A challenge for creationists.

[atinymonkey]

The real issue here is that he suggested a way for evolution to occur. He called this Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is not => evolution.

 

It meant that God was not required in the explanation.

Nor was it excluded. If you are simply talking about survival of the fittest' date=' then how does that interfer with the Bible?

 

Darwin suffered with severe health problems and historians have suggested that he suffered from a psychosomatic disorder. This sounds very plausible when you think about the public's religious views in Victorian times.

He suffered from depression. It's rather cruel to label that psychosomatic. It also has nothing to do with his theorys, but lay in the death of his daughter.

[Mart]

Natural Selection is not => evolution.

Evolution is the belief that species change with time.

Natural Selection is a theory about the way these changes occur.

Natural means what it says. It is not Supernatural.

He suffered from depression. It's rather cruel to label that psychosomatic. It also has nothing to do with his theorys, but lay in the death of his daughter.

Maybe he suffered from depression.

Psychosomatic means to me a medical condition that has its origin in a person's psychology. I wasn't trying to be cruel - honest.

I can see your point about his daughter. But I'm sure that the revolutionary idea of Natural Selection which he supported would have been a big strain on him.

[YT2095]

the way I figure it.

Man will always have an internal conflict between his head and his heart, Science has little to no room for the "heart" (no stupid cardiac medical jokes please!), and the Head has little to no room for "Faith" of any sort.

 

and yet we are creatures endowed with the capacity for Both.

 

so who cares if he felt or said that whilst dying, Soldiers cry out for their mothers when dying on a battle feild, the toughest of the tough!

 

Head/Heart????

 

Use both

 

 

 

 

that`s my 2 cents.

[Hellbender]

I agree with you, it has nothing to do with it. But people still believe it does. Maybe thi should be another challenge?

[Hellbender]

 

so who cares if he felt or said that whilst dying' date=' Soldiers cry out for their mothers when dying on a battle feild, the toughest of the tough!QUOTE']

 

well I have heard creationist arguments trying to use this fact as a way of making evolution seem "wrong". If the man who put it all together and wrote the most popular book on it renounced his life's work on his deathbed, that means he was wrong right?

 

I totally agree with you, though. It doesn't matter at all what someone does when on their deathbed, or getting shot at, tortured, etc.

[Hellbender]

Does anyone who isn't a creationist actually care[/u'] what creationists think?

 

You are right, no one should, it just gives them more power. But I do. I can't help it. I have to read their b.s. and used to hear all the bible-quoting and twisted scientific fact whenever someone says the word "evolution". I have to hear about how Hitler was an evolutionist and that makes it wrong somehow. I have to look at Kent Hovind's holier-than-thou face and read how he thinks evolution is just a religion. It makes me so angry to see people being so dogmatic and stubborn about something.

[YT2095]

Evolution DOES exist, and I can PROVE IT to anyone willing to spend some time observing my plant experiments.

 

Cross pollination is a prime example, mostly it`s a fluke, but you can force it, and end up with your own Hybrid.

anyone that thinks evolution is a Myth or false is deluding themselves, and doing themselve a diservice in education.

I pity them, because it`s a wonderfull thing, and to deny it is to deny yourself the beauty of it and it`s results

 

perhaps if they consider (and NON of us KNOW eitherway), that maybe the "Creator(s)" used Evolution as a tool?

 

that way BOTH are not in conflict

[Mart]

To say that creationists are not worth listening to is to try to dehumanise them.

If they have arguements to justify their claims then find the flaws in their arguements.

Stop the arrogant assumption that you don't have to do this.

[ydoaPs]

a beginning of the world. In science, this beginning is called the big bang.

do you know anything about the big bang? it has NOTHING to do with the beginning of the universe.

[Cadmus]

To say that creationists are not worth listening to is to try to dehumanise[/b'] them.

I don't agree that dehumanization is the goal.

If they have arguements to justify their claims then find the flaws in their arguements.

If only. Creationists typically do not present arguments that are subject to critique. They present statements of doctrine that are to be accepted without scrutiny. Have you ever heard a creationist argument that the presenter opened to discusssion and critique? If so, please cite the arguments and, if possible, cite the presenter.

Stop the arrogant assumption that you don't have to do this.

I disagree that this is necessarily arrogance. Have you ever had the occasion to follow creationists involved in arguments with each other or with scientists where there was a methodology to present arguments that might lead to a change in position?

[Mart]

I don't agree that dehumanization is the goal.

Yeh. Probably better to say making them irrelevant is the goal.

Creationists typically do not present arguments that are subject to critique. They present statements of doctrine that are to be accepted without scrutiny.

There may be creationists in this forum. Some of my questions about assertions made by certain individuals never get a reply

Have you ever heard a creationist argument that the presenter opened to discusssion and critique? If so, please cite the arguments and, if possible, cite the presenter.

At the back of my mind were the efforts of creationists who argue for irreducible complexity. William? Demski

I disagree that this is necessarily arrogance. Have you ever had the occasion to follow creationists involved in arguments with each other or with scientists where there was a methodology to present arguments that might lead to a change in position?

Some arrogant people will adopt this stance. By arrogance I mean an attitude. A stance taken towards others which knows little of them and cares less. It often goes with smugness and a sense of self-satisfaction and a dogmatic certainty. It occurs just as much in Creationists as it does in their opponents. It's a character trait.

