glophead

Am I the only person left in this world who believes in creation?

I just find it really hard to believe that my existince is accidental and random.

bermuDa

you find it easier to believe there's a higher spiritual being that created the entire universe on a whim, then chose one puny planet to populate with carbon based life forms, then made man and gave him free will, but let a few people in on this secret so they could spread his 'good' word and use him as an excuse for all other yet-unexplained phenomena?

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

duckznutz

Maybe you are the only person left in this world who was 'created'?

Pennington

By creation I assume you mean denying evolution happens and that humans walked the Earth with dinosaurs 10,000 or so years ago. I know quite a few people who think like you and its a perfectly valid opinion. But its not supported by science. People 500 years ago had a hard time believing that Earth and humans, Gods chosen creatures, were not the center of the universe. But as science proved that we spun around the sun and the earth is round, people slowly, over many generations, changed their view (flat earthers aside.) One day there may be an easily reproducable experiment that creates life from amino acids, or maybe even simpler compounds. Until then, both creationism and spontanious life remain theories and are equally valid imho. Evolution itself, however, is supported by genetic experiments and living/fossil records and even the most fundamental Christian would be hard pressed to deny evolution on the micro level. Same goes for the younge Earth theory. It is simply not supported by proof and evidence, while there is overwhelming evidence for old Earth theories.

Science has yet to prove that sponatanious life can happen, that a species can split into two new, incompatable species or that Earth was created 6 billion years ago. These are theories that might one day be proven, but until they are, science and schools should teach the theory most supported by fact, not faith.

sportsrule101

actually i believe that 50% of the US believes in some type of creation
Its just the tfp has greater then you average amount of cynical atheist.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

Tbor

Glophead,

You're certainly not the only person who believes in creationism. And what's more it's not a ridiculous position as many people would have you believe. Pennington is right that creationism is unsupported by science, but he's framed it such that the two are mutually exclusive. I think that's a little unfair. It's true that many creationists think that there's no such thing as evolution. But the point of issue between creationists and evolutionists could be reframed as an argument over the *origin* of life on earth, rather than how it progressed from there. If you are a creationist, why not agree that a god capable of creating everything is also capable of devising an ingenious system of evolution.

I'm not a creationist myself. I think it makes perfect sense that we should spring into being, given that the universe in which we exist is nearly infinite. Given infinite time and nearly infinite space, eventually we approach a limit the likelyness of such an event. But that's just my theory.

__________________
Tbor
Madison, WI

duckznutz

Maybe the TFP has a greater than average amount of people with intelligence?

Are Tbor and glophead saying that they sat alone and after many hours of careful thinking and analysis, they independantly arrived at the same creationist theory? More likely they are thinking the way they have been taught to think. Now before you crucify me for that comment, I am the first to admit that applies to me as well! Which is exactly my point . . . everything is fiction!

Cynthetiq

i'm not one to buy this intelligent design creationist stuff. If there was a 'higher' being out there designing this environment, then why have all the suffering, illness, death, disasters, plagues, etc.

Because of banishment from the Garden of Eden? Original sin?

sorry... i'm raised catholic and studied it extensively. i'll keep my own thoughts and relationship to god personal and to myself. That's where it begins and ends for me.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

lumpenprole

Yi-yi-yi.

Look, I don't want to stomp on anybody's feelings, but 'creationism' and evolution are mutually exclusive, and it is not a valid veiwpoint. And to be clear, I'm talking about the movement and theories by that name, not whether or not you beieve a higher power created the universe. That's totally up to you.

But creationism was an attempt by a pretty specific group of people to use the scientific method to 'prove' the earth was created by god in exact accordance with the bible. Leaving out the self-contradictory parts of the bible's account, it pretty much failed miserably. Never has any preexisting scientific institution anywhere in the world taken the tenets of creationism and adopted them after careful study.

Now some argue that the real purpose of creationism was to muddy the waters about teaching evolution in schools, and that may be true. If so, it's succeeded wonderfully. School boards are still arguing about it today. Unfortunately for all of us, it's terrible science.

