Why do people reject evolution?

[Olrod]

Pulling ideas out of your ass =/= the scientific method.

It was merely God of the Gaps ignorance, nothing more.

Speaking of pulling ideas out of your ass, do you have any actual evidence that Creationism was never a scientific theory?

Are you for real?

That's like asking for evidence that Flat-Earthism was never a scientific theory.

 

[Olrod]

Pulling ideas out of your ass =/= the scientific method.

It was merely God of the Gaps ignorance, nothing more.

We're talking science here. I've provided my evidence, along with references. I expect you to do the same.

And what was discussed by those early Creationists WAS NOT a God of the Gaps idea. It was a legitimate and reasonable interpretation of the evidence they had at the time. The fact that you can't even give an accurate depiction of what those scientific Creationists were saying strongly indicates that you don't actually know anything about that period in the history of evolutionary thought. You're taking modern Creationist arguments and attributing them to the Creationists of the past--which is a deeply flawed methodology, considering I told you where to look to find good summaries of those arguments. I don't expect you to immediately jump up and find the book I cited, but I DO expect you to look into it at least a bit and educate yourself on the topic if you wish to discuss it. Your statements about what the scientific Creationists believed and the nature of their arguments are demonstrably wrong.

Creationism is wrong, yes--but if we react with emotional outbursts rather than reasoned arguments supported by data, we're no different from them. And the data more or less prove that scientific Creationism is a whole different beast from modern Creationism. You can ignore those facts if you want, but then in what way are you different from modern Creationists?

It is nothing more than huborus and temporal chauvinism to think that you're immune to those same errors that the scientific Creationists encountered. I'm sure there are paleontological theories I agree with that will, when more data become available, be demonstrated to be flawed. I can even point out a few that I'm waiting on (taphonomy is a young field, after all). That's the nature of science. It's not just scientific Creationism that has been disproven. Uniformitarianism sensu stricto was the same. Given the fossil record we had at the time it was reasonable to conclude that everything evolved slowly and gradually. We found new data, and found that that's not actually always true--many phyla evolve in bursts around the time of speciation (Punctuated Equilibrium). Newtonian physics gave way to relativity. Dinosaurs were found to be swift and agile, not lumbering hulks. Disproven concepts litter the side of the road that is the history of science, and one of them is labeled "Creationism". Phlogestem was never found. It's nothing to get worked up about. It's simply a historical fact.

So with one sentence you're saying that creationism was scientific, and the next you're saying it was wrong after all?

Make up your mind.

 

[Dinwatr]

Since you're up too high to even do a simple search

I made a mistake. I assumed that the group promoting the Flat Earth theory that I knew about is the one you were referring to. Obviously, I was wrong.

When you get off your high-horse long enough to admit that YOU'RE not infallible either, we can continue this conversation. Until then, it's pointless.

 

[Dinwatr]

So with one sentence you're saying that creationism was scientific, and the next you're saying it was wrong after all?

Make up your mind.

Why do I even bother? You people aren't even reading what I write. I'm going to bow out of the conversation--you children appear to consider my posts an unnecessary nuisance, and I'd hate to let little things like historical facts get in the way of your fun.

 

[Asita]

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

That is not a consistently applied definition though. One can find flaw with it quite easily by simply looking at polytheistic faiths. While such faiths often have a creator deity, they also have deities for many other aspects of life and more than a few of them have a definitive origin. Take the Greek Pantheon as a case in point: The eldest of the Olympians were born to the Titans Cronus and Rhea, who themselves were born to Uranus and Gaia, who themselves sprang from Chaos. And of course among the olympians we have the god of the sky (Zeus), god of the Sea (Poseidon), god of the Underworld (Hades), goddess of marriage (Hera), goddess of fertility and agriculture (Demeter), god of wine and ecstacy (Dionysus) goddess of love (Aphrodite), god of war (Ares), messenger of the gods/psychopomp (Hermes), etc. There are similar geneologies and diversity in the Norse, Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons. Truthfully, I'm not certain it's valid to limit the definition of 'god(s)' to Creator Deities.

 

[medv4380]

Since you're up too high to even do a simple search

I made a mistake. I assumed that the group promoting the Flat Earth theory that I knew about is the one you were referring to. Obviously, I was wrong.

When you get off your high-horse long enough to admit that YOU'RE not infallible either, we can continue this conversation. Until then, it's pointless.

