible for humans' finite minds to grasp the idea of infinity. I think one of the big differences between people who believe in God and people who don't, is that people who believe in God accept that our minds cannot fully understand anything infinite. Oh, and I believe the word you were looking for was "relative".

 

[liamstrain]

I think the difference is those who do not believe in god are ok with saying "we don't know yet" as opposed to the believers who feel that anything we cannot understand must be god. Even though every time we have learned something formerly unknown (and attributed to a deity), it's been shown to be not god. *shrug*

That is to say, the non believer doesn't understand the infinite and neither does the believer. The difference is the the unbeliever doesn't then try to give a name and a personality (and attributes/powers/preferences) to what we agree we don't understand. :/

 

[JustAFleshWound]

I think the difference is those who do not believe in God are ok with saying "we don't know yet" as opposed to the believers who feel that anything we cannot understand must be God. Even though every time we have learned something formerly unknown (and attributed to a deity), it's been shown to be not God. *shrug*

That is to say, the non believer doesn't understand the infinite and neither does the believer. The difference is the the unbeliever doesn't then try to give a name and a personality (and attributes/powers/preferences) to what we agree we don't understand. :/

I hope my post didn't come across as insulting the intelligence of non believers, because I did not in any way intend it to.
I simply pointed out a difference, unrelated to intelligence, that I have observed in my short time on this Earth.
I think you should study my side of this, as I have yours (extensively), before you say that we made God up.

 

[liamstrain]

I think you should study my side of this, as I have yours (extensively), before you start saying that we made it all up.

I also have, extensively - not only Judeo/Christian theology but Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and folk traditions and mythologies from Sumer and Egypt on up.

I didn't think you were being insulting, and hope I was not in return.

 

[never too sharp]

For those with time to read it, I offer a classic essay, Nonoverlapping Magisteria, by Stephen Jay Gould. I remember reading it in Natural History magazine in March 1997 and was happy to find it available online. It explores this very difficult confrontation between science and faith by pointing out why we do not need to see confrontation as conflict, or support one position by disparaging the other.

Gould's biography gives his background in science and culture, explaining some of the points in the essay.

He was one of my favorite writers. I read his column in Natural History as soon as my subscription arrived. Unfortunately, he only survived about 5 years after he wrote this. If you don't read the entire essay, you might scroll down to the postscript at the bottom, a tribute to his friend, Carl Sagan.

Thanks for that Esav. It is reassuring to know that there are others, perhaps a majority of others, who feel as I do, religious or not. Also, this quote puts into words better than I ever could my longing for a couple friends taken too early:

Carl also shared my personal suspicion about the nonexistence of souls—but I cannot think of a better reason for hoping we are wrong than the prospect of spending eternity roaming the cosmos in friendship and conversation with this wonderful soul.

 

[JustAFleshWound]

I also have, extensively - not only Judeo/Christian theology but Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and folk traditions and mythologies from Sumer and Egypt on up.

I didn't think you were being insulting, and hope I was not in return.

Okay, then you are not debating from a position of ignorance, and that is important. I would have found your post insulting if you had been.

 

[Dan57]

It is impossible for humans' finite minds to grasp the idea of infinity. I think one of the big differences between people who believe in God and people who don't, is that people who believe in God accept that our minds cannot fully understand anything infinite.

Why do you think this? Most scientists, (and pretty much everyone else as well,) acknowledge that there are things they can't comprehend. The number of cells, molecules, or atoms in a human body; the distance between solar systems, galaxies, and the like; the speed of light; I've never heard a biologist, astronomer, or physicist claim to be able to fully comprehend those numbers, even if they work with them every day.

 

[JustAFleshWound]

Why do you think this? Most scientists, (and pretty much everyone else as well,) acknowledge that there are things they can't comprehend. The number of cells, molecules, or atoms in a human body; the distance between solar systems, galaxies, and the like; the speed of light; I've never heard a biologist, astronomer, or physicist claim to be able to fully comprehend those numbers, even if they work with them every day.

I'm not saying that they think that they understand them, I was just saying that they do not accept that they will never fully understand them. There is a difference.

 

[Dan57]

Are we talking about understanding, or comprehending? Because it's entirely possible to understand something without comprehending it. We understand those numbers perfectly; it's just beyond the capacity of the human brain to comprehend them.

 

[never too sharp]

I think the difference is those who do not believe in god are ok with saying "we don't know yet" as opposed to the believers who feel that anything we cannot understand must be god. Even though every time we have learned something formerly unknown (and attributed to a deity), it's been shown to be not god. *shrug*

This is what is referred to as "God of the gaps." As science whittles away at what was once explained as or by God, the gaps between facts get smaller and smaller. Historically, it is a major source of resentment towards scientific knowledge and, imho, gave rise to the term "heresy." We humans can get mighty defensive when something shakes the foundations of what we hold as true.

 

[danbremner]

Raised catholic, graduated the second grade, turn atheist. Expected my parents to say they were kidding about the jesus thing like santa and the easter bunny but it never happened...

 

[JustAFleshWound]

Are we talking about understanding, or comprehending? Because it's entirely possible to understand something without comprehending it. We understand those numbers perfectly; it's just beyond the capacity of the human brain to comprehend them.

I apologise. That is the word I should have used. It is late and my brain stops firing on all cylinders after 12:30.