Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Creationism or Evolutionism

Which of these describes the world that we are in?

Creationism or Evolutionism single choice
	Young-earth Creation
	Old-Earth Creation or Intelligent Design
	Theistic Evolution
	Atheistic Evolution
Votes accepted starting: 01/01/70 12:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

The correct answer is none of the above.

Your choices are equivalent to:

Which for of govenment do you think is best?
( ) Maoist-Communist dictatorship
( ) Stalinist-Communist dictatorship
( ) 1939-style Nazi dictatorship
( ) Theocratic rule by a Shia Imam.

You are truly pathetic and the sum total of your accomplishments when you finally leave this forum, and you will just like Trident before you and all the other trolls is be disruptive and waste people's time. No doubt the true calling for holy warriors.

But I do find it interesting that you ignored the questions I posed to you? What's wrong? Can't handle a question that wasn't spoon fed to you by your cult?

In your opinion, DA, what options are missing from the poll? I don't want to hear "none of the above". How do you consider the universe to have been created? Does anyone else know of any other missing options in this poll?

John M Reynolds

So, DA, what choice did you think I left out? I'll be glad to put another choice in the pool if you want me to.

I have never thought I will come up for DA. Tim, how about adding the answer that "we do not know the answer yet but that we know that scientific research, and not religion, gives the best possibility of providing it".

How about: "Creationism is just a postulate that could be wrong".

Should these posts be moved to either the Origins forum or the not quite science forum?

John M Reynolds

The poll is no longer active so I can't view the choices and don't want to try to write them from memory. But here's what I was reacting to.

Not one of the available choices corresponded with the current state of the science thus they were all false choices. In other words ... the correct option would have been:

(*) Other

but it wasn't available.

Tim ... you want to know the choices that are missing. The one accepted by professors who teach and research the topic. Guess there aren't any in your cult.

Evolution was one of the choices. So you don't believe in evolution? Cool, I did my job.

no, you just did not put in enough choises of types of evolutions.

dehammer is correct. The one "choice" he had was bogus. No serious scientists believes it.

Integrity, Tim, requires that the choices be choices. You stacked the deck.

I'm sorry, guys. Which other choices did you want me to put in, I had creation and evolution

We can not longer see the the poll. What was the choice that you thought represented the current state of evolution theory?

I remember seeing and thinking "fraud" and thus my response.

The choices were, "Young earth creationism, old earth creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution, and atheistic evolution."

you left off the possibility of scientific evolution. science does not mean atheistic.

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution. Where did you get this wacko idea?

I know the answer and that is precisely what I urge you to get out and go to a real college.

You are being spoon fed things that ARE NOT TRUE!

Theistic Evolution:

Either an evolutionary process given direction by a Deity, or an evolutionary process that, due to the way a Deity set up the laws of the Universe in the first place, leads to a pre-defined outcome i.e. a sentient creature able to experience moral and spiritual experiences (the cards are stacked to begin with).

Atheistic Evolution:

A definition used by Theists to define evolution as a chance occurence in a chance universe devoid of any design or outside influence.

Dan, you seem to think there is no such thing as Atheistic Evolution but for Theists it is simply a term that allows them to distinguish between the ideas of 'evolution by design' and 'evolution by chance'. Why do you have a problem with the term?

Blacknad.

Evolution is neither atheistic or theistic. It is at right-angles to whether one believes in or does not believe in a god. There is no point at which they intersect.

One can as easily state that God created evolution as one can state that the two are antithetical. The truth is they are as related as are ice cubes in Hades.

I have a problem with that because that lumps people from all religion under the christians heading, or in the catagory of believing in no god what so ever. there should be a catagory of non religion connected evolution.

All evolution is non-religious. Science and religion only intersect where religion tries to take ownership of that which is not an article of faith.

then it should be a poll of

1) creationism
2) evolutionism
3) just happened.

or some such.

I really didn't want to do this but I will.

1) Literal 2006 interpretation of the King James version as defined by American Southern Baptists
2) 2006 Interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church
3) Interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Codex Amiatinus
4) Interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Latin Vulgate
5) 2006 Interpretation of the Torah as defined by the Orthodox Jewish authorities in Jerusalem
6) 2006 Interpretation by an Reform Jewish Rabbi in Edina, Minnesota
7 ... 50,000) Interpretations by every sect of every extant religion on the planet including Scientology
50,001) Evolution as defined at Wikipedia on 30 August, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

It is a crock. If it isn't evolution as defined by PhD researchers working in the field it is just semantic nonsense perpetrated or perpetuated by the ill-educated or the religious zealot.

Just as there is no astronomy except as practiced by astronomers, no skiing except as practiced by skiers. Evolution is defined by those that work in the field.

I don't see churches trying to tell seismologists that their models are wrong. What makes them think they are more knowledgeable about genetics?

That was a purely rhetorical question so please don't respond.

How about the hundreds, if not thousands, of other creation stories that exist?

See: http://dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj.edu/diaspora/creation.html

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ANCJAPAN/CREAT.HTM

http://www.indians.org/welker/creation.htm

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/NAANTH/CREATION.HTM

http://members.aol.com/egyptart/crea.html

And about 20 different stories here:
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html

That's why I wrote 7 - 50,000.

There are a huge number of creation stories. Each one as invalid as the other. But then why would one expect that people that hadn't even discovered penicillin would be capable of anything else.

After the tower of Babel, God scattered all the people living to other parts of the earth. That is the reason why so many cultures and religions have the same stories, although thousands of years have changed them somewhat. That is why there are cultures in Africa that have never even seen an outside human being before have a story of a global flood although they have never been contacted by other people.