For a prime example of why personal beliefs should not drive scientific enquiry, read "the Vavilov Affair"

Lebell

As a Christian, I believe God created humankind.

As a scientist, I believe the mechanism She used was evolution.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

glophead

I believe that creatures can change, but it only happens within a species. The evolutionary "jumps" are just too great for me to believe in evolution. Sure dogs and cats are similar, but there are distinctive differences that make them different, along with all the other species of this world. The changes in species should be more analog if they were to have come from the same creature, but the changes are distict and rigid.

CSflim

The changes were NOT distinct and rigid. Even if you are to accept the puctuated equilibrium version of natiral selection (like I do) the changes are still incredibly gradual and smooth. Punctuated Equilibrium has "sudden jumps" and "spikes" which occur over many thousands of years. These are only sudden jumps, in comparision with the gradualism version of natural selction.

If however you are referring to the fact that there should be in existence a continum of all possible species....cat-dogs, man-apes, tiger-lions, etc etc etc, then you don't understand how speciasation works.

If you are talking about gaps in the fossil record, then you don't understand how fossilization works.

__________________

CSflim

Unfortunately you are not. Tragically, a vast number of american christians would agree with you.

You do!? Me too!

__________________

CSflim

Creationism and Evolution ARE mutually exclusive. Sure some people claim that god "created" the big bang, in the knowledge that life would evolve, but that is NOT creationism. Creationism states that God specifically DESIGNED and built humans, in the same way that we would design and build a pocket-watch or a jumbo jet.

__________________

specialagent18

What's wrong with existence being accidental or random? I mean, I remember earlier having a similar discussion about meaning in life. Just because there is nothing outside of you justifying your life to you (ie, God, religion, etc) DOES NOT mean that you can't justify your life yourself. Its a poor conclusion to say that just because we were an accident that things are meaningless...

Otherwise, if all you meant was that "There are too many coincidences, so I don't by that the world is an accident" then thats your judgment call... But the jump from that to religion is pretty unjustified. The only way to accept religion is to BELIEVE in it first, and THEN you add your rationalizations for it ("things aren't that random," "I see God in little things," etc. etc.)

glophead

It's really funny how you mention mention a pocket watch and a jumbo jet because I have heard two creationist analogies that involve those. One is that evolution is like a Tornado going through a junk yard, and a Jumbo Jet is made, and the other is like putting the parts of a watch in a box and shaking it and it will come out a watch.
I don't agree with those analogies, because I know there are numerous flaws in them, but i just think its weird how you mention those.

CSflim

Yes, well I was including a subtle "in-joke" for those who got the references.

__________________

glophead

And I thought it was a coincidence...
I feel stupid now

elaphe

Couldn't have said it any better!



As much as my ego would be bruised by stating this, I don't think that most tfp'rs are of greater or lesser intelligence the the rest of the population. Believing in creationism doesn't make you stupid or gullible. Hell, plenty of "intelligent" people believe in aliens and vampires!

My two cents worth:

If you compare creationism and evolution and subject both theories to the scientific method, the conclusion one arrives at is that neither can be proved. For the scientific method to be applied, one must be able to design a method that can test a hypothesis and this methodology can be indepentently reproducible.

The existence of God is a matter of faith. There is no test of faith. You either believe or you don't.

Evolution is about the relationships between all living things - past and present. But the phylogeny (a family tree, so to speak) cannot be reproduced. The fossil record is fragmented and the relationships between species are open to speculation and interpretation. Even the classification of existing species today are still being rewritten to reflect new evidence or relationships.

That said, I do believe that the science behind evolution is much firmer and the evidence, albeit cercumstancial, is convincing. My personal searches through the creationist sites (at a friend's urging!) has revealed shoddy science and articles that ammount to what I take as personal attacks against Charles Darwin!

