how can anyone believe in creationism

[IreneAdler]

possibly - lol. You weren't asking me to solve a math problem but even then, my emotion toward the subject in school would certainly dictate my ability to solve it had I decided because I didn't enjoy it, that I wouldn't pay attention.

 

[Nostromo]

What I'm saying is that your emotion doesn't actually alter the reality of the situation.
If I ask you to record the temperature every day for a week, your emotional state isn't going to make any difference to the outcome, is it?

 

[IreneAdler]

Perception is based on many things, so while the absolute positive truth of something cannot change, the perception changes the reality of it for individual people. That's why we have democrats and republicans. I'm sure they both feel that they are being logical and making appropriate decisions. It's their perception of reality that changes their beliefs.

All I'm saying is you cannot be a balanced person without logic or without emotion. They are both essential and to deny one or the other completely is errant.

 

[Nostromo]

No you can't be a balanced person, I agree with you.

What I'm not sure about is your claim that feelings are just as good a method of detecting reality as other methods. How would you know that a feeling you have is actually a good description of reality?

 

[IreneAdler]

navigating life, finding truth. Do you rely solely on logic when choosing to befriend someone you meet?

 

[Nostromo]

No. You're seriously missing my point. If you have a feeling that something is true, do you just assume that it is true?

 

[IreneAdler]

no, but I don't assume logical things are essentially true either.

 

[IreneAdler]

for example, they did a study with college students who were told they'd be paid. When they got in the room they were asked to match up letters and shapes. One half were paid 20 dollars, and the other 1 dollar. Which group, when asked, told the one questioning that the study was interesting and thought provoking and why do you think that?

 

[Nostromo]

That's more to do with psychology than logic. When people generally use the term logical they often mean something like "common sense", but logic in the academic sense is quite a strict set of rules about how we come to conclusions. I think you might be mixing up the two.

 

[Cabal]

2+2 = 4, no matter how you feel.

 

[SithDoughnut]

2+2 = 4, no matter how you feel.

Unless you use base 3.

 

[Cabal]

Unless you use base 3.

Fine, in base 10. There we go.

 

[Levopoly]

Morality is not a subject that is foreign to evolution.

Morality is taught by justice systems in society. The concepts of "Don't do this" or "Don't do that" is essentially morality.

Before the times of the bible, if you were to kill someone you would surely be punished. The central ideas of "Morality" predate the bible. Morality does not, however, predate humanity in the form of an all knowing God.

It is true that there is no "Simple" cell. There are "Complex" organisms and "More complex" organisms. It is not impossible to evolve a cell. One percent of, say, an endoplasmic reticulum is far more beneficial than no endoplasmic reticulum at all.

In regards to the idea that evolution requires the "faith" that molecules came together to form cells, it is hardly as far a stretch as believing in creation.

If you want a basic version of the evolution of the first cell it goes like this: Hydrophobic molecules (Molecules that don't like water) and Hydrophile molecules (Molecules that like water).

They both came together through one end that liked water, and the other that did not in order to form the basis of a cell wall. Once enough of them were gathered, it formed a sort of shell, (much like a bubble but measured in micrometres) that had other molecules within it.

That very cell housed the ancestors of DNA. Once this had occurred, the history of life on Earth was half over. It took hundreds of millions of years for microscopic plants to develop, which produced oxygen through a process known as photosynthesis (Carbon Dioxide + Water {Reaction} Oxygen + Glucose). But this branch didn't lead to us.

It is difficult for creatures with a lifespan of 70 years to grasp the concept of a time frame of 70 million years, let alone 4 billion.

Those are some of the things that molecules do, given four billion years of evolution.

Look up "Carl Sagan Evolution" on youtube for a more comprehensive explanation if you'd please.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Morality is not a subject that is foreign to evolution.

I disagree. Our sense of morality, the 'gut feeling' we have that certain things are 'just wrong' (murder, selfishness, etc) have evolutionary origins: it is beneficial to a social species for its members to abhor, say, the murder of its members. Thus, our species evolved to consider murder 'wrong' (though cultural extremes can overcome this; death penalties exist in the US, Iran, etc.

Morality is taught by justice systems in society. The concepts of "Don't do this" or "Don't do that" is essentially morality.

Not everything legal is moral, nor illegal immoral. Otherwise there'd be no impetus to change the law.

Before the times of the bible, if you were to kill someone you would surely be punished. The central ideas of "Morality" predate the bible. Morality does not, however, predate humanity in the form of an all knowing God.

Unless, of course, it does .

It is true that there is no "Simple" cell. There are "Complex" organisms and "More complex" organisms. It is not impossible to evolve a cell. One percent of, say, an endoplasmic reticulum is far more beneficial than no endoplasmic reticulum at all.

In regards to the idea that evolution requires the "faith" that molecules came together to form cells, it is hardly as far a stretch as believing in creation.

If you want a basic version of the evolution of the first cell it goes like this: Hydrophobic molecules (Molecules that don't like water) and Hydrophile molecules (Molecules that like water).

They both came together through one end that liked water, and the other that did not in order to form the basis of a cell wall. Once enough of them were gathered, it formed a sort of shell, (much like a bubble but measured in micrometres) that had other molecules within it.

That very cell housed the ancestors of DNA. Once this had occurred, the history of life on Earth was half over. It took hundreds of millions of years for microscopic plants to develop, which produced oxygen through a process known as photosynthesis (Carbon Dioxide + Water {Reaction} Oxygen + Glucose). But this branch didn't lead to us.

It is difficult for creatures with a lifespan of 70 years to grasp the concept of a time frame of 70 million years, let alone 4 billion.

