how can anyone believe in creationism

[Wiccan_Child]

A statement was made earlier that morality is necessary for the survival of a species.

I again submit that morality is a concept foreign to evolution. Morality implies good or evil. According to evolution, it's all just chemical reactions. A species might succeed or fail based on those chemical reactions, but it has no basis on which to talk about emotions, soul, good, evil etc.

On the contrary, it does: morality (or, at least, a sense of morality) is very useful for societal behaviour. If the members of a species evolve neuroendocrinological routes that make them 'feel' that killing their own kind is 'wrong', then that species is less likely to kill its own kind. Whether it is wrong or not is irrelevant: a selection pressure exists whereby a sense of morality that ensures the survival of the society is evolved.

This is why things like altruism and sacrifice exist in social species, like apes and dogs and reef societies, but not in loner species.

Somehow, emotions sprung up. Could it be because man is created in he image of God?

It could be. The more likely explanation is that it evolved naturally.

If that is the case, then God gets to set the rules or we have just set ourselves up as little gods.

Why does God get to set the rules up? If he decides we all burn for eternity, why does that magically become fair just because God made the decision?

I reject the notion that God has sovereign control over morality just because he created the universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Absolutely God uses chemical reactions, just as he uses DNA. These are the "building blocks of life. And life is more than just chemical reactions or what is consciousness? Take the consciousness (pneumas or breath) away from the body (meat) and you just have meat.

If consciousness is just neurochemistry, then take away consciousness, and you take away the neurochemistry. What is a human body without a brain? Just meat.

But actually cell theory says that life comes from life, or cells come from cells. There is no such thing as a simple cell, which you know if you are a student of biology.

There's no such thing as a modern simple cell.

So it is impossible to evolve a cell. All of its myriad parts would have to co-evolve simultaneously.

Nope. Watch this video to see why it's most certainly not impossible to evolve a cell.

YouTube - 3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy

Honestly, watch the whole thing. I challenge you.

That is absolutely impossible. The more you speak of code and emotions you speak of written and active intelligence.

Have you ever studied a life sim? Yea, that's a succinct refutation of the idea that 'information' must come from a designer.

All of this points to a creator and the tracks that my creator left behind is the bible.

How convenient, your non sequitur concludes the truth of your own religion. I don't suppose you ever considered that the creator might be Almighty Zeus?

 

[Wayne-o]

Wiccan Child said, "Why does God get to set the rules up? If he decides we all burn for eternity, why does that magically become fair just because God made the decision?

I reject the notion that God has sovereign control over morality just because he created the universe."

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
​

- Charles Darwin

You have actually agreed with what I said above, because you reject what God has set out for you, you have made yourself up as your own god. This saddens me, as it does God.

As for morality and emotions, you seem to disagree with the quote you list from Darwin.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You have actually agreed with what I said above, because you reject what God has set out for you, you have made yourself up as your own god.

I've set myself up as my own god?
What on Earth does that even mean?

This saddens me, as it does God.

Frankly, I don't care. You'll be sad so long as I'm not a Christian of the exact same flavour as you, and as for God, well, have you seen my 'faith icon'?

As for morality and emotions, you seem to disagree with the quote you list from Darwin.

Darwin was espousing the view that science should be without subjective bias. Don't take everything written down as literal truth.

EDIT: I notice you ignored everything in my posts about science and evolution, and instead focussed on the ad hominems. I wish this wasn't typical behaviour of Creationists.

 

[Wayne-o]

I watched the video above. It was interesting, but totally speculative. It spoke of molecules, but life is a far cry above that.

As for considering Zeus, that theistic model is a loser, because there is no written revelation (orthodox). Having a bunch of gods who fight each other is a losing proposition.

My God, on the other hand is loving, all powerful, and just. This last requires that when those created in His image disobey Him, they must suffer the penalty of death.

But, my God is so loving, that He took on the form of flesh, and came as the baby Jesus, endured all temptations, yet without sin himself, and allowed Himself to be convicted and tortured so that He could take my sins (and yours too if you let Him) to the point that He (God the Son) was forsaken of God the Father, then resurrected as was prophesied so that I could again have fellowship with my God.

This is the creator of everything we can see. He gave me life. He allowed me rebirth to have life again. I think I picked a winner!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I watched the video above. It was interesting, but totally speculative. It spoke of molecules, but life is a far cry above that.

