12
   

Why do so many people reject creation in favor of evolution, despite the complexity of dna?

 
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:11 pm
I would like honest answers. Thank you!
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:43 pm
@Starwonder,
Complexity of DNA? The whole universe is complex. The bible claims the earth was created by god some 7,000 years ago, but scientists tell us that this planet is 4.5 billion years old. There are too many contradictions, errors and omissions in the bible that one must rationalize to accept it. The bible is the only support for the bible. Don't you find that self-serving?
No one has proven there is a god or gods. It takes devotion to one's religion to accept their god. All my siblings are christians. Man has created many gods in our history, and many have spent their lives believing in their god. There's nothing wrong with believing in your god. It provides the believer with comfort and security.
I like buddhism, because it teaches the individual to improve themselves rather than trying to save others. My wife is a buddhist.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 12:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
. . . The bible claims the earth was created by god some 7,000 years ago . . .
BZZZT!
Straw man!
A careful reading of Genesis reveals an unspecified length of time before the first creative day. Read Genesis 1:1, 2. So the earth could be a kajillion years old. The bible makes no claim. As far as the length of each creative day is concerned, the Hebrew word 'yom', while translated as 'day', does not necessarily mean 24 hours. More appropriately, it relates to a period of time, much as our expression, "my grandfather's day". This understanding becomes clear in Genesis 2:4, when the entire creative period is referred to as a single day. It is also noteworthy that, while days 1 through 6 are recorded as having ended, the 7th day is not so noted. We are still in it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 01:01 am
@cicerone imposter,
Oh.
And how are you doing, CI?
Did you get to Hawaii yet?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 01:04 am
@Starwonder,
The short answer is that the words 'creation' and 'complexity' are human constructions with respect to their species specific experience. Do we talk about bees 'creating a complex hive' ? ...no... we associate such behavior with evolutionary instincts successful in the propagation of that species. Only an anthropocentric deist would place humans outside such evolutionary systems.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 03:49 am
"Creation" requires one to believe in magical things like invisible sky daddies who poof things into existence. Evolution just requires you to believe that things change over time, eventually for the better of each species.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 04:33 am
@Setanta,
"just when ya think youre out, they draw ya back in"
0 Replies
 
Briancrc
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 04:53 am
@Starwonder,
My opinion is that there are people that think that evidence that meets certain standards provides more accurate conclusions than explanations based on faith, and that there are many people who accept that the evidence provided for the earth being approximately 4.5 billion years old, as well as the evidence for the process of slow changes in organisms, leads to complexity and diversity at the micro and macro levels.
Some of these people also believe in creation, and others think that the accounts of a creator remain unverified and remain at the level of faith; a less desirable way, as compared to following the evidence, to approach life.

I think that those who believe in a creator take their Creator on faith, but when the faith is challenged, avoid looking at their faith critically in favor of trying to find a flaw in what challenges the faith belief. For some, this happens to the point that no amount of evidence will be sufficient to alter that person's faith belief. The logical contradictions that people of opposing faiths cannot both be correct, often adds no further inquiry regarding how a person arrived at a particular faith belief. The arbitrariness of various faith beliefs being highly correlated with where one lives, or with one's culture also goes largely ignored.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 05:06 am
@Briancrc,
Here's One.Ishmali Camuwundra
Quote:
The Most Reverend disciple Ishmali Camuwundra was born in the city of Hanuwumdra in 7 BC (Pastafarian Year 68), the son of an Indian convert to the new religion of Pastafarianism. At the time, the city of Hanuwumdra was being built, and his father was one of the workers at the city. Whilst living there, he became indoctrinated, and quickly spread his newfound belief in the FSM to his son. In his youth, Ishmali would stay up many nights, writing on parchments of new ways to glorify the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
When Ishmali was eight, his father was killed when the gold dome of the Temple of the FSM collapsed in as workers were constructing the altar. Subsequently, since he no longer had any family to speak of, Ishmali was taken in by the aging religious leader Ragu, who taught him the sacred ideals of the FSM. And Ishmali grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and men.
Just as the city of Hanuwumdra was finally completed, and just as Ishmali turned 33, his mentor Ragu died after a long illness. On his deathbed, Ragu predicted the coming of a Chosen Linguini, whom the people would know when he came, but the old prophet died before he could say the name of the coming one. Consequently, there was much discussion as to whom this Chosen Linguini could be. After much debate, and suggestions that it could be the late prophet Mosey or the Pastafarian community as a whole, a few members of the faith began to feel that Ishmali Camuwundra might be the correct candidate.
The reasons for this were plausible: Ishmali had always been a loyal follower of the FSM, and had authored many tracts about the good the FSM did. He was a faithful pupil of Ragu, and had been named as one of the candidates to succeed the old prophet as religious head of the community upon Ragu's death. He even became popular enough to be known by name to all in the city of Hanuwumdra.
But it didn't become obvious for some until Ishmali came out of his 30-day seclusion after Ragu's death. Over the course of a single month, there had occurred a startling change in the young man's appearance: he had grown gaunt and pale, his striking brown eyes had grown jaundiced and glassy, and, most striking of all, his luxurious jet-black hair had turned the colour of pasta. This was enough for some to start praising him as the Chosen Linguini.
Ishmali, however, did not make any announcements. He said not a word about his supposed messiah-dom, but instead continued to live life as if it were uninterrupted. If a woman shouted, "Oh, Chosen Linguini!" in the streets at him, he would simply nod at her as though she were a friendly neighbor and be on his way. If a man knelt before him in the street and begged Ishmali to bless him, he would just pat the man on the head and walk away; the man left marveling over the wonderful sagacity of the Chosen Linguini.
Alas; even though Ishmali did nothing, the incessant worship of him by the people was enough to send the city's new religious leader, Subh-i-Wayh, into a frenzy. Fearing for his position, he ordered Ishmali arrested. Trying him in the Temple of the FSM, a vote by his fellow citizens found Ishmali innocent, but Subh-i-Wayh had him executed anyway.
At the dawn of the day following his arrest, Ishmali was led out to a large pot, where he was laid in. Asked if he had any last requests, he murmured from the pot, "Forgive... forgive them, Flying Spaghetti Monster; they know... they know not what they do." A moment later, spaghetti was poured over him, then water was put in, and finally a fire was lit under the pot. Ishmali was cooked alive as all the people watched in horror. A triumphant Subh-i-Wayh later ate that same pasta, Ishmali and all.
After this, the ones who had revered Ishmali as the Chosen Linguini, now calling themselves Linguinists, left Hanuwumdra for a place where they could worship the dead man in peace. The rest of the city, obviously not believing Ishmali was the coming one but disgusted that such a fate would happen to a man who had done nothing wrong at all, rose up against Subh-i-Wayh, banishing him to the mountains, where he most presumably died.
The people then installed Nin Jhah, a righteous man who was well-known in the community, as their new religious leader. While not actually worshipping Ishmali as a god-like figure, they, instead, ever after revered his numerous writings on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and kept his Word always in their hearts.

rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 05:24 am
@Starwonder,
It's better to Understand than to Believe.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 05:28 am
Just aks yourself: Which side has evidence?
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 05:52 am
@Briancrc,
People who take things on faith, i believe, do so because they can't or won't examine their beliefs. It's not only in religion, but in politics, political ideology, economic ideology, philosophy . . . any number of topics which are subjective. So, when presented with evidence which can said to be objective, they take it in the same manner as they do subjective disagreements--for many, they take it as a personal attack. For some, such subjective beliefs are lifelines to which they cling in an uncertain world. It seems the hardest lesson for people to learn, and adjust to is that we cannot know everything and therefore must make the best of the world, as we find it, not as we wish it to be.
Briancrc
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 06:05 am
@farmerman,
I'm seeking enlightenment right now by freebasing some angel hair pasta.
0 Replies
 
Briancrc
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 06:11 am
@Setanta,
As the great Rufus said, "you can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 12:02 pm
@Setanta,
And I'll go one step further and say that those who cling to ideas are afraid to admit they were wrong all their lives. That's too scary for them to admit they were wrong.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 12:44 pm
Fundamentalists despise Darwin--and Wallace--because his "Origin of Species" destroyed the need for a supernatural; the universe now makes sense without a supernatural--and little sense with one.

Religious literalists built a barricade around a dead myth destroyed by science resisting the need to construct a new myth or, at least, interpret the old one metaphorically, as it was intended to be.

Joseph Campbell's statement is germane: "All religions are true in that they are metaphoric of the human and cosmic mystery. But, if you get stuck to the metaphor, then you're in trouble." "Getting stuck to the metaphor" means interpreting literally.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 01:05 pm
@Starwonder,
Starwonder wrote:

I would like honest answers. Thank you!


Because a creator which was not created rises the same problem without explaining ****...even if Darwinism is not yet a complete full account on how Nature works its half way close. Creation on the other hand is nonsense.
If you want talk serious Metaphysics then start by not dividing BEING, Reality in two with God in one side and the Universe in the other...
A timeless perspective on Reality is possible to talk about and in that context Darwinism is just a pattern in it an algorithm but that has nothing to do with a freaking talking giant Santa Claus, and stupid ideas about Heaven, lambs and lions walking together n all that **** !
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 01:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Complexity of DNA? The whole universe is complex.
As I have argued before, the universe is not complex. Stupendously big, yes. Complex, no.

Everything in the universe can be explained by just a handful of natural forces and principles. It's all very predictable (after the big bang). About the only mysteries left now are dark matter and dark energy.

But when it comes to DNA based life, the complexity is orders of magnitude greater than the world of physics. We have barely scratched the surface in understanding life.

That's why it is said that the biological sciences have PE (Physics Envy). Physics has an easily understood elegant explanation for just about everything. Biologists can only fanaticize about that.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 01:19 pm
@Leadfoot,
It just means youve not invested the time necessary to understand the "handful of natural forces " that govern chemistry. Therefore , you can assert again and again that chemistry is MAGIC.

waka waka waka
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 01:36 pm
@farmerman,
Still wait'n on you to explain the emergence of DNA based life with your vast knowledge of chemistry.

Yeah, nucleotides might come about and in the right medium they can link up IN RANDOM ORDER.

You wanna show us the math on how 'likely' (or inevitable as they say) the order in the simplest self replicating molecule would be?

One more time: Put up or shut up farmerman.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do so many people reject creation in favor of evolution, despite the complexity of dna?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/17/2018 at 02:30:04