Creationist Revealed

donnann said:
From the original hebrew the text didnt say GOD is said Creator(s) which was singular and plural. I believe just like human reproduction that the female half created the earth and the male half fertilized it causing the development of the earth just like when a child is conceived. So the planet earth was done by the female counterpart and then god fertilzed it causing meiosis which was creation.
Click to expand...

And your answer to my question is?
 
Reality for one. Also religious history and translations from original texts. Also common sense. Have you ever met one idividual that can create a human life naturally by themselves?
 
donnann said:
Reality for one. Also religious history and translations from original texts. Also common sense. Have you ever met one idividual that can create a human life naturally by themselves?
Click to expand...

Where is the intelligence or the design in a whale having legs?
 
That creation is real based on the existance of supernatural beings.
 
Snoopy, good luck. A million dead scientists are on your side.

I have met several ferility doctors who have created human life all by their lonesome.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark
 
donnann said:
That creation is real based on the existance of supernatural beings.
Click to expand...

Supernatural beings that are neither intelligent nor capable of design then? A whale with vestigial legs?
 
donnann said:
Reality for one. Also religious history and translations from original texts. Also common sense. Have you ever met one individual that can create a human life naturally by themselves?
Click to expand...
I'm not questioning your resoning, your world view differs from mine on all perceivable accounts but I'm still curious about yours. What I meant was that what you write is an 'odd' mix of science and religious texts. Have you read about similar theories as yours or have you just collected each piece one by one and put it into your idea of reality. Do you consider it purely based on reason, heart or a mix of both?
 
radarmark said:
Look up loop quantum gravity and cosmology. I am rather afraid that a significant portion of quantum cosmologists out there would really disagree with "something cannot be created from nothing". It did.

Creatio ex nihilo sure worked well enough for Philo, St. Augustine, Muhammed, Heisenberg, Wheeler, and Isham -- count me in their corner.

I will sue my school distict (as should every other reasonable person) if they quit teaching evolution and substitute "creation science".

Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark
Click to expand...

Nicely said. The wife and I watched a documentary the other night about Dr. Amit Goswami. Have you heard of him? He makes a compelling argument that the idea of God (consciousness that precedes manifestation of matter) and science are not diametrically opposed.
 
donnann said:
That creation is real based on the existance of supernatural beings.
Click to expand...

Hi donnann,

Would you be open to a little feedback on your argument? Please PM me if you'd rather, but I think I can help you articulate your message a bit, and you might find it helpful.
If not, please carry on, and forgive the interruption.
 
Snoopy said:
You mean I'm being ungrateful? :confused::eek:
Click to expand...

yes... but you're a Buddhist so, by definition, you are ungratful! ;)

i think that CreationISM adherents feel that they have a privileged position within the humans and often express their views just so.

CreationISM adherents are different than monotheists which believe in a Creator Deity that created or set into motion the universe and all things within.

i'm not sure if it's a uniquely American phenomenon or not however all the CreationISM adherents that i've talked to were American.

metta,

~v
 
Well my friend is British but the media are American and Australian.

The offending item is being returned tomorrow. More ungratefulness!

PS what's with the ISM?
 
I know it sounds a bit simple but I write my arguments in a way that everyone can understand. Not everyone is a scientist or is a doctor of theology. However your imput is fine with me. I am always open to improvement and your welcome to post it. I do not take offense to any suggestions or constructive criticism.
 
I believe that the most center contains all of the codes that make up the environment to support that life. So you can find the codes that make up a whale within the human codes and that includes everything even plants and rocks. Support of the most center life needs food for all of the senses---taste, touch , smell, hearing and seeing. Genetic codes are the key.
 
Snoopy said:
Well my friend is British but the media are American and Australian.

The offending item is being returned tomorrow. More ungratefulness!

PS what's with the ISM?
Click to expand...

to distinguish between Christians that believe in creation and people that worship that idea.

metta,

~v
 
Snoopy said:
What is the intelligent design in the undeveloped hind legs of a baleen whale?
Click to expand...

The baleen whale is a good case-in-point for natural selection/evolution.

Another prime example is herbicide resistance in weeds. This is an example of natural selection that can happen in a short timeframe. Anyone that repeatedly sprays "Roundup" (glyphosate) in their yard or garden will likely notice some pesticide resistant weeds in just a few years time. Each subsequent year there will be more & more.

And of course the flu virus evolves year-to-year, hence the flu vaccine is constantly being updated and you must get a new shot each year to be reasonably protected.

Maybe you could ask your creationist friend if she ever plans to get another flu vaccine and why?

In my experience (debating with a couple of my relatives) some creationists will discount animal/plant/insect examples and try to switch the topic to humans. Two of my favorite modern-day examples of natural selection in humans are sickle-cell anemia and lactose intolerance. Why would an intelligent creator make only 10% of modern-day Northern Europeans lactose intolerant but 99% of Chinese lactose intolerant?
 
Snoopy said:
I have just had, unbidden, a sales pitch for creationism. I see there's been other threads but there's new folk here and the old threads smelled musty...

Taken from the British Centre for Science Education website:

Creationism in the broadest sense is the belief that the existence, nature, or development of the Universe is the result of some kind of purposeful activity by a supernatural being. As a broad philosophical or religious position, this is compatible with the practice of science, which can then be regarded as the study of the manner in which this supernatural being operates. BCSE is neutral on this, as on all religious issues, provided it is not used to deny, replace, or undermine science.
Click to expand...

I've found the British Centre for Science Education <http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/> to be an excellent source for information on this subject. In addition, I would recommend an article by the late eminent paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Stephen J. Gould, to be an excellent clarification of the position you describe above: <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html>.

Snoopy said:
Our concern is with the modern Creationist movement, allied to religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, and often also to specific political agendas. This considers humankind, and different species in general, to have been produced by separate acts of special creation, rejects the historical fact of biological evolution, commonly denies the evidence for the antiquity of the Earth, and is therefore fundamentally incompatible with our entire body of knowledge in the areas of biology, geology, astronomy, and cosmology. Creationists in this sense seek to undermine science education, and the public understanding of science. They are active, well funded, and politically organised in the US and increasingly in the UK, as well as in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...

I concur with your description, here.

Snoopy said:
We consider Intelligent Design to be part of this Creationist movement, on the basis of overlapping personnel and resources, closely related attempts to undermine established science, and the shared rejection of natural in favour of untestable supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.
Click to expand...

Again, I entirely concur. In addition to the above, there was a trial in a U.S. federal court, a couple of years back, in which it was determined that "Intelligent Design" was, indeed, part of the Creationist movement: <Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case>.

Regards,
Jim
 
Vajradhara said:
to distinguish between Christians that believe in creation and people that worship that idea.

metta,

~v
Click to expand...
Worship a book, maybe? Would insisting on a literal 24 hour day for each creation period constitute idolatry? (Worshiping a literal material thing instead of contemplating the ideas represented by it?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top