Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

I Met a Creationist Who Loves Science


Creatr1x

Recommended Posts

So, I sat down to lunch and eventually passed into discussion with a man sitting next to me about biology. As someone who loves biology, it was a stimulating conversation. It took a turn however, when he mentioned his theory about humans killing off the dinosaurs. Several theories screaming creationism followed. I think it was a good conversation to have, to gain different perspective, although I do not support creationism. Many of the founding fathers of modern biology were actually creationists. I just find this part of my day so interesting, because many say creationism is killing science (which I agree to some extent). Yet, we have individuals like this young man I met, who I believe will be a great addition to the scientific world. Thoughts?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Christian..but I believe the Dinosaurs were real. I understand the hypocracy, but I deal with it.

You know what always strikes me as odd? People who assert the dinosaurs or any other skeletal evidence to suggest evolution is a trick from God to see if you are loyal. Bill Burr has a great joke where he talks about who would want to worship a God who likes to mess with his followers like that. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an atheist myself, but I don't see why a belief in god is incompatible with science. I heard the other day that Robert Bakker the palaeontologist is also a lay preacher.   

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I too am a creationist, but I believe God uses evolution to create.

I believe God created everything.  I too love science.  We can debate the literal words in Genesis for centuries, however in my mind it isn't a literal 6-days...  If, for instance, 2 Peter 3:8-9, "‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’"  Since God is outside of time-space, what is one day to God?  Perhaps it's 1,000 years, but perhaps, as the fossil record indicates, it's much more than that.  Point is, one day to the Lord is not one day to us (and vice versa).

Genesis 1:21, 23 "God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind...There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.".  On the sixth, man was created.  IMHO, there is time between the dinosaurs  living and becoming extinct and the creation of man.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science has won a great many victories over religious dogma and it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect more of the same. Whilst I realize it has yet to explain how the earth came into existence, I personally believe the explanation will be scientific, not godly. The concept of creationism just doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned, and as far fetched as some scientific theories might be, creationism beats them hands down in that respect. So no Virginia, there is no God.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Clair said:

Science has won a great many victories over religious dogma and it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect more of the same. Whilst I realize it has yet to explain how the earth came into existence, I personally believe the explanation will be scientific, not godly. The concept of creationism just doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned, and as far fetched as some scientific theories might be, creationism beats them hands down in that respect. So no Virginia, there is no God.

You mean the universe, not Earth, right? We know how the Earth was formed, and have known this for a long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Podo said:

You mean the universe, not Earth, right? We know how the Earth was formed, and have known this for a long time.

Yes I did mean the universe (and beyond). Must have had a momentary glitch.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clair said:

Science has won a great many victories over religious dogma and it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect more of the same. Whilst I realize it has yet to explain how the earth came into existence, I personally believe the explanation will be scientific, not godly. The concept of creationism just doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned, and as far fetched as some scientific theories might be, creationism beats them hands down in that respect. So no Virginia, there is no God.

I\m pretty much on the same page as you. I read an article a while ago, cant remember where, that stated religious people are more comfortable with science, than science people (meaning those who believe in the scientific explanation) are with religion. I can see that,

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rinna said:

Bill Burr has a great joke where he talks about who would want to worship a God who likes to mess with his followers like that. 

God supposedly messed with Job just to prove a point to Satan, seems to qualify as 'messing with his followers' to determine their loyalty.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen where many creationists claim that anything that goes against the Bible isn't True Science. Even Kent Hovind claims he taught highschool science for like 15 years.

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such an interesting thread.

Of course God created everything from nothing.

 

Scientists just meddle and block us from the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2016 at 2:38 AM, Creatr1x said:

So, I sat down to lunch and eventually passed into discussion with a man sitting next to me about biology. As someone who loves biology, it was a stimulating conversation. It took a turn however, when he mentioned his theory about humans killing off the dinosaurs. Several theories screaming creationism followed. I think it was a good conversation to have, to gain different perspective, although I do not support creationism. Many of the founding fathers of modern biology were actually creationists. I just find this part of my day so interesting, because many say creationism is killing science (which I agree to some extent). Yet, we have individuals like this young man I met, who I believe will be a great addition to the scientific world. Thoughts?

Those founding fathers would have been dead when Darwin released Origin of the species, they did not have the information to work with. Had they had a copy, I have little doubt at least some of them would be Atheist. 

If you have an interest in Biology, how on earth did you manage to discuss creationist points? Honestly, they are chalk and cheese biology was the first real discipline to dethrone creation by God.