Those are some of the things that molecules do, given four billion years of evolution.

Look up "Carl Sagan Evolution" on youtube for a more comprehensive explanation if you'd please.

The Symphony of Science on YouTube is both beautiful and instructive, and contains remixed synths of quotes of famous scientists.

 

[reasoning_voice]

evidently you don't understand the term "exponentially" by the nature of uncontrolled reproduction all life reproduces exponentially untill resources limit it. 10 percent growth is still exponential. And if one looks over the 200 plus generations there can easily be 6 billion... one of the questions is why there aren't more.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

evidently you don't understand the term "exponentially" by the nature of uncontrolled reproduction all life reproduces exponentially untill resources limit it. 10 percent growth is still exponential. And if one looks over the 200 plus generations there can easily be 6 billion... one of the questions is why there aren't more.

I'm not sure if you're a Creationist or what, but my own calculations of an exponentially growing population over 6000 years from two people to 6 billion people yields a growth constant of ~1.00364; that is, if the population grew by 3.64% per year, we would have 6 billion people today from two people who lived ~6000 years ago.

But, of course, any statistician (such as myself) will tell you that this is a rubbish model for population growth, even for creatures such as bacteria. You even mentioned the key factor in your post: resource limitation. As well as food and water, this includes other 'resources' like territory and mates.

Point is, our population does not grow exponentially; it is only recent technological and cultural changes, such as colonialism and sanitation, that have eliminated limits to our growth.

 

[RyanLeeParis]

Some people think the world looks too designed, complex, etc, for there not to be a higher force.

Even if I were an evolutionist, which I'm not, I'd wonder if the evidence for evolution was all in my head, that I think too much, and that I should just believe in God.

Creatures do look designed and are complex, there's no doubt about it. Many people use the eye as evidence for creation, but I'd just as easily point to the beating heart.

Any way, there's other reasons people believe in Creationism. I also think its better to believe in God, even if just so people may behave more nicely from the thought there's a God and we are here for a reason. It's a nice thought to live by.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Some people think the world looks too designed, complex, etc, for there not to be a higher force.

Meh, that's their choice.

Even if I were an evolutionist, which I'm not, I'd wonder if the evidence for evolution was all in my head, that I think too much, and that I should just believe in God.

How can you think too much? Surely the more you think the better, since you're more likely to learn?

Creatures do look designed and are complex, there's no doubt about it.

They look designed and complex, to a degree, I'll give you that.

Many people use the eye as evidence for creation, but I'd just as easily point to the beating heart.

Both of which have demonstrable evolutionary pathways.

Any way, there's other reasons people believe in Creationism. I also think its better to believe in God, even if just so people may behave more nicely from the thought there's a God and we are here for a reason. It's a nice thought to live by.

Perhaps, but it suffers from three great flaws.

First, believing something because it's nice doesn't mean it's true, and I for one only want to believe the truth, whatever that truth may be.

Second, it presupposes that people can only behave nicely if they believe in God - it doesn't take an idiot to realise that theists are capable of atrocious acts against their fellow man, and the more fervent the belief, the more abominable the crimes they'll commit. Conversely, atheists are not inherently evil people (despite what the Religious Right would have you believe).

Third, it doesn't actually bolster the argument for Creationism. Belief in God does not require a belief in Creationism. There are theists who quite happily accept scientific theories, including the theory of common descent; they see no challange to their religious faith and the conclusions of science. The fact that we share a common ancestor with the other Great Apes, and indeed everything else on Earth, doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that he doesn't play a role in our lives. To the theist, that he created is more important than how he created.

 

[Dt1213]

I believe in creation because i dont believe somthing can come from nothing for no reason, the planets form over billions of years in the right places for life..the current theory on the moon i believe is that a mars size object hit the earth and is now known as the moon? Forgive me if thats not the current theory, The Earths atmosphere then forms by planetery degassing from volcanoes and other sources.... Then life springs into action from nowhere.. i heard a theory about LIFE COMING FROM A METEOR? Which then decides to evolve over a very long period of time all for the reason that it can. I believe it because i believe my life has a meaning you that your life has a meaning and i think the odds of this happening by accident are very high even impossible, i believe that everything that had a beginning had a purpose. The world had a beginning therefore i have a purpose. God did not have a beginning and needs no purpose but decided to make us for his joy and love. The very fact you are alive from a few cells (thousands) which combined in your mother and formed you i believe is a miracle.

Im sure in another hundred years there will be completly new theorys to how the Earth and Life exists. as there was a hundred years ago. The only place that has a real explanation is the bible.

 

[Cabal]

I believe in creation because i dont believe somthing can come from nothing for no reason

Indeed, but that's not what science claims.

the planets form over billions of years in the right places for life

On one of the planets, and this is hardly a spectacular thing, if conditions weren't right we wouldn't exist to comment on the fact.

I bealive it because i believe my life has a meaning you that your life has a meaning

And accepting contemporary science doesn't change this.

and i think the odds of this happening by accident are very high even impossible, i believe that everything that had a beginning had a purpose.

And most of science establishes that things have a beginning.....

God did not have a beginning and needs no purpose but decided to make us for his joy and love. The very fact you are alive from a few cells (thousands) which combined in your mother and formed you i believe is a miracle.

And yet people conceive fairly regularly.

Im sure in another hundred years there will be completly new theorys to how the Earth and Life exists. as there was a hundred years ago. The only place that has a real explanation is the bible.

And all the other creation myths of all the other religions. They're all equally well-evidenced, i.e. not evidenced in the slightest.