Unfortunately, many "scientists" could be lumped into this catagory. I have recently read an article in the March 2003 Scientific American describing a possible mechanism for the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs and birds. The authors, Richard Prum and Alan Brush conclude their essay by stating "Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of evolutionary theory. ... Now, in an ironic about-face, feathers offer a sterling example of how we can best study the origin of an evolutionary novelty..."

The way I read this, the authors seem to have had a personal agenda in mind when they embarked on their paper - an attempt to discredit creationism. (Besides, there are problems with their theory on the origin of feathers, but thats for another post!)

Too late in the night... rambling... need sleep now...

Thanks for your indulgence!

__________________
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.

Fibrosa

Creationism is not a scientific theory-evolution is. Proofs are for math, not science. In addition, no credible scientist doubts that evolution occured; the theory (the how it happens) has scientists debating (gradulism, punctuated equilibrium, etc).

All evolution is, is a change in alleles over time. The fossil record-despite what creationists maintain-is complete enough to the point where it is obvious that evolution has indeed occured. Also, species isn't really a definitional thing-the outside edges of species are generally fuzzy.

This is to be expected of course, because we all came from one glob of goo way back when, so naturally there is an interconnectiveness.

Why do you think the DNA of chimps and humans is so closely related?

Evolution is not a denial of God, nor is it the abolishment of the Christian faith, in fact the majority of Christians have no problem with inerrancy.

Fibrosa

The reason that is mentioned is not to show a bias of scientists, it's to refute the creationists nonsensical arguments against those 'dinobirds'. Creationists have been saying that the birds are nothing more then 'reptile like', which is obsurd of course. What you have to realize is, creationism is an attempt at destroying science. In order for YEC to be true, almost every discipline in science would have to be rewritten.

No offense, but you apparently haven't kept up with the creationist ploys to interject faith into science. Make no mistake-creationism, whether ID or YEC is not science, it's not even good Christianity (IMO).

supersix2

I'm a little confused...those who do not support creationism don't believe in random/accidental creation. By creation there is a deliberate purpose. Creation is not random and accidental. Us evolving out of goo is random and accidental.
I don't think we were created because by chance certain chemicals mixed under certain conditions and then evolved into the diverse life we have today.
Everything was created somehow. However, evolutuion is scientific fact. I believe that we were created, obviously and in a simple form and let go to do what we please (free will) and evolve as our environment changes. It was proven that the earth was different millions of years ago. Obviously God was smart enough to realize that everything changes he needed to make his creations able to deal with these changes (evolution).
Complete randomness would not allow this to happen because any small event could mess up the whole process.
No scientist would want to believe that we were exist because of a fluke. That does not make scientific sense. Mathematics can show the tiny probability that certain chemicals mixing at the right time can eventually turn into the advanced civilization we enjoy today.

wilywampa

believing in aliens isn't intelligent?

and supersix2, you really don't understand evolution... it's not like the state of the universe today was the only possibility that could have resulted from evolution... you're thinking that evolution is like rolling a thousand-sided die once and expecting a certain number. i think evolution is more like rolling a die a thousand times and adding up all the results. the final total sum will not always turn out to be the same, but it will be more than you started with..

CSflim

Anyone who truly understands how evolution works would not claim it to be random or accidental. Purposeless and directionless sure, but not accidental.

Anyway, you are not a creationist. At least not in the sense of the word that I have ever come across. You are a theistic evolutionist...or something.

__________________

elaphe

NO offence taken, Fibrosa,

I have a BSc in Zoology form the University of Toronto. My area of study was in Evolutionary Biology. My professors were among the leaders and contributors in various fields of studies including pealeontology, biochemistry, genetics and microbiology. I give this info out not to boost my ego, but to inform my fellow posters that I'm not some crack-pot spouting off and that I have some knowledge on this subject. Check that. I AM a crack-pot spouting off. ;-)

Enough about me.

