BF2S Forums Creationism, bollox or bollox?

JaMDude! Yay! The concervative christian! This should get interesting now!

The Bible is great, really. Most, if not all our major laws come from it. And why shouldn't they? The Bible teaches people to lead a good life, to be kind to others etc, it's the Good Book dammit! They call it that for a reason.
Creationalism however is outdated. It came from a time where the powerful needed to inform the lower classes to how everything came to be. This was to exercise power over the ignorant. The church leaders needed to be able to explain the world and explain God's, (their,) power over the not-so powerful.
It is foolish to believe that God took six days to create everything. How long was six days when there was absoloute nothing? Where did God come from? What the fuck is with dinosaur bones? (If anyone says 'a test of faith' I'll gut them,)

So many questions. thankfully for the church leaders, the lower classes were ignorant and afraid, so they didn't get asked the hard questions. Today however there is SO MUCH that goes against creationalism that it holds no ground except for the faithful.

Should it be taught in schools? Not as fact. I remember being told stories of Noah's Ark, and that's what it was, a childrens story. They should definatly be taught about it and what it means, but not that "That's what happened."

I think I've rambled enough...

JaMDuDe wrote:

I believe it but i dont think it should be taught in science. I think crediting everything to absolute nothingness is ignorant.

Crediting everything to absolute nothingness? Who the hell says I'm giving absolute nothingness credit for everything? You must realize that there can be no initial creation when it comes to identification of all that is. Why create some thoroughly idiotic belief of the supernatural and then claim it was the beginning when we are at a period of time where a wholely more reasonable beginning can be provided? Who the fuck says there has to be a reason for life's existence?

The point is that you don't know. There is an infinite lack of need when it comes to faith in the supernatural. In the end, you can only fathom that the supernatural is merely just a possibility.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-30 20:57:00)

OpsChief wrote:

The sad part is we, as humans, cannot comprehend a Supreme Being that pre-exists existance and survives the end. Some people still think that on the first day God created the Heavens and the Earth. Problem is without a Sun and orbiting planets there are no "days" or, days can last millions of years....

lol humans have little minds.

But of course you are assuming that what man wrote into the old testament is what God did.  I personally have my doubts, not about an all powerful beyond my comprehension, but doubts in what is written about Him and what He has done.  Everything that is written in any holy book is still only written by man who is, by definition, fallible and with sin.  So how could you take the bible as fact, any part, especially after the Romans/Catholics had their hand in editing it.  How do you know where to put your faith.  Do we worship this benevolent, all-powerful Jehovah, or is it the storm god that Moses put into the ark of the covenant Yahweh, is it the god of Abraham's fathers, or is it something else Ra the sun god?  How do you know which writing is right?  If you research past religions you can find traces of Christianity all the way up to it's formation.  There are other prior religions with virgin births and many others with a resurrection.

How the hell do you know?  Please tell me, I get more confused the more I look.

Seriously how do you know that it's the Bible you should read and not the Quarn or Kabala.

J=MAN wrote:

...
Which means simply that we must choose what we want to believe. If you want to believe that there is no existence apart from the material, and that life is the product of random, meaningless processes: evolution. If you want to believe that there are things in the universe that we can't see with our eyes or telescopes, and that life is the product of a brilliant mind: creation.

If you are genuinely interested in this debate, hit the literature. Read both sides of the story first-hand, instead of regurgitating a third-hand version of only one story. For evolution, look for books by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Behe. For creation, read Duane Gish, Werner Gitt or Carl Wieland (although these are much harder to get).

Point taken here.  Evolution itself still uses the Scientific Method to arrive at any conclusion within its scope.  Lamarck and Lyell developed theories based on postulation, arrived by following the Method, to which Darwin began creating his view of natural selection.  Due to the advancement of genetics and the blossoming of the science in that area, more facts and data are able to be drawn towards proof of Evolutionary theory.  There's quite a big difference between taking an idea and attempting to solve it and taking a belief and attributing it's existence only to a higher power, thus stopping reason in its tracks and committing oneself to unprovable beliefs (faith).

