Quantcast
What is your take on creationism/creationists?

Forums - General Discussion - What is your take on creationism/creationists?

jckid said:

This is so funny because today i was overhearing a discussion I was having with someone about the Bible, an atheist man (Joe) abruptly interrupted us (with a firm and skeptical tone of voice) asking, "Who wrote the Bible?"  Apparently the topic of God had aroused his curiosity (or hit a nerve!).  The answer to his pressing question was a quick and simple, "God wrote the Bible Joe." 

 

@ underlined

Your post pretty much failed from that point, as the bible was written by men. I'm not going to debate the existence of god with you, but all religious texts are simply interpretations of "god's will" and explanations from an anchient age. That interpretation can be very different, hence why we have so many different religions in the world.

If you do a little bit of history you'll also find the new testament in its current form was decided upon many years after the death of Christ in Eastern Rome and that many gospels were declared heretical upon forming this consensus. That doesn't sound like God had much say in that portion of the bible considering he gave humans free will. That free will means all religious texts need to be read with the knowledge that they may have been changed or edited for political reasons.



Around the Network

1. What is proof?  Is there really any PROOF of anything?  You can show me a bunch of evidence, but it's my decision whether or not I want to accept it as evidence.  Based upon the SAME evidence, one person may see it as PROOF, whereas another would NOT.  What may be proof to me may not be proof to you.  I behold nature and see it as solid proof of God's existence, goodness and handiwork (Romans 1:20). 

2. Einstein saw this as well.  Perhaps you don't see nature as evidence of God.  But the paramount question still remains, where did all this come from? If it evolved from stardust, then why do we still live amongst single one-cell life forms (not politicians). 

3. Why do humans have such high intelligence, but animals do not.  Why do humans have a conscience, guilt and morals which animals do not have?  Where did the moral conscience separate from the species? 

4. The answers don't exist!  Humans are humans and animals are animals (1st Corinthians 15:39).  No wonder the Bible speaks of false science (1st Timothy 6:20).  Why false?  Simply because "science" means "to study."  There is NOTHING to study about evolution!  Evolution is NOT testable, repeatable or observable.  If evolution were true, there should be millions of proofs of it.  There is not even one!



Scoobes said:
jckid said:

This is so funny because today i was overhearing a discussion I was having with someone about the Bible, an atheist man (Joe) abruptly interrupted us (with a firm and skeptical tone of voice) asking, "Who wrote the Bible?"  Apparently the topic of God had aroused his curiosity (or hit a nerve!).  The answer to his pressing question was a quick and simple, "God wrote the Bible Joe." 

 

@ underlined

Your post pretty much failed from that point, as the bible was written by men. I'm not going to debate the existence of god with you, but all religious texts are simply interpretations of "god's will" and explanations from an anchient age. That interpretation can be very different, hence why we have so many different religions in the world.

If you do a little bit of history you'll also find the new testament in its current form was decided upon many years after the death of Christ in Eastern Rome and that many gospels were declared heretical upon forming this consensus. That doesn't sound like God had much say in that portion of the bible considering he gave humans free will. That free will means all religious texts need to be read with the knowledge that they may have been changed or edited for political reasons.

ok



RockSmith372 said:


Who are you? Ray Comfort? First of all, your story doesn't prove that your god is the right god. Your logical fallacies state that creation proves God. Does that mean snowflakes are proof of a snowflake making god or sunsets proof of a sunset making god? The reason we know a god didn't make rocks or sunsets is because we have a natural/observable explanation to how rocks are formed and how sunsets works. No scientists believes that nothing created everything. How the universe existed before the Big Bang is a scientific unknown which some fill in as God, and that's not a problem. However, there is a natural/observable explanation to the diversity of life we see on Earth. It's called evolution by natural selection.

For the chair being there, we know that someone made the deskk because WE CAN see desks being built all the time, and even if you never seen a desk being built, you can google and see how desks are made. That strawman argument because one is provable (the desk) while the other one is never proven. We have never seen any occurance that proves the existence of a god. Otherwise, everyone would be believing in the exact same god.