Nothing short of you apologizing for original attack directed at me will cause that, and I bet you don't even know what it was you were responding to since the Post your replied to only had a fragment of what I was replying to in it. You lost the moment you decided to attack someone presenting a pro-evolution argument. You should take your own advice and read what's being said before you blurt out a meaningless garbage attack.

You're the perfect poster child for why this argument won't make progress.

 

[BrassButtons]

So with one sentence you're saying that creationism was scientific, and the next you're saying it was wrong after all?

Make up your mind.

"Scientific" doesn't mean "correct". And if you don't know what "scientific" means, how can you possibly know what is and is not a scientific theory?

Are you for real?

That's like asking for evidence that Flat-Earthism was never a scientific theory.

So you don't have any evidence to support your claims, and you can't refute the evidence Dinwatr offered to support the opposite claim, yet you still think you're correct. You seem to have some things in common with the modern Creationist movement.

 

[Vault101]

What i said was do not force your opinions on other people on an internet forum. Dude, simmer down.

theres a difference between opinions, beleifs and facts

not all are eaqual

 

[darkstarangel]

Because whether I believe it or not makes no difference to me or not. It doesn't define me as a person. I simply don't care.

This is not the first post on here thats asked the same question. Perhaps you should check those ones out & its replies.

However, im a YEC & I know that quite a few people do their research to understand the matter but alot dont understand the concept of it Thats why it has a lot of critics.

I personally never got the whole definition of the macroevolution concept, I understand it better as speciation since homologous recombination is the only method of producing such phenotypic variation on a macroscale. This is why the creation theory is having to be redefined. But the concept of one organism decending from a completely different organism is obviously rejected since, although may share a majority of genes, those genes are positioned on different loci on different chromosomes which also differ in number. These are obviously incompatible for breeding & so are different organisms. When I studied a human genetics units last semester there was virtually no account or explanation how a genome could go from to another, especially with the organism alive & intact & capable of producing viable offspring.

My point is, there are people who reject it because the evidence doesn't always fit the interpretation. You would do well to listen to them to expand your knowledge on the matter. But then again, I guess thats why your posting here.

Recombination is one method of producing changes on a large scale. There are five others; mutation, selection, migration, gene flow and genetic drift.

I have to ask so I don't make assumptions but what was in your human genetics module, as I'm struggling to think of why a module focusing on one species would talk about how genomes could change between species. I'm guessing it would be about genes for specific traits or disease in humans but I could be wrong about what the module was about. I am however reasonable certain as it was only one semester it was four or five months long at most, that's nowhere near enough time to learn everything there is to know about evolutionary genetics.

Your argument do seem to revolve a bit around irreducible complexity or it might just be you haven't covered the relative topics yet and aren't commenting on something you haven't been taught yet. You are however claiming that as genomes are different between organisms and you can't account for it so this makes creationism the better theory. Despite the fact that evolution was written without any knowledge of DNA as it wasn't discovered until a hundred years later.

I disagree with this view point, and I do know some means by which genes can change loci between and on chromosomes and how species can get different numbers of chromosomes. I'm not an expert but one example, humans have 46 chromosomes or 23 pairs, other apes and monkeys have 48 chromosomes or 24 pairs. The reason we have one less is that two pairs fused together.

Actually im not claiming any theory is better than the other, creationism has its own account for the differences as does evolution. What im saying, or rather what im answering, is the question to this post which asks why people dont accept evolution. And that is one of the many reasons why. But that was of several of my units covering genetics. Infact, that unit was more focused on the diseases, gene sequencing & the function of genes. It did mention the evolution but mostly recombination since thats the only observed method. Everything else was just general & theoretical at best.

Changing chromosome numbers (polysomy) whether adding or removing is detrimental to the health, & thus survival, of an organism. Only three Chromosomes can produce a viable zygote which eventually leads to defects due to an increase in gene product. The most common we know of is Downs syndrome with an extra chromosome 21. The chromosomal fusion theory is based on not much evidence at all. Certain binding domains for nucleosomes on chromosome 1 or 2, if I recall properly, has a slightly different sequence than usual & this has basically been claimed to be a centromere even though it has no resemblance to a centromere. However, if such an event were possible it would produce the same results as polysomy & natural selection would weed it out.

