Creationism vs Evolution

[Laurieheels]

laws, government, warfare, paranoia, drunken partying, lawyers, and a few other things. But this is off topic.

[Bubba136]

Wow! all those significant contributions?

[Laurieheels]

If I bothered I could come up with more. Rome is a real evolution, from a village on a hill in a swamp, to dominant power of the world, influencing language and society, and all of that before Christianity took hold there. Makes you wonder, if God created everything, why did cultures that did not believe in God flourish and influence the world so much? Okay, Romans adopting Christianty does enhance all of that, but it all started well before the religion even came into being. And I am surprised that no one has noticed that I do what I can to avoid ascribing a gender to God. Hrm.

[Stu]

I'll be the first to admit that there is far more that science does not know than it does know. There probably is some higher order to the Universe, and perhaps life (including humankind) plays some kind of role in that higher order. One can wonder a lot about that. What I can't accept, however, is that people who lived 2,000 to 5,000 years ago figured it all out. Yes, religion has provided our species with some inspired breakthroughs (the bulk of the 10 Commandments still hold together pretty well after 3,200 years). But the concept of some fatherly (or motherly) being watching over us, perhaps with human or devine children or prophets to teach us how to live, doesn't ring true with me. Perhaps it explained things satisfactorily to ancient people. But science has revealed that the Universe is much more complex than the ancients could ever have imagined, so why do so many of us continue to view the religious legends of ancient peoples as literal truth? As a Jew, the one thing I do like about Judiasm is that it doesn't try to explain too much about the Universe. Yes, yes, we came up with the idea that God created the Earth in six days, but after that, Judiasm accepts that there are many things it cannot explain. There is no official belief in Judiasm as to whether there is an afterlife. Judiasm largely steers clear of resurrections (ie Jesus) or prophets being taken to heaven (Mohammed), and concentrates more on how one should live one's life in the here and now without worrying about what will come afterwards. So, even though I am largely an atheist, I have a healthy respect for Judiasm. If we humans can avoid killing ourselves and can remain a species for as long as the dinosaurs were, maybe we'll have it all figured out. However, I know that science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke has a favorite saying that he didn't write but he uses often: "The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine."

[Dr. Shoe]

true, but how many of these documents are from the time period and are actually eye witness accounts? or arey they just stories passed around as rumour until it gets to someone who can write?

since the Romans were advanced enough that reading and writing were far more common than the middle east, you can be far more certain that Julius Ceasar, leader of the Roman Empire 100BC-44BC was far more real than Jesus.

Roman writings do tell of an uprising in the area and of the time of Jesus, but don't pinpoint any names that relate to Jesus. To the Romans, he would have been yet another body on a cross. The cross becoming a symbol later for a sign of faith.

The most reliable eye witness account of the period is by a man called Josephus who was a jew employed as a chronicaller for the Romans in Palestine and Judea. He wrote about a man with unexplained powers who was crucufied by the Romans on the request of the Sanhedrin or the Judean authorities. He also went into details about the great rip in the temple curtain (ripped from top to bottom and it was over 40' tall!) and he also said about the day becoming night which matches atleast three gospel accounts (only 4 out of around 20 or so were selected for inclusion in the new testiment).

[Francis]

What about the blind faith in evolutionism? A lot of people have been dismissed as nutters for refusing to believe in it. A modern version of being burned at the stake!

In certain places, people still are being killed off because of their religion or lack of it! People who have blind faith in anything are the nutters! We know there are an infinite number of unexplained things that until science can prove will still remain mysteries.

Examples of blind faith in ancient times "The earth is the centre of the universe", "The sun revolves round the earth", "The sun is the centre of the galaxy" or how about "The earth is flat". All of these things were believed by many to be true and have since been found to be the opposite, so how many things are we likely to find out in the next 100 years. The last 100 years have been extremely illuminating to mankind, we have learnt so much about our history and our environment, we have harnessed energies that previously were unheard of. How long ago would you have been thrown into a loony bin because you claimed to be able to make a machine that flew?

