Synaesthesia

You know, I'm still curious as to whether there are any creationists here that understand at least the basics of evolutionary biology.

Well, are there such creatures here, or have creationists not evolved to that point?

Kaina

That's all any of the creationists do, Droxyn. Since there is no "theory of creation" to support, creationists spend their time picking nits in the theory of evolution. Instead of saying why evolution is wrong, why don't you guys supply evidence for why Biblical creation is right? Even if all the archeology, paleontology, molecular biology, etc. supporting evolution were to just disappear, it wouldn't make your unsupported Biblical account any more correct.

xBobTheAlienx

wow all i asked was who are creationists and look at all how long ther thread is!

Droxyn

Very nicely put. Because you believe the assertion of your second quote, it is somewhat pointless to attempt to answer your first quote. Would there be any evidence, if I did provide it, that would make you disbelieve your second quote? I would venture to guess not, but that may be a false supposition, and if it is I apologize. I believe the 3 SCIENCES you mentioned provide the FACTS of the debate. How those facts are interpreted depend heavily on your worldview. I think those 3 sciences provide evidence for a creation-based worldview. Now that assertion is the basis of the majority of the arguments. Now why I believe in the Bible is a seperate issue..one which I'm more than happy to discuss. But as far as evidences go, we all have the same facts, its just a matter of interpreting those facts and determining what they mean that raises issues. With some exceptions of course, I think both sides basically take what they read from various sources that support their view as fact. The only ones that do question what the "experts" say are usually those who disagree with them. Which is good I think. Lee Spetner gives info that indirectly supports a creationist's view.. so the only ones that seem to discredit him are those of an evolutionary mindset. Conversely, Stephan J Gould or Richard Dawkins give out info supporting the evolutionary worldview. Therefore, the questions raised about what they say are more frequent among the creationists.

Sorry, as usual I am rambling. Peoples problems with the Bible are well known and ubiquitous on this forum. However, evolution seems to be revered as the pinnacle of free thinking and intelligence and therefore any problem that might exist with the theory is either ignored or labeled as ridiculous.
In conclusion (finally) I will answer your question in the first quote despite the second. I ultimately can not convince you of the truth of the Bible, only God, through his Holy Spirit can do that.( I can offer things in there that help me to believe in it) So in pointing out potential problems with the worldview of evolution, it is possible one might see that it just doesn't have all the answers and there is more to defining reality than naturalism. Then the individual might open their heart just enough for God to enter in and guide them. I dunno, I never make the claim to have all the answers as some might, but I think we both believe that all the answers can be found if we are diligent in our search. The only difference is where we look for the answers. I hope I am not to preachy and I hope that no one replies with a meany response.

Mageth

Droxyn, that sounds like a big dodge to me. Can you not answer Kaina's request to:

...supply evidence for why Biblical creation is right.

I would add, using the evidence provided by the sciences, explain why those evidences fit the Creationist model better than the Darwinian Evolutionary model. All you seem to be saying is "have faith, believe, and it will all be clear to you."

Kaina's point in saying :

Even if all the archeology, paleontology, molecular biology, etc. supporting evolution were to just disappear, it wouldn't make your unsupported Biblical account any more correct.

is, I believe, to point out that to dislodge the Darwinian Evolutionary model from science, you have to provide a (better) scientifically valid model to replace it, one that better conforms to the evidence. You, nor anyone else, has succeeded in doing so.

Marduk

I find it odd that the Hebrews who wrote the Old Testament borrowing so much of it from ancient Mesopotamia Mythology overlooked the part where evolution is mentioned.
"The gods, from creature to creature over aons and aons, were formed"
The gods found apelike humans living on Earth with the other animals and gave him some of their "essence" creating a primitve man.
To the surprise of the gods they noticed that man had an extra piece of skin over his penis, the gods, (the men anyway) were naturally without a foreskin. I guess we started snipping it off to make ourselves look like our creators!

Bubba

A note about Islamic peoples...not all of them are creationists by any stretch of the imagination. My friend Liz teaches Biology at The Ohio State University and one of her graduate assistants is Iranian, a devout muslim, and accepts evolution 100 percent.

Bubba.

RufusAtticus

What problems might that be?

Quetzal

Droxyn:

I haven't seen where you've supported this assertion. Perhaps I missed it. Could you please provide at least a few concrete examples from, for instance, biology, that lends credence for the "creation-based worldview"? Please put it in the form of: species A represents compelling evidence for creation because x, y, z. Or perhaps, the coadaptation of species B and C shows compelling evidence for creation because of q, r and s.

Creation's Terrier

Bats. No intermediate fossils, you see. First one is from the Messel Shale in Germany, and it's a fully formed bat. No half-wings there!

How about wasps and figs? I thought Dawkins's description was a lot of near-impenetrable hypothesising, nothing more thana just-so story. And complex, too. Ockham's Razor means that creation is the simpler explanation. (Same with bats. What have you got, apart from a load of 'could be's? That's the sort of stuff you slam Ed for!)

CT