Science vs. Creationism

[One Brow]

Wait..serious question. Growing up in the church I was always taught that any view other than creationism was blasphemy. Is that not the case anymore?

I suspect that depends not only on the church, but the particular parish/ward/etc. within that church.

colton is use a narrow definition of creationism, one often called Young Earth Creationism. There are other forms, some of which accept the things like the common ancestry of all living things. Ken Ham is a YEC.

 

[One Brow]

I watched about an hour and 10 minutes, through the end of Nye's 30 minute presentation. Frustratingly, Ham is a much better speaker than Nye. ...

Over at the blog Pharyngula, PZ Myers did a live-blog, and his impressions of Nye's performance were more positive than yours. It's an interesting contrast.

 

[MVP]

It is very simple. Neither part has any proof that it is right. So it is up to each individual to chose which theory to believe. I can't believe creationism as it makes less sense - (for example stating that land animals were created before sea creatures contradicts fossil records and all we know about evolution - unless we share Colton's view that God on purpose made it look that way to confuse us ).

 

[One Brow]

It is very simple. Neither part has any proof that it is right. So it is up to each individual to chose which theory to believe. I can't believe creationism as it makes less sense - (for example stating that land animals were created before sea creatures contradicts fossil records and all we know about evolution - unless we share Colton's view that God on purpose made it look that way to confuse us ).

Neither has any proof because proof doesn't apply to realms like science. One side has all of the evidence.

 

[fishonjazz]

I also believe some of it is possible historical data that has been butchered, retold, reshaped, and misconstrued for thousands of years.

The da vinci code proves that this is true.

Science

 

[colton]

...unless we share Colton's view that God on purpose made it look that way to confuse us ).

To be clear, that's not my view. My own personal view is that the days spoken of in Genesis chapter 1 are symbolic time periods of much longer duration. But my point was that the scientific evidence (including such things as the Cosmic Microwave Background) makes it very clear that the universe is far, far older than 6000 years... so the only real way to hold on to the view that the earth was created 6000 years ago is to believe that God made it to look much older.

 

[PearlWatson]

It is very simple. Neither part has any proof that it is right. So it is up to each individual to chose which theory to believe. I can't believe creationism as it makes less sense - (for example stating that land animals were created before sea creatures contradicts fossil records and all we know about evolution - unless we share Colton's view that God on purpose made it look that way to confuse us ).

Well even in the story of the fish evolving into a human, the fish who randomly grows two arms has to crawl out of the water and mate with a land creature...so your view has to at least have a simultaneous evolution of land and sea creatures.

 

[Stoked]

Neither has any proof because proof doesn't apply to realms like science. One side has all of the evidence.

That is assuming that the science done is correct and has already been discovered on that subject. Still thousands upon thousands of things science has not discovered/learned yet.

 

[colton]

Wait..serious question. Growing up in the church I was always taught that any view other than creationism was blasphemy. Is that not the case anymore?

You were taught incorrectly, and I suspect McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is to blame (iirc it has a strong creationist bent). But the LDS church has never required its members to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact, I believe Brigham Young himself talked about the Bible as containing mythology which was to be discarded as science learned more about the universe (sorry, I don't have the reference, but it was quoted in Philip Barlow's book Mormons and the Bible). And, for example, the official church statement on evolution in 1909 was this:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows, and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally -- "that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual." He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with Godlike reason and intelligence." (James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.206)

In other words, there is a basic difference between animal and man, that man was created as the offspring of God. But if you read it closely, there's nothing that says that God didn't use evolution to create man. As the Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes, "The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, EVOLUTION article.)

 

[fishonjazz]

the fish who randomly grows two arms has to crawl out of the water and mate with a land creature.

I thought the fish with arms had sex with another fish with arms and the offspring evolved into a little bit more of a land animal..... then rinse and repeat until there was me

 

[moevillini]

...that their are other options...

overall, a very good post

:WINK:

 

[PearlWatson]

I thought the fish with arms had sex with another fish with arms and the offspring evolved into a little bit more of a land animal..... then rinse and repeat until there was me

Nope, that would simply make more fish with mutant fish hands....
...the retard fish with the mutant fish hands crawled out and had sex with a squirrel(or something) and made a retard frog squirrel baby and such as and so forth....

 

[fishonjazz]

Nope, that would simply make more fish with mutant fish hands....
...the retard fish with the mutant fish hands crawled out and had sex with a squirrel(or something) and made a retard frog squirrel baby and such as and so forth....

So we are all retarded frog squirrels? Pretty sweet

 

[PearlWatson]

So we are all retarded frog squirrels? Pretty sweet

Not exactly...you forgot the monkeys.

 

[MVP]

Well even in the story of the fish evolving into a human, the fish who randomly grows two arms has to crawl out of the water and mate with a land creature...so your view has to at least have a simultaneous evolution of land and sea creatures.

Fish never evolved into human, not sure why you being so primitive here. To remind you fish evolved into amphibians.

 

[MVP]

Nope, that would simply make more fish with mutant fish hands....
...the retard fish with the mutant fish hands crawled out and had sex with a squirrel(or something) and made a retard frog squirrel baby and such as and so forth....

Such a load of crap. There was never fish with hands and first amphibians on land would have never met any other land creatures but same amphibians.

 

[fishonjazz]

Fish never evolved into human, not sure why you being so primitive here. To remind you fish evolved into amphibians.

Such a load of crap. There was never fish with hands and first amphibians on land would have never met any other land creatures but same amphibians.

I think pearl was making jokes based off a south park episode

 

[colton]

overall, a very good post

:WINK:

Dangit! That's what happens when I'm in a hurry. Fixed.

 

[franklin]

Ham never said that. You're most definitely twisting his words. You can search as much as you want to find where he said you're either an atheist or young Earth Creationist, but you'll never find it.

I know full well what a Creationist is, as I am one.

These are my thoughts on it: I'm not smart enough to understand the science behind any of this, and I never will be. That's ok though, because I know somebody who is. Obviously, I'm referring to God...yup, the same God you believe in Colton. I have no reason to not believe the Bible, and quite frankly, I don't see the point in picking out which parts of the Bible that we agree with. You either agree with all of it, or none of it.

Now Creationism isn't a salvation point, but when you pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, it undermines the authority of the Bible.

I knew what your profession is Colton...I'm just shocked because I know how devoutly religious you are.

The people who composed the bible didn't believe all of it, and didn't care about the books enough to not lose many of them. How did they manage to fool you nearly 1700 years later?

 

[MVP]

I think pearl was making jokes based off a south park episode

I doubt, she is dead serious about fish with hands, lol.

Here is one for you Pearl. What kind of creationist would create such a creature?