creationists - serious question?

Question

after reading some of the posts by creationists, it appears to me that many of them simply lack any knowledge of the science they refute.
creationists - dont you think that getting all your information from your church is a very biased source?
Im curious - have any of you actually seriously throughly studied things such as evolution, outside of the church???
because im reading posts by alot of creationists who seem to have zero knowledge of what they argue against.
i mean just listening to your church is only one side of the argument.

all the arguments agianst evolution come from the church. you dont hear arguments agianst it in scientific journals do you? its not even seriously debated at all in the science community

trish- watching a video from a biased scientist doesnt help, unless you also watched videos or read articles from a range of different scientists with different ideas.

the responses from creationists have shown a huge lack of ignorance.

to the guy who says that "just cos we share dna with chimps doesnt mean we're related"- mate there is librarys worth of eviedence that says it does. if you dont know about it then you cant have a real opinion can you?

Answer 1

Unfortunately, listening to a church that has no knowledge of evolution and arrives at a predetermined conclusion is just as bad as not having studied the theory at all. Or potentially worse, because the fundamentalists spread misinformation while they have obviously not studied the theory, and it spreads among the non-scientists like wildfire.

I don't know what to say about the creationists in the U.S. Their lives are dependent on science and technology, though they oppose the study of the former. It's contradictory in every sense. If they have not listened to the evidence yet, then they never will. It's mind boggling that the flat earth society, supported by religious conservatives, lasted into the twentieth century. If it's not an attack on Darwin, the fundies would have bashed Bruno or Galileo. I'm ashamed at politicians like Bush who claim that creationism has equal footing with any scientific theory. "The truth will out," as they say, but only if you're willing to consider the evidence. They are not.

P.S. To one of the posters above: The bible is not evidence for natural processes. To the other guy: It's not arrogant to consider evidence in formulating a theory. It's arrogant to refuse to learn about the evidence based on religious preconceptions. "God did it" was also used to explain the black death. How many millions of Europeans might not have died if they had cultivated a scientific mindset and looked for real explanations for a disease, instead of the supernatural hogwash propagated by the church at that time?

Re-edit:
"Science is just as faith based as Creation."

Right. And you're sending information on a computer at the speed of light because...?

Answer 2

I probably should learn more about evolution - where would you suggest I go to learn of it?

By the way, what kind of posts have you read that make you suspect that creationists "have zero knowledge of what they argue against"? I.m. or email me if you'd like.

I don't read scientific journals much, but I kind of doubt that "it's not even seriously debated at all in the science community". It must be debated by some. After thinking about it though, perhaps it's not debated much in non-theistic sources simply because theists already provide plenty of criticism against it so the non-theists don't feel much need. Another reasons could be that the non-theists feel like they would have to come up with a better explanation if they try to debunk evolution, and that's hard to do if you don't believe in intelligent design. I think the case is pretty strong that we had to have come from either intelligent design or from evolution of some sort. What other plausible explanation could there be?

Answer 3

I don't get my information from the church...my church gives very little information regarding creation, except that it happened. I don't know how many church services you've gone to that center around creation science...I haven't been to any.

I do, however, read. A lot.

I study evolution and creation side by side, as does my son. My parents are/were evolutionary science teachers, and I grew up in the public schools being conditioned to believe that evolutionary science was the only possible answer.

Then, I grew up, started reading things other than my textbooks, and realized that many things in the evolutionary theoretical timetable just plain don't add up.

Several things in the studies of astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and many other fields just plain don't add up...and when they are challenged, evolutionary scientists often just say, "Well, it had to happen that way because otherwise the timetable doesn't work." (There is another possibility that none of them that I know of has put forth...the timetable is wrong.) Macroevolution hasn't happened in known or recorded history, and some of the events contradict known scientific laws (such as biogenesis), but they are held to anyway. Evolutionists completely disregard a lot of scientific knowledge because it just plain doesn't fit their worldview. This is not a practice that I want to base my knowledge of science, or anything else for that matter, on.

See, that's what evolution and creation are...they are worldviews. They are not practical science. They are thoughts as to how something might have happened, whether it be 6,000 years ago or 12 billion years ago. The thing is, much of the evidence (whether scientifically, archaelogically, mathematically, or just plain logically) points more toward creation than evolution. Yet, because creation points toward an actual creator, it is termed "religion". And because evolution places superiority of man and absence of any higher being at the center, it is termed "science". Guess what - they are both religious views, or worldviews.

The Random House Dictionary defines "religion" as: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Hmmm...both creation and evolution fit this definition.

Origin science can't be placed in the same arena with practical science - science that we can test, observe, and prove to be true or false. Yet that is exactly what happens in our children's textbooks - they are told that an untestable, unobservable, and unfalsifiable belief is fact. And this, according to the basic fundamentals of science, is a lie.

I don't believe what I do because my church tells me to...my church does nothing of the kind. I go to church with creationists, evolutionists, and people who believe that God created everything using evolution. I believe what I do because I *have* taken the time, and continue to take the time, to thoroughly research both sides, and what I have found is convincing evidence.

Side note...if evolution were true, then everything in the physical universe was created by a series of mutations, of random chance accidents. How then, are there laws of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, or any other study of science? If things just change all of a sudden due to random mutation, why are there any rules that science must follow? Couldn't they change for no reason as well? How do we know anything to be true?

So my question is...have *you* taken the time to thoroughly, honestly, and open-mindedly research both possibilities, or do you just listen to what other people say and decide that it's absolute fact? (Please know that I'm not asking this to be snide, but as an honest question...because it's not the impression that I get from your statements.)

