International creationism

[Robert]

A lot of Christians who purport to follow Jesus's teachings does not know they are supposed to sell all their belongings, give the money to the poor, and renounce their family.

I give my money to the poor, the other two aren't things Jesus teached.

About the 'renouncing your family' thing, that's not what it says in greek, it says that you should put your family on the 2nd place, right after God.

About selling all your belonings, that's something Jesus' replied to a very rich person who claimed that he lived a good life. Jesus asked him if he would sell his belonings and follow him, which was answered negative which explains that this guy was worshipping his own goods more than God.

So far this simple lesson out of the New Testament. Of course you will claim now that I'm wrong, and you know it better. But that's usual.

you call some 4 billion years a short period?

a relative short period concidering that a very much must be done and much mutations must be selected.

Why should one bother to disprove "traditional creationism" (whatever that is) when it has so far failed to establish itself?

There are more people who believe that God created this earth than people who believe current live is the result of evolution. Quiet established I say.

That's dispite the overwhelming evidence, and the fact that modern biology does not make sense without evolution.

Of course modern biology is based on evolution, and most educated people believe in evolution, because that's what they are educated in. It's not so strange that majority of the educated people believe in evolution in a world in which you do not longer belong to the educated people if you do not believe in evolution.

circle reasoning, a little bit like "God exists because the bible says so and God wrote the bible"
but now you will claim that this comparison makes no sence, like you think that any comparison that is against you makes no sence. By default.

If you asked every Biology PHD in the world what theory they thought was correct not many would say creationism

Of course, that's because they got their Phd on that topic
In the middle ages most people believe in God because that was what everybody was teached.

Boris Godunov: Being a creationist is a yes or no proposition--you either believe a god created the universe or you do not believe it. So you are indeed a creationist, Cybershy.

being an atheist is a yes or no proposition. you either believe a god exists or not. Agnosts for that reason do not exist

conclusion, in a Boris Godunov-world I'm a creationist, according to the rest of the world I'm not.

It just goes to show there really isn't a difference between faith and fanaticism.

in some degree I even think sometimes that you really think things like that.

[Saint Marcus]

It does seem very difficult to me, however, that one could be both anti-creationism and anti-evolution.

it's possible. if you believe in a universe that has always existed, and will always exist, with life that always existed in this form, and will always exist in this form, then you're neither an evolutionist nor a creationist. Things are as they've always been, nobody, certainly no God, created it.

[Sava]

My belief on the universe and such is close to that SM. I think the universe is infinite, life adapts to it's surrounding environment, and develops according to it.

I don't believe in the idea of the Big Bang in the sense that the Universe was just suddenly created. I think that our area of the universe (everything we can detect) was created by a mini-big bang of sorts. I think that it is a cycle of black-holes exploding, particles and matter going every which way, and then eventually collapsing again into another black hole which repeates the cycle. I think that not every particle of matter is restricted to the same black hole/big bang thing. And I don't think it happens the same place every time.

On Earth, for instance, there is a substantial amount of evidence that suggests it was once a molten rock, cooled, and life developed, spread, and evolved to the forms we know today.

The thing with evolution is, its not an end-all definition about how things came to be. It's a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence, and happens to fit within the real world. Creationism is simply a myth that itself has evolved over thousands of years. Some ancient tribal priest from the area of Mesopotamia was probably the first one to think about the myth of creation. The idea grew, and everyone else put their own spin on it. Then, as Judaism became more popular, it became a more defined story. Christianity's version is simply a variation of the Jewish one. Same with Islam.

[Boris Godunov]

Cybershy, it's simple:

Do you or do you not believe God created the universe?

If you believe God did create the universe, then how on earth could you claim not to be a creationist? You may not be a fundamentalist creationist, but you're still a creationist.

If you were uncertain, then I'd say your analogy could apply, but you have demonstrated you're not uncertain. So you're a Creationist. If you want to subdivide what creationists believe, that's fine, but you're still a Creationist.

I don't know. If God were proven to exist, or if there was even a preponderance of evidence he existed, I would become a creationist. That wouldn't change my stance on evolution, though.

What I'm getting at here is that Creationism and evolution are not opposites, they aren't related except in that the most radical Creationists believe in every word of the Bible, so naturally evolution contradicts their "theory." So they become anti-evolutionists. As I said, being a Creationist and an Evolutionist is probably the most common combination.

[Combat Ingrid]

I'd say that 4 billion years is plenty of time to make a human out of a bacterium:

Many of the fundamental cellular processes are very similar, conserved, in human cells and bacteria. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Similarly, when you move "up" to eucaryotic cells (animals, plants, fungi), there are even more similarities in the general cellular processes. For example, in many cases you can exchange a gene in a yeast cell with its human counterpart and it will do the work just as well.
Also, basic embryological mechanisms are also conserved among animals, that's why people study worms and fruit flies to learn more about human embryology.

