Evolution True or False?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 11:00 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

In other words, the US is more conservative/fundamental than the rest of the world, at least when it comes to religion.

I would think Judaism would fall into the same category of Creationism since their Bible is the Old Testament portion of the Christian Bible. Would Islam fit in here as well?

According to the Hindu scripture, no one really knows how creation happened, and that no one has the possibility of including the gods.

I'm not sure what the Shinto belief is about the creation of the rest of the world, but IIRC, Shinto believes that Izanagi and Izanami created the Islands of Japan. As far as how insistantly this creation story is taught and believed in Japan, I am not certain.

I don't think Daoism has any specifics on the creation of the world, but I may be wrong there.

I doubt Confuscianism would have anything about the World's creation, but again I could be wrong there.

Seems like Zoroastrianism had something, but I can't remember what...

Not sure about Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.

Did I leave out any world religions?

What I'm asking after, though, isn't what might be called the "creation myths" of world religions, but rather any large movement of followers who believe that scientific research should be ignored in favor of a given creation myth. (And I don't mean to say that I necessarily disregard any or all such stories. Calling 'em myths isn't the same as calling 'em false. Truth can exist on many levels.)

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Apr 05, 2002 11:20 pm

Originally posted by fable
What I'm asking after, though, isn't what might be called the "creation myths" of world religions, but rather any large movement of followers who believe that scientific research should be ignored in favor of a given creation myth. (And I don't mean to say that I necessarily disregard any or all such stories. Calling 'em myths isn't the same as calling 'em false. Truth can exist on many levels.)

I understand what your asking and I can't answer with any definites, merely with what I do know.

Looking at what they believe, I would say Creationism is a Judeo-Christian ideal. I don't know enough yet about Islam to know if it fits in to the Creationism as well.

Looking at the Hindu Scripture, they leave it open to anything being possible, including Creationism, evolution, and any other thing you can thank of, or so it would seem. Thus, they would have no problem with evolution, unless it interferes in some way with the idea of reincarnation.

As for Shinto, I guess that would depend on how firmly they believe in the Shinto religion. But, again, I don't really know. I just have some ideas of what's possibly the case.

And, as I said, I'm just guessing based on what knowledge I do have.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 9:36 pm

The latest edition of Reporting Religion from the BBC includes a feature about creationism. Here's the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/progr ... elig.shtml

Just click on the radio symbol alongside "listen to the programme" to hear RR on-demand.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:23 pm

Bump for the sake of cross-reference to the thread "Georgia takes on evolution".

In this long discussion thead, there are arguments from users supporting Creationism, as well as a fairly thorough review about what science is, how it is defined and how it is conducted. It also contains a summary of what the Theory of Evolution is. I hope people interested in the Georgi discussion takes time to read this.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:31 pm

I just saw the title of this thread, and I can't help it:

Evolution. True.

Um ... that's it.

maverick8088 · Post by **maverick8088** » Tue May 18, 2004 1:16 am

OK, three books every evolutionist (and creationist)should read:

Darwin On Trial written by Philip E Johnson , a Law teacher at UC/ Berkeley: his position is that Darwin's alleged proofs are unpersuasive that natural selection can produce new species

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis written by Michael Denton a molecular biologist and MD: Dr Denton show why the Theory of Evolution cannot be accepted as fact. Incedentally, this has always been my position, just don't teach it as fact. Show the other side of the story.

Darwins Black Box written by Michael J. Behe, a biochemist: Dr. Behe here presents a scientific argument for the existence of God

Although the post is now very old, I felt a need to reply, not only to list these references, because they were very interesting reading, but also in response to statements about Jehovah's Witnesses'. As I am one, I am in the best position to describe the basic beliefs as regard this topic.

With regard to The Creation Of the Universe and All Of the Life Therein: JW's believe the Bible's story. This does not mean that we believe the Earth is 6000 years old, nor that the universe was created in six 24 hour days. The Bible frequently uses days as a figurative representation of an indeterminate period of time. i.e. One "Day" could be any number of years, more than likely billions. The statement that the universe around us could be thrown together in six literal days is unrealistic, ignorant, and ignores scientific fact.

Speaking of scientific fact: Our belief is that God gave Humans an amazing brain and said concerning us "Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that is unattainable to them." Genesis 11:5 That said, human knowledge is inferior to God's Knowledge. After all, if he made everything, who better could explain it?

Biblical Explanations: If you had to describe a jet airliner to a stone age culture, would you go into thrust/weight ratios and lift capacity? Of course not! You would endeavor to speak in terms that they could understand. Same with the Bible. Speaking to simple people, the Bible didn't attempt a technical explanation of creation. It described the process so it could be comprehended by sheepherders, blacksmiths, and farmers. Simple, easy to comprehend, and not to be taken word for word literally.

Finally, the Flood: The Bible is quite specific. People were bad, God destroyed them with a worldwide flood, He promised never to flood the earth again, Man moves forward.
Scientists have found marine fossils on top of mountains, in the Grand Canyon, places thousands of miles from the ocean. They have stated that at one time the Earth was covered in water. Woolly Mammoths have been found flash frozen in Siberian ice, their stomach contents still recognizable. Now, satelite imagery has found a "large man- made structure" on Mt. Ararat. The Turkish gov't has closed the mountain to everyone, however. The Bible speaks of "an expanse of water above". Again, simple ancients is who we are talking to, seems a good way to describe a thick cloud layer. Incedentally, this would change the radiation levels on earth and make carbon dating before the Flood inaccurate.
Where did the water go? It's still here! If the landmasses were flattened, the ocean would cover the land by many hundreds of feet.