The airplane has seen an evolution in itself. It started as a simple wooden frame with fabric stretched over it and has progressed to include it's own propulsion systems to better aerodynamics and electronics can virtually fly the plane without pilot input. You believe that if you get onto an aeroplane, it will take you up into the sky, you may not understand how it gets there, but you know and believe it. Now would you believe me that you could walk off a cliff without falling down and killing yourself? Of course you wouldn't because you know that it can't be done. Unless, you'd seen people doing it, then you'd believe and would likely try it yourself. Blind faith would have you walking off that cliff just because you were told it could be done.

There is more proof of evolution than there is of creationism, but as I pointed out before, maybe the two are mixed at some level.

What I can't accept, however, is that people who lived 2,000 to 5,000 years ago figured it all out.

Hey, maybe they did, but because of what they found, the answer either killed them off or they left the planet! And yes, it does make you wonder about a higher order. A saying that goes with that is "Everything happens for a reason". Whoever originally said that was probably burnt at the stake as a blasphemer.

In the history of mankind, religion and ruthless expansion of a civilisation has caused the greatest acts of genocide then any of the great wars. If the bible is to be believed then why do all these believers readily go and kill another human when it is written in their precious 'bible' that it is wrong to do so. If anyone has a logical explanatin for this, I'll be listening !

[Bubba136]

Francis wrote:

n certain places, people still are being killed off because of their religion

How about 911 as a present day example?

[Laurieheels]

Quick example time. Gallileo. He picks up on a theory from Copernicus, writes a nice book, that has the sun at the center, and the earth spinning around it. The mighty Church claims this as heresy, because God created things with the Earth as all important, and at the center of everything. So, The Pope and his people, who would know all about creationism, and support it, say "Earth in the middle, we will excommunicate you if you do not agree!" Heliocentric argument is supressed, although Galileo, trying to be clever, writes a book where proof of Earth as Center is proven with the most follish examples, so even though he publishes what the Church wanted him to believe, he makes it foolish, thus supporting his idea of the truth. So, if creationism is how it works, and for thousands of years, everyone just knew that God made the Earth in the middle, and all things revolved around it, how come it's not true? Science came along, and proved otherwise. A bunch of guys fought against ignorance and oppression to look up at the sky and determine that what people were told to keep them in line and make them wonder at the power of God wasn't the way it worked. And we are supposed to believe that Creationism holds every answer? When it was interpreted so poorly? It is convenient to say Noah did not take certain animals on his ark. However, if this were true, the bible would have said "Noah took two (or seven) of all the good animals, and the ones God wished to die off were left to drown". It doesn't say this. Mainly because at the time, no one was digging for fossils and figuring out that there were a long line of actual animals that came before that time. But people, in order to defend their faith, suddenly add to the Bible, and start to claim that they know God's thoughts in killing off certain animals, like Dinosaurs? To claim to know God's thoughts is to claim to be God. Because only by being God could you understand the complexity of those thoughts. So how come religious people have had to constantly change their stories over the years as things have been proven wrong with them? If it were true, and the Word of God, would it not be right the first time? Or maybe, God said nothing, and people just used the stories to control people and keep them quiet.

[Laurieheels]

I'm starting to come to two conclusions. My arguments as presented here must be really good as no one challenges them. My arguments here suck like a chest wound through the lung and no one wants to hurt my feelings by bringing them up. Either way, suits me just fine! heehee

[Francis]

maybe they don't want to pick our the resident high heel goddess in fear of her superpowers or maybe the momentus has run out and the thread is becoming passe. But, I like digging, so; as Laurie pointed out, the church was the centre of most people's lives and anything that challenged it's 'authority' was attacked as heretical. The people challenged were branded as loonies and ostricised or otherwise driven away. Even today, the church still attacks anything that they either don't understand, goes against their teachings or challenges their mythical creator God. Another interesting note is that the church's are the wealthiest establishments in the world. Why? because the church used to collect money from it's parish whether they used the church or not, sort of like a tax. It always amazes me that a church will have a collection pot for things like 'fix the church roof' or 'replace the organ' when the church can afford these things, but the higher powers in the church don't want to part with the money. It must be great to work for someone that can't be audited. Imagine that, Inland Revenue go to God and ask to see his tax records for years 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 BC to present day I bet he wouldn't have a single scrap of evidence, then the Inland Revenue would issue a tax demand, God wouldn't pay claiming he's not a resident of the planet and should therefore be exempt. And the debate goes on Upshot is, why is the church the most wealthy organisation on the planet? The populace was told that God needed your money to help pay for all the things that the church needed, even if most of that was lining the vicar's pockets! The people being afraid that God would punish them if they didn't obey the word of the vicar (as he is the voice of God) pays the money, say their prayers and go home not realising they've been robbed due to their fear, but that's how the church has operated all along. Keep the locals afraid and they'll do anything. Dinosaurs are mentioned again This was another bone of contention with the church as the bible has no reference to them or anything that happened before man arrived. The church's claim was that God had put these strange bones in the ground to 'test our faith'. What would be the point of placing something there to be found that would cause someone to think differently from the bible? When the plane was first thought of, was it not the church that claimed to person to be a deviant because he wished to fly like bird and this was not the order of things. They claim him to be challenging the will of God and he is suppressed. The helicopter was devised many hundred years ago, but never built due to people claiming him mad. They claimed that man couldn't travel faster than sound, travel underwater, fly in the air, build devices that can be used to talk to people in distant lands. All these things were frowned on by the church simply because they didn't conform to what they wanted people to believe. When do Sheeple become people? When the dare to believe otherwise!

[Bubba136]

Francis wrote:

the church was the centre of most people's lives and anything that challenged it's 'authority' was attacked as heretical.

Throughout history, the sources of power and authority have come from many different (and, some downright strange) sources - the church being just one. Any thought that usurps this authority and power, removing or replacing it with another source, is attacked as heretical.

[Dr. Shoe]

I've been away for a while and reading through the few posts added to this thread during this time I would like to make a few points. The ancient Greeks knew that a) The earth wasn't flat, and, It revolves around the sun. The rennaissance was a period in time when the church changed it's point of view to embrace facts that science had known for centuries and instaed of suppressing science, actually began supporting it. God clearly told Noah to collect all the animals that he could, he never said that he should take all the creatures in existence. Francis, I hate to say you're wrong BTW, literacy came from China and was acquired by the Arabs from India and the Greeks acquired it from the Arabs and they in turn gave it to the Romans. If you line up ancient Indian texts, Aramaic, Arabic, Ancient cuneiform Greek, middle Greek (script), Latin script, carved Latin then English you can see a real evolution. Don't forget also the Egypt was using heiroglyphs at the time that the Israelites were servants there, long before even the Greek empire was thought of let alone the Roman. The literacy level in Rome was particularly poor which is why scribes had so much power. Laurie, even in a polytheistic society there is a "chief god". In christianity we have "patron saints" which take the place of the lesser gods in a polytheistism, at least this is true in all these societies that have flourished. To say Rome evolved from a village is true with every great city and Empire, London only became the capital during the medieval period (about 1000AD I think) it was Winchester before. At around 900AD it was just a tiny village that had been a Roman settlement before. No one challenges your arguments because I don't think you make it clear what it is. Do you regard evolution as an undieniable fact or as an unproven hypothesis? Dinosaurs. Just because the bible does not refer to them specifically does not mean that they did not exist. St George's epic battle with a dragon was a fight with a Dinosaur. In Derbyshire they were still kidnapping travellers and leaving them to be eaten by the local dragon as recently as 1810. Nessie is a dinosaur and it is more than coincidence that the Chinese also believe in dragons too. In certain remote parts of China you can still find "dragon's teeth" just scattered on the ground. Who says they didn't make it onto the Ark. Any creature in the bible referred to specifically is named for having a central role ie Asses, camels etc. I think that Bubba has got the message. The church was the centre of our lives because it was education, welfare, health and in some cases defence. In other words all the functions performed by government today. In a democracy such as ours, the government has less direct control than a tyranny would have so therefore in the world's greates democracy we have multi-channel TV to give us the illusion of choice of opinion. The theory of evolution is one of the tools used by "society" to assert the level of control that the church had prior to 1750. Have you noticed that programs that expound it get a prime-time slot on a premier channel whereas, a program forwarding the notion of creationism (should one ever be on) would be shunted to a late night/early morning slot on channel 5? We are fed on a diet of high calorie, high fat, high sugar television with little real intellectual nourishment. We are told that a theory put forward by a man whose mother was his father's niece and who had already suffered two breakdowns is an undeniable fact. We are told that we have right on our side that we are the good guys and that western culture is what the world wants but they just don't know it yet.

