RTFirefly:
I was hoping everyone would have forgotten about him by now.
David:
I’ve never heard of this theology. Care to clue me?
and
I’m not sure you can prove this- a direct, verifiable link all the way back to the first organisms. Remember, in order sustain a strict ‘evolutionist’ conclusion, you must be able to demonstrate, with evidence, that the cycle that began with the first life ended up being us. Unless, of course, you’re a proponent of some aliens-had-sex-with-neanderthals theory.
trout:
Exactly. The opposite of rational inquiry.
Speculate all you want. If it makes you feel good, I won’t stop you. But speculation about what is impossible to know is not rational inquiry; attempting to impose unfalsifiable explanations for empirical phenomena is pointless.
I think I’ve said all I can say on this topic.
CalifBoomer:
This is the theistic evolution you were grasping at earlier. The theory that God put it all in motion with the Big Bang then let it progress naturallly from there is a common one.
See, that’s just it Boomer. Science isn’t about proof – it’s all about evidence. If it is proof you are seeking, then you will never accept anything scientific. But there is a lot of evidence. Let me quote from myself…
SingleDad posted 03-11-2000 10:12 PM
Obviously, you didn’t check out that link:
These people aren’t interested in having a scientific discussion; they just want to ramble on about “critical thinking skills” as if they even know what they are.
CalifBoomer posted 03-11-2000 10:43 PM
So what is your point of contention then?
CalifBoomer posted 03-12-2000 01:46 AM
Well, they way you proposed is basically the evolutionists’ position.
From their ancestors, of course. What’s so hard to understand about that? And where did their ancestors get it? From mutations. How did random mutations give rise to complicated creatures? Through natural selection. Haven’t you been paying attention?
ARG220 posted 03-12-2000 09:41 AM
Would you like us to prove to you beyond any doubt whatsoever that every single electron in the entire universe has a charge of –1? That energy has never, in the history of the universe, appeared out of nowhere?
CB again:
You have a problem with this but not with believing in God?
Well, gee, scientists haven’t managed to create a star within a laboratory. I guess stars don’t exist.
David: When I left the boards, I felt that at that time, it was God’s will. I no longer feel that He wants me to stay away from the SD. Please contain your laughter. I take these matters very seriously.
Well, it’s not really the same thing. Evolution is a process. Creation is a completed work.
Agreed. Poor wording on my part.
What more do I need, than belief and faith?
SingleDad:
You can’t be serious. Not gravity? Not the sun rising? Not your own immortality? You may want to reword that sentence.
I have a serious question to ask, even though it may sound silly. What is the big deal about creation, and evolution? David has said that he’s fine with me believing in creation, as long as I don’t push it as scientific fact. And, honestly, I can’t make him believe in creation, no matter what i say, because he (and others) simply don’t believe in God. (Yes, that is VERY relavent in this discussion)
Does it really matter where we came from, as long as we know where we are going? Is a creationist handicapped in the lab, because he believes God created the fruit fly, and not some random chaos? Couldn’t I, while still fully believing that evolution is crap, find the cure for cancer?
Seriously, I want to know. Please help me out here fellas.
“Life is hard…but God is good”
Lord, help me. I’m being sucked into the vortex of Creationism debate…
Yup. The creationist is handicapped in the lab because he is not a true scientist. The creationist already has the “answer” (as can be found in Genesis) and conforms the scentific data to fit this answer. This includes ignoring patterns of evidence to the contrary and overemphazing supportive anecdotal evidence.
Gypsy: Tom, I don’t get you.
Tom Servo: Nobody does. I’m the wind, baby.
~trout
Can you please elaborate? I still don’t see why it is a valid answer.
~arg220
I believe that if you have the answer you stop asking the question. That is why a creationist might be handicapped in the lab.
The Ryan:
I did check out the link. My point is that this is a discussion board. If you post here, make your own points. You can use a link to support your view, but I think you have an obligation to make your point here, in your own words.
My usual response when people start just throwing links instead of arguments is to present this link. When you’ve read and understood it, you’re qualified to argue with me. 
This is a joke, btw.
Arg220:
I’ll stick with my original wording. Why should I be absolutely certain about any of those phenomena? Actually, I’m pretty confident I am mortal and that everything I attach to my identity will cease to exist upon my death.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
ARG220:
As has been said over and over again in this thread, you need nothing more than that for your personal belief.
If you want to claim to claim that creationism is science, then you ned scientific evidence.
