With a cautious step

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

I post this, having just come across a journal i read as a really early information for a PHD study.

Recent polls and surveys show acceptance of Common Ancestor Evolution theory is now a minority of Americans and Creationism rising in acceptance in many other nations.
Why?

Which is the newest argument for those believing in creationism. I dont accept this at all, seems really limited to me. In its simplest terms, the rejection i believe is attributed to growth of urbanisation, the loss of community and therefore identity which leads to a acceptance of creationism as it implies uniqueness. Also, the moves of the Evangelical church preaching fundamentalism, imo bullshit, corrupting alot of the people throughout the world. I also disagree with the conclusion, as the sample seems to be mainly from religious areas.

Any other views?

[Twichaldinho]

First off, I am but a thick Stoner. I almost entirely stopped using my brain when 5th Year was over.
But the whole Idea of creationism really freaks me out. Like I said, I ain't to clever, but from what I understand, creationism is the 7 day theory right? the belief the God created everything then kicked back, with a spliff and a brew, and marveled at his own work ( Big headed shite ) on the Seventh day.

This is based on what exactly? The Bible? Scientific Study? Archeology?

The fact that this nonsence is peddled about as fact, is nothing short of scary, and in my opinion, does nothing to benifit the world, or the people in it.


Now, the theory of Evolution continues to stand up to all the test it faces. Every day we hear of DNA breakthroughs and other revolutionary studies and advancments in Biology. Few ( if any, I wouldn't know ) folks have been able to prove it to be nothing more than a theory. In my very humple opinion, its almost offensive to speak of Creationism over Evolution. For me Evolution through natural selection just makes sence.

Sorry if I have missed the point of this thread, but Sir, you are way to clever for the average Stoner .

[cattales1960]

The Simpsons did a skit on evolution vs creationism and it was hillarious

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

First off, I am but a thick Stoner. I almost entirely stopped using my brain when 5th Year was over.
But the whole Idea of creationism really freaks me out. Like I said, I ain't to clever, but from what I understand, creationism is the 7 day theory right? the belief the God created everything then kicked back, with a spliff and a brew, and marveled at his own work ( Big headed shite ) on the Seventh day.

Pretty much man, it varies in exactly how a creator being carried out the deed so to speak. You have quite liberal interpretation of the theory, the ' rolling ball theory' as its commonly known, but to use its proper name the Cosmological argument as conceived by Thomas Aquinas. This is theory that God started the ball rolling, surprisingly , so that evolution and the big bang may be how things happened, but it is God who put all the events in motion. This theory is put forward by alot of those belonging to Judo-Christian religions ( Islam, Judaism and Christianity ) who are not fundalmental, such as belonging to the Evangelical movement or Convesitive Islamic/Jewish traditions. But theres the other idea of creation, which the term intelligent design which is basically the 7 day theory, this is the idea that everything which is in existence, previously exists or is still to existed can only exist because of the divine intervention of God. So me and you are created due to the creator being taking a special interest in our existence and form.

The first more liberal interpretation has some strengths. In some ways it quite consistent. That is that it is logical as it says what we dont know, the cause of the big bang and evolution, is God. This, although there are criticisms, is somewhat logical Albert Einstein once said that to call what we dont know ' God ' is perfectly logical. Although he also once said that he would rather be the descendant of apes than the creation of a jealous evil God. This idea also is strong as it includes all scientific evidence, like you said archeological and works carried out by Geologists regarding the age of the earth. The criticisms of this theory are that it is not consistent. Why accept scientific theory and standards of evidence only to reject these when they come to a difficult question not yet answered by science. Also there is the issue regarding it being the 'God of the Gaps' to sum this up quickly it argues that how strong is the traditional idea of God in modern times now that every previously given attributes and acts are now proved to be not by the Creator. Surely this diminishes the idea of God as the term God is now just essentially a term for ' we dont know what the fuck happened here.'

The second idea that God created everything individually is known as the Teleological Argument, or Intelligent design. As you pointed out evidence for this is flawed to say the least and basically hinges on the belief in revelations being true to particular religions and that because everything in the modern world is designed, i.e a car, that it logically means the world and us must have been designed. Criticisms on this come from Archeological evidence that is that Dinosaurs didnt exist at the same time as humans as put forward by the 7 day theorists of the Christian tradition, Geological evidence in terms of the age of the world being older than 2000 odd years as put forward by 7 day theorists, evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution showing why and how we came to exist. But also in terms of theology, to believe that the Bible for example only has the truth is based on no evidence at all except social situational upbringing. Furthermore to suggest everything has to be designed is applying human logic based on absolutes in the world on aspects which transcend and are completely different to the idea of a car being created.

This is based on what exactly? The Bible? Scientific Study? Archeology?