[Laurieheels]

I just happen to have my A+ paper from my last year of University, on Dragons. Wow, that seems like forever ago. St George didn't fight a dinosaur, by the way. Sound the buzzer, please. From my research, it seems that Medieval belief in dragons had them looking more like serpents than dinosaurs. Many bestiaries mention long bodies, and wrapping long tails around victims. In a Christian sense, the dragon is a symbol of evil, and serpent like, mainly because of the Bible I would suspect. Animals like Elephants and Panthers were made out to be symbols of good, and natural enemies of dragons. So the Bestiaries of the Middle Ages would have us believe. As well, these same Christian bestiaries make dragons an evil symbol from the Eastern part of the world, where, surprisingly, Christianity is not the religious belief. As for St. George, I have no idea where you picked up that it was a dinosaur. The first appearances of the story in text place the tale in what is now Beirut, during the fourth century. The then town of Sline was beseiged by a dragon, which more closely fits the description of a very large crocodile. Yes, it looks like a dinosaur, but really, it is a giant reptile, right? Such things do exist. Many accounts of dragons, or serpents, could just be very long snakes, or crocodiles, large lizards, or any creature that is not seen clearly and seems especially threatening. As for George, historical evidence suggests his name was Nestor, and born in Palestine to a Roman official. He was an excellent soldier, which is how he comes into the story as being able to fight the dragon. This is from The Hill of the Dragon, by Paul Newman, page 47. No, not the actor. It is only fitting to take a soldier who was a Christian and make him a patron saint, and of course, we need to ascribe more dragon imagry to the monster he slew to save the town, making him seem even more saint-like. Of course, some of the medieval texts have our Saint George beating up the dragon, belting it up, and taking it before the town. At this point, he makes a proposal - if the town converts to Christianity, he will slay the beast. Well, if a giant, flesh devouring crocodile was plaguing the people of your town while trying to get water, well, Christianity might seem a far preferable option to becoming a mid day snack. Dragons are very different in the germanic, Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian mythology, and even the Celtic. But then, that imagry is pre Christian for the basis, and evolves into Christian belief as time progresses. Yes, I am a dragon expert at times. I've read a lot of stories that are said to be true. Some are quite funny, actually. I would write for hours, but how boring would that be? As for my view, well Dr. Shoe, if you don't know, you aren't reading my posts! I believe in both creation and evolution, a co-existing set of developments. And not as hypthesis, as fact. Supreme being has a plan, sets it in motion, but the creation can run itself and evolve as it will, with intervention when needed. I've mentioned it several times. Your claim that I do not make my arguments clear is quite obviously an attempt to dismiss my opinion as you cannot find any counter argument to my third position. I agree with you, and I agree with the evolutionists. You're each right in your own way. Maybe the problem is that my view does not take either side exclusively, and thus, cannot be debated by one side or the other. But it is still fun to discuss... just like dragons.

[azraelle]

Bravo, Laurie! Now if you'd just turn your kind of level-headed logic towards the should the US invade Iraq? thread, maybe Dr. Shoe would find something else to rant and rave about...

[Bubba136]

Well said, Laurie!

[Francis]

Dr. Shoe, FYI, I didn't say that the Romans gave us literacy, I was quoting a line from a Monty Python film. You of all people should have spotted that one!

