Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 172

Thread: creationism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    187

    creationism

    Ok i dont under stand. This is a astronmy site i beleive in the big bang. Ok i know im hanging myself for a trashing here. But i beleive in god and if he said let tere be light there could have been the big bang and there was light. Id rather think along these lines than to think im an ape. Please be king to me im not trying to stsrt a fight here. but i figured you people into astronmy would lean more my way. i guess im wrong then in thinking of how the heavens and eart became life as we know it. Well all for now.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    971
    Well, this is a site dedicated to science, focused mostly on the sciences of astronomy, astrophysics, astrometrics, astrogeology, astrobiology, etc etc. As such, there's a rather high concentration of people who utilize or practice the scientific method. A good number don't differentiate between subjects when it comes to applying the scientific method. Biology is every bit as much a science as astronomy is, and vice versa. Spiritual views don't come into play in such discussions. On top of that, we rather strictly held to the rules encouraging us to not discuss such subjective and (deeply) personal topics, since they often lead to unpleasentness.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    As Kristophe states, there are rules restricting religious discussions. However, if they relate to astronomy, they are acceptable, if courtesy is used.

    Religon rule...
    12 B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by slotdrag
    ...But i beleive in god and if he said let tere be light there could have been the big bang and there was light.
    It is very unlikely the Big Bang event would be visible. One reason is the plasma state of matter does not allow photons (light) to travel outward. About 380,000 years after the "bang", electrons found their homes around the nucleous of atoms during a quick period called recombination; light was turned loose and we now see this same flash from over 13 billion years ago in the reduced energy level of microwaves: the CMB.

    An alternative idea would be light from the Sun itself, maybe, or some spiritual alternative which is not astronomy.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    187
    Ok if a mod. finds this to break the rules im sorry you can delete the tread. I like the answers ive gotten so far. thanks im just trying to put things so i can understand. because i dont beleive i evolved from an ape.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,784

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by slotdrag
    i dont beleive i evolved from an ape.
    That's the point, it's a believe.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,604
    slotdrag, what has the big bang got to do with evolution?

    There are many people who accept the processes of evolution who have no problem reconciling it with their belief in a god. There are also people who accept the big bang who can reconcile that acceptance with belief in a god.


    You don't HAVE to believe that you were decended from an ape. Evolution doesn't say this. Evolution indicates that apes and humans decended from a common ancestor that was neither ape OR human.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,236
    Quote Originally Posted by slotdrag
    because i dont beleive i evolved from an ape.
    You don't have to, as evolution is not a belief system. Common ancestry, as noted above by paulie jay. I'd recommend spending some time reading through the TalkOrigins resources to further your understanding of the subject matter.

    To reiterate, evolution is a biological model; the Big Bang is a cosmological model. They each deal with separate areas and should not be meshed together.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,135
    And to separate things more, evolution is about the diversity of life, not it's origin. Apart from a few experiments that showed that some of the chemicals important to life could have been easily produced by natural processes, the origin of life is still one of the big gaps in scientific knowledge. Evolution, on the other hand, is about as well established as a scientific theory can be. Creationists have been trying to disprove it for 150 years, and it's still the basis for biology.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    There are also some who find evolution is helpful to Genesis. For instance, who did Cain marry if not another homo sapien, who may have evolved over billions of years in accordance with a creator's engineered plan?

    Most creationists are not against evolution and are not stuck on a 6,000 yr. universe. However, since there is a great push by those who are adamant against these views, often creationism becomes the pejorative term (at least until a better label comes along). Essentially, Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Intellegent Design (ID) represent the bulk of the objections to mainstream science. [It would be nice if a snappy term would surface to qualify those being criticized.]

    IMO, science represents a unique class of truth searching. It has matured to the point ideas must meet the requirements established in the scientific method. Here, validity is determined by measurability only; the greater the number of measurable predicitions and the greater the measurments, the greater it contributes to our understanding of the truth about the physical universe. This allows us to have a firm foundation from which to build. However, it is not a substitute for faith and issues, such as love and morals, which are difficult to measure.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by slotdrag
    Id rather think along these lines than to think im an ape.
    Science doesn't care how comfortable anyone is about its findings. There are a lot of things I don't like: for example, I wish we could travel faster than light. Regardless of how you and I may feel about it, all the evidence we have indicates that we can't go faster than light. And that we are apes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnW
    ... And that we are apes.
    We aren't apes, which seems to be a key concern in the o.p. As Paulie Jay pointed out, we, apparently, share a common ancestor. [I suspect you were simply affirming evolution which is validated by science but I did not want this point confused.]
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,509
    According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,032
    Interesting recent article

    From the article,

    "Intriguingly, both humans and chimpanzees appear to have evolved slower than gorillas and orangutans," they wrote in their report.
    If you met some of the humans I have to deal with, this would be quite apparent.....