Reason I get riled about it is that I like reading Richard Dawkins' books. I admire his writing: I find him interesting and informative. He is very clever. However, he is unbearably arrogant. What is really worrying is that rather than show clearly where certain ideas may be incorrect he attempts character kill. He rubbishes his opponent not the opponents ideas.

[root]

Hi Guys,

 

Wehey my first post. I think it's lame to ask a creationist to prove themselves right! Afterall their proof is that they are here. On the same tune I think it is lame to suggest one can prove "The theory of evolution". It is to this day just a theory, a theory has yet to establish itself as fact. Not only are evolutionists really struggling with the theory, your failing yourself for what you accuse others as being "Uneducated".

 

Thoughts?

 

Root

[Cadmus]

I think it's lame to ask a creationist to prove themselves right! Afterall their proof is that they are here. On the same tune I think it is lame to suggest one can prove "The theory of evolution". It is to this day just a theory' date=' a theory has yet to establish itself as fact. Not only are evolutionists really struggling with the theory, your failing yourself for what you accuse others as being "Uneducated".

 

Thoughts?[/quote']

You ask for thoughts. I think that your usage of words is confusing. You use the word proof in such a manner that I think that you mean evidence. You use the words theory and fact in such a manner that I think that you do not understand how these words are normally used.

 

I would like to ask you to define the words theory and fact, so that I can understand where you are coming from.

 

You state that evolitionists are struggling with the theory of evolution. From your tone, I suspect that you take this as a bad thing. If so, I could not disagree more.

[Gnieus]

I don't consider myself a creationist, and I do care what they think. I, unlike most people on this site, don't discount God too easily.

 

God evolution two completely different things ... when will ppl finally understand this ...

 

What is at stake for the creationists is their literal interpration of the bible NOTHING ELSE ..

 

God is some unproveable unevidenced super power ...

 

Evolution a logic explanation how things came made to be....

 

God, should you choose to believe in such an entity, could have made evolution, the big bang super strings bubbles whatever.

 

Does in vitro fertilsation disprove God or does it just show that "sin nature" [virgin Mary etc] is a lot of pap ... Maybe the bible is a book to transfer an idea, not to be taken literally ....

 

And, by the way, Creationism and Evolution are two seperate things...they don't have anything to do with each other. They are 2 different and completely valid theories.

 

How is someone (aka God) making up a planet in the dark ... a valid theory ... when did he make the rest of the universe ... . It's a 4000 year old fairy tale.

[ecoli]

perhaps if they consider (and NON of us KNOW eitherway)' date=' that maybe the "Creator(s)" used Evolution as a tool?

 

that way BOTH are not in conflict [/quote']

 

This is my philosophy. It could be that God uses evolution as a means of creation. It could be that evolution doesn't exist, or it could be that creationism doesn't exist (or any other combination of theories).

 

My point is, that there are only theories and no definate answers. This thread, unsurpisingly, has, for some, turn into a place for bashing creationists. This is stupidity. Creationism and Evolution should be, in my mind, accepted and two sound theories until sufficent evidence is found to disprove one of them (which will probably never happen).

[Gnieus]

Does anyone who isn't a creationist actually care[/u'] what creationists think?

 

Nope not really, but the last one said he wasn't one.

[ecoli]

I'm not a creationist becasue I don't solely believe in Creationism...Evolution is a sound theory and so is creationism. (Though, I'll admit, evolution is more fun to learn about )

[ydoaPs]

creation=life created by "God"

evolution=life changes

 

totally independant, and non-related.

[Cadmus]

Creationism and Evolution should be, in my mind, accepted and two sound theories until sufficent evidence is found to disprove one of them (which will probably never happen).

Not to dispute what you say, but I seem to recall someone on this forum postulating a theory about little green magicians (or was it little green elephants?) creating the world. What type of evidence would you consider possible to disprove such a theory? Until such "proof" is presented to you, would you consider it a valid theory that should be accepted on equal terms with evolution?

[blike]

Creationism and Evolution should be, in my mind, accepted and two sound theories until sufficent evidence is found to disprove one of them (which will probably never happen).

We call that msiciripme.

[Gnieus]

This is my philosophy. It could be that God uses evolution as a means of creation.

 

There are obviously forces bigger than us, call them God if you like and they could have made evolution. That way you don't have a problem and can be a scientist and believe in God. I think even the Vatican is more open minded these days then some middle america flat land creationists.

[ecoli]

Hmmm...good questions, Cadmus. I suppose if someone seriously thought little green magicians created the world, then I guess I would have to give equal weight in my opinion.

 

How could one disprove Creationism? Maybe when were dead, we'll find the truth (or lack of truths)

[Gnieus]

Creationism and Evolution should be, in my mind, accepted and two sound theories until sufficent evidence is found to disprove one of them (which will probably never happen).

 

... look for fossiles of talking snakes with legs .....

[ydoaPs]

[sarcasm]wouldn't that be proof for evolution?[/sarcasm]

 

lack of proof is not proof

[Gnieus]

A second reason is that the Catholic Church, at least in the twentieth century, takes a more flexible approach to the interpreting Genesis than do several Protestant denominations.

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

 

Maybe religion can be flexible ...