Creationist Revealed

[vizenos]

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

It seems conclusive that the Creationist movement--including Intelligent Design--was imported into the U.K. from America. As an American, I offer my most abject apologies!

Regards,
Jim

 

[vizenos]

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?)

An astute observation, IMO. Yes, bibliolatry is alive and well, both in America and in Australia.

I'm reminded of a conversation, many years back, between the South African scholar and Orthodox Christian, Stephen Methodius Hayes, and an American Creationist. It went as follows:

HAYES: What is a Christian?

CREATIONIST: A Christian is one who follows the Bible.

HAYES: No, a Christian is one who follows Christ.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Snoopy]

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'm glad you are not offended. But are you unable to answer my question regarding the baleen whale?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

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.

donnann, I would recommend using the 'Quote' button at the bottom-right of the post you are answering, it is much easier to follow the discussions for everyone then.

 

[Vajradhara]

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?)

Namaste seattlegal,

perhaps however it goes further than that for they reject parts of that very book when it disagrees with their apriori views. i accept that there may be some CreationISM adherents that have a different view, i've just not dialoged with any.

metta,

~v

 

[donnann]

Thank you. I didnt know that

 

[donnann]

I'm glad you are not offended. But are you unable to answer my question regarding the baleen whale?[/QUOTE)

I know that things adapt. I believe the more that a species becomes carnivirious that the weaker things adapt to try to protect themselves and then the carnivirious species adapt to the weaker species protections. I dont believe that is evolution. I believe that leads towards destruction of species and environments. Why else would a species develop characteristics over time to protect itself unless the species attacking them are becoming more aggressive. To me these are mutations and will eventually make them extinct unless its reversed.

 

[donnann]

One more point I just thought of. Why instead of cross breeding bees to create killer bees, doesnt science try to correct the aggressive behaviors. As a visual example one of the exorcist movies there is a part about calming the locusts. A scientist in the movie had studied them and found a way to calm them. Science should start doing that. It brings species back to thier unharmful nature and in my opinion would then be evolution.

 

[Snoopy]

Whales are mammals. Their ancestors lived on land and therefore had legs. The remnant hind legs are a throwback to these evolutionary predecessors. My question was therefore to assertain why an intelligent designer would put such redundant bone structures in an animal.

 

[IowaGuy]

I believe the more that a species becomes carnivirious that the weaker things adapt to try to protect themselves and then the carnivirious species adapt to the weaker species protections. I dont believe that is evolution. I believe that leads towards destruction of species and environments. Why else would a species develop characteristics over time to protect itself unless the species attacking them are becoming more aggressive. To me these are mutations and will eventually make them extinct unless its reversed.......It brings species back to thier unharmful nature and in my opinion would then be evolution.

Hi Donnann, how about an example of a wolf killing a moose to feed its baby wolves. This happens everyday in nature, something kills something else to survive. It is part of the balance of nature and has been going on for millions of years on this planet. It actually helps keep the prey species from becoming overpopulated and disease-stricken. Do you believe this is "harmful"?

Are you suggesting that true evolution would be for wolves to somehow start eating plants even though they don't have the teeth or the digestive tract to do so?

 

[donnann]

This is a religious thread. Animals prior to the fall were not carnivirioius and neither was man. Some try to use the same argument with human beings and their teeth. Also whos to say that the animals after the fall becoming carnivirious didnt develop the teeth they now have? Other animals have adapted and changed , thats already a proven fact.

 

[Snoopy]

This is a religious thread.

Indeed, I started it and it is about creationism and evangelising. My assertion is that vestigial structures show creationism to be in contradiction to reality and evangelising is even more unacceptable than usual when it is not even asked for or encouraged.

 

[Snoopy]

I like the way it makes the important distinction between the philosophical position and the modern fundamentalist movement - not all do, so it's refreshing to see this being made clear.

Yes, it looks like a good site.

 

[Gatekeeper]

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

As far as we know something has always existed. Nothing means void of anything, nothingness is a no thing and cannot truly exist by definition. I'm not suggesting that a creator God made the universe, but I am suggesting that something has always existed and that the universe was formed through changes taking place in that 'something'. It is theoretical and speculation at best to assume otherwise. Until it is proven beyond theory, count me in the opposite corner.

