Creationism recently

[Berimbolo No Jutsu]

I believe in both, it's silly to me to think that you can believe in an all powerful all knowing force and not think it would be smart enough to set up a sustaining force in the universe like evolution.

Well you kind of have to if you're reason for believing in this force in the first place is a book he wrote explaining how he did everything a few thousand years back.

 

[~Sky~]

Who's to say that didn't happen trillions upon trillions of times before 1 universe came out just right? When the numbers are big enough you're chances of having things happen just right go way up, low percentage maybe .000001% but out of a hundred trillion is still 100,000,000 that it happened just right!!

What proof do you have for that assumption?

The Big Bang Theory itself relies on several unobserved entities and is incredibly contradictory, yet you want to make even more unfounded assumptions about it?

How about you ask Stephen hawking what he thinks about the need for god as an explanation. He literally wrote a book about it and made a movie. It's a good read/watch

Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in an afterlife, but he admits to not knowing the answer as to how or why we are here, which is why he's entertained the possibility of there being a God.

 

[Berimbolo No Jutsu]

What proof do you have for that assumption?

The Big Bang Theory itself relies on several unobserved entities and is incredibly contradictory, yet you want to make even more unfounded assumptions about it?



Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in an afterlife, but he admits to not knowing the answer as to how or why we are here, which is why he's entertained the possibility of there being a God.

Lol, what are you talking about?? You're completely wrong on both counts. As for Stephen hawking here are his words:

You must be registered for see links

"There is no God." -Stephen Hawking

It's BECAUSE God does not exist that makes Hawking not believe in an afterlife.

 

[BanGinji]

I think it's more sound than the pokemon theory. i can accept adaptation and natural selection to a degree. but evolution...? nah.

 

[The Dreamer]

I really am against bringing relion to this forum, and yes I am religious, but believing the earth was created in 6 24hr days is illogical

You do realise that it wasn't literally 7 days right? n.n
OT: A funny thing is that people tend to say creationism is false and religious people are fanatic for believing in it but it is actually the only thing that makes sense and that the science itself has accepted. The Big Bang Theory goes hand to hand with it.

 

[Berimbolo No Jutsu]

You do realise that it wasn't literally 7 days right? n.n
OT: A funny thing is that people tend to say creationism is false and religious people are fanatic for believing in it but it is actually the only thing that makes sense and that the science itself has accepted. The Big Bang Theory goes hand to hand with it.

This is what denial looks like. The bible is meant to be taken literally and has for hundreds of years. That was the best explanation at the time in all truth. The Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with any creator.

 

[slimreaper]

This is what denial looks like. The bible is meant to be taken literally and has for hundreds of years. That was the best explanation at the time in all truth. The Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with any creator.

NO the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally. Almost all christians know this.

 

[Berimbolo No Jutsu]

NO the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally. Almost all christians know this.

Lmao! Obviously that is what they say NOW because it makes no sense at all anymore. We know too much, but not a couple hundred years ago just suggesting the bible night not be 100% true in the literal sense like you just did would LITERALLY get you executed for heresy. Some places that follow similar beliefs it still can.

So tell me how when the bible first came to be up to about a hundred years ago all Christians knew it was 100% literal and written by God and could never be questioned, but now that we know it's all just stories that aren't true due to undeniable evidence, all of a sudden many "Christians" claim it isn't literal. Lol. Sounds to me like it's just a receding pocket of ignorance previous generations are struggling to get their children to accept, because it is no longer relevant and only causes harm to the world. Their was a time religion and belief in god and hell was important for society, but it's just irrelevant now. It's insane that people kill each other over this shit to this day.

 

[Callypigia]

What is this crap? I wasn't descended from some sort of amphibian.

 

[Berimbolo No Jutsu]

What is this crap? I wasn't descended from some sort of amphibian.

Really than who were you descended from? Adam and Eve? How many generations back was that? About 6,000 years? So let's say 4 generations pass on average every 100 years... So that Would make Adam and Eve more or less your 250th great grandparents. ... Wait that means in only 250 generations originating with only ONE INCREDIBLY INCEST-FULL FAMILY WE SPRING UP 6,000,000,000+ people of different races and genetic variability... Wait a minute... Let's ignore the fact that it's impossible in terms of genetic variability, incest can produce offspring but only for so long. We can ignore that though. This would mean that the mean for each generation would have to be 24,000,000 new babies that survive and reproduce...

Yeah that is way more likely than the proven adaptation building up over millions of years.

 

[Callypigia]

Really than who were you descended from? Adam and Eve? How many generations back was that? About 6,000 years? So let's say 4 generations pass on average every 100 years... So that Would make Adam and Eve more or less your 250th great grandparents. ... Wait that means in only 250 generations originating with only ONE INCREDIBLY INCEST-FULL FAMILY WE SPRING UP 6,000,000,000+ people of different races and genetic variability... Wait a minute... Let's ignore the fact that it's impossible in terms of genetic variability, incest can produce offspring but only for so long. We can ignore that though. This would mean that the mean for each generation would have to be 24,000,000 new babies that survive and reproduce...

Yeah that is way more likely than the proven adaptation building up over millions of years.

