People discover evolution, not creation...

[Mekkala]

I've been thinking about something interesting about evolution vs. creationism. You see, I've met and heard of many people who were fundamentalist creationists and then discovered, by examining the evidence, that evolution actually happened. Oddly, though, I've never once met or heard of a person who independently examined secular evidence, came to the conclusion that the Earth was created six thousand years ago, and then went in search of Christianity. No, the people who decide that the Earth was created six thousand years ago with all the "kinds" of creatures alive at the same time are always either fundamentalists from birth, or converted to fundamentalism before adopting creationism. I wonder why that is? Isn't it odd?

(Credit to Bob Riggins of Things Creationists Hate for the comment that led me to this deep and inspiring insight)

 

[Tomk80]

Just a side-note. I'd use creationism in stead of creation if you're talking about this debate. Name it evolution vs creationism or evolutionism versus creationism (although some might object against the latter).

Creation can be done through the mechanisms proposed by creationism or by evolutionary theory, or maybe through some kind of process we have not come up with yet.

 

[lucaspa]

I've been thinking about something interesting about evolution vs. creation. You see, I've met and heard of many people who were fundamentalist creationists and then discovered, by examining the evidence, that evolution actually happened. Oddly, though, I've never once met or heard of a person who independently examined secular evidence, came to the conclusion that the Earth was created six thousand years ago, and then went in search of Christianity. No, the people who decide that the Earth was created six thousand years ago with all the "kinds" of creatures alive at the same time are always either fundamentalists from birth, or converted to fundamentalism before adopting creationism. I wonder why that is? Isn't it odd?

(Credit to Bob Riggins of Things Creationists Hate for the comment that led me to this deep and inspiring insight)

I second the comment about the use of creation or creationism. And the reason is pretty obvious, don't you think? The evidence God left in His Creation says pretty clearly that creationism is wrong. So first you have to decide to worship the literal Bible as a god -- fundamentalism -- before you can believe creationism.

But I think you have a good point. YEC has never led anyone to God. Led several people away from God, but never led anyone to Him.

 

[Pentecostal_Wind]

aright im a new christian an i post my comment here as just an opinion and answer so read and dont critisize,ive studied history from 2004 till the death of christ till the wild wild west and beyond,and ive noticed from television,speaches,and from physical and mental study that as times goes by...so does negativity.Technology makes us lazier period,remotes,microwaves, just getting us lazier...ok now as we lay down more and more after work to watch tv and cook us a fast dinner we start thinking,looking for somthing to feed our needs,our cravings,smoking,drugs,cars,job,excersice,hobbies,but i notice no one stays with a hobbie forever,only with a habit.i notice ppl with technology get negative and not spiritual,i heard by a guy on tv that negativity is never alone,if a coach is negative so is his players,but posotivity take work and faith.think about it,and think about history and study it,for the truth is out there

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Windy,

There should be keys on either side of the bottom row of letters on your keyboard labled Shift. They have the almost magical effect of transforming the letter being typed from lower case to upper case. You might try holding them down once in a while at the appropriate place. I find it useful to make sentences more readable. No caps is better than all caps but caps can be your friends. IMO you also,use,commas, more than a bit too,frequently.

The frumious Bandersnatch

PS, Did your post have a point? I somehow fail to see how it relates to the thread.

 

[billwald]

The reason is that science doesn't "discover" metaphysics.

 

[ProbePhage]

The reason is that science doesn't "discover" metaphysics.

No one is saying it does. However, a certain belief system makes certain claims about physical reality that should be observable by scientists. But they are not observed. In fact, the observations have been contrary to this belief system's claims.

 

[Tomk80]

The reason is that science doesn't "discover" metaphysics.

So educated people discover science and the non-educated discover metaphysics?

 

[SBfaithful]

Windy,

There should be keys on either side of the bottom row of letters on your keyboard labled Shift. They have the almost magical effect of transforming the letter being typed from lower case to upper case. You might try holding them down once in a while at the appropriate place. I find it useful to make sentences more readable. No caps is better than all caps but caps can be your friends. IMO you also,use,commas, more than a bit too,frequently.

The frumious Bandersnatch

PS, Did your post have a point? I somehow fail to see how it relates to the thread.

Welcome to the Grammar Forums!
I understand what you are saying Frumious, but you could have dropped the sarcasm. There is also another magical button you can press at the bottom of the page labeled "Spellcheck." This has the effect of transforming bad spellers into good ones.

 

[ikester7579]

I've been thinking about something interesting about evolution vs. creation. You see, I've met and heard of many people who were fundamentalist creationists and then discovered, by examining the evidence, that evolution actually happened. Oddly, though, I've never once met or heard of a person who independently examined secular evidence, came to the conclusion that the Earth was created six thousand years ago, and then went in search of Christianity. No, the people who decide that the Earth was created six thousand years ago with all the "kinds" of creatures alive at the same time are always either fundamentalists from birth, or converted to fundamentalism before adopting creationism. I wonder why that is? Isn't it odd?

(Credit to Bob Riggins of Things Creationists Hate for the comment that led me to this deep and inspiring insight)

I guess ex-evolution scientist don't make the list because once they convert, their thoughts no longer matter.

