Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Creation vs. Evolution
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11278		 Page 26 of 29
Author:  StrongRad [ Mon May 28, 2007 4:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
DESTROY US ALL! wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
Now you know how I feel about hearing about Global Warming. The most qualified people really don't talk about it that much.


Wait, Sean Hannity isn't qualified?


Nope. And neither is Al Gore.

Now, to bring it full-circle: Al Gore doesn't seem to believe in evolution. If he did, he wouldn't be worrying about animals dying as a result of warmer temperatures. He'd know that they could just evolve. Unless, of course, that half a degree per century (max) that's been attributed to humans is too much.
Wait... Rather than steer this back on topic, I've pointed towards the waterfall of off-topicness.
Image
Author:  Al Capone II [ Tue May 29, 2007 12:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Barely any American politician or ex-politician would claim to be an evolutionist because of the huge stink all those right-wing talk shows and fundamentalist Christian groups would raise. As for me, I don't care about how we got here, I just care about what will we be doing.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Tue May 29, 2007 8:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
I dunno if anyone brought this up, but hey, Creation Museum.

It's literally not even an hour from me, which makes me sad inside.

A few of my friends and I are planning a trip there... for kicks and giggles.
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue May 29, 2007 11:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Simon Zeno wrote:
I dunno if anyone brought this up, but hey, Creation Museum.

There was a protester on the news last night that said, and I quote "These people have no right to do this. All this museum teaches is closed-minded bigotry and a fear of science. The United States should be a place where everyone can express their views without fear or persecution."

Hypocrisy much?

I'm gonna hold off judgment until I actually see the place (if I ever do).
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Wed May 30, 2007 12:03 am ]
Post subject: 
It has exhibits of dinosaurs and humans coexisting...

I almost want to cry at the ignorance.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Wed May 30, 2007 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Simon Zeno wrote:
I dunno if anyone brought this up, but hey, Creation Museum.

There was a protester on the news last night that said, and I quote "These people have no right to do this. All this museum teaches is closed-minded bigotry and a fear of science. The United States should be a place where everyone can express their views without fear or persecution."

Hypocrisy much?


Totally agree. Creationism should be allowed to be expressed just as freely as Evolution. Hopefully, people are smart enough to learn that Creationism isn't science, though, and that Evolution is, and what the key differences are. But hey, I can't think of a better place for Creationism than a museum--a place where you find many remnants of outdated cultural ideals. :-P
Author:  HHFOV [ Wed May 30, 2007 12:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Simon Zeno wrote:
It has exhibits of dinosaurs and humans coexisting...

I almost want to cry at the ignorance.

It does, first paragraph of the wiki article.

Gives Christians such as myself a bad name, and I'm very near it as well.
Author:  Mike D [ Wed May 30, 2007 4:11 am ]
Post subject: 
I wouldn't worry much about the Creation Museum. They're just preaching to the choir. I remain adamant that creation has no place in the science classroom, but privately funded museums can do whatever they want.

Mike
Author:  LordQuackingstick [ Thu May 31, 2007 1:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Personally, I see no problem with the coexistence of evolution and religion. The Bible cannot be taken literally; all the passages about sheep should tell us that. It some places, it uses metaphors.

Oh, and true story: I once got into a fight with a former NFL player about evolution and creationism.
Author:  Mike D [ Thu May 31, 2007 1:55 am ]
Post subject: 
An NFL player, eh? Do tell...sounds like that could be a good story.

Mike
Author:  Acekirby [ Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
You know, I've always liked the intelligent design argument.

I believe in evolution, but intelligent design is a good way for devout religious people to still believe while not completely ignoring the facts of evolution.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Acekirby wrote:
You know, I've always liked the intelligent design argument.

I believe in evolution, but intelligent design is a good way for devout religious people to still believe while not completely ignoring the facts of evolution.


