can anyone ever really take creationalism seriously?

@ESKARENA1 (18296)
March 6, 2007 3:56pm CST
Ive read the debate and ive seen the science i just cant see how any rational person can take creationism seriously, can anyone convince me differently?
6 people like this
8 responses
@gberlin (3836)
6 Mar 07
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation. What do you think is more rational than creation?
@marzenna (253)
7 Mar 07
Maybe yes maybe no. But the question was...can we take the creationism seriously? I do not think that we can. However I am prepare to change my mind if any of the creationists will came with any evidence supporting their theory.
4 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
7 Mar 07
Gberlin, Evolution IS their religion. Most of them don't know a bit more about the evidence for evolution than that they demand of creation. They defend their religion/ideology passionately. They want and desperately need to believe to believe it's true.
4 people like this
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
No, no, leavert, you got it all wrong. Pastafarianism is my (and of others also) religion. Believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you will be saved.
3 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
It all depends on what specific brand of Creationism you are talking about. For instance, if someone believes that 14 billion years ago a god created the beginning of the universe, all matter in it, time, space, and everything, setting in motion a natural process that would eventually lead to the formation of stars, planets, and life, I can certainly respect that view. Why? Because it does not directly contradict what we know about the universe. Yes, it's based only on faith. And yes, it's not a scientific belief at all, since it evokes a supernatural entity. But as long as it doesn't contradict our accumulated knowledge about the universe and the world we live in, I have no problem with anyone believing in something based on faith alone. I may not share their views, but I do try to respect them. There are many other brands of creationism that are different: they contradict what we know about the world. for instance, if one of those creationism legends says that the world was created only 6.000 years ago, I can't really take that belief seriously, for the sole reason that it is completely at odds with our investigations of how old the Earth is.
@gberlin (3836)
7 Mar 07
I don't find it hard to believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago. When God created Adam He did not create him as a newborn baby. He was fully grown. The same with the animals and the trees and the earth. The sun, moon and stars were also created as 'full grown'. That is why I don't have a problem with investigations on how old the earth is. Does this make sense?
1 person likes this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
The problem is, your idea ignores a lot of information we have about the world and the universe. We have several ways of measuring the age of the planet. One very well-known way is through carbon-dating. It is a process which tells us how long a rock or a portion of soil has existed; If we can hold in our hands rocks that have been tested and found to be millions of years old, how can one believe that the universe has only existed for 6.000 years? The same goes for all the other methods we have of measuring the age of the universe, such as calculating the time it takes for the light of a REALLY far away star to get here, measuring ice sheets in the poles, tree rings, so on and so forth. Every investigation we have made into the natural world shows the world to be billions of years old; the only single piece of information that contradicts this is a religious text. When faith and reality collide, faith must give way, otherwise it loses credibility.
3 people like this
@gberlin (3836)
7 Mar 07
But what proof is there that God did not create the earth billions of years old. He created Adam as a man not a baby. He created trees that were already full grown. Why could He not create the earth and it be billions of years old when He created it?
2 people like this
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
No, not even ID can be take seriously. I asked many times in mylot and other places the following question : What is the Scientific Theory of Creationism ? Still waiting for a satisfactory answer.
3 people like this
@marzenna (253)
7 Mar 07
AGREED. But if there are PLEASE, PLEASE you guys let us know!!!
3 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
7 Mar 07
And I'm still waiting for Jricbt to answer the questions I put forth regarding evolution Like explain the evolution of flight Explain the evolution of the spoken language Explain the evolution of male and female reproductive organs i.e. how did evolution coordinate the two? Why do many evolutionists say the fossil record doesn't support the theory of evolution such as Gould, Eldrege, Patterson, etc Are they just a bunch of liars or what's the deal? Give a specific example of how your favorite evolutionary mechanism came up with an entirely new species.
3 people like this
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
Oh, owens, you did not even provided one single example of the so called specified complexity. You talked a lot about it. Even gave a definition. One practical example? None, as far as the last time I read it. But wait, I will write a little about the subjects and then we will see. Until them, consider the F.S.M. you really need him in your life.
3 people like this
@bgerig (1258)
• United States
6 Mar 07
you believe what you believe. for me, I just can't figure out how it would have started. there had to be some force behind the initial science, in my opinion.
@ESKARENA1 (18296)
6 Mar 07
well ok thank you for your addition to debate blessed be
2 people like this
@marzenna (253)
7 Mar 07
I absolutely agree with you but why do you think that it has to be an supernatural being?
3 people like this
@bgerig (1258)
• United States
7 Mar 07
what would else could it be?
3 people like this
• United States
6 Mar 07
I doubt anyone can change your mind because you all ready have it made up. I myself do not beleive in creationisim. On the other hand if we evolved, then what did we evolve from and where did that come from? ther eis no real answer just what you personally beleive in.
3 people like this
@ESKARENA1 (18296)
6 Mar 07
good point, positively rated. I do however wonder what factors influence belief in the supernatural to this degree? blessed be
3 people like this
@marzenna (253)
7 Mar 07
I am prepared to change my mind if only creationists would came with single one evidence to support their theory. I read a lot of evidence supporting the evolution and therefore I incline to believe that. We evolved form a simple organisms and there are lots of evidence to support that. If you would like read please my post : "The challenge to creationists". I really would not like to type that again. My apologies for being lazy.
5 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
7 Mar 07
If you were really sincere about at least wanting to see what evidence creationists claim as evidence you'd go and visit their sites. Then you could compare their evidence with your what you've learned about evolution. By the way, the sites refer to real scientists with credentials that equal those of evolutionists Some of the sites are:m trueorigin.org answersingenesis.org You can also type in "creation headlines into the search engine.
2 people like this
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
For all the creationists that I usually discuss with. I will not answer seriously ONE single question of any of you until I get a (sorry for the caps, they were necessary) SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF CREATIONISM, the evidence to support it and how it explains all the evidence for evolution that we have. Until that, what I already asked many times, I will just make fun of you creationists. Note to owens : I will answer your questions concerning the evolution of flight, and others, and that is it. After that I will not even bother with creationists until I obtain the definitions asked for above. Peace, and may the F.S.M. be with you.
2 people like this
• United States
11 Mar 07
I agree, I don't think there is any need to mix science and religion. It is not only dangerous but ignorant.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18308)
8 Mar 07
If by Creationalism you mean the story of Adam and Eve, yes I believe both. I take the bible story as seriously revealing profound truths about human nature and evolution as giving a reasonably good account of human development. Render unto Caesar... Now what's the problem, I don't see it all the best urban
1 person likes this