Nessie > Evolution?

[kakihara]

plesiosaurs were nearly driven to extinction during the crusades.

[Cthulhu]

How can a major part of a global superpower's population still believe in the biblical creation myth in 2012? And Nessie? Seriously? Is this really taught in schools?
There are some serious problems with this.

[indianasmith]

Religious faith, by its very definition, is belief in that which cannot be seen and measured.
I have never understood how anyone can possibly believe that this grand and glorious cosmos we live in created ITSELF!

[Mofo Rising]

Religious faith, by its very definition, is belief in that which cannot be seen and measured.
I have never understood how anyone can possibly believe that this grand and glorious cosmos we live in created ITSELF!

No? Well you should give it a go. I'm not asking you to believe anything you come up with, just to put yourself in a frame of mind where you COULD believe in it. I've always found that simple (or not-so-simple) exercise invaluable.

I ain't trying to tempt you to the other side. If your faith is true, and I am quite sure your's is, you have nothing to worry about as far as anything like flirting with heresy goes. More like an exercise in trying to pinpoint where others thinking goes wrong in matters of importance such as this. You'll be better prepared that way.

In any question such as this, it's important to remember how a question is phrased and what cultural implications are built into the assumptions the question elicits. For example, you phrased the question this way:

"How anyone can possibly believe that this grand and glorious cosmos we live in created ITSELF!"

The "possibly" describes an all-or-nothing way of looking at life, which is loaded enough in itself. But the more interesting word is "created." Created, by its very definition implies creator. So the answer is already loaded into the question. The way you phrase the question would imply that a lack of a creator implies the negation of the cosmos, or a better word, reality. Since I hope we can all agree on at least the existence of reality, the way you phrase your question either requires an existence of a creator or a negation of reality. The answer of that particular question must be predetermined solely for the way the question is phrased.

There are other ways of looking at it.

But you already know I disagree with your beliefs, we've argued quite a lot about it (in a good way, I hope!).

That being said, I whole-heartedly agree with your description "grand and glorious." Also, my arguments are designed to instigate doubt, because whatever I believe (which is not much), I am completely committed to humanity's exploration of reality. That is "grand and glorious" to me, and I welcome ALL avenues of that exploration.

[indianasmith]

You are, as always, a sincere and intelligent opponent. "Any doctrine which will not bear investigation is an unworthy tenant in the mind of an honest man." I have tried to frame my thoughts around the concept of a universe that is self-creating and self-sustaining, a Creation with no creator save blind chance and natural selection.  I can't see how it works.  Cause demands effect; creation demands a Creator.

I think we can agree that, at some point, there was nothing.  Then there was something.  Did something happen all by itself? Or was something MADE to happen?   The answer to that question is the fundamental difference of opinion that you and I have.

[Cthulhu]

You are, as always, a sincere and intelligent opponent. "Any doctrine which will not bear investigation is an unworthy tenant in the mind of an honest man." I have tried to frame my thoughts around the concept of a universe that is self-creating and self-sustaining, a Creation with no creator save blind chance and natural selection.  I can't see how it works.  Cause demands effect; creation demands a Creator.

I think we can agree that, at some point, there was nothing.  Then there was something.  Did something happen all by itself? Or was something MADE to happen?   The answer to that question is the fundamental difference of opinion that you and I have.

We ventured from evolution to cosmology in the last few posts.
Anyway, if you're interested, here's a lecture by Lawrence Krauss, theorethical physicist. It really is fascinating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

[trekgeezer]

How can a major part of a global superpower's population still believe in the biblical creation myth in 2012? And Nessie? Seriously? Is this really taught in schools?
There are some serious problems with this.

Believe it.      http://creationmuseum.org/  Complete with dinos in the Garden of Eden.

[The Gravekeeper]

How can a major part of a global superpower's population still believe in the biblical creation myth in 2012? And Nessie? Seriously? Is this really taught in schools?
There are some serious problems with this.

Believe it.      http://creationmuseum.org/  Complete with dinos in the Garden of Eden.

$30 adult admission?! Are they completely off their rockers?! Seriously, I just looked up admission for the Smithsonian's Natural Museum of Natural History, and you know how much admission costs there? Nothing. Nothing.

[indianasmith]

I seriously doubt they get as much tax dollar funding as the Smithsonian!

[The Gravekeeper]

I seriously doubt they get as much tax dollar funding as the Smithsonian!

$30 is still a lot for a museum of any kind. Well...around here, anyway.

[indianasmith]

I agree.  Is this the one down in Glen Rose?  I met their assistant director a number of times.  He is a hard core, literalist, 6,000 year "young earther."  He did NOT appreciate my broader interpretation of Genesis.

[Jim H]

I don't find much about this article hard to believe.  There's a lot of weird places in the USA.  It might be worth noting that such things are perhaps not extremely rare here, but they're also not really common either.

Cause demands effect; creation demands a Creator.

Why is a creator-less creator readily acceptable, but a creator-less creation isn't?  I honestly can't see a difference.