Do you claim that creationism is science?
jrf
There would be no big deal over it, Adam, if proponents of creation weren’t repeatedly trying to obtain equal standing for creationism with evolution, in public school science classes and textbooks.
Hope that helps.
Alphagene:
Wow.
The creationist knows how the specimen, or whatever it may be…got there. Perhaps you, or someone else could elaborate more. Why would the past, truly matter so much in the present?
“Evolution,” in the lab, or in nature, is only seen on very small scales right? Now, as I said before, I would not call this random, but I’d say that God designed whatever was changing, or adapting, to work that way. All part of His plan. I’m not ignoring the data. I’m not changing it. However, I will not asign an evolutionary order, or structure to it. And this should not affect my studies in any way. (If you think I’m wrong, just stop me at any point and comment on it)
How species A got to point B a million years ago really shouldn’t affect my studies today, should it? (unless I was in paleontology or something, but I think you see what I’m saying) How species A adapts, and becomes more resiliant, in the present time IS important. I just don’t understand how asigning Godly works, and creationism into the equation affects it in any way.
JonF:
Technically? No. But, it doesn’t have to be. I can apply today’s scientific method, and still maintain that creation is truth.
“Life is hard…but God is good”
Adam, I believe in God, but I don’t believe in creationism. The closer I look at the evidence, reading material on sites from the ICR site and Answers in Genesis to www.talkorigins.org , the stronger the evolutionists’ case appears, and the flimsier the creationists’ critique of evolution appears.
And since the creationists don’t have an alternative theory that purports to explain anything, it’s effectively evolution v. nothing, and it’s awfully hard to beat something with nothing.
Another thing that’s made it hard for me to give any credibility to creationism has been the creationist advocates. If the ones with any intellectual integrity (assuming there are any) aren’t willing to direct enough fire at Duane Gish and other blatant creationist snake-oil salesmen to discredit them in evangelical Christian circles, what that says to me is they don’t care about the fact that other people supposedly on their side are making them look bad by putting forth arguments against evolution that have been repeatedly refuted. Which tells me that their intellectual integrity is zero: they care more about convincing people by whatever means, true or false, than building up an honest scientific case.
This especially bothers me because I’m a Christian, and these people are discrediting my faith. If winning is more important to them than the truth, then they’re failing the WWJD test, and failing it big time, IMO.
jrf
Firefly: Your situation and David’s are not the same. How can he, or any hardcore atheist believe that God created everything, when he thinks there’s no God in the first place? It’s just not possible.
You believe in God, say you’re Christian, but don’t think Creation is true. So, you are nothing like David.
JonF:
This is David’s whole point. He wants to see how it’s done. I am saying that I can use the scientific method to study God’s creation.
My point exactly: I’m not the same as David.
You say that because he’s an atheist, it’s impossible to convince him that God created everything in some interventionist fashion. OK, so you can’t convince him. With me, that rationale no longer holds. So what’s the excuse for why creationists haven’t convinced me, since in theory, I’m convincable?
ARG220:
Alphagene:
I don’t think I’m going to give Alphagene my complete support on this one and I think Adam has a point that some of us should note.
Science is now so compartmentalized that I suspect that we can, indeed, have Creationists (even New Earth Creationists) who can serve quite competently as scientists in the lab, working on specific theories, tasks, and tests. Those people may even come up with specific scientific solutions to real world problems. As long as their specific discipline does not require them to speculate that “this sort of cell division has only occurred for 5700 or 6000 years and, therefore, x is true,” I would think that they can operate quite successfully in our world.
It may be galling for some folks to see a Creationist in the lab. There may be an overwhelming urge to grab them by the shoulders and shake them, screaming “You’re supposed to be rational**!** What is wrong with you?” That urge, however, reflects on our reactions based on our worldview. It is not based on their work. Michael Behe has done a lot of very good work. He came up against a certain level of complexity and decided that this required “intelligent design.” I have never seen any criticism of Behe’s work that extended beyond saying that he went too far in his philosophical ruminations. I have not seen one instance of anyone actually attacking his science.
I read through the Creationism questions thread. While I admit that I was not able to follow all the techie science that was exchanged with batgirl, nothing in that exchange indicated to me that she was not fully capable of performing good work in her compartmentalized section of biology. (Remember, the compartmentalization is a function of “how we do science” today, not a method that she has chosen to separate “her” science from “our” science.) I saw a number of challenges of the “How can you think that?” variety. I saw no indication that those challenges were relevant to her job.
