Your view on Creation and the Creator?

Post Reply New Topic

I am sorely tempted to sink this thread. As arguing between Christians and scientists is likely to escalate and go nowhere except a smoking crater, I will ask people to reatrain themselves to stating what their choice is and why.

I am sorry iamnotaparakeet for calling you a nut job, this subject is one of my sore points, growing up catholic and such, I have seen my share of religious arguments. my bad

I believe in evolution and things that you can base on tangible and scientific evidence. No book written by primitive bigots thousands of years ago isn't going to ruin my worldview

I'll PM you when I've had a chance to talk to the professor.

There's also a lot of stuff in his lectures that you won't even find on the slides. That's most of what we're tested on, actually: the lectures. He's one of the few professors I've known who are balls-to-the-freaking-walls dedicated to justifying the practice of taking notes and bringing recorders. It's really a good thing I have excellent recall. I have poor coordination with a pen, and I never quite learned how to condense whole reams of information into concise notes. I'm one of the brightest students there, but I've never been good at being a student.

Self-study can get you a long way, but it's really no substitute for actually sitting through a lecture and being forced to learn about things that really seem boring and uninspiring on the surface. In self-study, it's really hard to motivate yourself to go over material that is really dry and dull, even if you know it's important information.

I'm not saying that it would make you give up your Creationist beliefs, though. I just think that it would heighten your respect for the idea of evolution. The definition of sanity is realizing that you don't have to throw away one idea just because you see merits in another.

In fact, before I got embroiled in the millions of forum debates on this subject, I spent many happy hours thinking about the nature of God, even though I didn't really have any deep convictions. I had a much better relationship with God when I didn't have to defend myself from people who wanted me to take God to the exclusion of all else. For me, there was a time that it all mattered, and thinking about God was just one of the many things that I did in the search for truth about myself, Mankind, and the universe. I didn't really start calling myself an atheist until I realized that I was expected to throw out any possible idea or belief that could possibly conflict with doctrine. In a world without fanaticism, I would be an agnostic. In a world without ideological conflict, I could spend many happy hours talking to God, not once having to ask myself if he's really there. It wouldn't matter. I'd just feel close to something that I no more have to question or analyze than migrating geese need to cross-examine their instincts. I am glad that I was never truly robbed of this. There is just a word that I can no longer use for what I talk to before I go to sleep. I can make do with one less word.

Perhaps where we went wrong with religion is trying to put names to things that names can only desecrate. The definition of faith is realizing that you don't really have to ask yourself whether God is really there and just letting him fill your heart. Forget for just one minute what you think I believe, and take what is given to you. I think it would make you a happier person.

In any event, I do not consider Genesis an objectively likely explanation for the origin of the world. You don't seem to have given us much cause to feel otherwise.

One of my emails is [email protected] if you want to send the slides by that way.

Listening is easier for memory. If I do come across a dry patch in the text I read it aloud so I can hear and recall my own voice. Fortunately there aren't too many of those in chemistry.

I accept evolution to an extent already; new species do arise even in recorded history. I don't accept fixity of species, but to extrapolate the reproductive barriers and morphological variation to the kingdom level seems to remind me of fallacies involved in mathematical induction. I'll be glad to review the material and see if anything new is presented.

Please don't take this the wrong way (as we are both Aspies anyway): a friend of mine once said, "Debating on forums is like competing in the Special Olympics; even if you win, you're still ret*d." A time consuming waste of effort on anything controversial in other words.

People who say, "ignore anything to the contrary" are usually too lazy themselves to research and expect their audience to be equally lazy or worse than they. A hypothesis should first explain the existing data and should be able to predict future data. A datum to the contrary would require refinement or rejection of the hypothesis (unless all data in opposition are "anomalies" )

"In a world without fanaticism, I would be an agnostic. In a world without ideological conflict, I could spend many happy hours talking to God, not once having to ask myself if he's really there."

Are the actions of others what determine truth? I can't really see how that would work.
I suppose I do feel similarly about Dawkins, but it's still the association fallacy.


"Perhaps where we went wrong with religion is trying to put names to things that names can only desecrate. The definition of faith is realizing that you don't really have to ask yourself whether God is really there and just letting him fill your heart. Forget for just one minute what you think I believe, and take what is given to you. I think it would make you a happier person."

I recognize this as heartfelt on your part, even though I would disagree with much of it.


"In any event, I do not consider Genesis an objectively likely explanation for the origin of the world. You don't seem to have given us much cause to feel otherwise."

I could just regurgitate reasons why I do as well as attempt to show disproof of the contrary, but what would that prove? I want to hold a degree and do laboratory research of my own to test my current reasons and see if they hold true, fail, or just need refinement. Before that I would know the data less well for either way.

Thanks for lessening the tone, I really appreciate it.