h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey,

Think I've bumped into you before, but thought I'd say hi once more!

I lurk on Uncyclopedia as well....Haven't done much in the way of articles though. Let my boyfriend do that. Think you bumped into him sometime last year....

I guess that I'm curious, as I noticed somewhere you mentioned you were a creationist. I guess I'm curious on what that means, if you dont mind explaining it?

oh...here have some ..

hello

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Wikipedia has an article on Creationism.

Creationism is the basic idea that the world was created by a God. I am a Creationist because I believe this. It might not be a popular idea, particularly among the currently ruling academic community, but that is what I believe.
Nerd42

Yeah....so how do you perceive evolution? I know that creationists argue that if the world was created by God, then there is no such concept as evolution...

Well, I gave up seriously arguing about creation and evolution a few years ago when I realized that it never gets anyone anywhere. I will explain what I believe to you if you want but I don't want to argue about it. Discussing is fine, finding out what things we agree and disagree with is fine but arguing from a standpoint of trying to actually convince people over the internet doesn't work. It just gets into a cycle of trying to score points over the other person and getting people angry.

I think that the Universe and the Earth were created by God suddenly, in a very short period of time. I do not claim to know how long the Universe or the Earth have been in existance but I think it was probably a bit shorter than millions, billions or trillions of years but probably a bit longer than six thousand years.

I think that the ideas of the Big Bang, spontaneous generation and evolution do not adequately explain the origins of Life, the Universe and Everything.

First, there is the question of where the Universe itself came from. The Big Bang theory is that the universe was originally about the size of a marble, but then it exploded and has been expanding ever since. That leaves out the explanation of where the marble came from. On the other hand, Creationism admittedly doesn't explain where God came from - except for the fact that many people believe that God is infinite, without beginning or end, but also many people believe that the origin of God is one of those things that mortals cannot understand in this life. The idea that there is, in fact, a God can suggest that the answers will be revealed at some point in the future. I don't see how the Big Bang theory could ever explain itself. One thing I've said before, as a sort of joke, (not critical of the Big Bang theory specifically) is that, "The Universe cannot be expanding. After all, where else is there left for it to go?" (i.e. what space is there for it to expand into)

Second, there is the question of how life originated. "Spontaneous generation" is the basic idea that at some point, life arose from non-living matter. This has never been accomplished under controlled conditions, but the theory is at some point in the distant past, an instance of spontaneous generation resulted in the formation of the first single-celled organism. I believe that this is an impossibility - in creation science, this is called the Law of Biogenesis, which states, "Living matter cannot arise from non-living matter."

So, once we have the Universe, which I don't think can be explained without a God, and life, which I don't think can be explained without a God, it is only then that we come to Everything, or the diversity of life that we see around us today.
(I will address evolution in the next post)
Nerd42

OK well I have a totally different idea of how heredity works from what many people call "evolution". Though I have learned more as I've grown older, my views haven't changed, but the way I explain them has.

I believe that animals are naturally divided into groups within kingdoms. The Bible calls them "kinds" as in "each shall reproduce after its own kind".

I believe that the world began with, as a miniature example, a couple of dog/wolf-type creatures, a couple of cat/tiger/lion-type creatures, a couple of bird-type creatures, a couple of lizard-type creatures, a couple of fish-type creatures, a couple of single-celled-type creatures, a couple of monkey-type creatures and a couple of humans. (Adam and Eve) That is not a complete list - in Genesis, Adam was charged with giving names to all the animals, and if he or any of his descendants ever accomplished that task, there must be a complete list of all the animal kinds somewhere, but sadly, nobody knows where it is.

Within each of these groups, (dogs, cats, birds, lizards, fish, bacteria/fungi, monkeys and humans) you could say that "evolution" could have taken place. Within each kind, different generations diversified into big ones, little ones, specimens with different colors or bone structures or whatever. But, taking creationist biology to be correct, one kind could not have created offspring with another kind, so "evolution" from say, a fish to a lizard, or a monkey to a human. Inherited characteristsics did diversify, natural selection of course made some of the less "fit" diversifications go extinct, humans seperated into the different races we see around the world today, (all of those things are of course observable today) but never would you see one kind mate with another kind and be able to reproduce.

Let's define "biological evolution" as the basic idea that higher, more-complex life forms can arise from lower, less-complex life forms through natural processes. "Historical evolution" is defined as the idea that evolution is part of an overall pattern that has been going on for millions, billions or trillions of years, and "Common descent" is defined as the idea that all known life forms descended from a common ancestor that was a single-celled organism.

What those ideas that are incompatible with Creationism do is see a minor change in a few generations and say, "Aha! Since a minor change can occur over a short period, an organized pattern of major changes must have occured over an extended (too long to experiment with) period!" Creation scientists do not, by definition, subscribe to this kind of logic.
Nerd42

Oh, I didn't address "Common Descent" which is what I was going to use some of those definitions for.

You could say, in one sense, that I believe in "Common Descent", since I believe that the original anscestors of each the kinds were created by (and thus "descended from") the same God, who (assuming creationist biology is correct) used the same basic templates for creating parts of different animals. Thus the apparent genetic and/or structural similarities between organisms that evolutionary scientists say proves the "common descent" of the organisms are the same ones that creation scientists say proves the "common design" of the same organisms.
Nerd42

ok.

Nah I don't particularly wish to debate either on the issue. Everyone has different beliefs. I guess I'm curious as although I've read around on the issue of creationism, I just haven't really spoken to someone who believes in it in great depth. Talking to someone about it is more interesting and useful to me than reading about it in the wiki. Means I can gain a greater understanding of the topic, and how you perceive it.

By the way - I'm still processing all your information, so will probably ask you some questions to clarify bits and pieces in the next day or so....

I do appreciate you explaining this to me!

ok