Edit: Again, very little to no discussion takes place inside most churches, unless it's a topic in a Sunday School class that the members wanted to study or a special speaker who is in town. The debate very much takes place in the scientific community...unfortunately, the editors of most scientific journals only accept pieces that support evolution. So much for an open, honest debate.

Answer 4

Studied it and accepted it as truth until I was 28 years old. It was through my journey to PROVE evolution to a co-worker who was a Christian that actually led me to God and eventually salvation. After I found Jesus, I seen how it took much more faith to believe in evolution than creation. The scientific community can't even agree on the subject. I don't mind debating anyone on the subject, as a matter of fact I still study the theories and so called "evidence" they claim to find, and get many of the sources off of individuals such as yourself on here. To be quite fair and honest, this question should go for both sides. Your pointing out of the "creationists" shows your ignorance on the subject of creation because any fool can read many of the posts on here from evolutionists and see that they misquote and misrepresent MANY of the "facts" they use. One day all will be settled so until then, let's just agree to disagree. Peace to you and yours.

Answer 5

It's all from the same three websites, mostly.

Answers In Genesis

The Discovery Institute

Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind)

There's your sources for repetition.


The Earth is an open system, it's powered by the sun, so f*** the d*** creationists, Doomsday get my gun - MC Hawking, gangster science rapper

Kent Hovind never was a college professor. He has a basic high school education in biology, which he twists to suit his own purposes.

And I'm sure you're aware "Dr" Hovind and his wife are each serving federal sentences for tax dodging?

He's not just bad science, he's a bad citizen.

Again, the new twisting of the Hebrew word "Yom" to suit old earth creationists. "Yom" means 24 hours, period, not a million years. Ask any Hebrew scholar.

Answer 6

It is seriously debated in the science community more than you obviously know..

There are many creation scientists of all genre's in the community whose work and research are respected. One couldn't get information based on scientific fact or knowledge from "the church" as "the church" is made up of all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds and all kinds of faith systems and isn't "the scientific community." The Church doesn't teach any form of science...what the church teaches are doctrinal principals based on biblical, historical and world events. Occasionally, you will have a church that has a series on evolution/creation, and then will invite someone to come in and teach points on creationism vs evolution and etc. However, back to the point...there is debate in the scientific community...a plenty...just google it and you will see that there are articles after articles of various scientists who are leaving the evolutionary theory and searching elsewhere for the origins of life...not all have embraced creationsism but they certainly feel let down by Darwin's theory after 200 years of no sustainable evidence...

Evolution/Creation Debate Now Science vs. Science not Science vs. Religion

GLENDORA, CA, October 6, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Internationally respected biochemist and one of the world's leading experts in origin of life research, Fazale "Fuz" Rana and world renowned astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross claim to have developed a creation model that is testable, falsifiable, and predictive. For the first time in 80 years, such a model would move the evolution/creation debate from science vs. religion, to science vs. science.

"As currently formulated, Intelligent Design is not science. It is not falsifiable and makes no predictions about future scientific discoveries," says Dr. Rana. "At Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research."

Rana added, "With the creation model approach every perspective is encouraged to participate in the scientific process to see which theory best fits the emerging data. With this cutting edge program no philosophical or religious perspective is denied access. It holds the possibility of bringing to resolution the creation /evolution controversy once and for all."

The model has already impressed some scientists. After reading Dr. Rana's books, Nobel prize-winning chemist Dr. Richard Smalley had this to say: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."

"Recent scientific advances raise serious concerns for biological evolution," says Dr. Rana. "New discoveries indicate that the standard icons of human evolution fail to support the human evolutionary scenario."

"While many scientists are of the opinion that science and faith don't mix," says astrophysicist, Dr. Hugh Ross, founder and president of Reasons To Believe, "the team of scientists at Reasons To Believe is dedicated to reaching the scientific community with the understanding that science and Scripture firmly support and even help advance one another. After all, science is the search for truth. We must be willing to follow the trail of evidence wherever it leads."

Check out the research at:
http://www.reasons.org

Answer 7

There are beliefs within creationism that support evolution. For the Christian, the science must be coesive with the Word of God. Education is an evolving process; so as we are all still works in progress as far as our knowledge goes. Personally, I lean more toward a literal creation; however I am not 100% against the idea of evolution. I am a work in progress in this area! I also have no problem believing our earth is indeed billions of years old. It's not a legalism I choose to embrace. Jesus knows our hearts. Gods peace to you :-)

Answer 8

There is a joke about Baptists among the Methodist church:

There was a boy who had a dog who had a litter of puppies and he was trying to sell them. When a Baptist minister walked by, the boy said, "They're Baptist puppies." When he asked why, the boy said, "They just are."
A few days later, a Methodist minister walked by, and the boy said, "They're Methodist puppies." and when the priest asked why, the boy said,"They opened their eyes."

Anyway, my point is that some people take a literal view of the Bible, but i prefer a more figurative view. Who's to say that "1 day" wasn't millions of years in this case?

Answer 9

very good point and I do agree with you. the only other education I have on creationism is a man who is a college professor named kent Hovid he has a video series a mile long lecturing on his research about evolution and creation. He is a Christan so his lectures focus on why evolution is untrue.

now I do not tell any atheist that you believe a fairy tale. you do not stand on factit is a theroy you have to put forth a certain amount of faith to choose evolution too.

Answer 10

There are young teenage rebel creationists who hide biology books from their parents so they can read about evolution when they're supposed to be reading the bible.