|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| In the beginning, where did we come from? |
| Creation |
|
29% |
[ 18 ] |
| Evolution |
|
63% |
[ 39 ] |
| Children of Kobol |
|
6% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 61 |
|
| Author |
Message |
-X-
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:50 am Post subject: Evolution vs Christian Creationism |
 |
|
It seems the United States is second to last in a poll conducted of 32 countires with about 25% of the U.S. population accepting Evolution.
for me personally i find evolution to be the less flimsy theory, although its far from airtight. i also find it annoying that recently, American interests are trying to push Creationism on the Canadian School board, knowing that Canada doesn't have a rule separating Church and State.
In addition, Canada wasn't included in the poll, so I am wondering where we stand?
what does the Dave's crowd think?
Last edited by -X- on Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atlhockey
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Jeonju City
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I assume that by "we" you mean "Homo sapiens sapiens" since evolution is not a theory of how life began.
Also, just so we're clear, evolution is not by any means a "flimsy" theory and creationism is not a theory at all.
...this thread is already like 60 pages over in current events, do we really need to start it over? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billybrobby
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
dude, the graph clearly shows 40% accepting it. I mean, c'mon, we're not a bunch of rubes like Turkey.
Last edited by billybrobby on Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:09 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-X-
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atlhockey wrote: |
I assume that by "we" you mean "Homo sapiens sapiens" since evolution is not a theory of how life began.
Also, just so we're clear, evolution is not by any means a "flimsy" theory and creationism is not a theory at all.
...this thread is already like 60 pages over in current events, do we really need to start it over? |
yes, by 'we' i meant Homo sapiens. since we all belong to this species i thought that wouldve been intuitive.
just so were clear, because its based on the fossil record, the theory of evolution has many, many gaps in it and is by no means a comprehensive guide for how we (homo sapiens) came to be.
i apologize if there is already a similar thread going on in current events. i dont peruse the entire forum before posting something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-X-
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| billybrobby wrote: |
| you look at that graph and you see 25%? nice going, eagle eye. |
after reading several other articles which contained specific surveys, i estimated the US was closer to a 1/4, hence the 'about 25%'. its just that this was the only graph i could find which did a breakdown by country.
seriously, is it just the holiday boredom making you people so anal right now? 
Last edited by -X- on Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I believe in both-- that is, I believe the vehicle of our creation was evolution-- to me having only two choices is not really a choice.
Interesting how Iceland scores so high; it has a very high church-going population, particularly Lutheran.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
As I believe in both-- that is, I believe the vehicle of our creation was evolution-- to me having only two choices is not really a choice.
Interesting how Iceland scores so high; it has a very high church-going population, particularly Lutheran.
Ken:> |
There are a lot of people in the world that can separate the useful elements in religion from the absurdly obsolete ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grainger
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Location: Wonju, Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is how I sort it out. Something I've thought a bit about...who hasn't.
God created the universe. Fine. I will not dispute this. God created man in his own image. Fine. Again, I will not dispute this. But did s/he then grow tired of all the possibility that lay dormant within him/her. It says on the seventh day he rested. I doesn't say he stopped. Would you so limit the nature of God to say that s/he is unchanging or unchangeable and that we, who were created in his image, are unchanging, or lack the power to shape our world from it's original conception.
Anyway, that's just how I rationalize creationism in terms of evolutionary theory. I grew up with both and for me they never conflicted. I had to think it through when I got older and this is what I came up with.
I DON'T want to get into a religous or philosophical argument. Debate is fine. Post what you think and try to realize the difference between a paridigm and a world view. The first you can discuss and debate openly and are willing to adapt. The second is somewhat less flexible and usually leads to dead ends and flaming when brought into disscussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atlhockey
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Jeonju City
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -X- wrote: |
| just so were clear, because its based on the fossil record, the theory of evolution has many, many gaps in it and is by no means a comprehensive guide for how we (homo sapiens) came to be. |
What is not so clearly defined in evolutionary theory are some of the various mechanisms for evolution, i.e. sexual selection. There's no question among scientists that it happens/happened. Also, I'm not sure when you studied it, but the fossil record is one of three major fields of study that contribute to the body of research on evolution, and any one of the three (the other two being genetics and morphology) could sustain the theory singularly. However, they all confirm the findings of the others. Evolution would have been in trouble if analyzing the genomes of organisms led to a different evolutionary family tree than morphological study and fossil evidence had already helped construct, but it didn't.
