page 2 of folks standing around pointing at the stupid creationist.

:whee:

7/23/2007 7:41:39 PM

America's finest

[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 7:54 PM. Reason : I think that's mathman on the left......]

7/23/2007 7:53:59 PM

^ its easy to hold up the uneducated and ignorant for ridicule like your video guy and your cartoons, but when people like mathman pose legitimate and valid challenges to aspects of evolutionary theory and is ignored or dismissed, it just makes you so-called "evolutionists" look like yet another church choir.

7/23/2007 8:42:10 PM

^ Are you kidding?

White hole theory is not a legitimate challenge to science.

7/23/2007 10:43:28 PM

Quote :

"No one, including mathman, should have been allowed to graduate public high school or go to a public college without acknowledging evolution as fact. Creationuts should all have to go to private school and college. Also, they should have to wear a giant letter 'C' on their person at all times. They should have to disclose their idiotic beliefs when applying for a job, buying a house, etc. I, for one, would never hire a creationut, sell them anything of value, or for that matter, do anything that furthers their life, efforts, or happiness. "

*cough*Establishment Clause*cough* Nothing like having the government literally force people to accept that their religion is wrong. nice thinking, dipshit.

7/23/2007 11:20:18 PM

as a progressive liberal, who fully supports the First Amendment and it's mandate of the Separation of Church and State... i think the mentality that 392 shows in that quote is ridiculous and completely without merit, and anyone who thinks that represents neither liberalism nor secular humanist philosophy nor the millions of thoughtful people who recognize the scientific truth of evolutionary biology whether they be theist or atheist -- and thats only if he's joking.

if he's serious, then it's time to invoke comparisons ot Nazis, Stalinists, Khamer Rouge, and Islamo-Fascists.

7/24/2007 12:26:21 AM

^I agree with joe.

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive whatsoever.

Evangelical creationism (literal word of the bible) is straight up not true. Thankfully only a very small percentage of christians still actually interpret it this way.

If, like mathman said, you look at the frame of reference theologically, then there's no reason they don't coexist.

It's fanatics on both ends (Hovind and 392 are good examples) that tempt ignorant people away from the truth and into the muddy waters of rhetoric.

7/24/2007 2:37:17 AM

Quote :

"Evangelical creationism (literal word of the bible) is straight up not true."

Oh really? were you around for the Big Bang? try not to state conjecture as fact, no matter how incredibly likely this conjecture is to be true

7/24/2007 8:04:41 AM

My father, the smartest person I've ever met, believes in creation science and that theoretically a literal interpretation of the bible is possible. He writes many papers on how population genetics/DNA support a common ancestor within 10,000 years ago, stuff with protein structure and many things I can't understand.

I personally don't care one way or the other. I guess I'm not very spiritual or curious about the subject so it doesn't matter to me. But to say anyone who believes in the theory is dumb is just being ignorant. (I didn't even look at the youtube link, I assume he's a crazy man)

Quote :

"We do not mean to criticize those who support the theory of evolution, but for one who is willing to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, we believe that a creation theory is an acceptable alternative."

7/24/2007 8:33:12 AM

Quote :

"and thats only if he's joking"

ahaha. Of course I'm joking….damn
Lowjack thought it was funny…..

I haven't been on here very long, so you might not have read many of my posts, but I think you'll find that I too am a fervent supporter of first amendment rights and the complete separation of church and state. In fact, I take my defense further than most supporters. I'm not a big "L" libertarian, though.

The fact is, creationists, whether the watered-down variety or the batshit crazy variety are as nutty as the KKK, NAMBLA, or _______________ **insert crazy group here**. IMO, they need to keep their bullshit to themselves, and although they have a right to, I wish they wouldn't vote. Is that wrong? Don't you wish members of the KKK or NAMBLA wouldn't vote?

Quote :

"accept that their religion is wrong"

Not that I'm defending my [attempt at a] humorous post, but critics aren't saying that their religion is wrong. How could a religion be wrong any more than it's right? (Religion is a unscientific set of beliefs and therefore exists outside of the right-wrong dichotomy.) The issue is that certain factual beliefs they hold are wrong, just like Noen said: "Evangelical creationism (literal word of the bible) is straight up not true".

I seriously don't know what to think of creationists, or theists for that matter. They all seem a bit nuts, although it is easy to see that the human mind is [unfortunately?] fit for religious thinking. Indeed we might not be here today if it weren't for religion. That likelihood is confusing at best for an atheist to realize.

Which brings me back to the more serious part of my post that you seem to have ignored:

Quote :

"I think that deep down inside, nearly all of them (adults, at least,) know that they are wrong, but in order to climb in status in their cult, they must feign belief in certain falsehoods, in some cases to the point of actually believing them."