 

[revolutio]

I guess ex-evolution scientist don't make the list because once they convert, their thoughts no longer matter.

Feel free to list them. Your claim usually carries more weight if you attach actual facts to it instead of just the claim alone.

In my experience their thoughts no longer matter because they stop supporting them with verifiable and accurate data. Doesn't Hovind claim to be an ex-evolutionist?

 

[Jet Black]

Welcome to the Grammar Forums!
I understand what you are saying Frumious, but you could have dropped the sarcasm. There is also another magical button you can press at the bottom of the page labeled "Spellcheck." This has the effect of transforming bad spellers into good ones.

There is a difference between the occasional typographical error, and something being totally unreadable.

 

[Data]

*edit*

Can't we delete posts anymore?

 

[Mekkala]

I guess ex-evolution scientist don't make the list because once they convert, their thoughts no longer matter.

The question is not whether there are scientists who used to be evolutionists but are now creationists. We all know that there are. The point is, though, that people don't become creationists by studying the evidence. People become creationists when they learn it through their religion. Doesn't that say just a little something about the value of creationism?

 

[aeroz19]

The question is not whether there are scientists who used to be evolutionists but are now creationists. We all know that there are. The point is, though, that people don't become creationists by studying the evidence. People become creationists when they learn it through their religion. Doesn't that say just a little something about the value of creationism?

It's all about interpreting what we see. Darwin looked at the variety of animals and eventually came up with the idea that they had common ancestors and that they change over time. To me, that's just one way of explaining that which we observe, and it just happens to be very popular right now.

Here's a great site for ya, if you need an example of a person who observed the facts and became a Christian and creationist because of it:

http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html
http://www.ex-atheist.com/why-i-believe-god-is-real.html

This person is not the only example. If you need more examples, I encourage you to search for them. After all, you are the one asking, go find it yourself.

 

[theFijian]

I second the comment about the use of creation or creationism. And the reason is pretty obvious, don't you think? The evidence God left in His Creation says pretty clearly that creationism is wrong. So first you have to decide to worship the literal Bible as a god -- fundamentalism -- before you can believe creationism.

But I think you have a good point. YEC has never led anyone to God. Led several people away from God, but never led anyone to Him.

I would contest this as I have met people who were converted through being convinced of YEC and a literal reading of Genesis. I am not in a position to cast doubt on their profession of faith though they seem to me to be true believers.

However I have always wanted to ask them why they were only convinced of the Bible's truth and valifdity once they were convinced of YEC.

Andy

 

[Forty-Two]

So educated people discover science and the non-educated discover metaphysics?

Yes!

 

[Drotar]

Yes!

Forgive me for saying what I must- but this is a most arrogant and foolish claim.

Listen to what I am saying carefully: Many scientists live and breathe to make known their brilliance to others. Many claim interest in and knowledge of science because they seek the esteem of others opinions that they are intellectually superior. Publications, and acceptance and reverence within the scientific community is for many the ultimate goal.

For these people, they will not claim any part of religion. To do such would give the impression of intellectual incapability to explain everything naturalistically- or scientifically. To ascribe to theism as opposed to agnosticism places one in the field of inferiority to him or her who claims that they CAN explain everything through science. Theism demotes the scientist in the public forum since it impresses intellectual inadequacy to understand science to others. Thus many scientiests pride themselves in agnosticism- for this places them in the realm of capable of comprehending ALL phenomena at some point on some level scientifically.

Can a scientist explain such all phenomena naturalistically? You exist. You think. You possess self-awareness. Metacognition. You see where you evolved from and you can realize that your existence was not inevitable. Human evolution occurred so rapidly, and dawned upon nature such advanced life forms, that to explain the fact that you live, you exist, you think and that you are without the acceptance of a directing force will do you nothing.

You may think that religious people are those incapable of stomaching the utter meaninglessness of life. We are who we are because we realize the difference between the theist and the atheist: the former recognizes the limits- and has no difficulty in letting others know that those limits do indeed exist and has no difficulty or hindrance in accepting them.

Respond to this post as you will. Whether or not you possess the strength of mind to convince everyone else here otherwise I do not care. Whether or not this post gets forgotten under a rebuttal or response of keen and clever diction and reasoning I do not care. Atheists and agnosts are not such because they must be such or because they have intellectually ascended to such- it is because they desire others to believe they have.

 

[billwald]

"So educated people discover science and the non-educated discover metaphysics?"

No, people using the tools of science discover science and people using the tools of metaphysics discover metaphysics.

 

[ikester7579]

Feel free to list them. Your claim usually carries more weight if you attach actual facts to it instead of just the claim alone.

In my experience their thoughts no longer matter because they stop supporting them with verifiable and accurate data. Doesn't Hovind claim to be an ex-evolutionist?

LOL, you say list them, need evidence. Then contradict yourself by listing Hovind. A fine example of what you won't believe because you disagree. Now if Hovind was putting as much effort into evolution, your view about him would be different. For since he was a teacher of evolution, he had to be teaching what was in the text book. Because if you don't, someone complains, and you get fired.
Man, this is just to funny.