The fact that this nonsence is peddled about as fact, is nothing short of scary, and in my opinion, does nothing to benifit the world, or the people in it.

Indeed your right man, blind faith is not a good thing. Also people saying that we dont need to stop polluting because the Bible dosnt say theres going to climate change means it not going to happen.


Now, the theory of Evolution continues to stand up to all the test it faces. Every day we hear of DNA breakthroughs and other revolutionary studies and advancments in Biology. Few ( if any, I wouldn't know ) folks have been able to prove it to be nothing more than a theory. In my very humple opinion, its almost offensive to speak of Creationism over Evolution. For me Evolution through natural selection just makes sence.

Agree again man, theres been slight changes like the web of life overtaking the tree of life but the fundamental idea has not been disproven after many attempts.

Sorry if I have missed the point of this thread, but Sir, you are way to clever for the average Stoner .

I dont believe in intelligence, i believe in the ability for human beings to excels at a variation at things, some more suited to certain people than others. Everyone has the potential to succeed and be great, but social ideas of intelligence limit such opportunities for people, this oppression is the cause of depression etc i think in society. Hence why in more developed countries, where skills such as agriculture and physical skills arent as appreciated, have higher rates of mental illness's and suicides. Thats just my interpretation though.

Did that help at all?

Edit : I posted this to start conversation, i dont think the point of the thread has been missed at all.

[spidergawd]

The Archbish thinks that the government treats the scriptures as oddities put about by eccentrics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8409310.stm



Strange that.

He's a lovely man really, like most of the faithful of my aquaintance.

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

I saw that SG, it is interesting. I think some of the scriptures are oddities. Take Judges 19 : 24-25

Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

Does this mean rape is ok for women not men , or that raping children is better than homosexuality? Seems odd to me.

Im with you SG, the majority of traditional believers are very reasonable people. However religious believers with the ideas of persecution, a fear of a secular society which i importantly think the Arch is turning into, are dangerous. As they will try to reclaim control, the only successful societies for believers and non-believers are secular and some want to change this. The American Christian fundamentalism Evangelicism is also extremely dangerous.

[DC]

God?......lol

[Dobern]

First off, I am but a thick Stoner. I almost entirely stopped using my brain when 5th Year was over.
But the whole Idea of creationism really freaks me out. Like I said, I ain't to clever, but from what I understand, creationism is the 7 day theory right? the belief the God created everything then kicked back, with a spliff and a brew, and marveled at his own work ( Big headed shite ) on the Seventh day.

This is based on what exactly? The Bible? Scientific Study? Archeology?

The fact that this nonsence is peddled about as fact, is nothing short of scary, and in my opinion, does nothing to benifit the world, or the people in it.


Now, the theory of Evolution continues to stand up to all the test it faces. Every day we hear of DNA breakthroughs and other revolutionary studies and advancments in Biology. Few ( if any, I wouldn't know ) folks have been able to prove it to be nothing more than a theory. In my very humple opinion, its almost offensive to speak of Creationism over Evolution. For me Evolution through natural selection just makes sence.

Sorry if I have missed the point of this thread, but Sir, you are way to clever for the average Stoner .

I'm far too blazed to come up with my own properly articulated post on this topic at the minute, but you have hit the nail on the head there sir. Those are my thoughts exactly.

My (basic) view on the matter all boils down to proof and evidence. How can people trust some ancient piece of text (bible) that has probably been translated and re-translated over thousands of years (probably coming up with chinese whispers), instead of the many scientific discoveries and theories produced over the years.

It really does astound me that religion in general is still taken seriously in today's society.

[mark the martian]

When I was at school we were told about both theories. But it was always made pretty clear that no one knows for sure, and lots of people argue about it. I don't understand why any schools want to choose one or the other, and teach it like everyone accepts it. What kind of education is that?

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

When I was at school we were told about both theories. But it was always made pretty clear that no one knows for sure, and lots of people argue about it. I don't understand why any schools want to choose one or the other, and teach it like everyone accepts it. What kind of education is that?

Interesting, the thing to me is that Creationism shouldnt be taught in science classroom. It dosnt conform to any scientific methods or standards of evidence so shouldnt be taught in science, it is it would have to be ripped to pieces because, in terms of scienitific evidence, it is completely false. But then you would have Xian groups coming out a saying that their teaching creationism is wrong, which in terms of Scientific evidence, it is.

[mark the martian]

But the science classroom is a good place to give it a mention to the kids because creationism only exists alongside scientific theory. And if there was a serious chunk of the population wanting some other religious take on the event included then they could have one too! I mean I know it's kind of token but what can you do

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

But the science classroom is a good place to give it a mention to the kids because creationism only exists alongside scientific theory. And if there was a serious chunk of the population wanting some other religious take on the event included then they could have one too! I mean I know it's kind of token but what can you do

If it was me, leave it where it belongs, the R.E classroom