A few questions for creationists, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 30-6-2009 @ 09:30 PM by FSBlueApocalypse

In an attempt to establish a dialogue, I figured I would ask these, Please, be honest and polite and I will return with the same.

1. Define evolution in your own words

2. State how scientists believe humans evolved

3. Is evolution inherently atheist

4. Do you oppose evolution because in conflicts with your religious beliefs

5. What is "Micro" and "Macro" evolution

reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 10:00 PM by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

i dont think youre going to get really any answers, but kudos for trying

[edit on 30-6-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 10:57 PM by MyLife

I'm not strictly a creationist, but I thought I'd post my idea on things anyways. I hope you don't mind.

Couldn't some higher power have created the world and given it the opportunity to create life with out actually molding each being? So, saying God created the earth, gave it life or the possibility of life then it stands to reason that the life created could and would evolve.

How do scientist believe humans evolved?
As I understand it, they believe the earth was formed (big bang theory, whatever), the atmosphere changed, and the organisms living in the vast oceans gradually evolved until some became amphibious and those continued to morph into a new species that only lived on land, yada, yada, yada. Humans evolved from ape like creatures, the newer species slowly crowding out the older. Survival of the fittest.

No, I don't believe that believing in evolution makes one an athiest. There are a lot of religions out there and I'm sure at least one of those embraces the idea of evolution. Of course, I wouldn't say that to my Catholic grandmother and when I say Catholic I mean really Catholic. To give you an example; there's this holy statue of Mary that traveled the world. Only one person in the USA had the privilege of having her stay at their home. She, the statue, stayed with my grandmother.

If I were a true Catholic like my family then evolution would absolutely conflict with those beliefs. But, I'd like to give both views the benifit of the doubt. Who here actually knows the truth?

Micro evolution is the changes within a species while macro evolution is the transition into a new species. Or so I've read. I could be totally backwards on that.

Does this all sound totally crazy?

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 06:07 PM by one_enlightened_mind

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

1. Do you mean Darwinian Evolution? ...Because there are many actual definitions of the word. Darwinian Evolution is descent with modification. This means that organisms change and adapt over time, slowly bringing forth new life on this planet. Yes, this definition is lacking a lot of details. It is a very basic and simple definition.

2. Scientists believe humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor millions of years ago. How this happened... is bit of a debate. What I mean is that if you start from Australopithecus afarensis, up to Homo erectus, and finally Homo sapien, there are a lot of theories as to how ape-like creatures became us. One is that while our ancestors were still living in the Savanah they were possibly scavengers and used Paleolithic stone tools to eat meat found already dead (there is also evidence of hunting... so I'm not subscribing to any one theory here). Whether they hunted or not it's fairly clear that the protein gained was key. The protein led to larger brains, bigger brains led to better tools and communication, and so on.

Again... this area... as far as I have researched... has a few prominent theories that may or not contradict each other... or could be lacking sufficient evidence. I'm just one person though, and perhaps there is more solid knowledge that I am unaware of.

3. I believe that Evolution is inherently atheist because it may mean the Bible is false.

4. I am still unsure about it completely contradicting my religious beliefs. I am a Christian... but... if someone can prove Evolution to be true then I must accept it. I am burdened by the truth. Whatever is truth must be followed.

5. Microevolution are the small adaptations we see in our everyday world. Various breeds of dogs, cats, plants, etc. They're all adapting and changing. Macroevolution is changing from one species, a dinosaur for example, into another; like a bird.

Now... since I have said all this I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not a scientist. I am a college student. Right now I am majoring in both Anthropology and Computer Science... so I have no problem with science, technology, knowledge, or discovering the truth. Should I be wrong about Evolution, then I accept that. If my data is incorrect... well... I'm only human.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:12 AM by Beneia

The English word “science” derives from the Latin scientia, which means “knowledge.” Scientists are supposed to be on a lifelong search for knowledge and truth, regardless of where that search eventually leads. Science is based on an observation of the facts, and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. To suggest that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of naturalism, and that empirical observation is the “court of ultimate appeal,” is to err. Such an attitude ignores other numerous, significant avenues of human endeavor, and additional means of coming to knowledge and truth. It also misuses and abuses the scientific method which, as great as it is, was never intended to be a panacea

Pages: ^^TOP^^