 

[darkstarangel]

However, im a YEC & I know that quite a few people do their research to understand the matter but alot dont understand the concept of it. Thats why it has a lot of critics.

You too kudos for posting. I won't even start any debate there because I think both sides know their evidence and counters and personally I'm a little sick of it for today.

But the concept of one organism decending from a completely different organism is obviously rejected since, although may share a majority of genes, those genes are positioned on different loci on different chromosomes which also differ in number. These are obviously incompatible for breeding & so are different organisms. When I studied a human genetics units last semester there was virtually no account or explanation how a genome could go from to another, especially with the organism alive & intact & capable of producing viable offspring.

I'm curious what genetics course you attended because that is most basic stuff you missed. Genes can change due to flawed meiosis and mitosis. It's called <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translocations>Translocation and is actually fairly common and most of the time doesn't do anything. Not to mention that there is quite <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality#Structural_abnormalities>a lot that can and will go wrong with the DNA all the time, sometimes it doesn't matter, sometimes it leads to problems and gets probably eliminated from the genepool and sometimes it may even be beneficial.
Comparing two species by DNA isn't a process of going base per base from start to end because we are well aware that genes jump around all the time.

There are a lot of pages on this. So I am just gonna ask the question and hope. Has there been any evidence of single cell organisms changing into multiple cell organisms? That is the one part of the Evolution vs Creation battle I am waiting for. My mind just cannot grasp that mutations required to switch from single cells to specialized cells without having the organism die, and then having that happen to enough organisms to allow for procreation before the sun burnt itself out. So I honestly want to know, has any evidence of this been found yet?

As long as I'm around... what's "evidence" for you?
We can say that for example every cell in our body is actually a symbiotic multicellular compound because when we look at it we see that there is a nucleus that holds the genetic information for the cell but then there's also the the mitochondrias that have their own membrane, their own DNA and their own reproduction cycle independent of the cell's. Same goes for a plant's chloroplasts (the part of a plant cell that does the photosynthesis), when we take that out it basically behaves like a cyanobacteria.
We also have various stages of cellular diversification in different animals which I personally would find more complex than a simple cluster of same cells that have bound together for a better survival.

However, im a YEC & I know that quite a few people do their research to understand the matter but alot dont understand the concept of it. Thats why it has a lot of critics.

You too kudos for posting. I won't even start any debate there because I think both sides know their evidence and counters and personally I'm a little sick of it for today.

But the concept of one organism decending from a completely different organism is obviously rejected since, although may share a majority of genes, those genes are positioned on different loci on different chromosomes which also differ in number. These are obviously incompatible for breeding & so are different organisms. When I studied a human genetics units last semester there was virtually no account or explanation how a genome could go from to another, especially with the organism alive & intact & capable of producing viable offspring.

I'm curious what genetics course you attended because that is most basic stuff you missed. Genes can change due to flawed meiosis and mitosis. It's called <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translocations>Translocation and is actually fairly common and most of the time doesn't do anything. Not to mention that there is quite <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality#Structural_abnormalities>a lot that can and will go wrong with the DNA all the time, sometimes it doesn't matter, sometimes it leads to problems and gets probably eliminated from the genepool and sometimes it may even be beneficial.
Comparing two species by DNA isn't a process of going base per base from start to end because we are well aware that genes jump around all the time.

There are a lot of pages on this. So I am just gonna ask the question and hope. Has there been any evidence of single cell organisms changing into multiple cell organisms? That is the one part of the Evolution vs Creation battle I am waiting for. My mind just cannot grasp that mutations required to switch from single cells to specialized cells without having the organism die, and then having that happen to enough organisms to allow for procreation before the sun burnt itself out. So I honestly want to know, has any evidence of this been found yet?

As long as I'm around... what's "evidence" for you?
We can say that for example every cell in our body is actually a symbiotic multicellular compound because when we look at it we see that there is a nucleus that holds the genetic information for the cell but then there's also the the mitochondrias that have their own membrane, their own DNA and their own reproduction cycle independent of the cell's. Same goes for a plant's chloroplasts (the part of a plant cell that does the photosynthesis), when we take that out it basically behaves like a cyanobacteria.
We also have various stages of cellular diversification in different animals which I personally would find more complex than a simple cluster of same cells that have bound together for a better survival.

Quaxar? Im not sure if we chatted about this last year, I remember the pony profile pic. Im the guy doing the molecular biology degree, if you remember? Oh well.