As with so many arguments over the Bibles accuracy, many problems would be avoided if you wouldn't focus on nitpicky liitle details like whether or not Noah put fish in the Ark, and use your brain a little. It was a Flood! Fish live in the water! Why would he need to save them from anything? They had a bigger place to live for a year! The Bible only talks about the creatures moving on the Earth, Land animals and birds, on the ark.

I hope this has given you a good glimpse of the Jehovah's Witness view of Creation and the Flood, as well as our outlook on the Bible. It's God's Book. If it doesn't make sense, it's your POV that needs adjustment, not God's. The Bible can be explained logically without problem, contradiction or reliance on blind devotion.

For more information on Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs, go to http://www.watchtower.org

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue May 18, 2004 3:31 am

Here is another interesting theory of human development.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:10 am

Now, satelite imagery has found a "large man- made structure" on Mt. Ararat. The Turkish gov't has closed the mountain to everyone, however.

That's funny, since me'n my wife visited it last October. Maybe it's closed only to Jehova's Witnesses.

I think they're all wrong! I think it's the pod-people manipulating us! All dinosaur skeletons, cave paintings and carbon dating is a big hoax! We never landed on the moon! The sky is actually the glass of a big aquarium and we're being researched! Pod-people! I tell you!

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:28 am

@Moonbiter: Rofl! I agree. We should start a campaign for schools everywhere to teach a "balanced aproach" regarding evolution and pod people. People need to know both sides of the story.

Don't know for exactly how long you have been on SYM, but there is a pattern to see here. There have been quite a few threads about evolution on SYM, and in every thread certain people (C Elegans, Curdis) points out the reasons evolution is fact, and the misconceptons that leads to "balanced aproaches" etc. However, these points never seems to be read, or atleast not answered by those creationists that once in a while brings the subject up again.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:27 am

Originally posted by maverick8088
Now, satelite imagery has found a "large man- made structure" on Mt. Ararat. The Turkish gov't has closed the mountain to everyone, however.

That one never dies, does it? -Not meaning that you're deliberately hoaxing anybody. I remember seeing people post ten years on religious boards (and hear pastors speak in broadcast sermons) about the "proofs" of The Flood that exist on Mt. Ararat, which no one can see--because it's deliberately closed by the Turks. Emphasis on somebody's got something to hide.

In fact, it's never been closed. Want to go there on vacation? Check here. You can actually climb Mt Ararat if you're into that--or just drive, if you'd prefer that. The top is quite a popular vacation spot.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:45 am

It's a hoax! The Pod-People run that site! I tell you! They're here! If you go on that trip they'll drug you and do experiments on you for 14 days and then brainwash you into thinking you've been on the mountain! The probe! THE PROBE!!!!!

(actually, I've been sitting here thinking about maverick8088 and Pod-People, and reached some interesting conclusions. I think they're monitoring places like SYM...)

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Tue May 18, 2004 10:31 pm

Lets get serious. What would the pod-people what with our species?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue May 18, 2004 10:50 pm

Actually, yes, let's *please* keep this thread serious. It was started as such, and it's continued along those lines for six pages and three years. Though several of us have disagreed with one item in Maverick's last post, that's no reason any of us should ridicule or belittle the rest of the poster's ideas. Yes, I *do* disagree with the rest of it, but I'd rather keep this thread clean of spam and filled instead with intelligent conversation. Which I know we all do, in SYM, on a regular basis.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:26 pm

@fable: You mean, of course, apart from posting stuff about "Large-Man-Made-Objects" on Mount Ararat and radioactive clouds making carbon dating useless? How serious do you want this? Let's say I was really a member of a UFO cult and really DID believe in the Pod-People, writing my version of creationism, how *serious* would you have treated me?

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:51 pm

What if you weren't from a cult?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 19, 2004 12:31 am

@Moonbiter, I'd say feel free to criticize, but leave the ridicule at the door. If something's foolish or wrong, showing it up makes the point sufficiently without raising tempers.

@Bloodthroe, you're giving the impression of referring to Maverick as a cultist, and anybody else who believes as well in creationism. Is that the case?

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Wed May 19, 2004 12:40 am

let me reword that

@Moon
What if you weren't from a cult?

k fab?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 19, 2004 2:02 am

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Who's from a cult, here? Maverick isn't, Moonbiter isn't, you and I aren't. Yet Maverick believes in creationism. Moonbiter and I don't. So how do cults enter into it?

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Wed May 19, 2004 2:10 am

Well even thought I wasn't talking to you fable, I'll be more then glad to answer your question... again.

See Moonbiter says this here.

@fable: You mean, of course, apart from posting stuff about "Large-Man-Made-Objects" on Mount Ararat and radioactive clouds making carbon dating useless? How serious do you want this? Let's say I was really a member of a UFO cult and really DID believe in the Pod-People, writing my version of creationism, how *serious* would you have treated me?

Notice in her question to you she used the word cult as a hypothetical situation. That's what I was referring to.
Understand???

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 19, 2004 2:14 am

Bloodthroe, there's no need to be snide and sarcastic when you're asked a civil question. Check out Buck's rules. We're all expected to live within 'em. If you can't, you may lose your posting privileges.