I think some of us might want to reconsider just how much relevance the Evolution/Creation discussion has on day-to-day activities. (Alphagene’s statement provided me a launch point for this post; I do not wish to claim I “understand” either Alpha’s or anyone else’s “real” position in this discussion.)
Having said that, I’m going to go back and stand with the rationalists when I address Adam: The reason we so strongly oppose Creationism in the schools is that it is not science. The great body of biological science points to evolution as the method by which life forms adapt and new species arise. Teaching anything else in our schools is to say that faith should have an equal weight in the classroom with evidence. (And if you say “That’s fine with me.” I’m going to dig up all the origin-of-life myths from Wicca, Hinduism, and various animist or Native American lore and make sure you teach the kids that on an equal footing with Genesis. Why should only your anti-science faith be taught in schools?)
BTW
is not relevant because the Creation myth of the Bible is also not believed by a great many Christians and Jews who see it as an inspirational tale, not a factual treatise. Belief in God has no bearing on the acceptance of Genesis 1 & 2 as fact and has everything to do with a specific religious view of the world.
Tom~
Since I was part of the topic in the OP, and David B continues to bash a tennent of Christianity, guess I should weigh in…
I don’t have a degree in biology, physics, anthropology or palentology. So I can’t compete with some of the people in this forumn who seem educated well in theses areas. Having said that, I still lean towards Creationism, more specifically, Intelligent Agent theory.
Why?
Call it my small mind, as I am sure many of you anti-religious zealots will, but I have trouble believing:
The Big Bang theory just happened to produce a planet that happened to be in an orbit just the right distance from the Sun, and maintains a mathematically perfect orbit around it…
That this planet also had the right ingredients to host the incubation of life…
That somehow, a “soup” came together, in which some single-cell animals(?) survived, in a hostile world…
That radiation, heating and cooling, meteorites, the Ice Age, and other trauma didn’t wipe out these creatures…
I can understand how a species will evolve, such as a moth mutation that is colored like it’s surroundings not getting eaten like other moths that are contrasting the environment.
It just seems like a hell of a coincidence that we are here.
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
Pashley, I don’t know if I would call creationism a tenet of Christianity. A tenet is something generally held to be true, and most of the Christians I know are evolutionists. They believe God made the world, yes, but not that He did it in six literal days. Evolution does not deny or postulate the possibility of a God “starting things rolling”, so to speak–it’s nonapplicable.
As to your “argument from incredulity”, consider the odds that one “Gaudere”, born 24 years prior, would be posting on this message board at 12:18PM. At my birth, who would take a bet that this exact thing would happen? The odds would be astronomical–yet it happened, and I would hardly think it required a God’s intervention to occur. The odds of winning the lottery are millions to one, yet somebody always wins eventually. Also, we have no real way to calculate the likelyhood of life; for one thing, life need not be in our particular form. The universe is pretty darn big and pretty darn old; a lot can happen in that amount of time and space. I will leave a more detailed refutation to others, though.
tomndebb: I have to reluctantly accept your disagreement with Alphagene, and accept that in certain fields a YE-C (Young-Earth Creationist) can perform good science.
But there’s something especially galling about a scientist espousing YE-C. They know how the scientific method works, they earn their bread by it, and yet they support those who undermine it.
I’m totally sure that batgirl would become incensed if I asserted that, in contradiction to her evidence, gobbldygook does not frangify by means of tiddlywinks* because God wills it so; and further if I should assert that the evidence has been placed there directly to “test her faith”. She would be very justified in saying I was a complete blithering idiot who had no idea what I was talking about.
*Sorry, but molecular biology is so far outside my experience that even after reading batgirl’s posts two or three times, I’m unable to understand it enough to even come up with a plausible contradiction.
pashley, why do you continue to couch the discussion in religious terms? Specifically,
(bolding mine)
There are some folks here who hold some or all of the following positions: agnostic, atheistic, anti-religious, anti-Christian, etc. So what?
The discussion on Creationism generally becomes a religious one because the vast majority of New Earth Creationists form their view based on their religious beliefs.
That said, if your view of Creationism was formed outside your religious beliefs, then present them outside your religious beliefs and religion ceases to be a factor in the discussion.
I am one of several posters, here, who have a strong belief in God, who considers the Darwinian view of Evolution as the only viable explanation we currently have. I get upset when people like Gish stand before religious people and use lies to attack evolutionary theory, claiming, falsely, to have the support of science.
If you want religion left out of the discussion, leave it out.
(I would also be curious as to what tenet of Faith DavidB has attacked.)
Tom~