As for "gaps in the fossil record," that's an creationist canard. Every time scientists find a new transitional fossil, creationists think it creates two more gaps!
I was just letting you know, anyway, I don't mind an actual debate, it's dissolved over in current events by this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| grainger wrote: |
| God created man in his own image. |
This is probably the creationist claim that weirds me out the most.
Anyway, Creationism is about as plausible as the Tangun garlic-eating bear story of Korean origins, and it absolutely bewilders me that people see it as a 'theory'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gang ah gee wrote
| Quote: |
| ...about as plausible as the Tangun garlic-eating bear story of Korean origins |
.. (gasp) you mean it's not true?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought it was kind of cute that the countries with the most fundamentalists agree to disagree with evolution.
Could this be the issue to bring Christians and Muslims together??
It's got R. Teacher and 5Eagles fighting the good fight in a christian cum krishna buddy movie kind of way. Makes me want to watch Bulletproof one more time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grainger
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Location: Wonju, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| grainger wrote: |
| God created man in his own image. |
This is probably the creationist claim that weirds me out the most.
|
I can't say that I'm very religious myself so I'll try to be carefull about what I say.
The difference between evolutionary theory and creationism, for me I suppose, is that the former is based on a collection of facts that have been studied, disscussed, and pieced together to form a body of scientific knowledge. Creationism on the otherhand is based on religious faith, faith, for the purpose of this discussion, being defined as belief in something in the absence of supporting facts. Creationism is not something that is believed because people think there is scientific proof supporting their ideas. (Although I am sure some do) Creationism is faith, it is believed because in their hearts, minds or souls there are people in this world who believe it to be true.
The two, however, are not incompatible. I am not as well studied as some in this area however, I believe it is still common conception that the universe erupted from a single atomic point in space commonly refered to as the big bang. A momment in time and space at which all matter (and antimatter) in the universe was created. A moment from which the evolution of the universe and eventually life on Earth began. From a Creationist standpoint we can ask, what set off this bing bang?
As for God creating man. The bible is fairly vague (forgive me) on this point. Man was created from dust or clay. In evolutionary theory man started as a single celled organism that crawled it's way out of the primordial ooze and slowly became more complex. The two actually sound fairly similar. What sparked that moment between inanimated earth to animate life?
The next creationist argument may be that the bible declares man to have been created in a single day. For this I do not depend heavily on the bible. There are too many inconsistencies, mistranslations, retranslations, and political agendas incompased in that texts to take it in a literal since, (although there are those who do) however I do not believe it to be completely lacking in truth or moral virtue. The book of Genisis is vague in it's writings to the point of having led some religious scholars to believe that Adam had a wife before Eve. Other arguments include: how long is a day before there's a sun. Some arguments cannot be incompassed in the scope of this debate so I will leave them for another thread.
Please keep in mind that this is simply a run down of how I personally rationalize creationism to evolution and is not intended to offend anyone and is not an attempt to change or challenge anyones religious beliefs. By limiting my discussion to Christian viewpoints I am only trying to corralate the belief system I have been raise with to the current scientific view and do not mean to exclude anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There are too many inconsistencies, mistranslations, retranslations, and political agendas incompased in that texts to take it in a literal since... The book of Genisis is vague in it's writings to the point of having led some religious scholars to believe that Adam had a wife before Eve. |
Interesting thoughts. When we say that God created man in his own image, we mean in the sense that we love and feel and have complex emotions and thoughts like God, albeit at a human level. We don't all of course look like God, white beard and all.
For this often-trotted out statement that the bible is full of inconsistencies and mistranslations, I rarely see claimed examples of such. The Jews were obsessed with accurate transcriptions and would throw out a scribe's parchment if two characters were connected, according to tradition. Likewise, church fathers assembled the best scholars in the language for the Vulgate and King James versions.
I don't know of any serious biblical scholar who would suggest that Adam had a previous wife, other than hardcore 'Lilith' pagans-- most biblical scholars assert that he's a fictional character anyway meant to symbolize God's actions, and thus the vagueness of the first part of Genesis. And partly it can be blamed on Hebrew's fondness for poetic expressions: day (as in, on the first day God did this and that) is in Hebrew tom, and it can mean both "today" and "age", just like English ("modern-day politics").
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