To the standing argument, Evolution should be taught in a Science classroom since it follows the standards of science, and Creationism should be taught in a Philosophy department, due to the methods of arriving at that particular set of beliefs.

Just ask him when you get to HEAVEN. Its right at the top of my list of questions.

that Asimov quote is an excellent one, and one I go back to very often.  It took me a while to come out and call myself an athiest, because it is still a belief system,  but I think Asimov is very correct in saying that I am so sure there is no God that I simply cannot waste my time.  As for creationism, I agree with prior posts, it could be taught in a world religion or philosophy class, but should not be taught in science.  The way science textbooks are written now, most ideas in there are 5-10 years behind the times anyway.

The problem with anything that is taught in schools is this:  Everyone wants to teach their perspective on the world.  Instead of teaching kids how to learn, problem solve, critically analyze, they tell them what to learn.

Tyferra wrote:

JaMDude! Yay! The concervative christian! This should get interesting now!

The Bible is great, really. Most, if not all our major laws come from it. And why shouldn't they? The Bible teaches people to lead a good life, to be kind to others etc, it's the Good Book dammit! They call it that for a reason.
Creationalism however is outdated. It came from a time where the powerful needed to inform the lower classes to how everything came to be. This was to exercise power over the ignorant. The church leaders needed to be able to explain the world and explain God's, (their,) power over the not-so powerful.
It is foolish to believe that God took six days to create everything. How long was six days when there was absoloute nothing? Where did God come from? What the fuck is with dinosaur bones? (If anyone says 'a test of faith' I'll gut them,)

So many questions. thankfully for the church leaders, the lower classes were ignorant and afraid, so they didn't get asked the hard questions. Today however there is SO MUCH that goes against creationalism that it holds no ground except for the faithful.

Should it be taught in schools? Not as fact. I remember being told stories of Noah's Ark, and that's what it was, a childrens story. They should definatly be taught about it and what it means, but not that "That's what happened."

I think I've rambled enough...

Did you get Maori mythology as well?  We had full-blown RE classes in standard 4 (1989 for me) but also got a lot of Maori stuff including how Maui fished up NZ.  Good stuff...though I'm thankful they don't teach RE any more.

Xietsu wrote:

And "spelt" is actually spelled "spelled". Always ironic to me when people misspell "misspelled" or "spelled" after making such a correction.

Nope. "spelt" is the past participle of spell. "Spelled" is the simple past. Both are acceptable in both situations as any basic grammar book will tell you.


On topic, why does anyone care?

More on topic, Darwin's evolution is not a theory. It's a scientific fact that species have evolved into other species. Why? You'll have to read more than just Gould and Hawkins to understand. A good idea is to get a degree in biology, but that's not as hard as everyone makes it out to be. Parts of evolutionary theory are supported by replicable results but not all. That's why evolutionary theory is constantly, well, evolving.

Now, the idea that species will CONTINUE to evolve is a theory, because it is not replicable in laboratories at the moment. We have no idea if they will continue to evolve, because we have to wait until they do evolve to measure if they evolved or not. They fact that they did evolve in the past is just that.

Creationism is different in that it takes some of the evidence of evolution and finds a different cause for it. This is perfectly scientific. However, unlike evolution, it doesn't use the presently available science to its advantage. It doesn't even try. Also, in the case of contradicting evidence, ID does not change the theory to match the new data, it just says "God did it, theory stays the same."

Finally, there is nothing in creationism that contradicts evolution, and vice versa. Evolution doesn't discuss the origins of life, it discusses what happens after life has already begun.

Did God kick the small furry animal in the bottom hard enough so it would become a monkey in a few thousand generations? Who knows? Who can know?

