Do creationists accept biology?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's just say you're correct about that. So although you indicate you don't know how, when, or if the universe began, you say you know for certain how life began and moved along on this earth, is that right?

No that isn't right either.

I don't know how life began.
Considering everything we know about chemistry, physics and biology, it seems extremely likely that it was some type of natural chemical process. So that's what researchers working on that problem are investigating - simply because it's the most promising.

As for how life developed once it existed, that's pretty much figured out, yes: through evolution.

Common ancestry of life is a genetic fact.
Evolution theory provides an explanation of how that works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is interesting. Animals die. Sometimes they kill other animals. Plants die. Plants do not write, neither do animals. Only humans write of their experiences with dying.

how is that relevant to the post you are replying to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Design is proven

No, it's not.

In fact... it's not even properly defined what "design" is.

 

[dianaiad]

But even that wouldn't be entirely accurate. Many anti-evolution creationists don't believe in a young earth. Even the Discovery Institute takes no specific stance on the age of the earth.

Perhaps, but it would be closer.

Ah, well.

 

[dianaiad]

That wouldn't make any sense, since we're mostly down to Jehovah's Witnesses as our resident creationists, and they're adamantly not YECs.

I'm a creationist.

That is, I believe that God created the universe, and the laws that govern it, and if we came to be as a result of those laws (like evolution, etc.,) it certainly doesn't mean that God did NOT create everything.

It's just that we are now getting a better handle on how.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm a creationist.

That is, I believe that God created the universe, and the laws that govern it, and if we came to be as a result of those laws (like evolution, etc.,) it certainly doesn't mean that God did NOT create everything.

It's just that we are now getting a better handle on how.

Then we agree that "creationist" does not just refer to young-earth creationists, correct?

 

[dianaiad]

Then we agree that "creationist" does not just refer to young-earth creationists, correct?

Except of course that it also means that 'creationist' doesn't necessarily mean 'anti-evolution."

 

[Jose Fly]

Except of course that it also means that 'creationist' doesn't necessarily mean 'anti-evolution."

True, although it does in the majority of cases, so it's understandable that people will generally make that assumption. Unfortunately for you, that means you'll probably always have to go out of your way to differentiate yourself from your science-denying brethren.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Except of course that it also means that 'creationist' doesn't necessarily mean 'anti-evolution."

It does in the context of creationism vs. evolution. Creationism was also the name given to a movement that attempted to assert that scientific viability of a theological model of creation in contradiction of evolutionary theory. So when we talk about evolution vs. creationism, we are talking about this specific kind of theistic belief that is held to be contrary to evolutionary theory, not necessarily all theism.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and none of those scientists used creationism for those discoveries. A scientist may have a false belief and still do work in other sciences. In fact why mention the polio vaccine? Jonas Salk was almost certainly not a creationist. The percentage of creationists in the sciences is very low. In biology it a small fraction of a percent. In the sciences as a whole it is close to one percent. Bringing up scientists hurts your argument.

To believe in or use creationism in reference to biology and its uses makes no sense at all. Biologic advances (molecular discovery and experimentation) has nothing whatsoever to do with a belief that God created life and allows it to continue. Your point is not logical. If a scientist believes in God as creator, he is not obliged to refrain from exploring the realms of science and make advances towards making vaccines, one example.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, technically, it WAS "always" there.

Always = for all of time.

Throughout history, whenever there was "time", there was a universe in which that time was flowing.
But "time" is a very tricky thing. So is space, for that matter.

Consider a black hole. Does it exist?
Doe the "inside" exist? Gravity is so strong there, time could actually stand still. Space itself could be compressed into a singularity. Does that point "exist"?

It's hard to tell imo, considering colloquial use of the word "exist".
To "exist" is a temporal notion, after all. So what does it mean "to exist" when there is no time to exist "in".

So to sum up: what I am saying is that I DON'T KNOW.

The universe might have always existed, it might have been produced by a multiverse or by a farting unicorn. I don't know.

The "possibilities" at this point are really only limited by our own imagination.
Now, as for the plausibilities, that is a whole other story.