So you feel those are all the same story? It's good that you've mastered the creationist hand-wave, because when presented with facts, the powerful hand-wave of the creationist makes all those ugly facts disappear.

There is no magic, Tim. There wasn't any in biblical times and there isn't any today.

Tim it is time to grow up a bit.

You are talking to adults not children. We all have read that text more than you, all heard the explanations more than you. Are you unable to get past the rote repetition of what you've been told? Don't you have an original thought in your head? And most importantly aren't you the least bit embarrased by the fact that you are quoting elementary-school level bible stories on a science forum?

You should be.

But lets test your ability to use your brain. What evidence is there, I mean real evidence not just that bible story, that the people were scattered all over the earth?

Do the Chinese have stories of how they came to reside in China that correspond?

Do the Incas in the Yucatan have an identical story?

How about the Tutu's in Rwanda?

And how is it, if the story is true, that only one small group of people in one specific geographical region retained the original text and language and features and the others, and only the others, changed?

It is time to start thinking for yourself or go away. Which will it be?

rather than listen to what the church says about those stories, why not google them yourself.

here is a few things you will find.

1) all the stories come from areas around rivers. In areas that dont have rivers, they dont have stories about floods.

2) many of those stories are about mystical warrors that beat back the flood. In Africa, there is a story about a warror that fought the flood with a spear and saved his family. no mention of animals at all.

3) in china, the stories is about a warrior with a sword that split the flood in half to save his town. ther was no mention of animals.

4) in south america there is a story about the gods fighting and one of them cried, flooding the world. Only one man and one woman survived. the only mention of animals is the dead animals they lifed on. No mention of children either.

5)Inits and native americans dont have any legends about floods, but there is a couple of stories from some of the tribes about a spirit getting mad at someone and racing down the river bank after them. Either they got the bad guy or the hero managed to escape though his special streagth.

6)If there were a global flood story, polonesian (sp?) islanders would surely have had stories of it, but they dont.

7) all the stories that are simular to the bibles all stem from the middle east.

Two things: First a correction for a misspelling. My references was to the Tutsi's in Rwanda.

Second, and this is directed to you Tim. Tell me from your knowledge (I mean without looking it up with a search engine) about the Epic of Gilgamesh and its relationship to Genesis.

If you can't then you need to read it.

You need to learn its history as it relates to Jewish history.

You need to learn how much of the original text from the Epic is in Genesis.

And why.

If they didn't tell you about this, and they haven't, you need to start asking yourself why.

True enlightenment begins with asking why. And then having the courage to find out for yourself.

You are all just figments of my imagination....

And have no external reality....

Especially Tim, boy was I ill that day...

PS Gilgamesh PREDATES the bible and has many of the same stories that the 'bible' copied.
Including the flood and a boat full of animals.
Also the egyptian god Ptah originally uttered 'the word' that was creation. (Way before Jahweh was even thought of let alone married, Oh you didn't know he had a wife!!!).
The bible is merely a 'fun' compendium of old stories, not particularly original, in fact, fairly generic.

I was hoping Tim would face the question without such close proximity to the answer but since it is here lets expand on it.

Tim ... the story of Genesis is a plagiarism. It is a copy with editing. Of the Epic of Gilgamesh interspersed into other known stories. All of which are far older than the creation of the Torah by the Jews.

They got the story of Noah from the Sumerians' epic. They got their single god from the Egyptians.

There is nothing original here other than the make-believe stories created by religious organizations and cults to explain the text and keep people from looking behind the curtain.

Read this Tim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
then this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea

This is the part of your religious heritage that was censored. Pay close attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_New_Testament

And here are a few more links that might add to your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

I'm sorry about that DA.

But you must realise that all such writings whether post or ante-dating the bible are obviously the work of satan or somesuch.

"and verily, our fascistic religion shall bury it's head in the sand, and call 'foul' against all who speak agen' us" ...amen.

Do you really mean that you trust what wikipedia has to say? And what does the Council of Nicaea have to do with anything? And what does the "lost books" have to do with anything; they were probably literature written that was and is not cannonized or thought as inspired by God or have not been fully preserved. And yes, some were quoted in the Bible like the book of Jashar and the book of Enoch. And what does the Biblical canon have to do with anything?

O how great God is

"After the tower of Babel, God scattered all the people living to other parts of the earth. That is the reason why so many cultures and religions have the same stories, although thousands of years have changed them somewhat. That is why there are cultures in Africa that have never even seen an outside human being before have a story of a global flood although they have never been contacted by other people."

Come on ! Give me a break ! I am constantly amazed by people's lack of judgement, but this is a bit too much. We're not kids, you know...

"But you must realise that all such writings whether post or ante-dating the bible are obviously the work of satan or somesuch."

Just a quick reality check: you were being ironical, Eduardo, right ?

"Do you really mean that you trust what wikipedia has to say? And what does the Council of Nicaea have to do with anything? And what does the "lost books" have to do with anything; they were probably literature written that was and is not cannonized or thought as inspired by God or have not been fully preserved. And yes, some were quoted in the Bible like the book of Jashar and the book of Enoch. And what does the Biblical canon have to do with anything?"

Let me get this straight: you show this guy that his religion was totally man-made, and that the "holy book" was actually carefully selected from texts that do not connect to each other very much, and you show him that part of the same culture on which the Bible was based was actually banned because they gave a more realistic and objective view of the historical circumstances, and he states there's nothing wrong with that. Thumbs up, buddy ! Way to go !

"O how great God is"
You know what, just take those medications this time, and I'm sure you'll fell much better in a few days.