What I try to say with this rant is that nature reuses efficient mechanisms, thus reducing the amount of mutations needed to make up a new species. In terms of evolution, one might say that nature optimises change/mutation, "bang for the buck" if you like.
You can for example with a few well placed mutations make radical changes in the pattern of gene expression (when and where the gene is active), or just make a second copy of the same gene and give it a few well placed mutations that radically alter it's function (and expression). The outcome is that the DNA sequence of a given gene will usually be very similar in many different species (only few mutations), a fact molecular biologists like me take advantage of in our daily work

Also, consider the fact that there are many billions of creatures out there, many of them carrying one or more mutations to be selected for or against. All this happens in parallell, so all the time you have tons of selection going on.

Hope at least some of this makes sense

[Bosh]

in other words, many Americans are still having the same views (on this topic) as people had a century ago?

Nope, a century ago Old Earth Creationism was much more well-established, now its mostly Young Earth.

[Boris Godunov]

Consider that humans have engineered evolution deliberately over a very short period of time (in some cases a few years) by a simple process of selecting the most desired traits for breeding plants, livestock and pets. Scientists will have created a non-allergenic cat breed within a few years. Given this, I think it's patently silly to argue that several billion years plus several billion creatures would not be enough time to produce evolutionary changes.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Just like most Christians, perhaps?

A lot of Christians who purport to follow Jesus's teachings does not know they are supposed to sell all their belongings, give the money to the poor, and renounce their family.

Is your only reposte to deflect the statement? I thought we were discussing the validity of evolution, not the belief system of a particular religion.

The point I am making is that for someone to claim those who do not believe in evolution are 'stupid' is rather rich when it comes from people who don't even understand what evolution is.

[Boris Godunov]

SD--however, pretty much every dogmatic Creationist doesn't undestand how evolution works, either, judging by their arguments against it and fundamental misunderstanding of how natural selection works. And they're no less guilty of asserting the other side is stupid for their beliefs, which is essentially what Cybershy and monkspider are asserting when they say that evolutionary biologists are unable to see past "scientific dogma" and look at it objectively.

[Saint Marcus]

Nope, a century ago Old Earth Creationism was much more well-established, now its mostly Young Earth.

so a lot of Americans have the same view as people had in the middle ages?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
SD--however, pretty much every dogmatic Creationist doesn't undestand how evolution works, either, judging by their arguments against it and fundamental misunderstanding of how natural selection works.

Why are you bringing it back to creationism? I am not interested in their arguments. I want to know why people think not believing in evolution is stupid, when they themselves do not understand it.

And they're no less guilty of asserting the other side is stupid for their beliefs, which is essentially what Cybershy and monkspider are asserting when they say that evolutionary biologists are unable to see past "scientific dogma" and look at it objectively.

Name calling each other is not what persuades me to either side of the argument.

[Illyrien]

Creationists are rare in Denmark. In fact the only time I have ever heard it meanthioned was from "Christian Peoples Party" I tiny political party.


Since some people want creationisme to be taught equally to evolution, I was wondering about this.

History, give equal weight to Clairvoyince (so that the students can sende the truth themselves )

Math, give equal weight to Numerology (so that the students can understand the inner truth of the numbers)

Astronomy, give equal weight to Astrology...

Geology, give equaly wight to Crystallogy (eg. crystals have magic powers)

etc....

:-) I am sure you guys can find more stuff to teach in school.

[Sandman]

Creationism is distinctly dead in Britain. It's probably still twitching in Scotland, since there's a slightly higher church attendance rate here. Still, half of all churches I see in Edinburgh are unused.

An American family came on a mission of conversion to my hometown, handing out leaflets about how humans co-existed with dinosaurs and other improbabilities. They didn't get very far.

[CyberGnu]

SD,

Why are you bringing it back to creationism? I am not interested in their arguments. I want to know why people think not believing in evolution is stupid, when they themselves do not understand it.

So it is OK for me to think they are stupid, since I do understand evolution?

[CyberGnu]

Come to think of it, I actually reject your assertion in itself. I don't have to understand something to form the conclusion: If the experts in the field say one thing, and the hoi polloi disagree because of religious dogma, I have to conclude that the hoi polloi are stupid. There isn't much else to it.

So, for example, if Rogan Josh says that matter + antimatter != 0 because of a charge symmetry difference, and I respond with "Ben Franklin said that all man are created equal, therefore Rogans assertion that matter is not equal to antimatter must be false, and his entire claim is crap", that would label me as eminently stupid.