Yes, in that unit we covered translocations & the lot. Translocations are the only accidental means of exchanging different chromosome segments but are pretty much deleterious or even fatal. As I mentioned before if even an organism can survive a translocation it cannot produce viable offspring because the translocated chromosomes will no longer be homologs to the conjugates haplotype. Random assortment in the gametes can also eliminate the translocations from being passed on.

And these jumping genes, the transposons & retrotransposons are regulated & directed. For example, if more of a gene product is needed a gene can be duplicated & spliced in a promotor or enhancer region. Genes dont just randomly fly all over the gene pool. And this isn't even including non-protein coding DNA. In chromosomes (or chromotids more specifically) The function of a gene is usually due to its position in the chromosome, even for bacteria. If you mess this up then you can screw its function entirely.

Also, I dont know what you expect for an answer from Balmong about what evidence means. Evidence is data that can be interpreted to support a theory or model. You have cited all the 'evidence' for the endosymbiotic theory but have ignored the data that conflicts with it. The mitochondrial/chloroplasts dont have what you would consider complete genomes. The DNA in these organisms code for parts the proteins they use. The rest is translated from the cells nuclear genome & transported to the organelles & it has differences in the universal genetic code, such as different start & stop codons to the nuclear genome. If the rest of the mitochondrial genome transfered to the nucleus as theorised then that means either the nuclear or introduced genome would have had to conveniently mutated all those codons to same sequence just by pure luck all in one shot. They also lack the peptidoglycan cell wall that bacteria contain.

It frustrates me when the general public are only given one sided information to support a premise rather than give all the data as a whole & let them make an educated decision. This is why the original poster asked why are there still people who dont believe evolution. This is why

 

[FriedRicer]

It is not that things don't need to have an end,it is that we have not seen the end of our universe.One can't assume if it would end or actually go on forever.As for a beginning,some say things just existed(which doesn't effect my definition).Things can probably have no beginning.We just haven't observed a thing like that.

We haven't observed something just ceasing to exist either.

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

And that's the problem; there is no definite definition, it's not a scientific concept. But for most people, their definition of 'god' includes sentience. otherwise it's just some force. I don't understand how gravitation works, and it seems very mysterious to me. But I don't call it a god. (If it had sentience, I might, although I wouldn't worship it)

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

So, something like Athena wouldn't be a god(dess) according to your definition. Or most gods worshipped over the human history, as being a creator is not something all gods, especially in polytheistic religions, do, and most of them were born or made by other gods or creatures.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

What yu are doing is just deciding what the word means based on your own personal opinions. It's pretty arrogant to claim you have the 'truth' like that, and that you know how a word is used.
Words do not have any magical 'true' meanings. They are simply sounds we have agreed have some kind of definition, and they can and will change over time, depending on your context, and where you live.

That's true.I might be arrogant.But that doesn't make what I said any less closer to an actual definition.Words can change,but the abstract thought of the thing we observe would stay the same.Dogs by any other name would still act as a dog would.Some words change some don't.This one can become more accurate.The definition of a god has not been agreed upon when comparing other religions or secular opinion.And I don't think "my" definition is personal.It seems to me that the above description was easily understood in the past but was then given human traits.Also,truth's are not exclusive or original to any one person.No one "owns" geometry and maths.I fail to see the arrogance of trying to create an actual definition out of an inflated word.

What is your definition of a god?
Are there any problems with my definition so-far?
Help would be appreciated!

 

[FriedRicer]

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

That is not a consistently applied definition though. One can find flaw with it quite easily by simply looking at polytheistic faiths. While such faiths often have a creator deity, they also have deities for many other aspects of life and more than a few of them have a definitive origin. Take the Greek Pantheon as a case in point: The eldest of the Olympians were born to the Titans Cronus and Rhea, who themselves were born to Uranus and Gaia, who themselves sprang from Chaos. And of course among the olympians we have the god of the sky (Zeus), god of the Sea (Poseidon), god of the Underworld (Hades), goddess of marriage (Hera), goddess of fertility and agriculture (Demeter), god of wine and ecstacy (Dionysus) goddess of love (Aphrodite), god of war (Ares), messenger of the gods/psychopomp (Hermes), etc. There are similar geneologies and diversity in the Norse, Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons. Truthfully, I'm not certain it's valid to limit the definition of 'god(s)' to Creator Deities.