[Dr. Shoe]

Yes I'd go along with what you said about Nestor Laurie. However, according to a fascinating documentary I saw, there is a theory that the story of St George dates back to 2,000 BC or thereabouts in the part of the world that is now known as Libya. No knows for sure, but I would like to think that SG was a Christian to start with. The problem with canonisation is the fact that the "saint" doesn't neccesarily have to have been a christian. Moreover, there is nothing to say that Nestor was a Christian anyway as he was the son of a Roman official. To say that Dragons are portrayed as serpents could be attributed to errors of description much the same way that ancient travellers would have described a rhinocerous as being the size of a large horse with a single horn so early Europeans would certainly have pictured a Unicorn the way we do. Most Dinosaurs had long tails that in certain types were probably used in defence and would probably have been prehensile. I mean, the only things that medieval englishmen who had not travelled would have known of would have been horses, cattle, sheep, fowl, birds and the beasts of the fields including snakes. Traders would have heard tale of large pythons in India with sizes becoming more exaggerated at every telling hence serpents. The chinese describe dragons as looking like enormous pekinese dogs that are wise, interesting to note that in chinese, the word for wise also means old (venerable). Yeah, the idea that George slew a large crocodile is more than feasible and probably the true story and any croc hunter who knows what to do would have been more than up to the task. It is strange to note though that many cultures the world over have deeply embedded dragon folklores with differences that suggest that they do not come from the same root. In some cutures they can fly (pterasaurians?) in others they live in bodies of water and even in the open sea. My theory is that that they were by and large comparitively easy to kill and most were killed off in antidiluvian times by farmers and hunters, their nests robbed and the habitats destroyed in all but the most remote mountain tops which is why pteradons may have survived a thousand years or so and only very secretive marine creatures surviving. The early Chinese however may have learned to live in harmony with them and so left them largely alone but these may not have survived the deluge. I would like to conclude by saying that I am not saying that either creationism or evolutionism is right, all I'm saying is that evolutionism is such a shaky theory that I'm amazed that it is so readily accepted as fact.

[Laurieheels]

Different cultures have different interpretations of dragons. And if dragons embodied all of them, they'd be diverse as a species, and I think they would have survived a lot longer. Even if it is in the details, it still can be listed as significant differences. South American dragons are seen as having feathered wings, but reptilian bodies. Northern European dragons are very much like giant lizards with bat wings. Southern European and Middle Eastern ideas are more snake like with bat wings, sometimes two legs. And then, when we move to the far east, well, dragons there are quite different in the stylistic touches. Haven't I seen them with moustaches in some drawings? Point being - dragons may come from a common idea of finding bones in the ground, but if dinosaurs existed before people, would not these early racial memories, even as far back as 2000 B.C., detract from the dragon myth, as people would talk about the large, hungry creatures that roamed the land, rather than the mystical and more intelligent dragons? I think that if we were to look at creation without evolution, people would have a different sense of what a dragon was. They would have seen them at the outset of the world! And I think dragons would be portrayed a bit more like dinosaurs and a bit less like the dragons that exist in myth and popular belief. Okay, that debate can go back and forth, so another issue in the next message.

[Laurieheels]

Okay, a question in the face of pure creationism. This Bible, it says that God made Adam and Eve, and they were bad, resulting in their exit from Paradise. They had two sons, one of whom killed the other and was cursed. So where the heck did people come from? It seems like a bit of a dead end. Nice way to leave a gap in explaining things! I may be missing something, so I would love to be enlightened. Does creation say how we went from Adam and Eve to Noah, or Abraham? I am curious. Did God make more people? Funny how this is the debate, but we're not going over details, like debating the great flood. So many cultures that did not have contact have flood stories. We have the story everyone knows, but there is mention of the Great Flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as many Native American tales. Yet, all of those cultures have different beliefs. And are we to say that this theory of creation by God is based only on certain religions? I know other religions have the creation done a very different way. Funny how those involve dragons...

[Julietta]

Logically, a flood could have happened. We all know the earth can produce some freakish weather conditions so there is nothing to say that there wasn't some freakish incident that caused such a flooding, especially, as the earth is mostly water anyway. Jx