Those questions are why creationism is not science. It doesn't try to find the answers, because it already knows the answer. Who knows? God. Who can know? God. And us, because he told us, but ultimately just God.

Creationism should be taught in schools as a philosophy, just like Buddhism and Taoism and Islam and Marx and Judaism and, well, you get the point. Evolution should be taught as science until it is proven wrong. Why? Because everything except God points to it.

It all boils down to something my professor said to me once, "Science answers "How?", God answers 'Why?'"

***befittingly edited for a grammar mistake***

Last edited by bakarocket (2006-05-31 05:59:02)

Xietsu wrote:

And "spelt" is actually spelled "spelled". Always ironic to me when people misspell "misspelled" or "spelled" after making such a correction.

Actually, according to the Webster online dictionary:
Main Entry: spelt
Pronunciation: 'spelt
chiefly British past and past participle of SPELL
EDIT: Doh!  Somebody beat me to it.  As to the argument, I agree with Marconius:  if Creation or ID is to be taught, it should be taught in Philosophy, not Science class.

Last edited by atlvolunteer (2006-05-31 08:03:25)

It also said that the Bible is the Word of God[So how can his word be Sin]
At the end of the day believe is only what you want it to be it can be anything supernatural or not you have the choice either you believe or you don’t that’s called Free Will Just my $0.000002 cents worth

Last edited by acidkiller187 (2006-05-31 08:05:52)

JohnnyBlanco wrote:

Well, done anyone out there beleive in it and if so do you think it should be tought in schools?. Personally i think its down right dangerous to teach that to a kid, but is it a parents/schools choice?

Once again, by the name of the topic, it is already slanted. Your question is already leaning in one direction.

How about this:

I am curious to find out everyone's view on the Theory of Creation, versus the Theory of Evolution.

Please discuss.

Exactly bakarocket.

I'm pretty sure the OP has already been answered...otherwise this is going to turn into yet Another thread of everyone versus the unrelenting jamdude.

-F8-Scotch wrote:

I'm still confused why one can't believe in both? Scientific research leans to the theory, no fact here and many will argue that "facts" don't exsist, that man man came from an ape/human ancestor. Creationism/Intelligent design charges that "God" made all that is. So, what's the big freakin' deal? Can't a Christian believe that God had a hand in splitting that monkey gene which sent man onto become the overall winner in the evolutionary lottery? It seems to me that Christians just don't want to be tied to monkeys, which boggles me because like Ninja and Pirates, Monkeys rock!

Creationism, along with most other major schools of religious thought, should by all means be taught in school under a banner of philosophical discussion...not science. There's no "scientific" merit to creationism but ia fundamental corner stone of our country is Christianity much less religious beliefs in general. ID isn't science but many folks, even some who aren't "religious", believe there is a higher power. Maybe someday that "higher power" will step in to bitch slap all of us. Untill then we have to go with what works the best for society and for better or worse it's scientific values and research. That isn't to say everyone has to believe in Evolution, however Evolutionary theory belongs in science class and not religious theory.

This is all just part of a bigger problem which should be reserved for another thread. Religion in today's modernized times of instant answers and more difficult questions. Hell, if it wasn't for Wiki or other online information resources, I'd be lost to one extent or another. Everyone has to settle themselves and thier beliefs with a new wave of modernity which could make or break religions. Taking you ball, or in this case Bible, and going home isn't going to change anything.

ps-anybody here a "pastafarian"? It's probably old hat, just figured that maybe the FSM followers would have something to add.

You can believe in both.  A lot of Christians believe that God created man through evolution.  The problem is that most people who want creationism or ID taught in school want:
A. Creationism/ID taught right along with Evolution in Science class (while stressing that Evolution is only a theory) or
B. Creationism/ID taught in place of Evolution in Science class
If they would just allow it to be taught in a philosophy class that also discussed other religions/ideas, there wouldn't be a problem.  (actually there would; somebody would find something to bitch about.  they always do...)