Honestly,I didn't consider those gods to be relevant anymore.I think those 2 things(and maybe more?)are what would make an actual god.But why isn't it valid to limit it?What would you add or subtract?

 

[Quaxar]

Quaxar? Im not sure if we chatted about this last year, I remember the pony profile pic. Im the guy doing the molecular biology degree, if you remember? Oh well.

Might be. Not sure, my memory is pretty bad sometimes, especially when it comes to this sort of thing.

Yes, in that unit we covered translocations & the lot. Translocations are the only accidental means of exchanging different chromosome segments but are pretty much deleterious or even fatal. As I mentioned before if even an organism can survive a translocation it cannot produce viable offspring because the translocated chromosomes will no longer be homologs to the conjugates haplotype. Random assortment in the gametes can also eliminate the translocations from being passed on.

And these jumping genes, the transposons & retrotransposons are regulated & directed. For example, if more of a gene product is needed a gene can be duplicated & spliced in a promotor or enhancer region. Genes dont just randomly fly all over the gene pool. And this isn't even including non-protein coding DNA. In chromosomes (or chromotids more specifically) The function of a gene is usually due to its position in the chromosome, even for bacteria. If you mess this up then you can screw its function entirely.

I think I just simply have to disagree with you there. Translocation does carry a higher risk of abnormalities in offspring but not necessarily all the time and it certainly doesn't kill off every possible child.
I'd also like to point you to <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation>Robertsonian translocation:
<quote=Wikipedia>Most people with Robertsonian translocations have only 45 chromosomes in each of their cells, yet all essential genetic material is present, and they appear normal.
Chances of abnormalities in children rise, naturally, but that isn't to say that there can't be healthy ones among them.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't each gene have its own promoter region in front of it that contains information where and when the gene is to be expressed?
That's like taking a book that is a collection of short-stories and rearranging the order of the stories. It doesn't matter if story A is at the beginning or in the middle because it can still be identified by its title and it is not necessarily connected chronologically to any other story in that book.

And completely unconnected with that, I'd just like to point you to a <url=http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf>5-page paper about the merged human chromosome 2 and that was done back in the early 90s.

Also, I dont know what you expect for an answer from Balmong about what evidence means. Evidence is data that can be interpreted to support a theory or model. You have cited all the 'evidence' for the endosymbiotic theory but have ignored the data that conflicts with it. The mitochondrial/chloroplasts dont have what you would consider complete genomes. The DNA in these organisms code for parts the proteins they use. The rest is translated from the cells nuclear genome & transported to the organelles & it has differences in the universal genetic code, such as different start & stop codons to the nuclear genome. If the rest of the mitochondrial genome transfered to the nucleus as theorised then that means either the nuclear or introduced genome would have had to conveniently mutated all those codons to same sequence just by pure luck all in one shot. They also lack the peptidoglycan cell wall that bacteria contain.

It frustrates me when the general public are only given one sided information to support a premise rather than give all the data as a whole & let them make an educated decision. This is why the original poster asked why are there still people who dont believe evolution. This is why

I was asking what evidence he'd like because endosymbiontic theory and the like might not be what he was looking for but rather the good old "observance evidence" that seems to, in some people's minds, make the whole field of biology unreliable.

Might not have picked the best example with human cells since they're so far down the evolutionary tree that we've come a rather far way since the mitochondria entered. I don't really feel like researching and discussing the possible evolutionary steps of human cell organisms as I'd much rather spend that time on zoology and botany for my exam on friday but going back on the evolutionary tree quite a step let me just mention that we can literally take a Charophyta's (a type of green algae) chloroplast out and have it behave like a cyanobateria, although of course tose two not being completely the same anymore.

One-sided evidence and flat-out deception is exactly what a lot of YEC propagandists do for a living. I was merely presenting some evidence that would show a logical step from single cellular to complex multicellular. I didn't give a full pro/contra since I'm no lecturer of cellular or evolutionary biology (at least for the next decade or so) but a mere BSc student.

And, let me clarify that this is no attack but simply a remark concerning your original statement of being YEC and also the fact that this seems to be the general concensus among many of this believe, even if big genetic mutations are absolutely impossible (which I'd obviously disagree with) that would probably ruin a whole field of research but still not make a young-earth even a microbe's jump more likely or scientific. But I disgress, this isn't really part of any argument.