Not only do I seriously suspect that this is true for creationists, but for theists in general. Before I quit going to church in 5th grade, I got more than a few fellow churchgoers (some adults,) to admit that they don't actually believe 100% that Jesus is the son of God, (water into wine, raise from dead, immaculate conception, walk on water, am I forgetting any?,) at which point I asked why then, do they attend church and participate in prayer, etc. They all replied that they valued the community aspects, the charitable aspects, and didn't want to embarrass the rest of their family by not attending or professing belief.

You see, I'm not convinced that creationists, including mathman, actually believe the shit they say they believe. (How does one prove that one actually believes something and isn't just "pretending"?) It seems far more likely that they simply recognize the political or social influence of these groups since before they were born, and are simply faking their way to the top in order to achieve status or influence among their own kind, and in society in general. Or, they might have started off feigning belief, but inadvertently performed some sort of self-hypnosis that resulted in actual belief of these incredibly seemingly nonfactual unscientific illogical assertions. Either way, IMO, they are 100% wrong and do not deserve respect as long as the don't keep their "beliefs" to themselves. Creationism doesn't belong in science class any more than the word "god" belongs in the pledge of allegiance or on money.

7/24/2007 9:24:14 AM

Quote :

"You see, I'm not convinced that creationists, including mathman, actually believe the shit they say they believe. (How does one prove that one actually believes something and isn't just "pretending"?)"

of course they don't. you can tell when they say shit like this:

Quote :

"Oh really? were you around for the Big Bang? try not to state conjecture as fact, no matter how incredibly likely this conjecture is to be true"

OH I'M SORRY. NO, I HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND FOR 13 BILLION YEARS. I HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND FOR 2000 YEARS EITHER. GTFO WITH THAT SHIT.

All they have to do is provide enough faulty logic and questionable evidence against evolution or the other theories that are not evolution that people can doubt them. Then, after their arguments have been debunked, people can ignore that and still go on using them.

7/24/2007 9:56:15 AM

LO-fuckin-L

7/24/2007 11:19:54 AM

ok, so i've watched the whole thing. here are my problems:

1) He says the singularity explosion is explained by a "we don't know" response. Then complains about people asking him where God came from and him saying "we don't know." Well the difference here is that science says "we don't know" but also adds "but we're gonna keep looking and testing and experimenting." The creationist says "we don't know but we believe the bible."

2) He mentions the woodpecker's tongue and how it is situated implying that evolution would not have created that by chance. In reality the tongue is really just a longer version of the same type of feature in nearly all birds.

3) He cites termites not being able to digest wood without organisms in their stomach. He then asks which evolved first the termite or the organism. Now I have no idea which came first but why wouldn't god (if there is one) just make the termites perfectly capable of digesting the wood by itself? Makes no sense to me.

4) He states, in similar fashion to point 1, that scientists claim "we don't know where matter came from." So he says "we don't know where god came from." So? At least we try to figure it out instead of relying on one theory.

5) He complains about evolution being tax supported. Well I complain that religion is tax free.

6) He asks "who made the natural laws? Where did energy, matter and the laws come from?" We don't know, again, but we are still searching. He on the other hand doesn't know where god came from and leaves it at that. That is being intellectually unfaithful to your gift of free will.

7) He speaks of the conservation of angular momentum and says that if the singularity was spinning then during the explosion everything in the universe would be spinning uniformly. Not true if you take into consideration the various effects of gravity that all objects exert on all other objects. He also speaks about matter being lumped together in galaxies instead of being uniformly distributed. Again, what about the effects of black holes, gravity, etc?

8) He talks about the earth which is believed to have cooled down from a very hot, lava filled place. He states that the earth was never hot because the bible says god created it with water. I shouldn't need to explain why that is a stupid statement.

9) He speaks about palonium halos having to form in rock that is already solid because they have half lives of a few minutes. Might the places in which they formed have been sealed shut by more lava as the rock cooled? Or might have they occurred on the very surface of the lava which then cooled immediately?

10) He states that organisms don't just crawl out of the "soup" anymore. We don't know that, not to mention the fact that we are always discovering new species and what not. No telling when they crawled out of the "soup."

11) My favorite part, he speaks of Urey's experiment in which he studied the chemical reaction of the elements in earth's primitive atmosphere. He states that there was no oxygen when the elements were struck by lightening (presumably) and formed amino acids. Yet on his very own slide he mentions that water vapor and hydrogen are present. Has he ever heard of electrolysis? The spark itself creates water, oxygen and hydrogen.

12) He claims life can't evolve without oxygen and can't evolve because of oxidation and therefore can't evolve with oxygen. For some reason that statement just seems very very stupid to me. Do things oxidize under water? Why aren't we oxidizing right now?

13) He speaks of air bubbles found in amber fossils that have 50% more oxygen than our air does now. I haven't researched this but I can already think of several reasons why a) it wouldn't matter b) it might not have been like that all over earth and c) just plain wrong.