You said that the planets rotate perfectly and that they are round and orbit perfectly. Yes, gravity causes substances to be drawn together. This would result in a perfectly round planet. Gravity explains why the planets orbit around the sun in a circular manner, but not all satellites(planets) rotate perfectly. Pluto did not and is the reason why it's not considered a planet, but gravity of the sun still pulls Pluto along with many other dwarf planets in the solar system.

As for human evolution. Yes, we share a common ancestor with the great apes. There are many transitional forms: Australopithecus afarensis, Homo Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and many more. We also have transitional forms from the original tetrapods, whale evolution, bird evolution, and almost every species we see today have fossil records of their past, but even if we didn't have such an overwhelming amount of fossils, we could still prove evolution through genetics and anatomy. We see how human chromosomal fusion happened, retroviral DNA in our genome and the great apes, vestigial structures, convergent evolution, observed speciation through lizards, bacteria, flies, birds, etc. There is an large amount of evidence for evolution, but creationists ignore these because it contridicts your bronze aged text.

Though I will agree with you that if there is a god, it would be so complex beyond our understanding. However, saying that God is God or I am that I am is not a good way to persuade someone, and of course your second verse that states that the universe is proof of God is not backed up by observable evidence. It would be just a plausible to say that the universe is proof that the flying spaghetti monster exists, and of course the "without excuse" is there to state that if you don't believe what the Bible says you'll burn in hell forever.

I hope that this clears up some of the lies, misinterpret information, and logical fallacies states in your post. I hope that you will open your eyes and see the evidence and its message. Evolution by natural selection is a fact.


ok



RockSmith372 said:
jckid said:

uh? no, I'm just an average sinful human being like everyone else

and i'm bruce by the way, nice to meet you to


It took me a while, but I edited my last post to show you what is wrong with some of the things in your post.


ok, nice!



Around the Network
jckid said:

1. What is proof?  Is there really any PROOF of anything?  You can show me a bunch of evidence, but it's my decision whether or not I want to accept it as evidence.  Based upon the SAME evidence, one person may see it as PROOF, whereas another would NOT.  What may be proof to me may not be proof to you.  I behold nature and see it as solid proof of God's existence, goodness and handiwork (Romans 1:20). 

2. Einstein saw this as well.  Perhaps you don't see nature as evidence of God.  But the paramount question still remains, where did all this come from? If it evolved from stardust, then why do we still live amongst single one-cell life forms (not politicians). 

3. Why do humans have such high intelligence, but animals do not.  Why do humans have a conscience, guilt and morals which animals do not have?  Where did the moral conscience separate from the species? 

4. The answers don't exist!  Humans are humans and animals are animals (1st Corinthians 15:39).  No wonder the Bible speaks of false science (1st Timothy 6:20).  Why false?  Simply because "science" means "to study."  There is NOTHING to study about evolution!  Evolution is NOT testable, repeatable or observable.  If evolution were true, there should be millions of proofs of it.  There is not even one!

 

1. The evidence and proof is there, you are either ignorant of it or choose not to accept it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it's really not subjective either.  You say nature is evidence of god, but there is actually no proof there, you're just using it to justify your own beliefs.

2. Actually, no he didn't, but I digress. We have actually done experiments to replicate the conditions we believe were present in early Earth and found that quite rapidly, organic, self-replicating molecules form rather rapidly. Basically, the first building-blocks of life. 

You also don't seem to understand natural selection or evolution. According to evolution and natural selection, why wouldn't we be living with single-celled organisms? would be the more appropriate question. When an organism evolves over long periods of time, it thrives, but that doesn't automatically mean all lesser evolved organisms die out. Some may die out, if they're competing for similar resources, but not all organisms thrive in the same environments. You're also ruling out synergistic and parasitic relationships where the evolution of of one species can eventually lead to a beneficial relationship with lesser organisms. Digestive acid-loving bacteria thrive in the stomachs of a whole range of species. The tape worm evolved and thrived because it found it thrived in a new environment in the intestines of mammals. So your one-celled argument is flawed.