Which spectacularly misses the point. You couldn't see how cells could arise without God, and that video shows you how. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for considering Zeus, that theistic model is a loser, because there is no written revelation (orthodox). Having a bunch of gods who fight each other is a losing proposition.

So you reject the Greek pantheon as impossible because there is no written revelation? Well there's an arbitrary criterion if every there was one.

My God, on the other hand is loving, all powerful, and just. This last requires that when those created in His image disobey Him, they must suffer the penalty of death.

But, my God is so loving, that He took on the form of flesh, and came as the baby Jesus, endured all temptations, yet without sin himself, and allowed Himself to be convicted and tortured so that He could take my sins (and yours too if you let Him) to the point that He (God the Son) was forsaken of God the Father, then resurrected as was prophesied so that I could again have fellowship with my God.

Allegedly.

I think I picked a winner!

Why?

 

[Wayne-o]

"I've set myself up as my own god?
What on Earth does that even mean?"

This means that if you believe in God, but don't want to follow His rules, you have set yourself up as your own god, deciding right and wrong for yourself. see Romans 1 if you are not familiar.

"Frankly, I don't care. You'll be sad so long as I'm not a Christian of the exact same flavour as you, and as for God, well, have you seen my 'faith icon'?"

What is your faith in?

"EDIT: I notice you ignored everything in my posts about science and evolution, and instead focussed on the ad hominems. I wish this wasn't typical behaviour of Creationists."

I have a single world view. It is impossible for me to discuss science and evolution without keeping God in the picture, because He is at the center.
Where would you like to start?
The dust on the moon?
The distance of the moon from the earth?
The slower spinning earth?
Most of these become very difficult because we cannot recreate either of our "theories", a scientific necessity.

Please ask something specific, but don't discount something just because it comes from the bible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"I've set myself up as my own god?
What on Earth does that even mean?"

This means that if you believe in God, but don't want to follow His rules, you have set yourself up as your own god, deciding right and wrong for yourself. see Romans 1 if you are not familiar.

But since I don't believe in God, how does that apply to me?

"Frankly, I don't care. You'll be sad so long as I'm not a Christian of the exact same flavour as you, and as for God, well, have you seen my 'faith icon'?"

What is your faith in?

Nothing, at least theologically. Hence why I call myself an atheist.

"EDIT: I notice you ignored everything in my posts about science and evolution, and instead focussed on the ad hominems. I wish this wasn't typical behaviour of Creationists."

I have a single world view. It is impossible for me to discuss science and evolution without keeping God in the picture, because He is at the center.

Fair enough. I'm not asking you to argue a position that isn't yours, of course.

Where would you like to start?
The dust on the moon?
The distance of the moon from the earth?
The slower spinning earth?
Most of these become very difficult because we cannot recreate either of our "theories", a scientific necessity.

Recreation isn't a necessity, though it does help! We can discuss whichever you like. I'm familiar with the three you mentioned, and more!

Please ask something specific, but don't discount something just because it comes from the bible.

I'll accept the Bible as a basis for your beliefs, whatever they may be, but that's about it. The Bible talks about Pharaohs and manna; unsurprisingly, I believe the Bible is true in some parts but not in others. Verification is the key.

 

[mpok1519]

they have proven our consciousness is chemical and electrical signals.

Also cell theory very much aknowledge the realities of evolution. Any biologist will tell you that. Or student of biology that's going to pass for that matter.

None of what you said points to a creator. Just the simple wonders of the natural world.

 

[IreneAdler]

I'm not sure why creation is so outlandish to believe when, while believing evolution only, you have to have faith that every teeny weeny thing was perfectly in place for this one eensy organism to not only form, but evolve successfully in to millions of different life forms... really...
not to mention, there are so many theories of the two combined that it's not so black and white as "he made it poof" and "it was all natural"

 

[jpcedotal]

It is all about calling Creationist ignorant or uneducated. They think we are holding on to an ancient way of thinking that science has proven wrong over and over. If they can get us to doubt Genesis 1:1, then the rest of the Bible makes no sense as well.

Keep your heads up. Believe the Bible literally except where the Word itself tells you there is symbolism. Evolution is a religion...just a pretty version of naturalism which has been around for almost as long as man. Brush it off like dirt from your shoes and move on to more important things.

There is ZERO proof of evolution until you have faith in it.

 

[Wayne-o]

MPOK1519 wrote:

"they have proven our consciousness is chemical and electrical signals."

Also cell theory very much aknowledge the realities of evolution. Any biologist will tell you that. Or student of biology that's going to pass for that matter.
Evolutionists have such a strangle hold on the universities, that unfortunately this is a fact.

