Genesis explained scientifically

that's great.

I would honestly like to get some creationists take on this video.

Seriously.

LOL but I do not think I can stomach the religion nuts crawling out of the woodwork right now.

I welcome nuts and otherwise.

It's not anyone elses issue that you can't stomach something right now.

I'd really like to hear some viewpoints from others after they have carefully viewed this video.

I don't think you will get much action on A2K with such a challenge, but you could post it on this forum under the "fundamentalist" category if you want a hefty response:
http://www.christianforums.com/

Thanks DrewDad. That was fab!

I've been watching other videos on that link, and it's really interesting.

GW, I don't think what I ask could be called a challenge. Just curiosity.

I'm not out to change anyone's mind, I wonder how they respond to information presented.

I was thinking we only have a couple of Creationists around here, so not much of a sample. I would also be curious as to what a larger population of the faithful might have to say, but it's not going to happen on a site like A2k. I don't think the video would change anyone's mind, and most of the devout would feel the need to click off as soon as God's naked butt appears. I also doubt most Creationists could even follow the science, as most of the terminology would be alien to them, or they would deny the existence of the concepts that are presented.The only way to find out would be to dive into their lair and ask, but don't look at me to do it.

also doubt most Creationists could even follow the science, as most of the terminology would be alien to them, or they would deny the existence of the concepts that are presented.The only way to find out would be to dive into their lair and ask, but don't look at me to do it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Witch in order to give any credit to a young earth theory you would need to either reject 99.99 of all science or be completely in the dark concerning the last few centuries of scientific knowledge so anything base on using that knowledge in a humorist manner is going to miss it mark on this group.

Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking about.

Getting this particular video confused with the other videos off this same site, I'm going to be speaking of aspects of several of them simultaneously...

As far as being able to follow the science, well, I'll be the first to admit I couldn't follow it all either. In all of them, the presenters speak quite quickly, and several times I had to stop and rewind to really hear what they were saying, and consider it before it did (or didn't) make sense to me. I don't have a science background, but, I have a curious mind, so I took the time to try to follow the science as best I'm able.

Trying to be fair here, I think sometimes there's a double cop out. For someone to just say to the effect of "oh, you can't follow or understand the science" is implying they aren't intelligent enough to.

Well, I cannot follow or understand most poetry. I just don't care for most forms of it, for many reasons that aren't important here. One of the reasons that is applicable is that, for me personally, it goes to slow for me. That somehow gets in the way of understanding what is being said. If I make an serious effort, and take each line, phrase, whatever (see, I don't even know the terminology) and really concentrate, I can understand/follow whatever is being said much more. Not that I would like it, but I would understand it.

Curiosity. I think that's what's behind all of this. Honestly? I'm not all that curious what is being expressed in poetry, because I can find the same meaning in prose somewhere, that will evoke the same emotion.

Evolution? Perhaps some people aren't curious about taking the time to take apart the science bit by bit into understandable forms, because they find, for themselves, a sufficient enough answer (for them) in a creation story.

ok....I speak in examples.

The other day I was trying to educate someone in how to fill out a spreadsheet. I had built in this macro that with the click of the mouse, performed some pretty (if I do say so myself) amazing ****, automating something that used to take an hour or more, into a few seconds.

I said, "click this icon and it'll do the work on all the info you've put in"
click, pow, done.

I said "see how it did all the (dozens of) in between steps"

she responded, barely, with total disinterest..."yeah"

I plowed on, not saying, but thinking "how can you not be the least bit curious how that was done?" I wasn't thinking that because it was my work, but just in general, this understanding I got that this was just a passive observer of the world around her (I'm not judging this on this isolated incident).

In a way, I can understand that, using the poetry analogy. However, if I was in a situation where poetry was the subject of contention, I'd do my homework to understand enough to at least make an intelligent statement.

I don't think people who believe in creationism are unintelligent. I'm not saying they aren't curious about a lot of things.

I'm thinking that the creation stories are a great "get out of jail free" card, where you can't be obligated to examine even the most prerequisite tenets of evolution.

In one of the videos, the commentator was voicing over a creationist using some bogus science, saying that listening to such presentations you hear that they are really trying to convince, to the point of pleading (I don't know if I agree with the pleading part) that evolution makes no sense.