I find creationists have to live double lives in order to achieve both, like Nick Cowan, who teaches Math, yet insists the Bible take precedence because he states"if there is a God, his word is mighty than man's" That is just silly talk. He does not deserve to have the job he does in my opinion. He signed up to be an educator. He should leave that profession if he wants to ditch that and become a philosopher. 

Many other scientists who subscribe to both religion and science tend to find uses for the two, such as science for knowledge, religion as a moral compass. These views tend to be more benign and mostly rather personal, and as such, fly under the radar a bit. 

All who say science and religion are compatible, sorry, you are just wrong. There comes a point where it gets to creation, and they part to differing conclusions. Science is the process of discovery and observation, religion offers non-answers we are simply told to accept. Either "godidit" or we live in a Natural Universe. Both answers cannot be correct.

Sorry, no, I see no room for creationism, let alone religion where facts are considered, all we see from religion is undermining of facts and knowledge for self preservation. It is redundant and should be retired. 

How do you feel your acquaintance would be a great addition to the scientific world? I am honestly perplexed by your statement. Religion offers nothing to science, it currently holds an Olive branch out to science as it knows it cannot bury facts any longer and has to acknowledge facts and discovery - the world is too big now. Hence the accurate comment I saw from another poster - Scientists have more problems accepting religion, than religious people do accepting science. As knowledge grows, it erodes religion. 

Did you see Ken Ham debate Bill Nye on this subject by any chance? 

This is that Nick Cowan fellow I mentioned earlier. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is just a theory, like creationism.

Who can say which theory is correct?

God can, if we let him into our hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2016 at 9:43 AM, Rinna said:

I'm a Christian..but I believe the Dinosaurs were real. I understand the hypocracy, but I deal with it.

You know what always strikes me as odd? People who assert the dinosaurs or any other skeletal evidence to suggest evolution is a trick from God to see if you are loyal. Bill Burr has a great joke where he talks about who would want to worship a God who likes to mess with his followers like that. 

Why on Earth would that be hypocrisy? You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, alibongo said:

Evolution is just a theory, like creationism.

Who can say which theory is correct?

God can, if we let him into our hearts.

That just comes from people who think theory means hypothesis. It doesn't. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can have an intelligent conversation about evolution and the origins of life without evoking Dawkins or the Bible. Just keep in mind, anything that can't definitively nailed down is open to discussion, whether it be religious or scientific in nature. I challenge anyone to read this and share your own conclusions.  http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/09/11/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2016 at 0:58 AM, Hammerclaw said:

 I challenge anyone to read this and share your own conclusions.  http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/09/11/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/

It's not heartening to see am amateur blog post start with the line, "This is atrociously long", and unfortunately I didn't see much in the first part of this to justify continuing.  For example,

Quote

The frequent shifting of ground bothered me. If we knew how life began, why did we have so many prospective mechanisms, none of which worked? Evolution began to look like a theory in search of a soup. Fifty-five years later in 2015, it still does.

The entire first part argues against a straw man, or at least a narrow group of people who shouldn't be referred to as 'Evolutionists'.  For the nth time, the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth; it does not explain the origin of life, or how life came from presumably 'non-life'.  It's news to me that 'science' or anyone knows how life began, so he shouldn't be surprised by what he terms 'shifting ground'; that's just the normal process of hypothesis generation in evaluating uncertainties that everyone does daily.

Quote

They defend furiously the evolution of life in earth’s seas as the most certain of certainties. Yet in the November, 2005 Scientific American, an article argues that life may have begun elsewhere, perhaps on Mars, and arrived here on meteorites.

We don't know that the origin of life was in the seas.  I think he's confusing that a lot of land animals' ancestors came from the sea (I'm not sure about insects), but that is well after the origin of life.

Quote

On any coral reef, a scuba diver can see, or rather not see, phenomenally good camouflage in creatures such as octopuses, said to prevent their being eaten. It does. But many fish are garishly colored. What is the advantage?

Why doesn't he do just a little research?  That he doesn't understand things is absolutely no issue for evolution.  He knows one advantage of garishly colored fish are, he mentions it in his previous paragraph about guacamayos: mating.  Coral reefs are colorful environments and against that background, bright fish may actually blend in better than blandly colored ones.  And some are brightly colored because they are poisonous so the color can serve as a warning. This is very basic and logical and makes sense and he's a google search away from answering his question.