None of what you said points to a creator. Just the simple wonders of the natural world"

Who has proven consciousness is chemical end electrical signals? (Other than Mary Shelly in Frankenstein)

Has life been induced by providing the correct conditions?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Who has proven consciousness is chemical end electrical signals? (Other than Mary Shelly in Frankenstein)

Has life been induced by providing the correct conditions?[/quote]
Not artificially, no. But then, we haven't created a star, but there they are, shining bright.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

they have proven our consciousness is chemical and electrical signals.

Have they?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not sure why creation is so outlandish to believe when, while believing evolution only, you have to have faith that every teeny weeny thing was perfectly in place for this one eensy organism to not only form, but evolve successfully in to millions of different life forms... really...

Not really. First, you don't have to have faith in any part of science; the whole point is that it's evidenced based. It staggers me that people can dismiss entire fields of science by saying "oh it takes more faith anyway", without even having a look. And since when did 'faith' become a dirty word for theists? I thought you Christians were all about faith...
Second, we don't need everything to be in place: the whole point is that things change. Small, varying changes in a large population. We know that happens, even the staunchest of Creationists acknowledges that.

I
not to mention, there are so many theories of the two combined that it's not so black and white as "he made it poof" and "it was all natural"

And yet, there's only one that's backed by science: as far as the evidence shows, there was no point where God intervened. He may have done, but there's nothing to suggest that he did.

 

[mpok1519]

MPOK1519 wrote:

"they have proven our consciousness is chemical and electrical signals."

Also cell theory very much aknowledge the realities of evolution. Any biologist will tell you that. Or student of biology that's going to pass for that matter. G
Evolutionists have such a strangle hold on the universities, that unfortunately this is a fact.

None of what you said points to a creator. Just the simple wonders of the natural world"

Who has proven consciousness is chemical end electrical signals? (Other than Mary Shelly in Frankenstein)

Has life been induced by providing the correct conditions?

Most neurobiologists would agree "thinking" is comprised mostly of chemical and electrical signals.

 

[IreneAdler]

Not really. First, you don't have to have faith in any part of science; the whole point is that it's evidenced based. It staggers me that people can dismiss entire fields of science by saying "oh it takes more faith anyway", without even having a look. And since when did 'faith' become a dirty word for theists? I thought you Christians were all about faith...
Second, we don't need everything to be in place: the whole point is that things change. Small, varying changes in a large population. We know that happens, even the staunchest of Creationists acknowledges that.


And yet, there's only one that's backed by science: as far as the evidence shows, there was no point where God intervened. He may have done, but there's nothing to suggest that he did.

what is a hypothesis? when has anyone seen evolution from minute organisms into complicated organisms occur? why, if it is scientific fact, is it called a "theory"?

 

[mpok1519]

Because the religious right wing has a choke hold on our nation's educational standards. People who live down south don't want evolution to be taught as anything but a theory, and they're willing to vote out anyone who disagrees.

 

[IreneAdler]

Um... teachers in Texas can be fired for teaching anything BUT evolution... (yes, it's very conservative here)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

what is a hypothesis?

A proposed explanation. If I notice that aerosols spray faster and harder when shaken, I might explain that as "when shaken, the compressed gas is under higher pressure, thus sprays faster". That is a hypothesis.

when has anyone seen evolution from minute organisms into complicated organisms occur?

Never, since such an even takes billions of years to occur

why, if it is scientific fact, is it called a "theory"?

Because it is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that it occurs: evolution is nothing more than a change over time in the frequency of inheritable traits (e.g., the number of blondes changes over time; thus, the human species is evolving). The theory of evolution by natural selection is that species adapt to their changing environments (e.g., a species will grow longer hair and thicker fat as their environment gets colder).

Colloquially, 'evolution' refers to many things. Scientifically, it refers to only one thing.

A fact is a phenomenon that we know occurs. A theory is an explanation of the facts, and may also detail the consequences of those facts. In other words, the theory of evolution is an explanation for why evolution (the fact, the biological phenomenon) actually occurs in the first place.

The theory of common descent uses both of these to explain how modern life is descended from a single common ancestor that lived ~3.5 billion years ago.

Read this article for a more lengthy (and probably easier to understand ) treatment of this idea. The first paragraph is an excellent summary:

"The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur."

I hope that helps clarify things for you. Please don't hesitate to ask more questions if need be.