He said that in the scientific community, one's work stands on it's own merit. It's presented, and left for examination. If the scientist did make a persuasive speach, it would be looked upon that they really didn't have a very good case.

I'm simply asking is at what point the curiosity dies, and why?

For instance, I've heard so many times comments like "An apple can't become a squirrel, a cat can't become a dog" Some people just hear that, and they don't think to look any further, as in, the theory of evolution doesn't say that.

I'm curious where the curiosity stops. where do people decide they dont need to understand something to decide it's not true.

Lots of people will find this threatening.

You're thinking, "I just saved them an hour's work each week."

They're thinking, "holy ****, how am I going to keep my job if she does this many more times?!?!?"



There's a T-shirt for computer folk that reads, "Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script."

mmmm....straying off topic for a moment....no, I saved them an hour of work each week so they could attend to the myriad of other things they should be doing.

Going back on topic....

No, I can say that in this case, it was a pure lack of curiosity. As I indicated there have been other indicators of this.

Relating though, the lack of curiosity to feeling threatened. Maybe some people unconsciously think...

"If I go to the very beginning of an explanation of evolution, and understand each bit before moving onto the next, then understand that, and so forth, I'm going to quickly come to an uncomfortable/undesireable situation."

If, instead of coming to the understanding that apes did not "become" people or that what seems like infinite chance is really not that infinite, (i.e. I personally have no issue with long odds, but it was interesting to learn from one of the vids that the chances are as great as supposed by some due to chemical reactions), you risk losing your status of belonging with an important group of people in your life.

What I find frustrating is this blind spot that exists. For instance, again referring to one of those videos. Some myths about people who believe in evolution were dispelled. One of which, in a very simple statement, that "evolutionist does not equal atheist." or that (paraphrasing) "evolution does not say that one species "suddenly becomes" another species.

I can totally see where some people who adhere to creationism would be offended by the format of those videos. The titles of "Why people laugh at Creationists" doesn't really entice open mindedness on anyone's part.

I got a good chuckle from parts of DD's initial video. Then I started paying attention to what WAS being said in that one, and others.

I'd invite others not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and listen to and attempt to understand what was being said.

Do I understand all the math and chemistry involved? Hell no. Do I understand enough of it to surmise they aren't just made up facts? Of course.

Chai, some people don't want to think anything other than what they believe, right? So Creationists are not going to be open to what they 'know' is false. That seems to be how a lot of the world operates - on faith-based systems, rather than being open to possibilities. Many, many people out there aren't curious and don't want to learn new things or dig any deeper than they have to. You see this all the time at work - it's dispiriting to have to be around people like that.

Just because you were raised thinking X doesn't mean you have to limit yourself to that. The possibilities are limitless, but many people are afraid without set boundaries, so... you get close-minded people.

Way back when we were using DOS-based programs, I got into the macros and couldn't understand why the other secretaries wouldn't want to do it. I had everything possible macroed and saved so many keystrokes and so much time, I was whizzing through my work. When we went to Windows, big resistance to change over on their part. I had to install and set up the new systems on their computers when they were on their days off. They came back to a fait accomplit and had no choice in the matter. It just made me shake my head.

Actually, I was raised in an environment that actively punished curiosity, or any question that began with "why" or "how"

My father was an extremely ignorant man, my mother's answers to most questions was "we don't talk about things like that".

You're either curious, or not.

I wonder what lies behind the lack of curiosity in the world around us.

I believe it's an excuse to say that the knowledge/science is beyond someone, and I think it's an excuse to say something in incorrect without fully examining it.

Whenever I don't understand something, but really want to, I go back to the most basic idea, and slowly move forward to see where it was I was getting stuck. Most times I see it's because something moved from point A to point B, but I need point A.1, A.2, A.3 until I can reach out to B.

If you don't understand something, break down the space in between your understanding and ignorance into manageable pieces.

I think it's Fear. Fear of many things, but mostly I think it's fear of discovering that your own view of the world may not be correct.

Yeah....I think you're right.

I guess that's why some people get so rabid about it, practically spitting fire (and brimstone) over it.

there's nothing to be afraid of....come into the light....

Ha But I think there is something for them to be afraid of... I don't think they can handle the light.