Does belief in unsupported creation theories necessitate pseudoscience?

[AV1611VET]

Explain yourself, what is so disgusting about saying that Tasmanian aborigines are fully homo sapiens?

What else would they be, Tom?

 

[Edx]

What else would they be, Tom?

Apes? You do know know that all humans are homo sapiens right? Just in case you thought we thought of them as less than human or something stupid like that

 

[TricksterWolf]

And that brings us (surprisingly enough) to the OP. Given that nothing in the Bible says God didn’t create using evolution, why not accept both the order of creation specified in the Bible, and the method of creation specified by the evidence God left in the world? In short, as TricksterWolf suggested, why not stop attacking science to make it reflect your personal beliefs, and instead simply believe there is more to our origins than science can show?

I'm even happy with "believe evolution is not the whole story and/or is wrong, but not try to make up science to back up my beliefs".

My beliefs are weird, though, so maybe it's easier for me because I don't expect to find confirmation. But I think, just maybe, deep down, a lot of creation science proponents doubt their beliefs as well. That would make for a particularly volatile emotional debate, which is consistent with what we see.

Trickster

 

[AV1611VET]

You do know know that all humans are homo sapiens right?

Ya --- I heard rumors to that effect.

Just in case you thought we thought of them as less than human or something stupid like that

Like I said --- I'm glad you clarified. I was kinda thinking you meant "primitive", since that's what they were called. 3/4 homo sapien or 1/2 homo sapien didn't even come to mind.

Tasmanian Aborigines are fully homo sapiens.

I'll leave myself a note that you guys claim they're "fully homo sapiens" --- thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

India as a whole? No. Certain populations of India (for example many of the populations in rural India)? Yes. India does not contain a homogenous culture. Certain subpopulations of India (especially in the cities) are very advanced. Some or not.

Where I come from, we call that "poor" --- not "primitive".

 

[Tomk80]

What else would they be, Tom?

I have no idea AV, please tell me. What is so disgusting about calling Tasmanian aborigines fully homo sapiens, because that is exactly what they are. Do you know what the term "Homo sapiens" means?

 

[Tomk80]

Where I come from, we call that "poor" --- not "primitive".

There is a difference between "poor" and "primitive". Poor people do not necessarily live in a primitive culture. With "primitive" I refer to having "primitive" beliefs, cultural traditions etc.

Poor people can have advanced knowledge and cultural beliefs, just as rich people can have primitive knowledge and cultural beliefs.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have no idea AV, please tell me. What is so disgusting about calling Tasmanian aborigines fully homo sapiens, because that is exactly what they are. Do you know what the term "Homo sapiens" means?

Maybe he has it confused with homo sexual

F.B.

 

[Cirbryn]

So AV. Got a response to post 20?

 

[JesusCtrlSes]

I agree

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that nothing in the Bible says God didn’t create using evolution, why not accept both the order of creation specified in the Bible, and the method of creation specified by the evidence God left in the world?

Because the two are mutually exclusively. Genesis 1 was meant to be interpreted literally, as Jesus did, and not metaphysically, as Tolkien would.

 

[Chalnoth]

Because the two are mutually exclusively. Genesis 1 was meant to be interpreted literally, as Jesus did, and not metaphysically, as Tolkien would.

How do you know Jesus interpretted it literally? How do you know he wasn't just using a well-known fictional story to make a point?

 

[Cirbryn]

Because the two are mutually exclusively. Genesis 1 was meant to be interpreted literally, as Jesus did, and not metaphysically, as Tolkien would.

My point is that both evolution and Genesis 1 can be literally correct. Since God stands outside time (and is omnipotent), He could have created plants using evolution prior to creating the sun. Or do you really think God is limited to the chronological order of events imposed by the very time stream He created?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know Jesus interpretted it literally? How do you know he wasn't just using a well-known fictional story to make a point?

Because that "well-known fictional story" is actually a page out of His diary.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point is that both evolution and Genesis 1 can be literally correct. Since God stands outside time (and is omnipotent), He could have created plants using evolution prior to creating the sun. Or do you really think God is limited to the chronological order of events imposed by the very time stream He created?

Let's just say, for the sake of your example, that you're right.

In that case, evolution ended on Day Six, and should not be observed as an on-going process today.

 

[Chalnoth]

Because that "well-known fictional story" is actually a page out of His diary.

By any analysis of the history of the Bible, Jesus wrote none of it.

 

[Chalnoth]

Let's just say, for the sake of your example, that you're right.

In that case, evolution ended on Day Six, and should not be observed as an on-going process today.

Um, okay. It is observed as an on-going process today. It wouldn't exist as a scientific theory if it wasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

By any analysis of the history of the Bible, Jesus wrote none of it.

In a physical sense, you're right; but in a legal sense, you're wrong --- since His "secretaries" wrote it.

[bible]2 Timothy 3:16[/bible]

When a corporate memo comes down from the CEO, you don't say it came from the secretary, the author gets the credit for its contents --- good or bad.

Although the CEO didn't write it --- he wrote it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, okay. It is observed as an on-going process today. It wouldn't exist as a scientific theory if it wasn't.

Then Cibryn's paradigm is flawed.

And I totally disagree that evolution is observed today; and before you ask --- I make that statement based on by belief in creation.

 

[Chalnoth]

And I totally disagree that evolution is observed today; and before you ask --- I make that statement based on by belief in creation.

Then you totally and utterly deny reality.

You've heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, yes? Those evolved. And herbicide-resistant plants? Those evolved. The flu virus that changes every year? That's evolution.