 

[Quaxar]

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

That is not a consistently applied definition though. One can find flaw with it quite easily by simply looking at polytheistic faiths. While such faiths often have a creator deity, they also have deities for many other aspects of life and more than a few of them have a definitive origin. Take the Greek Pantheon as a case in point: The eldest of the Olympians were born to the Titans Cronus and Rhea, who themselves were born to Uranus and Gaia, who themselves sprang from Chaos. And of course among the olympians we have the god of the sky (Zeus), god of the Sea (Poseidon), god of the Underworld (Hades), goddess of marriage (Hera), goddess of fertility and agriculture (Demeter), god of wine and ecstacy (Dionysus) goddess of love (Aphrodite), god of war (Ares), messenger of the gods/psychopomp (Hermes), etc. There are similar geneologies and diversity in the Norse, Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons. Truthfully, I'm not certain it's valid to limit the definition of 'god(s)' to Creator Deities.

Honestly,I didn't consider those gods to be relevant anymore. I think those 2 things(and maybe more?)are what would make an actual god. But why isn't it valid to limit it? What would you add or subtract?

Hinduism, Shintoism and Taoism beg to differ.

 

[Asita]

Now for the concept thing,christians have a different concept than many other religions.A subjective opinion on the matter would be incorrect from any particular religion.
Some one would have to explain their concept of Kim Jong-un being a god.What you have there is an opinion,not a concept.
The word god can mean many things to many people-but that is the problem.It stops becoming a definition-a truth of the thing.Christians,muslims,hindus,pagans,and etc are not important here.

A consistent,specific definition of a god would be something that:
A.Creates,
B.Was never created.

At no point does this god have to be sentient.
What I am saying is that the "truth" in most descriptions of a god are in the bullets above.
Everything else most people relate to a god is personification.
The word has been given far too much ground and is otherwise meaning-less.

That is not a consistently applied definition though. One can find flaw with it quite easily by simply looking at polytheistic faiths. While such faiths often have a creator deity, they also have deities for many other aspects of life and more than a few of them have a definitive origin. Take the Greek Pantheon as a case in point: The eldest of the Olympians were born to the Titans Cronus and Rhea, who themselves were born to Uranus and Gaia, who themselves sprang from Chaos. And of course among the olympians we have the god of the sky (Zeus), god of the Sea (Poseidon), god of the Underworld (Hades), goddess of marriage (Hera), goddess of fertility and agriculture (Demeter), god of wine and ecstacy (Dionysus) goddess of love (Aphrodite), god of war (Ares), messenger of the gods/psychopomp (Hermes), etc. There are similar geneologies and diversity in the Norse, Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons. Truthfully, I'm not certain it's valid to limit the definition of 'god(s)' to Creator Deities.

Honestly,I didn't consider those gods to be relevant anymore.I think those 2 things(and maybe more?)are what would make an actual god.But why isn't it valid to limit it?What would you add or subtract?

I cited those because I felt they were the most recognizable. More people have heard of Zeus than they have Yemoja, a Yoruban orisha from whom 16 other orisha sprang, for instance. I might also have cited Shinto (which still has 4 million adherents), in which some of the more famous deities (Tsukoyomi, Amaterasu and Susanoo) were born from Izanagi's purification ceremony after trying to retrieve Izanami from the underworld. And then of course there's Hinduism (The third or fourth most populous religion in the modern world, depending on whether you count 'no religion' in the count), which holds Ganesha to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, as is Muraga.

My objection to your definition is - if you'll forgive my saying - that it has the hallmarks of one with little exposure to the various religions of the world, defining the term through the standards of a particular faith rather than true familiarity with the core concept itself. By limiting the concept of a god to creator gods, you limit the definition in such a way that it not only disqualifies the bulk of virtually all pantheons, but also effectively limits it to a monotheistic concept. Truth be told, both of those should set off alarm bells, the latter especially so given that 'theism' itself is quite literally 'belief in god(s)'. By your definition, a polytheistic faith would be a near impossibility, and certainly puts itself at odds with many polytheistic faiths throughout history.

 

[aattss]

Evolution is science. That's why it's taught in schools, because schools have a science class. Creationism is only taught in bible schools. Creationism is about as valid as any other religious belief.

 

[Olrod]

So with one sentence you're saying that creationism was scientific, and the next you're saying it was wrong after all?

