Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: conjur
And then piasabird followed up your post.Originally posted by: kage69
The stupidity of closeminded people never ceases to amaze me. My poor, poor country.
Perfect timing.
Oy vey.
Are you sure that 'close-minded' label doesn't more accurately describe your post, moreso than pisabird's? :roll:
I have no idea how humans came to be - whether we grew out of a puddle of gunk, evolved from other animals (that mysterious sprung up), were placed here by being(s) of higher intelligence, shite-out by a passing Space Walrus, etc - but I'm certainly going to keep my mind open about any and all potential possibilities. You, however, seem to have already decided which ones you can ignore. Must be nice to have all the answers..
Another take on that: If I'm doing some computer work and need to generate some data, I'll write a little program to do it. Now the problem comes along that the program is "perfect," so the data is also perfect, and not indicative of real-world data. So I go in and add some "noise," usually based upon a randomize function and the system clock. TADA! Now I have some imperfect data to use. We also have some signal noise generators for use in the lab, for similar purposes.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The thinking behind it is that in order to be able to create imperfection you have to be able to think and/or act imperfectly. If a being can think or act imperfectly it is, by definition, an imperfect being itself.Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Why can't God intentionally create an imperfect being? What's the logic behind #2, just out of curiosity?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:
1) Man is perfect, or
2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.
If God made man susceptible to radiation from a neutron star then he didn't create man perfectly to begin with.Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Another take on that: If I'm doing some computer work and need to generate some data, I'll write a little program to do it. Now the problem comes along that the program is "perfect," so the data is also perfect, and not indicative of real-world data. So I go in and add some "noise," usually based upon a randomize function and the system clock. TADA! Now I have some imperfect data to use. We also have some signal noise generators for use in the lab, for similar purposes.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The thinking behind it is that in order to be able to create imperfection you have to be able to think and/or act imperfectly. If a being can think or act imperfectly it is, by definition, an imperfect being itself.Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Why can't God intentionally create an imperfect being? What's the logic behind #2, just out of curiosity?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:
1) Man is perfect, or
2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.
So why can't God have made a perfect man, then injected a bit of cosmic radation from a wobbly neutron star or something to add some 'noise' to the formula? Instant imperfection!
/me goes back to the smoking pot thread.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Another take on that: If I'm doing some computer work and need to generate some data, I'll write a little program to do it. Now the problem comes along that the program is "perfect," so the data is also perfect, and not indicative of real-world data. So I go in and add some "noise," usually based upon a randomize function and the system clock. TADA! Now I have some imperfect data to use. We also have some signal noise generators for use in the lab, for similar purposes.
So why can't God have made a perfect man, then injected a bit of cosmic radation from a wobbly neutron star or something to add some 'noise' to the formula? Instant imperfection!
/me goes back to the smoking pot thread.
I have an answer to that.Originally posted by: chess9
"If God made man susceptible to radiation from a neutron star then he didn't create man perfectly to begin with."
The problem with this statement, and a couple like it above, is that we do not know what constitutes perfection in the eyes of any God. You have to engage in a huge leap of definitional faith to reach your conclusion. You know what YOU think perfection is, but God may have other ideas. Artists see perfection in imperfection every day, by way of example.
You've put Descartes before the horse. Er, or something like that. (couldn't resist that old one)
-Robert
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I give consideration, but certainly not equal consideration. But if we were to find an alien civilization that approximately matched our intelligence, and 90%+ of them believed in some variant of a Space Walrus genesis, then I'd certainly want to research and study that possibility a bit further, instead of simply laughing and throwing it out completely.Originally posted by: TremblingFool
You give equal consideration to your Space Walrus theory as you do to the theory of evolution? You call it open-minded, I call it stupidity. Some people ask questions, like "why?" and "how?" Evolution is an attempt to answer those questions. Creationism doesn't even seem to care.
Common sense tells me to disregard theories that are obviously BS. I can use this common sense to determine that you completely made up your theory that we are the feces of a giant, tusked space creature. This is the same reason I can disregard creationism.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You claim that creationism doesn?t seem to care, but where do you get that idea? You probably simply made it up, as you may have spent very little time attempting to understand what Creationism is all about, or following current trends in the field. I may be wrong, as I don?t know you.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: TremblingFool
If you want creationism taught in science classes, then why aren't you fighting for your other wonderful theories as well? They seem to be just as valid. Don't forget, you were the one that compared them to creationism, not me.
You seriously dropped the ball on this one. I have absolutely NO interest in seeing Creationism taught in school. I?ve even been to my daughter?s school on several occasions to protest the seemingly religious undertones of some of the things she brings home. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and hold Creationism as a religious issue, not a scientific one. You might want to be careful with those snap judgments. .
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:
1) Man is perfect, or
2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.
#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.
Some from the Great Books have argued something called Free Will?
Of course everyone has their own take on this.
I've read some of those arguments but they address only our imperfect thoughts, not our imperfect physical being. Babies are born deformed and retarded every single day in this world. Does a benevolent God intentionally cripple people or start them and not even allow them to be born? Or did God screw up genetics?
But this is a question of perception and reallity. Your perception or mine may not be reallity at all.
Originally posted by: chess9
"If God made man susceptible to radiation from a neutron star then he didn't create man perfectly to begin with."
The problem with this statement, and a couple like it above, is that we do not know what constitutes perfection in the eyes of any God. You have to engage in a huge leap of definitional faith to reach your conclusion. You know what YOU think perfection is, but God may have other ideas. Artists see perfection in imperfection every day, by way of example.
You've put Descartes before the horse. Er, or something like that. (couldn't resist that old one)
-Robert
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Assuming one belives in God, would he feel the need to fool us all as to the nature of reality? If what we perceive as reality isn't so, then God would not exist either. At least, the God that humans have defined would not exist.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:
1) Man is perfect, or
2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.
#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.
Some from the Great Books have argued something called Free Will?
Of course everyone has their own take on this.
I've read some of those arguments but they address only our imperfect thoughts, not our imperfect physical being. Babies are born deformed and retarded every single day in this world. Does a benevolent God intentionally cripple people or start them and not even allow them to be born? Or did God screw up genetics?
But this is a question of perception and reallity. Your perception or mine may not be reallity at all.
But you're mixing two concepts:Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Are you sure that 'close-minded' label doesn't more accurately describe your post, moreso than pisabird's? :roll:Originally posted by: conjur
And then piasabird followed up your post.Originally posted by: kage69
The stupidity of closeminded people never ceases to amaze me. My poor, poor country.
Perfect timing.
Oy vey.
I have no idea how humans came to be - whether we grew out of a puddle of gunk, evolved from other animals (that mysterious sprung up), were placed here by being(s) of higher intelligence, shite-out by a passing Space Walrus, etc - but I'm certainly going to keep my mind open about any and all potential possibilities. You, however, seem to have already decided which ones you can ignore. Must be nice to have all the answers..
Uh....Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Deformity came into earthly life as we know it today through Adam's selfishness through submission to temptation.
Look through the second link of my signature; I don't yet subscribe to the idea, but it seems to give answers that more poplular versions of creationism can't address.
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...polls/main657083.shtml
More proof that ignorance is bliss.(CBS) Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry?s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.
I weep for this nation.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Assuming one belives in God, would he feel the need to fool us all as to the nature of reality? If what we perceive as reality isn't so, then God would not exist either. At least, the God that humans have defined would not exist.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:
1) Man is perfect, or
2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.
#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.
Some from the Great Books have argued something called Free Will?
Of course everyone has their own take on this.
I've read some of those arguments but they address only our imperfect thoughts, not our imperfect physical being. Babies are born deformed and retarded every single day in this world. Does a benevolent God intentionally cripple people or start them and not even allow them to be born? Or did God screw up genetics?
But this is a question of perception and reallity. Your perception or mine may not be reallity at all.
Of course that is like saying we are Godly in our thoughts. That we know all and see all, but of course this certianly isn't the case.
Originally posted by: TremblingFool
Ok, I'll bite. What is creationism all about? Why do you give it consideration? You can't just say because millions of people do. How does creationism answer any "why" or "how" question? Extra points if you can answer that without circular logic.
so why do you envision a flame-fest, if not for the simple reason you want to see one?
Originally posted by: conjur
Uh....Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Deformity came into earthly life as we know it today through Adam's selfishness through submission to temptation.
Look through the second link of my signature; I don't yet subscribe to the idea, but it seems to give answers that more poplular versions of creationism can't address.
BTW, the Bible is NOT meant to be a resource for scientific research. It's merely about the human condition and a guide to a spiritual and righteous life. Anyone who even begins to try and use the Bible to explain how the earth, the sun, the universe itself were formed is distorting the Bible to suit their belief.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: TremblingFool
Ok, I'll bite. What is creationism all about? Why do you give it consideration? You can't just say because millions of people do. How does creationism answer any "why" or "how" question? Extra points if you can answer that without circular logic.
Come on now: www.google.com
I can't do it *all* for ya!
But here's just an example of some modern Creationism ideas:
According to progressive creationism, God created the universe, life, and humanity, but he did it over a period of time billions of years long. As various species evolved from earlier species, God intervened periodically to give the process a helping hand. Without God's assistance, evolution would never have progressed as rapidly as it did on our planet
Theistic evolutionism is more liberal, for it maintains that God only created the universe and simple life, not any complex form of life, including humanity. The idea is that after God created a very simple life form on our planet about three billion years ago, he departed the scene and allowed evolution by means of natural selection to take over. Thus, all forms of life on our planet today, including humans, are descended (by purely natural means) from that earliest life form. A still more liberal outlook, which might be called "deistic evolutionism," maintains that God only created the universe (about fifteen billion years ago) and nothing else. Everything other than the universe itself, including the earth and its first life form, arose by purely natural means.
Now, I'm not necessarily condoning or subscribing to any of these, but just wanted to point out that Creationism is not simply "God made us. End of story." You claimed that Creationism makes no attempts to address some of it's criticisms or contrary scientific evidence, and I'm just posting this to show you that that's not exactly true.
Cheers.
I don't disagree that one can find general statements in the Bible that match geologic processes but use the Bible as the answers as to how the earth was formed and how long ago it was formed is pure madness.Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
But when the Bible presents a radically different view of earth's history than what scientists have determined on their own, a person who puts faith in th Bible would necessarily need to depart from scientific orthodoxy in this manner.Originally posted by: conjur
Uh....Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Deformity came into earthly life as we know it today through Adam's selfishness through submission to temptation.
Look through the second link of my signature; I don't yet subscribe to the idea, but it seems to give answers that more poplular versions of creationism can't address.
BTW, the Bible is NOT meant to be a resource for scientific research. It's merely about the human condition and a guide to a spiritual and righteous life. Anyone who even begins to try and use the Bible to explain how the earth, the sun, the universe itself were formed is distorting the Bible to suit their belief.
You should look through the website; it makes strong arguments that point to an agreement between the Bible and geology.
Considering all this, I still see evolution as a valid theory and a necessary tool in understanding biological processes that are occuring right now. But humans' similarity genetically to other primates is not enough to force me to believe in human evolution; the differences between humans and all other animals on earth are mind-numbingly extreme.
don't disagree that one can find general statements in the Bible that match geologic processes but use the Bible as the answers as to how the earth was formed and how long ago it was formed is pure madness.
True. But not all religious people use a literal interpretation in regards to the Bible. Personally, I see it as a group of stories that help us understand how we are expected to live together and grow, mixed in with some hand-me-down stories from God that got seriously muddled through the primitive language of the day, use of prophets, countless re-tellings, political agendas, and numerous interpretations. It may have once been intended to be "The Word of God," but I can't seriously believe that to be the case, in it's current form.Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Those who follow the Bible could never accept that idea (theistic evolution). The Bible is very clear that the species around today were created in discrete stages; furthermore, death entered (today's) world through Adam's sin.
Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
don't disagree that one can find general statements in the Bible that match geologic processes but use the Bible as the answers as to how the earth was formed and how long ago it was formed is pure madness.
Yet the Bible already hinted at these data long before the data were collected.
Secular critics of Young Earth Creationism cite the very existence of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the paleoenvironmental record it contains (as well as the data found in ice cores from the glaciers on Kilimanjaro in Africa and Huascaran in Peru) as absolute proof that the Earth is older than 6,000 years and that Noah's flood did not occur, since there are no indications of a flood in the ice core layers. On the first point they are absolutely correct. On the second point, we disagree that the lack of direct evidence in the ice proves that a global flood did not take place at all. There is certainly "indirect" evidence to consider.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: conjur
And then piasabird followed up your post.Originally posted by: kage69
The stupidity of closeminded people never ceases to amaze me. My poor, poor country.
Perfect timing.
Oy vey.
Are you sure that 'close-minded' label doesn't more accurately describe your post, moreso than pisabird's? :roll:
I have no idea how humans came to be - whether we grew out of a puddle of gunk, evolved from other animals (that mysterious sprung up), were placed here by being(s) of higher intelligence, shite-out by a passing Space Walrus, etc - but I'm certainly going to keep my mind open about any and all potential possibilities. You, however, seem to have already decided which ones you can ignore. Must be nice to have all the answers..