How do you talk to someone who believes...

Persol said:
Lol... and if you can't get him to realize the earth is round... at least you'll get him arrested:)
Click to expand...
LOL, I hadn't looked at it that way .;p
But seriously, thousands of people take the plane to various parts of the world every day. Ask him where they're going. Ask him about all the people who have flown around the planet. Are they all liars? Are they making flights solely for appearances?
If you ask your questions right you can make him sound pretty foolish.
 
This isn't an evolution thread, but it's turned into one in many ways, so I'm gonna post this here. It might be better in Enigma's new thread in biology, but I don't want to start attacking creationism in there... until someone else does first. :p

Here's why creationism isn't science (other than the reasons already given by Katazia above). Creationism is based on two things. God and overruling evolutionary theory. Science isn't about disproving other sciences (although that might be a side effect) it's about proving it's own. When you go to creationist web sites, you see page after page on why this or that particular evolutionary claim isn't true. You don't see much on why creationism is true. Their viewpoint is once evolution is done away with they have no need for further advancement in their "science" because it's all been figured out.

Evolution on the other hand is incomplete. Evolution is a complex web of biological, mechanical, psychological, environmental, and other factors that we don't fully understand. We see a small portion of it and build the knowledge gradually. As we do so, some "truths" are overturned and new ones are added. This is science.

Creationists want it all in one go. Evolutionists just want to advance science. Nuff said.
 
why cant it be both? has anyone ever thought that "God" could have created everything over time istead of just in a blink of an eye. For all we know he could have created everything with the intention for us to "backtrack" all of creation to him.
Just food for thought :D
 
I always throw that point into evolutionary arguments as well. I think "Inherit the Wind" did an excellent job of combining evolution and god. Too bad more christians (and others) don't feel that way. They refuse to be the monkeys that they are. Ok, apes... :D
 
Seriously, If a person does not believe in evolution, and does not believe in creation, what is the alternative? Is there even one?
 
In the broadest terms it has to be one or the other. Either we were placed here exactly as we are now or we slowly changed to become what we are now. There could be different views of how evolution works and what caused it. I suppose there are different views on creation and how it worked too. So, there's lots of shades of grey, but the main argument can be split into diametrically opposed values represented by creationism and evolution. Change vs. Non-Change.
 
People want proof if they are going to believe something, right. So then, by disproving evolution, saying hey, this really isn't an option, there's not enough evidence, creationists are able to introduce their theory. After that, a person can choose which is most logical to him.
 
But, evolution takes into account that the mechanisms by which evolution take place are subject to debate. Creationism allows no debate about the mechanisms of creation. It was god and that's that. Creationism's goal is the eradication of evolution and once it's done that, it can just be put in the annals of the church as another means of eradicating the pursuit of truth outside of religious rhetoric.
 
Creationism is not some cult, and therefore, it doesn't have any goals. Creationism is a theory proposed as an alternative to evolution. Their is no debate over mechanisms used because as you said, God did it all.

I guess it all boils down to these are two theories, neither of which can be proven true, and groups of stubborn intellectuels that refuse to consider the fact that they may be wrong. Am I right?
 
invert_nexus said:
In the broadest terms it has to be one or the other. Either we were placed here exactly as we are now or we slowly changed to become what we are now. There could be different views of how evolution works and what caused it. I suppose there are different views on creation and how it worked too. So, there's lots of shades of grey, but the main argument can be split into diametrically opposed values represented by creationism and evolution. Change vs. Non-Change.
Click to expand...

Shame on you. Admitting to being a dualist.. ;)
 
Creationism does have goals, IMO. It's goals it to affirm god's part in creation of the earth and life. And also to refute evolution. I think their main goal is to refute evolution as god's greatness is better handled through the prime religion context.

The fact that they won't allow alternative means to creation, that they believe they have the answer already, shows that it is not a science. Science doesn't work from the top down. It works from the bottom up.

Myself, even though I am prone not to believe in the god of the bible (or the q'uran or any other text) am disposed to believe that their might be a creator of some type. And that creator would work through the processes of the physical world. So, in a way, I'm a creationist. An agnostic evolutionary creationist. And, this way of thinking has the added benefit that it does not require the presence of god to explain the physical processes through which he acts. The processes may be examined by themselves. In fact, one may eventually find god by examining these processes to their fullest.


edit: Southstar,
So, in a way, I'm a creationist. An agnostic evolutionary creationist.
Click to expand...

Dualist indeed. :p
 
greywolf said:
why cant it be both? has anyone ever thought that "God" could have created everything over time istead of just in a blink of an eye. For all we know he could have created everything with the intention for us to "backtrack" all of creation to him.
Just food for thought :D
Click to expand...
Yes, many other people have thought that. These people use the argument that God's ways are not man's ways, and God's time is not man's time. They don't have a problem with the science behind evolution, only the philosophical conclusions reached by some scientists which are then represented as 'fact'.

The Christians that have problem with this alternate view believe in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible - If Moses said a day - that means a day. But was Moses there when the foundation of the world was laid? (see Job). These 'strict constructionists also do not believe that Creation is God's word - even though Genesis clearly points out that God spoke the world into existence. All of Creation is the living manifestation of God's word. They study the bible, but not creation, believing that they are studying God's complete revelation when they are not.

And none of this has anything to do with the good news that the Kingdom of God is at hand, and that Jesus died so that we may live.
 
And none of this has anything to do with the good news that the Kingdom of God is at hand, and that Jesus died so that we may live.
Click to expand...

I think it does in the sense that it shows the power of God
 
Personally, I feel god would show more power by working through the physical processes than just arbitrarily. The thing that is this universe is so complex and beautiful and the processes that formed it are even more complex and beautiful. Making it in one go makes it seem so much less than it is. Almost an afterthought. Just a negligent wave of the hand. I find that more distasteful than being an ape.
 
-T-
i dont know why its so hard for people to think this way? With this belief both sides would be right wouldnt they?
 
Almost an afterthought. Just a negligent wave of the hand. I find that more distasteful than being an ape.

that's why humans are differant from every other piece of God's creation. God made us and breathed life into us, whereas everything else come into existance through the words let there be...I find that much better than being related to an ape!
 
Wow, I ask for some advice about some religious nut and people start flaming each other. Righty-o.

Well, I no longer have to speak to him anymore. He's going to Uni now, I thought I'd be spending another year with him. Bo am I glad that's over.

Thank you to everyone who offered their advice :)
 
I don't think we're flaming each other. I think it's maintaining a cool temper. And, it's certainly an example of talking to someone who believes... Although he doesn't go as far as your friend. By the way, I was tired of bashing my head against the wall anyway. :)
 
The apes may not be thrilled about being related to you, either.
But we don't get to pick our relatives, do we?

Personally, I like the idea that all living things are my brothers and sisters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top