And god I just got down far enough to realize this was all before the "Preamble".  I'd like to hear your conclusions on it, it is ridiculously long so what would you say is the best point he makes?  What little I read just sounds like someone whining because they don't appear to have much understanding of what they are criticizing and because 'evolutionists' were mean to him in internet comment boards, just my impression, but maybe there's a better point later on.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It's not heartening to see am amateur blog post start with the line, "This is atrociously long", and unfortunately I didn't see much in the first part of this to justify continuing.  For example,

The entire first part argues against a straw man, or at least a narrow group of people who shouldn't be referred to as 'Evolutionists'.  For the nth time, the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth; it does not explain the origin of life, or how life came from presumably 'non-life'.  It's news to me that 'science' or anyone knows how life began, so he shouldn't be surprised by what he terms 'shifting ground'; that's just the normal process of hypothesis generation in evaluating uncertainties that everyone does daily.

We don't know that the origin of life was in the seas.  I think he's confusing that a lot of land animals' ancestors came from the sea (I'm not sure about insects), but that is well after the origin of life.

Why doesn't he do just a little research?  That he doesn't understand things is absolutely no issue for evolution.  He knows one advantage of garishly colored fish are, he mentions it in his previous paragraph about guacamayos: mating.  Coral reefs are colorful environments and against that background, bright fish may actually blend in better than blandly colored ones.  And some are brightly colored because they are poisonous so the color can serve as a warning. This is very basic and logical and makes sense and he's a google search away from answering his question.

And god I just got down far enough to realize this was all before the "Preamble".  I'd like to hear your conclusions on it, it is ridiculously long so what would you say is the best point he makes?  What little I read just sounds like someone whining because they don't appear to have much understanding of what they are criticizing and because 'evolutionists' were mean to him in internet comment boards, just my impression, but maybe there's a better point later on.

 

Since you didn't bother to read it, your criticisms are without merit.  Why bother even commenting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Since you didn't bother to read it, your criticisms are without merit.  Why bother even commenting?

Because you specifically requested that people share their conclusions; as noted in the comments to your linked post, it's over 10,000 words/24 pages long.  I've now read it all during football commercial breaks, is there anything wrong or that you disagree (or agree) with in the content of my original post?  What do you think of the article?

To me, it's honestly pretty terrible, but that may be because I've read almost all of these 'criticisms' before, a lot of them have been around in varying forms in the creationism vs evolution conversations for years.  He continues the straw man that evolutionists claim to know the origin of life and makes several bald arguments from incredulity; despite saying he's looked into this, he really should research more and demonstrate that he understands the reasoning behind 'what evolutionists say'.  From a style-standpoint, I think he says he's a journalist but I found it verbose, disorganized, and at points juvenile; the discussion around the whopper of misunderstanding encapsulated in, "The second problem is that if sexual selection favored large breasts, by now most women would have them, which is visibly not the case", is pretty cringey.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammerclaw

Quote

Since you didn't bother to read it, your criticisms are without merit.  Why bother even commenting?

What he didn't bother to read was the entirety of the offering. He took a sample of it and finding that unsatisfactory for the reasons he explained, he passed on the rest.

This is an entirely satisfactory and rational approach to managing a scarce and non-renewable resource, the time available to him in this life.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re "Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution"

I have only to read the first half dozen paragraphs to see that they are about something other than biological evolution. As far as I have seen, these paragraphs propagate the same errors than can be found in dozens of other places.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2016 at 11:44 PM, OverSword said:

I too am a creationist, but I believe God uses evolution to create.

No one can deny this as a possibility, but to be an acceptable scientific theory one need to apply a little more rigor -- like by thinking through the logical implications of what we should see in the fossil record is God used natural processes such as those of evolution to do his creation.

First, though, let me point out that the idea that God used evolution removes the need for God, and makes him an unnecessary complication in evolutionary theory, and therefore a violation of the scientific rule of avoiding the addition of unnecessary complications.

How could we tell the difference between a fully "natural" process and one that happens under divine direction?  

One might be with the demonstration of something that happened in the history of life that could not possibly have happened naturally.  Many possible such events suggest themselves, but there is always the problem that simply because we don't know exactly what happened does not mean it did not happen naturally.   The evolution of flight or of the eye have been in the past mentioned as such events, but now the evolution of these things is well understood.  In other words, such an approach raises the danger of resort to the "God of the gaps," resorting to God when all that really can be said is, "We don't know." It is like those who resort to alien visits to "explain" UFOs.  

More important, there is the problem that the history of life looks for all the world like a sequence of chance events that after many slips and falls finally resulted in us.  (This is looking at it from the normal creationist anthro-chauvinist perspective.)  Life is a history of extinctions, mainly, with few species having living progeny.  Such imperfection does not fit well with God's perfection, although of  course the problem can be rationalized.

The biggest problem I have is that involving God achieves nothing to help the biologist, and is in fact merely a sop to traditional ideas that date from pre-scientific times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.