If you so bright, how come u no understand sarcasm. :yayy:

 

[Berimbolo No Jutsu]

If you so bright, how come u no understand sarcasm. :yayy:

Someone reading this was thinking it either way. Adam and his *** rib could be the most ridiculous story people actually believe was true.

 

[Berimbolo No Jutsu]

Oh I forgot about Noah's ark. Yeah so the whole world (which was apparantly all of one race at the time?) got wiped out. The Noah built a boat and put an inconceivable amount of animals and food on board with his three sons. Which by the way not only repopulate the entire world to the 6,000,000,000+ we have today, but also created all the races and racism! Thanks guys. Apparently one of Noah's sons was the first black guy. They dropped him off in Africa. The other was Chinese so try took him to Asia. Then he had a white son that he dropped over in north Easter Europe. Must have been tough to find with all that water and boat stuck on a mountain though. Not bad for a 600 year old dude to pull that all off.


So yeah. What is the timeline on those guys. I guess all white people came from Noah's son, so that is one guy... And that would be like 150 generations back?

 

[slimreaper]

If you so bright, how come u no understand sarcasm. :yayy:

Because its hard to convey sarcasm in text without faces or directly saying it.

 

[cptenn94]

There is nothing random about it when you understand the math.

As far as intelligent design, there is nothing intelligent about our design! Lol. We eat and breath through the same hole so hundreds of thousands of healthy intelligent people die every year for no reason! Even dolphins don't eat and breath through the same hole. If we were designed intelligently our design would be a lot more intelligent.

Intelligent design has nothing to do with being "the perfect design".
Scientifically it has to do with the sheer odds of everything just so happens to work together and function properly. The sheer complexity of biology and the universe. How it all works out well.
I suggest you go read a book about microbiology, and just how complex everything is in our bodies. Sure there are many people who some things wrong with them. But for all that goes wrong, they have thousands of things that function properly.

The odds are completely astronomical.

"Days" is pretty clear in the bible. You're either with it or against it. The problem with your theory is that you're basically saving god by using him as a convenient explanation for the ever receding list of things we still can't fully explain. So what is the point? It's already to the point where anyone with any education that wants to believe in god creating the earth has to except the fact that the word of god and bible is completely inaccurate, then rewrite your own version of it in your head.

Really? I didnt know you read hebrew. Because everything must clearly translate between two completely different languages.
The problem with my "theory" is that I do not have a theory. Other than believing in God and that he created the earth, and that Jesus is God and died for my sins. Thats it. There is no "saving God for the ever receeding list of things we still cant explain". It is as simple as God is the force that created the universe and the mechanisms it runs on.

I have not studied the bible enough to get a proper understanding, nor will I claim to understand it. But days may very well be actual days, or it could be millions-billions of years for God. So far the only part of the Bible I have decent knowledge on, is the New Testament. Which is the only part NEEDED for my faith.

Everyday I question further, to try to determine the specifics of how and what I think God did when He created the universe.
I am far from settled on a stance.

If you actually paid attention to what I had said there, then you would may have realized that I said "As for the universe being created in 6 days, I do not have a answer. Perhaps it was 6 days, perhaps the "days" are actually millions of years. "

Focus on this quote "I do not have a answer".

This thread is about creationalism and trying to understand what creationalists believe, and why. All I was saying in that quote was just speculation, not based on any particular belief, because I do not have one currently.

As for micro evolution, but not macro evolution. This is just pure ignorance. There is only one evolution. It's not like xmen in nature, all those minor adaptations/mutations add up and and create new species. You're just thinking on a timeline you can understand. A few hundred to a few thousand years. Think about those same adaptations over hundreds of millions of years!! That is what turns fish into mammals. You can't see it unless you look at the whole timeline. Then it is undeniable:

You must be registered for see links

That is complete bull. There may be only one evolutionary process, but Micro evolution and macro evolution are indeed different things.
Micro evolution is best seen as dogs today. Dogs look and have many many traits different from their wolf coyote etc counterparts. Yet you can still breed them all together. This is due to a process known as "natural selection". Otherwise known as survival of the fittest. The dogs were bred for specific desireable traits. As a result there are many many completely different looking animals. None of these breeds though, have developed any new organs or anything like that.

Macro evolution is a similar but different matter. Parts of macro evolution do NOT quite fit with micro evolution. Here is a good example.

A dinosaur has feathers. Unless a sudden drastic mutation occured, that gave this dinosaur wings, it would not make sense for it to have half of a wing developed. That would give it a handicap compared to its fellow dinosaurs in the evolutionary process. Its arm would be useless as a arm, and useless as a wing.

Lets say a human began developing a tail. In a wild environment, where the fittest survive, that tail would serve no purpose. It may even hinder with the persons ability to move. As it actually has.(there is a Indian kid who is revered as a incarnation of a "hindu?" god, due to haveing a tail. This tail actually makes it difficult for him to walk and run and stuff.