 

[radarmark]

Depends on what you mean by "nothing". What the physics says is that matter and energy and information and time and space do not exist on the otherside of the singularity. That being said what could have existed? This then becomes a meta-physical issue. I come down in the Kabbalistic camp, or that of Katzantzakis, or that of Rumi. The Divine eminated us and the entire Kosmos from Her Own Body to begin our journey of experience.

See, you cannot (I think) logically (at least deductively) discuss what was before the Big Bang if one focuses on the matter/mind dualism of Western Philosophy. One must go beyond into the realm of Speculative Philosophy... which is where I follow Whitehead in his focus on Becoming on Process on Organism and the Path of the Mystics.

You are correct in your reading of what I wrote. Just did not write down the rest of the story.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia Radarmark.

 

[donnann]

As far as we know something has always existed. Nothing means void of anything, nothingness is a no thing and cannot truly exist by definition. I'm not suggesting that a creator God made the universe, but I am suggesting that something has always existed and that the universe was formed through changes taking place in that 'something'. It is theoretical and speculation at best to assume otherwise. Until it is proven beyond theory, count me in the opposite corner.

Well spoken. I agree with what you said. Consciousness always existed. Something cannot be created from nothing but comes from elements simular to it. Good argument for the exist of the CREATOR(s) on a scientific level. I do not understand why in schools they teach as bogus theroy that man evolved from say apes, but yet a theory that makes sense isnt tought.

 

[chakraman]

i would be more interested in discussing with her about how one creates any view or hypothesis in the first place. the question then being brought down to human conditioning rather than whether or not certain theories are true or not and hence by discussing and perhaps seeing that conclusions can prevent enquiry, the absurdity of stating a theory as a fact can be seen. thats why i like reading Krishnamurti because he would bring it back to fundamentals rather than be caught in the head lights of the question or notion proposed: "how is one to enquire?" "what is correct enquiry?"...the "answer" being that there is no how or what, there is only seeing what impedes enquiry and when that is felt the veil falls. what impedes enquiry? the acceptance of authority, culrural conditioning, sometimes knowledge and so on; this can apply to the "laws" of physics as well as the psycho-spiritual realm and i think its the two we are trying to harmonise here.

the mind of the future is apparently a harmony of science and religion

 

[donnann]

i would be more interested in discussing with her about how one creates any view or hypothesis in the first place. the question then being brought down to human conditioning rather than whether or not certain theories are true or not and hence by discussing and perhaps seeing that conclusions can prevent enquiry, the absurdity of stating a theory as a fact can be seen. thats why i like reading Krishnamurti because he would bring it back to fundamentals rather than be caught in the head lights of the question or notion proposed: "how is one to enquire?" "what is correct enquiry?"...the "answer" being that there is no how or what, there is only seeing what impedes enquiry and when that is felt the veil falls. what impedes enquiry? the acceptance of authority, culrural conditioning, sometimes knowledge and so on; this can apply to the "laws" of physics as well as the psycho-spiritual realm and i think its the two we are trying to harmonise here.

the mind of the future is apparently a harmony of science and religion

I agree with the mind of the future comment

 

[radarmark]

Okay... physics deals with only the measureable, the exterior Kosmos. Things like matter, energy, information, space and time. Those experiences that are beyond these limitations are metaphysical... physics really have nothing to say about them insofar as they do not deal with the exterior Kosmos.

These metaphysical issues (the interior Kosmoa, which we can, sorta, communicate with others via the exterior Kosmos). I am not saying there was not something beyond the Big Bang. I am saying that, if Relativity Theory is right (still up in the air depending on how quantum is unified with it), then there was no exterior Kosmos (no information, matter, energy, time, or space) before the Big Bang. Was the something different (an experience outside of apsce and time?) I think so. But that is meta-physics not physics.

This is the great unification of spirit and mass and energy and information you all are talking about. Is this clearer?

Pax et armore vincunt omnia... radarmark

 

[bob x]

I know that things adapt. I believe the more that a species becomes carnivirious that the weaker things adapt to try to protect themselves and then the carnivirious species adapt to the weaker species protections. I dont believe that is evolution.

Uh... that is a PRIME example of evolution. That kind of thing is what the word "evolution" MEANS.