3. Quite simply, we evolved a higher intelligence and thrived because of it. Cats and dogs thrived because they needed fast reactions to hunt their pray, thus their brains evolved to be smaller, but with fast nervous systems and a basic and hormonal instinct to attack anything that moves (just watch a cat play). We didn't evolve that way, we thrived because our brains enabled us to develop tools which could be used for multiple tasks. And who says animals do not have a moral conscience? How exactly have you tested this? In fact, we've selected for animals with a "morals" in our breeding and domestication programs over the years. Further proof is that dolphins will not mate with a sibling. Morals do exist in non-humans, they just may differ from ours.

Human morals are open to debate as well. A head injury can completely alter you personality and cause you to lose all your morals and behave sociopathicaly. And what of the people who are born, unable to feel empathy for others? These mental conditions exist in humans, and in many ways causes people to behave "like animals".

4. From the massive fossil records, to anatomy, to the fact we share huge (> 99%) amounts of DNA with apes. In fact, nearly 50% of the DNA in a banana is also present in us. If you go right down to the molecular level you can see how a few mutations can cause a single protein to completely change it's function, which can then have a knock on effect on the cells metabolism, effectively evolving that cell.The proof is all around us, you just need to look at it. In fact, the principles of evolution are actually being harnessed for new therapeutic drugs, some of which are already on the market, others going through clinical trials. You say it's not testable, repeatable (which is fair as the randomness of evolution means it's unlikely to give the same results twice) or observable, yet it's been tested and observed many times.



 

"To put it simply, religion answers all the questions science CAN'T ."



The fact that the answers can't remotely be proved means that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. Science hunts for answers but rarely puts down a rubber stamp stating that X is the answer to this, they simply list ideas that are logically (and test-ably) feasible.



 

Reasonable said:

Everything else up about politics when you force people to live together, and pool resources.  In the case of creationism, you have religious parents who want to raise their kids certain ways, and are forced into the public school system and have their kids taught, for financial reasons.  If you were to get those kids out of the public school system, then you wouldn't see creationism brought in.  Of course, when this is mentioned as an option, the kids of religious parents suddenly become wards of the state in the minds of some people, who then insist that ALL kids must be taught this and that in society.  Yes, there are people who want to know God did it, and want evidence to support this belief.  I guess someone who is a secular and collectivist would then feel insistent there needs to be a war won, and we get rid of all this "fairy tales". 

So, don't let people go off and do their own thing, expect them to subject you to things that violate your own sensibilities.


The problem from my point of view is simple.  Being taught evolution is like being taught 2 2=4 or that the Universe would seem to be billions of years old or that the Earth orbits the sun.  It is correct and should be understood equally as an observable, measurable element of our world.

Evolution is in line with Galileo observing the Earth isn't the centre of the Universe whereas Creationism is merely a response in line with those who would lock up Galileo and enforce continued belief in something that would now appear, with the latest evidence to be false.  Creationism is about denying and ignoring evidence based purely on religious belief.

It doesn't matter what you think here, or even how much close to what you see evolution is to reality.  There is the issue of parential rights on what their kids are taught.  So long as you force kids of religious parents to subject their kids to public schools, you are going to have to want them either not taught evolution, or be able to be taught something that is compatible with their religious beliefs.  If you don't like this, then enable the parents to take their kids out of the school system.  This is about parential rights.  Their kids are not your kids, and you are to have no say in what they are to be taught. 

It is simple, enable them to get out of the system if they don't like evolution, then you don't need to worry about it.  And that is why it is politics.  Again, if you don't like it, you need to propose an alternative ethics system to one based on rights.  Good luck getting that past the body politic here.

Next up comes, "But but... test scores of America, yadda yadda yadda". 



richardhutnik said:

It doesn't matter what you think here, or even how much close to what you see evolution is to reality.  There is the issue of parential rights on what their kids are taught.  So long as you force kids of religious parents to subject their kids to public schools, you are going to have to want them either not taught evolution, or be able to be taught something that is compatible with their religious beliefs.  If you don't like this, then enable the parents to take their kids out of the school system.  This is about parential rights.  Their kids are not your kids, and you are to have no say in what they are to be taught. 

