Sta.sh
Fave this journal (it will be your number)
Watch me IF you like my art~ ;v;
.......... The design MUST HAVE ONLY 2 COLORS; BLACK AND WHITE
.
). Inactivity is thus to be expected from me, although I have been relatively inactive on deviantART this summer anyway (aside from the occasional progress in my ongoing project, The FPDAD Archives).On the agenda for when I return includes writing another creationist rant, I've been reading articles on the CreationWiki today for no better a reason than to kill time and their article on feathered dinosaurs ([link] was both hilarious and depressing to read. Hilarious in that most creationists capitalize on conjectural arguments to support their beliefs and also that some sections of the article were very poorly written (crappy grammar and spelling always makes me laugh)... And depressing in that most creationists capitalize on conjectural arguments to support their beliefs and also that some sections of the article were very poorly written. I actually torture myself reading CreationWiki articles, because I don't agree with most of their conjectural arguments but I know that as a creationist myself I'm socially lumped with these people and thus with their ignorance as well.
If I agree with mainstream creationism on anything, it's definitely that worldview affects how an individual perceives and interprets things. That being said I was raised in a Christian environment and am obviously young-earth creationist; the way I perceive and interpret things is definitely influenced by my worldview, I understand that and in that understanding respect that what I believe is different than what other people believe. Most creationists--undoubtedly like the people who composed CreationWiki--want everyone to believe what they do; they're imposing. And I'm sure they have their reasons, but they are not accomplishing anything by disputing evolution. The fact is, everyone has their own beliefs regarding the origin of life. Evolution and creation are only two of many. If evolution wasn't the most widely-accepted explanation for the origin of life, something else would be and creationists would be wasting their breath disputing that! Please, will creationists mind their own business and not write shoddy articles that only make them look silly (like the "Feathered dinosaur" article on CreationWiki that clearly serves only the purpose of disputing evolution)? I implore that creationists dedicate their time and effort to developing what they believe--no, not everyone will accept creationism, and some will always consider creationism a pseudoscience because even I admit that it is based primarily on anecdotal evidence (the Bible)--but it took decades for mainstream evolution to get where it is today and that whole time creationists have been sitting on the sidelines disputing it rather than developing their own beliefs from observational and historical science. How can creationism be considered a science if NOBODY IS ACTUALLY STUDYING IT?
Sorry, I had to expel a minor rant... There will be more. But for now, I'm signing off because I'm late for work. Have a great July everyone, and I hope you are all enjoying your summer! Who is exited for Independence Day?
-Rick Charles
I know it sounds abit rough to say, but believe me, I know how you feel. I am an adherent of cryptozoology, and that is also largely based on anecdotal evidence. In the same way, it is very often pratised sloppily and pseudoscientifically. The people who first established Cryptozoology treated it as a serious science, albeit a historical, not experimental one. A hypothesis is put forward about a set of sightings, and people set out to falsify or confirm this hypothesis. It worked with the okapi, the bairds tapir, the Ri, the coelocanth, the giant squid (though that was confirmed a long time ago, being a myth even further back), even the pygmy hippopotamus. People who practise a theoretical historical science properly, are the real scientists, Creation Science just hasnt hit that stride yet.
I do have a question for both sides, since I believe neither side has it correct...why oh WHY do so many think there are only two possibilities?????
THAT is utter idiocy in my not at all humble opinion. Does the Dark Troll---------->
Myself, I am basically a theistic evolutionist. And, crazy guy that I am, I think evolutionary thinking provides an origin for God. Provable? Nah.
IMO, ignoring a creative force is laughable. IMO, saying said creative force HAS to have a personality is also kind of funny.
Young Earth? Nah. Maybe God created it, but I think it was a LOOOOOONNNNNG time ago.
Genesis takes up what, three pages in the Bible? The Book is scarcely about universe origins at all. It is barely mentioned in a meaningful way. I then take it that God's Word is meant to advance/cement His relationship with us, not a book on how He made the world/universe/universes.
Why must my beliefs center only around two theories IF I see reasons they might need expansion? WHY must I throw in a deity? I do not. There is no proof for deity based evolution. There is no proof for "accident" based no-deity evolution, and there certainly is no proof for creationism at all, other than the Bible. There IS, however, evolutionary processes at work. THAT is a fact, or are we supposed to ignore genetics and breeding and mutations? If so, we are hardly doing ourselves and God any favors.
I am not and never will be an "either or" person.
As it so happens, evolutionary processes at work is observational evidence--not proof, evidence--for millions-of-years evolution, and the Bible is anecdotal evidence for creation.
Regardless, none of that answers my two simple questions:
1) God's character is revealed from the Bible. If you believe in evolution AND God, your belief contradicts the Bible as according to Genesis God created our planet in six days. So if your understanding of God contradicts the Bible, than where does your concept of God come from? Because it certainly doesn't come from the Bible as the Bible contradicts your worldview.
2) If you believe in evolution, why do you need to believe also in a deity? There is no point to God or the Bible if the Genesis account isn't taken literally. Because if God used evolution to create life that would mean he used principles such as natural selection, transitional forms, mutation and death. None of which reflect the biblical character of God as a loving and just deity. So again, your concept of God can't come from the Bible so in addition to the previous question, why believe in God at all?
IF you believe God can only be represented by a book, we shall part company. Why believe in a god at all unless it is from the Bible is nonsense to me.
I was raised as a Catholic. Got the usual threats of Heaven and Hell drilled into me...by people whose actions defiled their beliefs. IF Heaven and Hell were truly believed in by them, their actions would have been different. So, it follows, ipso-facto, that they were a bunch of lying bastards.
Protestant religions are seldom any better, and, since they conveniently throw away what they want to ignore from the Bible, they are usually worse. Since no evolutionist has ever threatened me with hell, since no evolutionist has ever claimed their system is needed to save my soul, I, being me (who else???), find myself believing them more than creationists. Since I can investigate events myself, I can see if the evolutionists are feeding me a line of bull when relating behavior in known, living animals. They have not. Many evolutionary claims have come and gone--Hesperopithicus, for one, some proven correct, others proven wrong--and ADMITTED to when wrong. Because of this, because scientists are accountable for fraud and unproven theories, I have a strong tendency to believe them more easily than creationists who are trying to PROVE A BOOK RIGHT, instead of using observation.
Animals and plants can be bred for changes. If these changes were impossible, evolution would be impossible. Since these changes can be made, evolution is, at least, possible. Since these changes can be made in God's creations, I assume He has something to do with it...unless you want to deny the existence of God, which is something I refuse to do. Because it is not mentioned in the Bible, creationists want to toss it out. Good thing they don't include tractors, trucks, computers, and French cooking!!!! And more!
I will believe in a creative power, which might have a personality. I believe in many things science scoffs at...at least, the mainstream scientists.
When something is touted as absolutely right, there is no better weapon for Satan to use against God. IF there is a Satan...an Adversary...then the belief that questioning a source is wrong...ANY source, Darwin included...we hand our enemy a great weapon. I refuse to hand any such putative enemy a weapon like that.
1) Where does your concept of God come from?
2) Your concept of God can't come from the Bible because the biblical God didn't use evolution to create life, so in addition to the previous question, why believe in God at all?