To put it in more simple terms.
Micro evolution. Proven. A good example would be a short necked girraffe ancestor growing a longer neck over time.
This type of evolution is where a creature which has characteristics that best suit the environment thrive over its slightly inferior counterpart. It is adapting traits which already exist. So a nose may become more sensitive. A eye may be able to see farther. Fur may grow thicker or thinner. Height may change etc. Extreme cases of this, can be seen through our theorized evolution from apes. Apes themselves bear a resembelance, and the features distinguishing us are still similar. But they do not grow something new.

There is loads of scientific knowledge about this process. Humanity has a good grasp on it.


Macro evolution. Still has some flaws. A good example would be a dinosaur turning into a bird.
This type of evolution, involves the creation of something new. It involves more drastic changes. It involves a species becoming something entirely different than what it was before. So it would be like a lizard becoming a human. It involves a entirely new trait to appear. Rather than the modification of a old trait.
Its main problem is a lack of good transition fossils to show evidence. This has not been yet observed in modern times.
It involves half formed organs and limbs and stuff.

There are still parts that need to be explained. As this process has yet to be observed in modern times. Currently this part of evolution speculation is used the most, and many theories are made about different species.

Together they form the process known as Evolution.
Their processes are the same. A living organisms dna changes over time to become a different organism. But they are different, in the effect they have.

You certainly must view evolution at the whole timeline. But if you do not also look at it closely, then you will lack proper understanding.

Also I have no idea where you're getting these statistics from but they make no sense and in no way relate to the probability of evolution.

Well I cannot source where my statistics come from as they were not specific statistics. But statistics and probability DO relate to the probability of evolution.

Science is all about finding out what is most probable, and then testing what is most probable.
When you have something that is really really unprobable, then you need to seek to find a probable explaination.
Any explaination is better than no explaination. So if you are unable to find a more probable explanation then you must use the unprobable explanation to be able to move forward. As you go on you may find more evidence to increase its probability. In the end the most probable and statistically likely explanation is what you are to go by.

With evolution, despite how statistically unlikely it is, there has not been a alternative explanation(other than religions). Which makes it the only current explanation.

Even if someone comes up with another theory, this may still be more probable.

In science you use the most probable theory, until you either discover it is trash and discover a new better theory, or you continue to find more evidence to support that theory.

This is easily viewed in our theory of the structure of the atom.

I agree with your last point. We have tons to learn, but you're arguing over things we do know. And for the things we don't know. That is just it. We don't know. It could be anything. Ihopefully we continue to chip away at the secrets of the universe.

I am not arguing over things we do know. I am questioning their validity, and keeping a open mind to the possibility that we may be putting the puzzle together wrong. That there could be something else that fits even better.
As you said, we dont know about the things we dont know. So we dont know about the possible theory that may fit even better than the theory of evolution.

Please please please, do not mistake what I am saying as "cptenn94 says evolution is false." or anything like that.

I simply question all things. I keep a open mind that someone missed something somewhere, and is putting the puzzle together wrong.

I agree completely that Evolution is the most likely, and currently only scientific theory that explains the origin of all our species.

Whether my faith in God has me thinking of creationalism, or seeing God as the shaper behind evolution or whatever, it does not change how evolution is the most scientifically accurate theory so far.

God is a mystic unseen force. His power and acts are not explainable through science. So as such science does not interfere with God.


If there is one scientific find that would make me the most happy, it would be a find that would cause them to have to completely rewrite the textbooks on the entire subject. I would just be happy, because it would help turn down the arrogance of many scientists, and encourage others to be more open mind to the fact they could be wrong.


So in conclusion you may view me as argueing about nothing. You may even view what I do as a waste of time. But to me it is not. It is so amazing just sitting and pondering all the various things about the universe. To question the things we know, and create other theories to explain them. Many of them are absurd, but they can also be fun.

(for example I once had a discussion with my dad about why we never find bigfoot. One of the theories was that he is actually a alien and has a cloaking device, and is very intelligent, and thus can never really be found. Obviously this is a absurd theory, and is not serious.)

I dont know if you have ever read the manga "deathnote"(if you did not, then I recommend it). If you did, then you would remember L. L made many seemingly absurd theories, that did not make very logical sense. Yet in the end he was right.

I just really enjoy to sit and ponder the mysteries of the universe.

 

[Olorin]

How can ppl buy creationism XD sad really

 

[The Dreamer]

How can ppl buy creationism XD sad really

What's sad is people like you. You just hate. Don't even know why...

 

[Callypigia]

What's sad is people like you. You just hate. Don't even know why...

My hate goes far inside it.

Acrimony doesn't accomplish anything. Persecution doesn't change minds; matter-of-fact persecution strengthens peoples' beliefs through cognitive dissonance. Moreover, entrenched beliefs on most subjects will not be changed on a Naruto forum. We can choose to hate people for different beliefs, but it only hurts the Self. Understanding, compassion, and respect does not mean that we agree with everyone; we just acknowledge different worldviews.

 

[Scooby Doo]

What's sad is people like you. You just hate. Don't even know why...

It's you who is hating on people. For example you called homosexuals freaks,and wanted to give hydrogene cyanide to those who think that *** is for pleasure.

 

[Olorin]

What's sad is people like you. You just hate. Don't even know why...

I don't hate, I laugh at creationism