Right out the gates, the universe having "always existed" and for example just "changed form" with the big bang, is more plausible then a universe creating deity.

For the simple fact that the universe demonstrably exists and a deity doesn't.

\
Regarding the black hole argument you bring up, it is similar to the argument that scientists had for a while about tonsils, which was that tonsils were unnecessary in the human body, a vestigial part, therefore could easily be removed without biological ramifications. But then that assumption was overturned later when it was discovered (realized) that it is necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To believe in or use creationism in reference to biology and its uses makes no sense at all. Biologic advances (molecular discovery and experimentation) has nothing whatsoever to do with a belief that God created life and allows it to continue. Your point is not logical. If a scientist believes in God as creator, he is not obliged to refrain from exploring the realms of science and make advances towards making vaccines, one example.

It is quite the opposite. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution. For a scientist to accept creationism they have to be reasoning irrationally. In the sciences one follows the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

\
Regarding the black hole argument you bring up, it is similar to the argument that scientists had for a while about tonsils, which was that tonsils were unnecessary in the human body, a vestigial part, therefore could easily be removed without biological ramifications. But then that assumption was overturned later when it was discovered (realized) that it is necessary.

They are no necessary and you have an incorrect definition of vestigial. Now I am not sure if tonsils would qualify as being vestigial or not, but the appendix does as do other structures and organs.

 

[YoursTrue]

They are no necessary and you have an incorrect definition of vestigial. Now I am not sure if tonsils would qualify as being vestigial or not, but the appendix does as do other structures and organs.

You think the tonsils are not necessary?

 

[YoursTrue]

They are no necessary and you have an incorrect definition of vestigial. Now I am not sure if tonsils would qualify as being vestigial or not, but the appendix does as do other structures and organs.

Oddly enough, researchers are finding the appendix IS necessary. The "human appendix...has a notorious reputation for its tendency to become inflamed (appendicitis), often resulting in surgical removal. "widely viewed as a vestigial organ with little known function, recent research suggests that the appendix may serve an important purpose. In particular, it may serve as a reservoir for beneficial gut bacteria." Appendix may have important function, new research suggests There's more, but "scientific research" is finding it may be necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think the tonsils are not necessary?

Do you think that they are? People use to have them removed all of the time. They are helpful but not necessary, but that has nothing to do with your mistaken concept of what a vestigial organ is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oddly enough, researchers are finding the appendix IS necessary. The "human appendix...has a notorious reputation for its tendency to become inflamed (appendicitis), often resulting in surgical removal. "widely viewed as a vestigial organ with little known function, recent research suggests that the appendix may serve an important purpose. In particular, it may serve as a reservoir for beneficial gut bacteria." Appendix may have important function, new research suggests There's more, but "scientific research" is finding it may be necessary.

Nope, that does not say necessary. Nor does it say that it is not vestigial. Why don't you look up what a vestigial organ is?

Don't rely on creationist sources since they tend to be dishonest. And of course you avoided the main fact. There is no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think that they are? People use to have them removed all of the time. They are helpful but not necessary, but that has nothing to do with your mistaken concept of what a vestigial organ is.

"Scientists" used to believe the tonsils were unnecessary. But now the attitude has changed. Likely you will not believe the following:
Tonsils: Facts, Function & Treatment
"Tonsils were once thought to be a useless part made obsolete by evolution. When bothered by an infection, doctors once prescribed the removal of the tonsils through a tonsillectomy. These small organs are actually quite useful, though." Note the last sentence. The article goes on to explain the function as discovered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Scientists" used to believe the tonsils were unnecessary. But now the attitude has changed. Likely you will not believe the following:
Tonsils: Facts, Function & Treatment
"Tonsils were once thought to be a useless part made obsolete by evolution. When bothered by an infection, doctors once prescribed the removal of the tonsils through a tonsillectomy. These small organs are actually quite useful, though." Note the last sentence. The article goes on to explain the function as discovered.

You are conflating useful with necessary.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are conflating useful with necessary.

So let me understand something from you. Do you believe the tonsils are useful? If you say yes, what do you think they are useful for?