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,293
    As founder of the new Anthropod/Bigfoot Ant-Defamation League, I find the following:
    According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes.
    a terrible misjustice to my clients. In a statement released today: We apes want nothing to do with this scourge of human infestation of our precious woodlands and request immediate correction from the University."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren
    According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.
    I don't get the impression this is the mainstream view, but perhaps I am wrong.

    Here is an example of what I have seen more often than not.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillian
    According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.
    I suppose I'm being pedantic by saying that we may be apes, but we came from something else!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    *shrug* The fact is we are very similar to modern apes. I think this is what some people would prefer not to believe. We did not evolve from modern apes, certainly - we all evolved from common ancestors. Whether or not you want to call humans "apes" depends on what definition you want to use for the word.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,135
    We're not just apes, we're Great Apes. Along with our cousins, in order of increasing distance, the chimpanzee, the bonobo, the gorilla and the orang-utan.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren
    According to my physical anthropology prof in college, we are, in fact, apes. We are not monkeys--no tails!--but we are, in fact, still considered apes.
    The key here is "considered." In fact, whether we are or are not apes depends entirely on what one means by the word "ape." And whether or not we descend form apes depends purely on whether one defines the common ancestor we have with chimps as an ape or not. What science demonstrates very very clearly is that we are extremely similar to chimps, no matter whether a person feels comfortable with that or not. Personally, when I go to zoos and see them, I find them very "human" and do not mind the association of common ancestry. Actually, I don't really understand why people feel uncomfortable about being related to them.

    So anyway, science can demonstrate with absolute certainty that we are very similar to them. And pretty conclusively that we have common ancestry. But whether we choose to call that ancestor an ape, and whether we choose to call ourselves apes, is ultimately a semantic choice. If somebody wants to say, at the moment we separated from our common lineage with chimps, we became a new family or order or whatever, then ultimately I can't argue with the classification scheme.
    As above, so below

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    324
    You can't find a bigger atheist than Isaac Asimov. Yet even he speaks about evolution with somewhat less certitude:

    "We can make inspired guesses, but we don't know for certain what physical and chemical properties of the planets crust, its ocean and its atmosphere made it so conducive to such a sudden appearance of life. We are not certain about the amount and forms of energy that permeated the environment in the planets early days. Thus the problem that scientists face is how to explain the suddenness in which life appeared on this young 4.6 billion year old planet earth".

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,236
    Curious that the only references I can find for that Asimov quote originate from creationist sources, purportedly citing something published by Omni magazine back in 1983. I'd love to see the full article in order to see the subject and view the full context of his comments.

    Quote-mining, though, offers no value. Even if Asimov completely loathed or rebuked evolution, it'd be equally irrelevant. Evlolution stands as valid based upon the overwhelming empirical evidence supporting it, not the opinions of individuals, pro or con.

    Further, evolution does not presume to explain the origins of life. It, again, is a biological model describing change over time. I seriously doubt, given Asimov's staunch support of evolution, that those words intended to convey what the creationists claim.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,784
    I think it means what it says.

    Life appeared when the Earth was still very young.
    We do not what the Earth was like then.
    So we (for now) can only guess at what the mechanism was.

    These are all facts.
    I very much doubt that Asimov wanted to imply a supernatural origin of life.
    After all, that would have been very much out of character.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,092
    And even less that he wanted to say that what happened after the origin of life was steered by some Intelligent Design instead of Evolution (the same goes for your authority quote in the other thread: it is about the origin of life, not about evolution, and hence has nothing to do with support for ID).

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,135
    Didn't Asimov write a whole book called "The Threat of Creationism"?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,236

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,133
    In an essay by Richard Dawkins entitled "Gaps of the Mind" he argues that by any sensible definition we are just another variety of chimpanzee. IIRC In it there is a "related-to" tree with distance between species representing relatedness. Using this diagram he shows that removing humans from the defintion of Ape is totally arbitrary and could equally be justified (on relatedness) for either of the other two chimp varieties.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,293
    You guys (E's, ID's, C's) are walking into the old Pontius Pilate dilemna. Pull back! Don't go there. Don't leave truth without a power greater than ourselves or astrology here we go again. If you don't have the foggiest idea what the heck I'm talking about, then it is my fault for not being able to explain myself well enough. Disregard this poster as a minstrel in the gallery, then nevermind.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    So we are closer to chimps than apes? In Darwin's day, he argued that although we are not apes, we are closer to the apes than the apes are to the chimpanzee.

    [Added: Very nice link, Wolverine. I want to read it closer later.]
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,774
    Well I for one am very pleased being an ape. Apes are cool.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,133
    Quote Originally Posted by George
    So we are closer to chimps than apes? In Darwin's day, he argued that although we are not apes, we are closer to the apes than the apes are to the chimpanzee.
    Hey, I just googled "third chimpanzee" or ape and look what I came across:

    Closer to man than ape

    Of course, they didn't have genetic testing back in Darwin's day

Similar Threads

  1. Creationism: Why?
    By The Supreme Canuck in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-06, 12:13 AM
  2. Creationism
    By g99 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2002-Aug-26, 04:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •