Creationists condemn Cosmos

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnsonma

johnsonma

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2012
1,395
0
19,290
Creationism is based on nothing while evolution and climate change are based on empirical evidence, why should anyone be forced to mention it or teach it?

http://mashable.com/2014/03/24/creationists-cosmos/


 
At the time, my best friend and I saw a UFO, as in an Unidentified Flying Object!

I was in the US Navy at the time and being familiar with what we had flying up there, and what the other countries had flying as well, what we saw was not home based on the earth, because we just don't have anything that can do, or even remotely come close, to what we saw!

When it comes to something like that, I know what we saw, I would be a liar if I denied seeing it, but regarding telling others, we were looked on as nuts or insane, however, it matters not what they think, We Know What We Saw!

So bottom line is, it's all irrelevant anyway, so don't loose any sleep over it! :)
 


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Millions upon millions of spiritual and religious people around the world as well as every society throughout the history of mankind have a very different perspective.

Thanks! I needed a laugh!
 


I'm with you. I've seen things in my lifetime that I am unable to explain, by any rational means.

The irony about this topic and the parallel between science and religion is that they both are aimed at applying rational thought to the unexplained and attempting to interpret things that are yet to be understood. As I've stated before in other such threads, science relies on a certain level of faith, the same type of faith given to religion to provide answers to the great questions of human curiosity and the universe we live in. Different methods to ultimately reach the same end, in my opinion. It is a shame that one method is deemed less valid simply because a perception that the two are incompatible.

 



I do not understand what there is funny.

But I m afraid it was just condescension.... :/

So i would only say that million upon millions of people around the world as well as every society throughout the history of mankind have or had THE SAME opinion than Johnsonma.
 


Religion does not use rational thought for most of its answers. It completely ignores evolution in the cases of creationism. While most religious people are not this ignorant, there are some that are. Evolution is backed by an incredible amount of evidence that creationist people don't understand or refuse to believe.

You don't need faith to believe in gravity. You don't need faith to believe the world is round. You don't need faith to understand what stars are made of. All you need is a functioning brain.

 
I agree.

However if you have faith and subscribe to a peaceful religion and do not interfere with the rights of others then I still consider you my fellow man.

I may not understand your faith but it tells me that you have a strong belief in community, helping others, and contributing toward a better society ... and those values are good.

Just don't think that you have the right to tell women they don't have the right to an abortion, or that others who don't subscribe to your religion are any less worthy.

Moreover don't knock on my door Sunday morning ... the sign says if you do then I have the right to open the door and punch you in the face.

My Sunday morning I spend in dreamland ... like baby Jesus.

:)

 

Any study, whether of science or religion, applies rational thought because the human mind requires that we organize, categorize, and explain the world around us to form a common perception. Do not confuse rational thought as a normative process that is used to conform beliefs and the reasons to believe with quality of thought. Rational thought is not only reasoned but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. Therefore, if it is reasoned that "god" is the solution to a given problem and that solution fits within the parameters of a belief system, then it is a rational thought. Conversely, if a solution is reached through the scientific method and that solution fits within the belief of science then it is also rational thought. Hence, rational thought is applied equally to both science and religion.

I say do not confuse rational thought with quality of thought because your opinion tends to invalidate religious beliefs as magical hocus-pocus and your criticisms are aimed at believing that rational religious thought is not quality thinking because it does not fit into scientific method. However, just because rational religious thought does not fit into your belief that science will provide the answer, that does not make it any less rational or less valid.

I am intentionally avoiding any evolution/creation debate because there are many holes in both that are unable to paint a full and complete picture, let alone given any form of definitive answer.



Some folks would say that you do not need faith to believe that Jesus was a real person and divine in nature. Some folks would say that because of the ordered nature of the universe and our world that you do need faith to believe that it was divinely created. Some folks would say that you do not need faith to believe that evil exists and there is an opposite and ultimate good. All they need is to know is that the explainable exists and search for answers that conform to their belief system.

Please do not think that I am anti-science or pro-religion. I agree with you that it is ignorant for religious types to reject empirical scientific evidence as I view them as equally closed minded as scientific types who reject religion. I do not think that either science of religion have the ability to provide definitive answers or explain everything. Truth is, I do not think that science and religion are mutually exclusive or incompatible which each other; the human condition is far too complex to be narrowed down to just one set of possibilities. I believe that science provides answers to a number of things, but I am also rational enough to recognize that science cannot explain everything. And, where science is unable to provide answers I do not understand the rejection of religion or spirituality to fill in those blanks. Overall, I think it is arrogant for human beings to believe they have the capacity to solely apply science or solely apply religion to provide answers for anything. Ultimately, it just seems to me, that any man who thinks themselves enlightened and then closes a door on any possibility is just an arrogant, ignorant, fool lying to themselves.
 
Creationists believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. There are human buildings older than 6000 years. You literally have to ignore everything we know about the earth and its history to believe in creationism. Its not filled with holes, it requires complete ignorance to take seriously. Science may not know everything but its alright to admit you don't know.

Faith is the belief in something without evidence or facts. You need faith to believe Jesus was divine, regardless of people who say otherwise. You need faith to believe the universe was divinely created because there is no evidence that it was. In fact, everything we have learned so far confirms the big bang. Just because we don't know why the big bang happened does not mean that there is a God. I could put forth the same argument that the spaghetti monster created the universe.

I don't care if people want to believe that to be honest. But the second that they start discrediting evolution when we have mountains of evidence for it is just plain stupid. It should not be taught it schools because there is no evidence to support it. The only result is raising children who reject rational evidence and in turn replace it with ignorance.

Imagine if kids were taught that computers only turned on because God willed it? Its the same explanation used for creationism. We have evidence and knowledge that this is not the case but you can't argue against ignorance.

 
Creationists believe in a creator, one behind and responsible for the creation, one that designed the creation, meaning having a beginning and end to the creation itself, can you not agree with that?

So if you can at least agree with that, then what caused your marvelous evolution process to stop evoluting?

What I am saying is why don't some of us have flippers hanging out of our a$$, or gills on our necks, or ostrich legs, etc.?

If evolution is all you say it is, why would it have stopped the evolution process and end with a human being, being the end result, or with a dog or a cat, horse, cow, buffalo, etc.?

So you just crawled your little self out of the ocean and here you are, and you are satisfied with that?

Be careful who you insinuate is ignorant! :pfff:
 
Personally I do not condemn anything!

I prefer to believe in a creator, that designed and created everything, no one knows the details but many get tripped up in attempting the understanding from a living human point of view, lacking even a mini micro percentage of the knowledge creation took in the first place.

I am a carpenter and I can create some beautiful items with the resources I have available, I have designed and built some awesome things in my day, at least that's what others say.

Though I am fully aware of what's involved from the first design sketches on paper to the work and construction leading to the finished product.

I am utterly amazed at the level of designing that took place down to the molecular level, that a certain seed would grow to become a beautiful red Rose, the designing behind that is AWESOME, but what's even more AWESOME is it is brought forth in life growing to it's potential.

Science stumbles around attempting to come to an understanding, so man can know why this?, and why that?, and explain it to themselves, and arrive at some kind of puffed up acceptance of life.

Science can manipulate, cross breed, gene splice, clone, and pervert the natural order, but how many of your precious scientists have sat down and designed a simple seed from scratch from the molecular level and produced a living Rose?

That would seem super simple designing a rose seed from scratch in relation to the creation of the universe, but if that cannot be done today by your precious scientists, how can scientists even begin to explain something they have absolutely no concept of.

Well that's simple enough, Hey everyone, It just happened!

Yeah, spread the word, we now have the answer!

It's evolution!
 


Its painfully obvious that you don't understand evolution. I am no expert but I like to read about it quite a bit. All you questions would be answered if you researched it a little bit. Evolution is still happening there is evidence ALL around us. The large changes that occur with evolution take a VERY long time for the most part.

The evolution of the eye took a very very long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Enough time leads to limitless possibilities.

Creationism is ignorant only if you say evolution is wrong. You can believe that a God created the universe and set in motion all the matter with the big bang. The second you try to say evolution is wrong because you don't understand it or refuse to research it then that my friend is ignorance. The second you say that big bang didn't happen you are wrong. The second you say the world is 6000 years old, you are again wrong.

By the way we don't have flippers coming out of our @ss because it wouldn't have given us an advantage and lead to high survival rates.

 


That simple seed contains dna that has evolved over many many years.

http://www.amjbot.org/content/93/3/412/F5.large.jpg

We could make a new seed if we had the tools to change dna. At present the best tool to do that is with a virus. Maybe its possible, i'm not sure i would have to research it.
 
We have freedom to do what we want in life.No one is forcing anything.

 


We? Who is We?

You're either missing or purposely ignoring my point,

Relating to something as simple in complexity as a flower, a rose, specifically a red rose, to create it from scratch means you start with absolutely nothing.

True creation would be starting from nothing and creating something!

All scientific so called creations start with something already created and they modify it, splice it, genetically alter it, manipulate the DNA, slap a label on it and call it their creation.

Unfortunately somewhere in the recipe they used existing materials to do it, those existing materials were created falling in the Creation category, as well!

What part of that do you not understand?

As a carpenter I can design and create objects made of wood, I can only claim designing and constructing the finished end result, from the materials available to me.

I cannot claim the wood it was made from as my creation, a part of it yes, but I did not make the wood!

That element of the project was designed and created through Creation itself, I had zero to do with that part that was used as a stable element to create the furniture or table.

The wood came from a tree, and was designed to be a tree, it was not designed to be a goat, horse, cow, or flower, it was designed to be a tree and that's what it grew to be.

Understand?

Can you even create the earth from scratch that the tree grew in?

No!



 
So your explanation for why creationists are right is because we cannot create matter? Can God create matter? If so, how does he/she/it do it?

The big bang introduced matter and the universe we know today. Your argument really doesn't line up with with what i'm talking about anyways. I'm arguing that creationists who believe that it should be taught in school are out of line. You cannot present any evidence that creationism is right. All you can put forth as an argument is semantic in nature with no proof. I could use the same logic to argue that gremlins live in the earth's crust just as creationists use it to argue that the earth is 6000 years old.

People can believe whatever they want but they need to stop trying to indoctrinate other people with their beliefs. Teaching creationism in public schools is a step backwards in education.
 


What happened with the renaissance? What about the industrial revolution? Conditions were right and a massive change occurred.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

One of the key parts of this article is how previous steps in evolution set the stage for tremendous growth.
 


Early earth creationists. Also know as Ken Ham and his ilk, just watch the debate between him and Bill Nye.

By the way Reynod, thanks for Ken Ham. We really appreciate it.
 
Everyone in life has an opinion. Remember that.
 
Just looked up Ken Ham ... what a deluded fool.

How does my post have anything to do wit Ken Ham?

I am a devout existentialist ... I look in the mirror each morning and smile ... and wink ... its my altar.
 


The fact that you call people who have a different opinion than you, as ignorant, is completely offensive. You assume that you have all the answers. This is a topic which neither side has the answers.

I have a love and appreciation for science and the tangible evidence that I can see and understand. However, there are also things in life, that you'll never be able to prove. That's when you have to take it on faith. The nature of faith, or a belief system, is that you'll never be able to prove it, so the argument is moot.

The one thing I would point out, while I believe in creationism, evolution is certainly a fact. However, a camel developing an external eyelid to compensate for blowing dust, is a far cry from a single cell bacteria morphing into a 2 legged sentient and intelligent being called a homo sapien.
 
I thank baby jesus I don't have flippers coming out of my a$$ ... and on that note its probably a good time to wind this one up and let all of the creatonists and devolutionists reload ... ready for another day.

May your god (s) go with you.

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom