New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

[Chromer]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

As a Christian, there is no denying evolution. Living creatures evolve all around us to adapt to their enviroments. There is no getting around that. However, I do not believe in Creationary Evolution. I refuse to believe that I came from a monkey. Call me what you will, but that's my personal belief and no one said anyone else had to think the same as me.

[omgwtfToph]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Also, if you believe large-scale evolution has occured, you must necessarily deny the Bible's account of creation. There is simply no connection between the two. Reading Genesis shows you exactly what I mean.

edit: oops....ninja'd

yeah because the bible is definitely 100% literal and not figurative right

[Relambrien]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

I refuse to believe that I came from a monkey.

No offense, but anyone who believes humans came from monkeys doesn't know the first thing about evolution.

Evolutionists do not believe humans came from monkeys. We believe that humans and monkeys share a specific "common ancestor": a species we both evolved from, just in different ways. Who knows, perhaps the chimps of today look about as much like our common ancestor as cupboards do to badgers! (Stolen quote from devonin in a separate thread)

Regarding the argument of macroevolution vs microevolution, this is what it seems like to me:

Some people seem to believe that while advantageous characteristics can come out of DNA mutation, and thus create a larger population of creatures with those characteristics, there is a limit to how much DNA can mutate which prevents it from going beyond this. These people believe that species can only change slightly, and cannot become radically different over time due to the aforementioned limit on DNA mutation. These are the people who believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

Christianity is based on faith. The idea of such a divine being as God is extremely difficult for the human mind to comprehend. And therefore, most people turn to aetheist beliefs since they think that science can explain the origins of mankind. However, in the Christian faith we believe in the idea of a divine Creator. I guess we'll find out one day which viewpoint is correct, through Judgment Day or something else... that's your opinion.

Divine beings are not at all difficult for humans to comprehend. After all, there are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims, and 900 million Hindus in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions). I did not include Judaism because of its extreme minority. This means over 4.3 billion people, more than 2/3 of the world, believe in a divine being such as God. It's quite easy to say, "Hmm, it makes sense that there could be an omnipotent, omniscient being watching over the world, but not showing itself so as to not interfere directly with the world it created." I personally do not deny the existence of such a being, nor do I accept it. I accept its -possible- existence. If you must classify me, I am apatheist, or someone who just doesn't bother with religion.

So no, -comprehending- the idea of such a being is very easy, and even accepting it is done by over 2/3 of the world. Also, most people do -not- turn to atheistic beliefs; only 1.1 billion people are nonreligious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions). That's a little less than 1/6 of the world.

So tell me honestly: Other than my actual friends, will I get any benefit from either side of the Faith Line if both sides keep attacking at each other, despite the words that couldn't be any clearer:

While people have the right to believe what they want, people also have the right to try and convince others to believe what they believe (within limits, e.g. coercion). Try and imagine what it's like for the hardcore evolutionists and the hardcore religious:

The evolutionists believe that they are helping you by enlightening you to the process of evolution, and by refusing it by saying that God is involved, you are denying yourself the chance to be released from your dependence on a divine being, and are voluntarily living a life of servitude to a being whose existence cannot be confirmed.

The religious believe that they are helping you by enlightening you to the process of creation, and by refusing it by saying that science properly explained it, you shall suffer eternal damnation for defiance of God. In their eyes, they're helping you reach heaven, and you are denying their help, essentially voluntarily sending yourself to Hell.

Does that clear things up? Both sides are trying to "save" you, and both sides believe that standing in the middle only ensures your inability to be saved.

[TheDrizzle2010]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

yeah because the bible is definitely 100% literal and not figurative right

Sorry for getting off topic, but ignorance is annoying. In Genesis, it CLEARLY states that what God created was, and saw that it was good. Period. How can such a statement even be taken figuratively?

That he created something, deemed it as good, but wanted it to later change?

[devonin]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

What if he created it with the eventual change in mind? What if there was an important reason known to God why things needed to start a certain way in order to end up a certain way?

[TheDrizzle2010]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

But that's the thing, in the Bible, he deemed that his creation was good. I don't know how you interpret that, but to me that's saying that he created it exactly the way he wanted it.

However, all I was doing was asking how he could take a statement such as that and call it figurative.

[TheMagiKMan]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

But that's the thing, in the Bible, he deemed that his creation was good. I don't know how you interpret that, but to me that's saying that he created it exactly the way he wanted it.

However, all I was doing was asking how he could take a statement such as that and call it figurative.

Well, you see, if I was God that would mean I am perfect by my own definition, and seeing as how I was God, that would be true in all fashions, so even if I made something half-assed I could still deem it "good" and who would correct me, my own half-assed creation I assembled from mud, psh, not a chance.

[devonin]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

When I say "Man, that was a good steak" I don't mean that the steak was the absolute pinnacle of perfect steak to which all steak should aspire, and which should persist unchanged for all eternity. I'm not sure God would be any different.

[TheDrizzle2010]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Well, you see, if I was God that would mean I am perfect by my own definition, and seeing as how I was God, that would be true in all fashions, so even if I made something half-assed I could still deem it "good" and who would correct me, my own half-assed creation I assembled from mud, psh, not a chance.

What does that have to do with anything? I was responding to Devonin, not making a statement.

And even if I was, I was saying that when God said it was "good", I interpret that as the way he wanted it. I never said anything about correction from his own creations. I think you are confused.

@Devonin: You have a point, but the way the Bible uses the word "good" just seems to me as if on a grander scale. I don't know though, my point is purely interpretive speculation, so I don't really think it holds any grounds in an argument.

[devonin]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

"And saw that it was good" while written in a fairly epic style, doesn't necessarily mean perfect, or even excellent. More importantly, "Object X is exactly how I wanted it to be" doesn't require that how God wanted it to be is static. If it was "X, which will in the fullness of time become Y" and that is what God wants, then it is good.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Haven't you guys ever thought that a lot of us must be getting deceived by these "ploys"? After all, Christianity has just been around for 2000 years, plus it is the biggest religion in the world. Either a lot of people are believing in some big magic man or there is actually some validitity in Creationism. ^_^

Jesus FTW!

[mfelten86]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Haven't you guys ever thought that a lot of us must be getting deceived by these "ploys"? After all, Christianity has just been around for 2000 years, plus it is the biggest religion in the world. Either a lot of people are believing in some big magic man or there is actually some validitity in Creationism. ^_^

Jesus FTW!

I have thought of this countless times.

One thing that I can't explain is how once you "become" a Christian...it feels like there is no other way. Being a Christian I believe strongly that God did create us. And with his plan for each of us, we are just going to have to figure that out our own ways.

Divine beings are not at all difficult for humans to comprehend. After all, there are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims, and 900 million Hindus in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions). I did not include Judaism because of its extreme minority. This means over 4.3 billion people, more than 2/3 of the world, believe in a divine being such as God.

As for this, many many people declare that they "are" Christians. But they seem to just say that so that, they don't practice Jesus's word. Being a Christian means following the teachings of Jesus.

[sjoecool1991]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

You know, all threads about Christians and God are stupid.
All the anti-christian and evolutionists will be attracted to it, and flame everyone who says they believe in God.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

There's already been flaming going on in this topic. Aetheists seem to be threatened by Christians on FFR. It's a sad situation. I personally try not to flame back since that goes against my morals, but sometimes I lose control.

[Grandiagod]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Haven't you guys ever thought that a lot of us must be getting deceived by these "ploys"? After all, Christianity has just been around for 2000 years, plus it is the biggest religion in the world. Either a lot of people are believing in some big magic man or there is actually some validitity in Creationism. ^_^

Jesus FTW!

Now explain the massive numbers of Muslims and Hindus