My post on this hot-button topic really was spun out of a deep discussion that I had with a close friend of mine some months ago. He is a devout born-again Christian. He playfully tries to convert me whenever I'm visiting and I just as playfully take on the role as "godless heathen". One time, I saw a bumper sicker on heis car that had the "Jesus" fish devouring a "Darwin" fish. I made a comment about it - something in the lines of "You don't believe in the evolution of species?"

This sparked a LONG debate about the scientific merits of both theories. I spent MANY hours surfing the "creationist" web sites designed to educate people about creationism. I did this so that I could have an informed opinion.

Now, my friend is an very intellegent person. He has built up his own business in the tough IT field and is doing quite well at it. The fact that he works in such a technical field with an obvious "science" background and has such strong religious beliefs is an ever source of ammusement to me with regards to this debate.

Our discussions became heated and ended with a polite "We agree to differ." in order to save the friendship.

The theory of evolution has its flaws. The most basic is that it cannot be tested because of its randomness and purposeless and the extreme time factor. Some creationists feel that because of this one factor alone, their alternate theory of speciation should be given equal weight because there is no test for a supreme being.

I personally think that the science that some creationists do in order to give their arguement weight is bad science. I remember a paper by a microbiologist who tried to explain that the existence of pathogenic microbes are the result of original sin. Purely speculative and "way-out-there" stuff! But to some, the idea that humans descended from apes is just as speculative and "way-out-there".

Both sides have slammed each other. But to suggest that scientists involved in evolution do not have personal agenda because they are trained to be "objective" is rubbish. They are human too. they have agendas. And like it or not, these people do feel threatened by the creationist movement and find the time to make comments, like the one I sited earlier with regards to the "dinobirds".

I just hope that someone is going to ask me why I see some problems with the dino feathers in the article I previously mentioned.

btw, Great thread, glophead!

__________________
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.

glophead

Thank you very much, but I feel kind of bad realizing now that there was a thread much like this already made. I do agree that many creationists are blinded by their opinion and create bad science to support it.

Another argument that I have heard, that makes sense to me is that the world actually isn't 100 billion years old. It is agreed upon I think that the sun looses mass based on the energy that it gives off, I'm not sure exactly how much mass but I am sure someone could figure it out using E=MC^2 or something, but if the earth was 100 billion years old the sun's mass would be huge and it would affect the orbit of this planet and the atmosphere in many ways.

Pennington

The earth is only 6 or so billion years old and even then, it had little atmosphere and was extremely hostile, eg completely molten with poisonous gases making up what atmosphere it had. And the sun's mass was larger 100 billion years ago, but there was no planet to affect. Also, the suns mass has nothing to do with is size. A dense star can have billions times more mass than the sun and be as small as the earth.

Fibrosa

Don't get me wrong-I know that scientists aren't all objective, I wasn't trying to make that point (I mean, Dawkins for one is clearly bias-IMO). My point though was that, for the most part, scientists involve themselves in a system that has checks and balances. If one scientist puts forth an idea, it goes up for an awful lot of scrutiny. Creationism isn't like this. In fact, AiG has attempted to get Hovind to stop spouting some of his arguments (IIRC, the moon-dust one, and some others). They realize that argument had no merit, but it doesn't stop Hovind from being one of the leading authorities on creationism.

I'd also like to repeat that neither creationism nor ID is scientific. Neither stand on their own, and neither offer any evidence (aside from attempting to debunk evolution-which isn't evidence *for* creationism or ID).

All that said, I am a theistic Christian evolutionist. I, like the majority of Christians, do not believe the bible to be inerrant (a simple read through of genesis should correct that belief ). Evolution isn't atheistic, and the whole dichotomy between creationism and evolution is, IMO, a false one.

hobo

The reason why the idea that God sparked life and just let it evolve because he knew it would get intelligent one day doesn't work is because humans are supposed to be made in his image. That would require direct intervention and actually making us.

Fibrosa

So God couldn't have planned things ahead of time? How do you know that this isn't precisely the way God planned it?



Also, if you think about it, how does an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God have an "image"?

CSflim

You think?....Damn! What an asshole!

__________________