A somewhat different ev/cre thread ...

The Last Conformist said:

The "dinosaur/bird thingy" would be Archaeopteryx.

Click to expand...

This is still discussed controversary, but this is not the point here

I was strictly thought evolution. From school as well as from home. Although from a cristiona tradition I was never forced to visit a church or smth.
But TOE has for my opinion too many weak points to be true. Since Darwin there had been many discoveries made in addition which make things doubtful. And one most important point is that science-magazines are very biased on this topic. If someone takes place of a creationist he's considered nuts, but I do not agree with this. As long as none of both theories are really proven I still stand in the middle.

(Of course, none of the models can ever be proven in the absolute sense. Deductive science and all that.)

The issue about Archaeopteryx wasn't it status as a transitional - which indeed is the subject of controversy - but the name of the dinosaur/bird thing he'd been shown. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that it was archaeopteryx.

Creationist first, a wierd fairy tales told to me by my father, with superheroes around 5yrs. I actually believed in it for some time! I learnt about the mechanics of evolution only when I was quite old. I learnt about the Christian version of creationism when I was even older. I believed in evolution nowadays and creationism only when I was really young.

The Last Conformist said:

(Of course, none of the models can ever be proven in the absolute sense. Deductive science and all that.)

The issue about Archaeopteryx wasn't it status as a transitional - which indeed is the subject of controversy - but the name of the dinosaur/bird thing he'd been shown. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that it was archaeopteryx.

Click to expand...

Got your point, just he mentioned it already as a proven fact which it is not. Vice versa there are fossiles found meanwhile which are about the same age but much closer to modern birds than him. Even a lot of evo-scientists are in doubts or deny that Archaeopterix is a link or intermediate but much more a real bird. On specimen 7 there was also found a sternum which indicates that he had in fact muscles for flight developed so he must be considered a real bird.

But what I really wanted to say is that taking facts just because the majority believes them is even dumber than everyone believes creationists to be. If you would follow some of their arguments without predjudices you'd see this. And besides there are many Profs. among them with profound knowlage. To consider them "dumb creationists" is just a tiny,tiny,tiny bitty bit arrogant from a 15 years old student IMO
TOE is not proven, this is mainly accepted even from evo-scientists, nevertheless it is always presented as a fact. That it is still just a theorie one shouldn't loose out of sight totally no matter which side you're on.
Just imagine god exsists and he made all living beings. If it would be like that evo would look dumb in the end. As long as both theories aren't able to convince me as much as that the earth isn't flat I simply don't take a choice for one or another.
And as I said before in a similar thread- during the history of science there have been disproven a lot of theories which were considered to be waterproofed. So personally I simply wouldn't take things for granted as long as they aren't.

I was taught creationism first. Since my mother was religious should would force me to go to church and then she would whine about me misbehaving because like all little kids I had no interest in staying quiet for 2 and a half hours for the services, I was taught creationism. I grew up hearing the bible stories and all that, but like a lot of boys I loved dinosaurs and had been told they were millions of years old. It took me quite sometime to realize that dinos can't be millions of years old and creationism can't both be right. I gave up 7 day creationism around 6 grade and religion about 4 years later.

My father was a Creationist, but I voted that evolution was the first concept I was familiar with, as I cannot remember ever accepting Creationism literally. I'm a Catholic, and went to a private Catholic elementary school. Catholics do not construe the Bible, especially the Old Testament, in a literalist fashion; and evolution was always taught in my Catholic school science classes. For as long as I can remember, I believed in both God and evolution. I have never seen any evidence that indicates evolution and the existence of God are mutually exclusive, though both Christian fundamentalists and radical atheists have insisted otherwise; generally resorting to yelling and anger when their skin-deep logical arguments fail.

nonconformist said:

I only discovered creationism on CFC.

Click to expand...

So did I! And since I never met a creationist in real life, I tend not to believe they exist for real.

Erik Mesoy said:

What the heck??

Click to expand...

The only friends I have are creationists...

Rhymes said:

So did I! And since I never met a creationist in real life, I tend not to believe they exist for real.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it's strange, but noone I know really know creationism as more than a parable.

I made some replies to FL2's and E-Raser's points here
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2568444#post2568444

FearlessLeader2 said:

The above rant (sorry) was, I suppose, a pre-emptive strike because I know this is going to turn into another Evo party and I'm really tired of being the only guy in a tuxedo when everyone else shows up in a Chewbacca costume.

Click to expand...

You're one of the most insulting folks there. Oh, and how do you know that it's going to turn into an evo party? It hasn't so far!

Fearlessleader said:

Genesis is the literal truth, but almost no one has actually read it. Of all earth's billions, maybe 40% are familiar with the story, and maybe 4 people total actually know what it says, the rest content themselves with hearing/seeing whatever is most comfortable, whether to rest it comfortably near their heart, or to hold it up as a thing to ridicule.

You see words on paper, and have no clue what they mean. Rather than consider the context of the time, and the education of the 'author' (Moses was little more than a secretary taking dictation for God), you merely see what you want.

I'd explain it all again, but really, why bother? Your hearts are closed even tighter than your minds. Can't say as I blame you all that much either. I wish I was still ignorant.

Click to expand...

Without any pre-made opinion, and without bashing intentions, I would love it if you elaborated on what is your view of the genesis. The perf KO's creationism thread might be better suited for that though.

But you might want to cut the insult part though, and if you really think you are one of the only 4 people in the world that understands the meaning of the genesis, it might be a desperate case.

Please do not elaborate anyone's views of Genesis in this thread. To do so would constitute thredjacking.

Creationism and rejected it.

I guess you could say I believed in Creationism, or a form of it, as a kid because that is what was taught in my parents' church. However, I was always one of those kids that asks lots of 'why' and 'how' questions that were never satisfied, so it always felt wrong.