Make up your mind.

"Scientific" doesn't mean "correct". And if you don't know what "scientific" means, how can you possibly know what is and is not a scientific theory?

Are you for real?

That's like asking for evidence that Flat-Earthism was never a scientific theory.

So you don't have any evidence to support your claims, and you can't refute the evidence Dinwatr offered to support the opposite claim, yet you still think you're correct. You seem to have some things in common with the modern Creationist movement.

You're the one asking for proof that creationism is false. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that's it's true, since you're the one making the claim.

The instant they made a baseless assumption that there was an intelligent entity responsible for "creation" was when they lost any and all rights to the qualifier of "scientific" to their crackpot theory.

Perhaps they should have called it "the scientific theory of the creation of the Universe by an invisble pink unicorn who lives in a chocolate teapot that orbits around Mars" instead?

 

[BrassButtons]

You're the one asking for proof that creationism is false.

No, I'm not. I'm asking for evidence supporting your claim that Creationism was never a scientific theory and has always been a God of the Gaps argument. It helps when you actually read what people write.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

This is a myth. Some negatives are unprovable, but the notion that all negatives are unprovable is silly (every positive claim has a negative inverse, so every time we refute a positive claim we prove it's inverse).

Why don't you prove that's it's true, since you're the one making the claim.

If you would read what people write, you would see that the evidence has already been presented. Though you may need to actually understand the topic in order to follow the evidence (for instance, you will need to know what "science" is, and you demonstrably don't).

 

[Dinwatr]

Why don't you prove that's it's true, since you're the one making the claim.

Gould, S. J. 1993. A Tale of Three Pictures. in Gould, S. J. Eight Little Piggies. Penguin Books Ltd. pp. 427-438.

I'll leave an exploration of the literature Gould cited as an exercise for the reader. You'll find the specific papers published in serious and respected peer-reviewed journals (and books; some of these get rather old) therein.

 

[Lieju]

That's true.I might be arrogant.But that doesn't make what I said any less closer to an actual definition.

Words do not have 'actual' definitions. Some groups, like scientists, have their definitions for words, but even in the scientific community, the same words can mean different things, not to mention different languages have different terminology altogether.

Words can change,but the abstract thought of the thing we observe would stay the same.Dogs by any other name would still act as a dog would.

The concept can exist, but what word is applied to it, and how its grouped, will differ.
Take dogs, for example.
What is a 'dog'? Are wolves dogs? What if we crossbreed a wolf and a dog? And then breed it with a dog? How many times we have to do this before it's a 'dog'? At what point in history we have the first 'dog'? It's not simple, and this is with something we can see with our own eyes, and can agree that they exist.

Some words change some don't.

All words change. Can you tell me an example of a word that has always stayed the same and means the same thing to everyone in the world, regardless of their language?

The definition of a god has not been agreed upon when comparing other religions or secular opinion.And I don't think "my" definition is personal.It seems to me that the above description was easily understood in the past but was then given human traits.

Based on what? In many religions and traditions, how the world came to be wasn't all that important, and the gods and spirits worshipped might not have been the ones involved in the creation.

Also,truth's are not exclusive or original to any one person.No one "owns" geometry and maths.

A 'truth'? What you are talking about are concepts and words certain groups of people have decided mean certain things. The scientific community, for example, has agreed upon what certain words mean, so that they can communicate with each other easily about them.

I fail to see the arrogance of trying to create an actual definition out of an inflated word.

I don't think you understand how language works. The words do not have 'actual' definitions. 'God' would not mean anything to someone who doesn't speak English. (Or it might mean something different in a different language)
If you took a group of people and agreed that 'god' mean 'dog', and used that word like so, then that word would mean the four-legged animal. Words do not have any inherent meanings, they are given meaning by humans.

What is your definition of a god?
Are there any problems with my definition so-far?
Help would be appreciated!

My definition:
1) Has sentience
2) Has powers that are supernatural, magical or at least impossible for a human to understand or replicate
3) Is worshipped

I don't believe any such creatures exist, but I would call something like Zeus a 'god'. A word can be used even about things that you don't believe exist, after all, we can talk about dragons or witches and define those words, even while not believing they exist.

But when I talk about god with people, I always ask them to define what their god is like.

The biggest problem I see with your definition is that not all gods in religions are creators.