It is simple, enable them to get out of the system if they don't like evolution, then you don't need to worry about it.  And that is why it is politics.  Again, if you don't like it, you need to propose an alternative ethics system to one based on rights.  Good luck getting that past the body politic here.

Next up comes, "But but... test scores of America, yadda yadda yadda". 

As Bertrand Russell said, in education there's the clash of three different forces pulling in different directions: there's the family will, the child will and the state will.

Me, I can't see why if a family starves a kid of food then the state steps in with social services and assistance, and if a family mistreats a kid or damages him emotionally there are civil and penal consequences, but everything about the education should be covered by a sanctuarium.

Shouldn't in the same way the collectivity be allowed to intervene for a kid that is intellectually starved or mistreated? The child is not a property of his/her parents, but a person with basic rights to health, instruction and pursuit of happiness.

The family has a great role in the education of children, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed in principle to communicate their values and beliefs in a measure. But while an adult can responsably be a vegetarian, most times a vegetarian diet is unbalanced and hardly health safe for a growing kid, and there have been cases where the state stepped in for malnourished children subjected to it. In the same way one thing is to preach to a peer, another is to unproperly educate a child from the position of strength of the parental role.

(Of course it's politics, everything is :) )



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

richardhutnik said:
Reasonable said:

 

Everything else up about politics when you force people to live together, and pool resources.  In the case of creationism, you have religious parents who want to raise their kids certain ways, and are forced into the public school system and have their kids taught, for financial reasons.  If you were to get those kids out of the public school system, then you wouldn't see creationism brought in.  Of course, when this is mentioned as an option, the kids of religious parents suddenly become wards of the state in the minds of some people, who then insist that ALL kids must be taught this and that in society.  Yes, there are people who want to know God did it, and want evidence to support this belief.  I guess someone who is a secular and collectivist would then feel insistent there needs to be a war won, and we get rid of all this "fairy tales". 

So, don't let people go off and do their own thing, expect them to subject you to things that violate your own sensibilities.


The problem from my point of view is simple.  Being taught evolution is like being taught 2 2=4 or that the Universe would seem to be billions of years old or that the Earth orbits the sun.  It is correct and should be understood equally as an observable, measurable element of our world.

Evolution is in line with Galileo observing the Earth isn't the centre of the Universe whereas Creationism is merely a response in line with those who would lock up Galileo and enforce continued belief in something that would now appear, with the latest evidence to be false.  Creationism is about denying and ignoring evidence based purely on religious belief.

It doesn't matter what you think here, or even how much close to what you see evolution is to reality.  There is the issue of parential rights on what their kids are taught.  So long as you force kids of religious parents to subject their kids to public schools, you are going to have to want them either not taught evolution, or be able to be taught something that is compatible with their religious beliefs.  If you don't like this, then enable the parents to take their kids out of the school system.  This is about parential rights.  Their kids are not your kids, and you are to have no say in what they are to be taught. 

It is simple, enable them to get out of the system if they don't like evolution, then you don't need to worry about it.  And that is why it is politics.  Again, if you don't like it, you need to propose an alternative ethics system to one based on rights.  Good luck getting that past the body politic here.

Next up comes, "But but... test scores of America, yadda yadda yadda". 

One last response.

This is an age old problem.  The simple fact is that, in the end, unless there is some sort of consistency then standards will fall and if taken to the extreme the society will simply fail... a nice example of social evolution in a sense.

From my perspective, I don't live in America but Europe, and so far I'm happier with our approach to this aspect of edcucation than America's... although there's plenty else I could find fault with too with our methods.

But again, that's because our societies aren't in some mythical 'final' perfect state.  They are in transition as everything is, and in the long run they will either prosper or fail based on how well they adapt to the needs of survivial.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...