Which is easier for you to believe?

RealityCheck · #1 24th August 2006, 04:26 PM

Which is easier for you to believe and why?

- That the human species evolved over a few millions of years from a distant ancestor that was also the ancestor of modern apes,

or

- That we are descended from a pile of dust and dirt.

laptoppop · #2 24th August 2006, 04:37 PM

Neither. We are formed from, not descended from the pile of dirt. There was the active hand of a maker. Just like silicon (big part of beach sand) can be made into computer chips with intelligent usage, the Lord used the same physical building blocks to put together Man as He did the rest of His creation.

vossler · #3 24th August 2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by laptoppop

Neither. We are formed from, not descended from the pile of dirt. There was the active hand of a maker. Just like silicon (big part of beach sand) can be made into computer chips with intelligent usage, the Lord used the same physical building blocks to put together Man as He did the rest of His creation.

Amen brother, amen!

RealityCheck · #4 24th August 2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by laptoppop

Neither. We are formed from, not descended from the pile of dirt. There was the active hand of a maker. Just like silicon (big part of beach sand) can be made into computer chips with intelligent usage, the Lord used the same physical building blocks to put together Man as He did the rest of His creation.

Really.

Well maybe you were formed from dirt. I was formed from the union of a sperm and egg cell.

random_guy · #5 24th August 2006, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

Which is easier for you to believe and why?

- That the human species evolved over a few millions of years from a distant ancestor that was also the ancestor of modern apes,

or

- That we are descended from a pile of dust and dirt.

I really don't think this is a fair way of stating the belief system of Creationists. From what I understand, Creationists believe that God created the humans from dirt. Saying that we descended from dirt makes it sound like Hovind type evolution. And if you get really technical, TEists actually believe humans are made of stars (which I think is really cool but sounds silly).

Second, I don't think "easier to believe" makes a valid argument. For example, which is easier to believe, quantum physics, or if I am going 60 miles per hour, and I turn on my headlights, the light is gonig 60+speed of life per hour. Most people would say the second, but it's incorrect.

RealityCheck · #6 24th August 2006, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by random_guy

I really don't think this is a fair way of stating the belief system of Creationists. From what I understand, Creationists believe that God created the humans from dirt. Saying that we descended from dirt makes it sound like Hovind type evolution. And if you get really technical, TEists actually believe humans are made of stars (which I think is really cool but sounds silly).

Second, I don't think "easier to believe" makes a valid argument. For example, which is easier to believe, quantum physics, or if I am going 60 miles per hour, and I turn on my headlights, the light is gonig 60+speed of life per hour. Most people would say the second, but it's incorrect.

Regarding bold point - sounds silly because it's an incorrect way of stating that we're "made of stars."

The correct way of stating this is that the material of our solar system is likely the product of a supernova - that is, a large star in the last stages of its existence as a star had gone as far as it could in "burning" its material (really meaning, couldn't fuse any more material - had reached an iron core stage). The explosion of this star spread its constituent materials into local space - resulting in a lot of hydrogen, helium carbon, nitrogen, silicon, iron, etc. types of dust. This material then, through gravitation, eventually formed another star (our sun) and the planets of our solar system.

As for your second paragraph - that's kind of the point. Many people find it easier to believe in something that is not correct than it is to believe in something that is correct but does not harmonize with their personal views or personal limited understanding of the physical universe.

laptoppop · #7 24th August 2006, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

Regarding bold point - sounds silly because it's an incorrect way of stating that we're "made of stars."

The correct way of stating this is that the material of our solar system is likely the product of a supernova - that is, a large star in the last stages of its existence as a star had gone as far as it could in "burning" its material (really meaning, couldn't fuse any more material - had reached an iron core stage). The explosion of this star spread its constituent materials into local space - resulting in a lot of hydrogen, helium carbon, nitrogen, silicon, iron, etc. types of dust. This material then, through gravitation, eventually formed another star (our sun) and the planets of our solar system.

Yeah, but "made of stars" sounds a lot cooler than the technically correct explanation!

kenrapoza · #8 24th August 2006, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

Which is easier for you to believe and why?

- That the human species evolved over a few millions of years from a distant ancestor that was also the ancestor of modern apes,

or

- That we are descended from a pile of dust and dirt.

Once you posit the existence of an intelligent creator who is an uncaused first cause and brought reality as we know it into being, then both are equally plausible given all other things being equal. Remember, nobody claims that we are "descended" from dust and dirt in a natural way, but that it is simply the material that God chose to form the first human. Now there may be other considerations that would lead us to believe one over the other (I probably fall outside of the fundamentalist camp on this issue myself), but please be sure to accurately represent the Creationist's viewpoint.

RealityCheck · #9 24th August 2006, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by laptoppop

Yeah, but "made of stars" sounds a lot cooler than the technically correct explanation!

*sigh*

And that's exactly what's wrong with how many Americans understand science - they find an easy catch-phrase or hear something "cool" and figure that's what science really says.

Evolution is a perfect example of this. Evolutionary theory does NOT say we are descended from apes - it says we share a common ancestor with apes, and that apes developed along a different path than humans did. Evolution makes no predictions about birds giving birth to horses or snakes sprouting wings, but you listen to crackpots like Hovind, and people really do think that's what Evolutionary theory says.

The Big Bang is another one poorly understood. Many people think the Big Bang was an explosion, and they get in their heads something like a nuclear explosion. This is completely wrong. The Big Bang itself is a poor name (as so many things in science are, because they carry "cool names" devised by scientists who didn't really understand the impact of names). The Big Bang theory simply postulates that the universe we see was, eons ago, pure energy concentrated in a singularity, and that it expanded rapidly - essentially, exploded into a physical universe that had a definite size (unlike a singularity, of no size). But people imagine a huge pyrotechnics display - completely wrong.

random_guy · #10 24th August 2006, 06:33 PM

Made of stars" is a simplification, but it does sound a lot cooler and more poetic. Kind of why I used it. I view the Literal vs Symbolic/Allegoric debate in the same way. I think if God went through the technical details of how we came about (abiogenesis, evolution, founder effect, etc...) we would lose the important message. I find it more beautiful and meaning in how we are formed from dirt (as in all life is interconnect, we are all made of the same stuff, but only humans, did God give a soul).