Really? Seems like ID proponents are against Evolution, hence why they want their contrary, non-scientific view of how we came to be taught alongside Evolution in science classrooms. ID, as far as I'm concerned, is little more than a re-naming of Young Earth Creationism so YE Creationists can slip their beliefs under the door into science class by simply removing the most blatant religious references.
Author:  The_Other_White_Meat [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:29 am ]
Post subject: 
Some Intelligent Design theorists have stated to me that there is a differenceb etween micro-evolution (which humans have observed through history, such as different breeds of dogs developing, due to desirable traits masters looked for in their dogs) and macro-evolution (evolution from one species to another, which they claim humans have never observed.) Can any ID supporters give me the evidence for this claim, or can any Evolutionists "shoot it down", so to speak? I'm curious to see...
Author:  Mike D [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
The_Other_White_Meat wrote:
Can any ID supporters give me the evidence for this claim, or can any Evolutionists "shoot it down", so to speak? I'm curious to see...


The thread dipped into this issue not too long ago, actually. Go back to about page 21 and read up from there.

Mike
Author:  StrongRad [ Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
PianoManGidley wrote:
Acekirby wrote:
You know, I've always liked the intelligent design argument.

I believe in evolution, but intelligent design is a good way for devout religious people to still believe while not completely ignoring the facts of evolution.


Really? Seems like ID proponents are against Evolution, hence why they want their contrary, non-scientific view of how we came to be taught alongside Evolution in science classrooms. ID, as far as I'm concerned, is little more than a re-naming of Young Earth Creationism so YE Creationists can slip their beliefs under the door into science class by simply removing the most blatant religious references.

ID= Young Earth Creationism?
That's totally different than my idea of idea of ID.
I always thought it said "God created everything", not so much "God made everything, as it is, 6000 years ago".
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:33 am ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
ID= Young Earth Creationism?
That's totally different than my idea of idea of ID.
I always thought it said "God created everything", not so much "God made everything, as it is, 6000 years ago".


According to Wikipedia, ID's "primary proponents...believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God" and "although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god." It's hard to say that ID does NOT equal YE Creationism when the vast bulk of people pushing for ID to be taught as science are Christian YE Creationists themselves. The whole movement was created by YE Creationists working at the Discovery Institute (itself a Christian organization).

Yes, by definition, ID can include any sort of definition of a Creator, but it's easy to see that its originators intended it, through their own beliefs, to be Christianity, and have that taught in schools under the guise of a more encompassing, ambiguous belief.
Author:  Lucyinthesky [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, speaking of the Creationism museum... my friends and i went there.
It was very... interesting to say the least. We brought cameras along and interviewed protestors and supporters. We made a little documentary about it if you want to check it out its at http://youtube.com/watch?v=2UhbmRCNxIA

we tried to not convey a viewpoint with the video, but we personally thought the museum was pretty ridiculous
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:55 am ]
Post subject: 
Wow...that one part with the "what would a Godless world be like" display is really hysterical. Nothing but foundationless scare tactics to promote further close-mindedness.
Author:  The_Other_White_Meat [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:56 am ]
Post subject: 
Lucyinthesky wrote:
Well, speaking of the Creationism museum... my friends and i went there.
It was very... interesting to say the least. We brought cameras along and interviewed protestors and supporters. We made a little documentary about it if you want to check it out its at http://youtube.com/watch?v=2UhbmRCNxIA

we tried to not convey a viewpoint with the video, but we personally thought the museum was pretty ridiculous


Very interesting video, I'm personally an Agnostic who may or may not believe in the Christian God (depending on the day), but I will always think Creation is a bunch of bullhonkey...
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:16 am ]
Post subject: 
That's an interesting way to look at things, White Meat. I would think that, if a person did actually believe in a God (Christian or otherwise) then the idea of creation would make perfect sense.
Author:  Mariocrazy [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:35 am ]
Post subject: 
Call meh crazy, but this is what I belive for now.

I belive that monkeys are soul less. I belive that humans are with souls. I think that God picked out a monkey and gave it a soul. That monkey just happen to be Adam.

It's kinda hard for some to understand. you'll get it soon enough.
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
I would think that, if a person did actually believe in a God (Christian or otherwise) then the idea of creation would make perfect sense.


The idea of some sort of creation might make sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean a literal 6000-year interpretation of Genesis would make sense. For example, it wouldn't make sense for God to go way out of his way to make the planet look 4.6 billion years old if in fact it isn't. It would certainly be within his power, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. And, of course, if you answer "It doesn't have to make sense", well, that could be the answer to everything... it's too convenient.

- Kef
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
I would think that, if a person did actually believe in a God (Christian or otherwise) then the idea of creation would make perfect sense.
I believe in God and I find the Creation Story to be nothing more than a metaphor.
Author:  The_Other_White_Meat [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
That's an interesting way to look at things, White Meat. I would think that, if a person did actually believe in a God (Christian or otherwise) then the idea of creation would make perfect sense.


As you've noted before, the Creation story has all of the distinctive qualities of a metaphorical Hebrew hymn - I will place my faith in science in terms of how the Earth came about, and make up my own mind on whether God's hand was in it. Just because of the everchanging nature of my faith (or lack thereof), I will place scientific facts before proof for a God.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Of the three answers I received to that statement, I think only Kef offered a real substantial argument. I'm only saying that if God exists, then something like a 6-day creation is entirely within his power. As for whether he used that specific method or not, I do not feel Christians are entirely obligated to side one way or the other. It does bother me that Christians feel obligated to try to explain Genesis in terms of modern evidences - that is all. Whether he took six days or six minutes or six billion years doesn't really matter to me.

BTG: that's really more a statement about yourself than it is about the subject in question, isn't it, that is, a statement of your own personal beliefs without reference to evidence for or against their validity?

But consider this: if God did create the earth only 6000 years ago, would it really be a matter of deceit on his part if he did it in a way that makes it appear to us to be much older? From his perspective, it might have simply been that certain layers needed to go there, and certain conditions needed to be in place there - completely without reference to how we human beings might perceive them as representing a much older world. In other words, it might be simply a mistake on our part.

Frankly, of all the data of natural history, I find fossil data to be the most challenging to the 6-day creationist view. Living creatures (or formerly so) are a much better indicator of things that must have taken place prior to human history than geology or astronomy. The latter two can be too easily explained by the question I posed above, but fossil data is far too difficult to simply discount.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Richard Dawkins stumped by creationist's question

He was asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome". They had to edit out the long time he was stumped in order to dodge the question. He's correct that we see around us modern animals, but it doesn't in the least answer her question! Dawkins doesn't have an answer for what he believes the most!
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
IantheGecko wrote:
Richard Dawkins stumped by creationist's question

He was asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome". They had to edit out the long time he was stumped in order to dodge the question. He's correct that we see around us modern animals, but it doesn't in the least answer her question! Dawkins doesn't have an answer for what he believes the most!


Debunked, though even if it weren't poor propaganda put together by YE Creationists, this one point would still stand to reason: Just because one authority on Evolution can't answer one question regarding one detail of Evolution doesn't mean that Evolution as a whole is false.
Author:  Acekirby [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
In regards to Intelligent Design, I guess what they told me at my Catholic School is wrong. I thought it was simply the evolutionary theory with the added statement that "God is responsible for it".

I personally believe in the Darwin theory of evolution, but I figured that this was a way for some really devout religious people to preserve some of their creation beliefs without ignoring the incredible amount of evidence that evolution exists.

IantheGecko wrote:
"give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome".

"Increase the information in the genome"? What does that even mean?

Seems to me like it's a poor attempt by reactionary creationists to create anti-evolutionary propaganda by asking a completely ridiculous question in order to confuse a proponent of evolution, then stating "LOOK HE CAN'T EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION, EVOLUTION IS FALSE!!"

This is a prime example of the reason I get disillusioned with the Church and insanely devout Christians, a situation in which I have discussed here before.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
BTG: that's really more a statement about yourself than it is about the subject in question, isn't it, that is, a statement of your own personal beliefs without reference to evidence for or against their validity?
No, it was an answer to your question. I am an exception to the statement you said. I am a Christian, baptized into both the Catholic and Protestant Church, and I believe with every fiber in my being that the Creation Story is nothing more than a metaphor. The idea of the world going from non-existent to full of life in 6 days does not make sense to me.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
But it's still a statement about YOUR beliefs, not about the credibility of the creation account.
Page 26 of 29 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/