14) He speaks of how there are only 20 amino acids that exist in "left and right hand" form. He also speaks that the smallest proteins have 70 to 100 amino acids all left handed. Why can't a protein utilize more than one of any specific amino acid? He also talks about how they unbond in water faster than they bond. What about mutations?

15) He keeps stating that a cell is more complex than the space shuttle.

16) He asks how male and female evolved and complained that there is no reason to evolve that way, they should have evolved to live forever and be happy with no competition. Well would about the fact that evolution didn't happen at one particular spot on earth, it happened all over.

17) He states that you can't tell from a bone whether it is an ancestor of humans or any other animal. Ok. Whatever.

18) He also said that there is a problem with no missing links in the fossil record. Well we've only been finding fossils for so long and have only been able to dig so deep and in only so many places. I think we are doing pretty good so far.

19) One of his arguments for common ancestry is "how would a bird come from a reptile egg." I don't think he understands exactly what evolution is.

20) He speaks of how in a genetic mutation no new information is added. No shit, the genetic code is there and finite. But there are SOOO many ways for it to mutate, you don't need new information. Oh wait, maybe there IS new information. How about the surroundings, the environment, the chemicals, the food, the water, the light, the temperature? Those are all variables that in effect when changed would be NEW information.

21) He claims that the chihuahua is a useless dog so it wouldn't evolve naturally. Well first, yea, I think it was humans that cross bread it. Second, it's not a useless dog in the sense of survival. Have you ever seen another dog attack a chihuahua? Maybe it's actually better at survival because it can attach itself to a large dog, let that dog protect it and find food for it.

22) He claims that in the evolution of the horse, horses of more modern types and of more ancient types have been sound in the same layers. Well apes and humans still co-exist so that isn't really surprising. Not to mention, they could have DIVERGED from the same ancestor.

23) He states that if a textbook stated the Earth was flat we would tear the page out. Yea, because we have seen the Earth. We know it isn't flat.

24) He speaks of the Grand Canyon and how the Colorado River couldn't have carved it because of the differing elevations along the path and how rivers flow downhill. I guess he hasn't heard that it is possible for a river to reverse its path over the course of many many many many years. Not to mention that over those same periods, the landscape can change due to wind, rain, etc.

25) He goes to a great deal to discount the geographic column and carbon dating and stuff like that. He also states that you wouldn't find a tree standing up through multiple layers of rock due to rotting. Then immediately after that he said "but you can petrify a tree in a matter of a few years." So, why wouldn't these trees, once petrified, be able to sit there through the rocks?

26) The rest speaks about gills in human babys, dinosaurs evolving into birds, scales and feathers, dinosaurs living in Africa, California's Nessie and dragons.

7/24/2007 5:58:11 PM

Quote :

"OH I'M SORRY. NO, I HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND FOR 13 BILLION YEARS. I HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND FOR 2000 YEARS EITHER. GTFO WITH THAT SHIT."

In other words, yes, burr0, you are right, evolution is also conjecture. Thank you. but please, forgive me for actually correcting someone when they claim something as fact that cannot be proven as fact. Don't get so defensive about your religion, man

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2007 7:15:43 PM

7/24/2007 11:22:04 PM

I'm sorry I busted on your religion... can you forgive me?

7/24/2007 11:25:02 PM

See, my religion lets me not be an asshole.

7/24/2007 11:26:20 PM

well, tell that to many of its followers, then...

7/24/2007 11:27:38 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Evangelical creationism (literal word of the bible) is straight up not true." Oh really? were you around for the Big Bang? try not to state conjecture as fact, no matter how incredibly likely this conjecture is to be true "

You didn't disprove his statement.

And, big bang theory is not just conjecture.

7/25/2007 1:25:47 AM

^ really? So you were around at the alleged time of the Big Bang and can corroberrate that it did, in fact, happen?

Quote :

"You didn't disprove his statement."

Therein lies the irony. One cannot disprove his statement, nor can one prove it. Thus, it cannot possibly be fact. It can only be conjecture. Thus, my point

7/25/2007 2:38:48 AM

You act like being around during an event allows us to prove it true.

7/25/2007 7:32:19 AM

^^

Quote :

"con·jec·ture –noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. "

Let's start with the fact that just because I wasn't around to see an event happen, doesn't mean I don't know that it happened. I wasn't there when your mother gave birth to you, but I know it happened. With that said, there is sufficient evidence for the big bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Theoretical_underpinnings

7/25/2007 8:58:24 AM

Physical evidence for/against evolution is irrelevant. The important consideration is whether or not God exists, and there's no reason to believe he does (or would even have a reason to create Earth if he does.)

7/25/2007 12:28:50 PM

7/25/2007 12:33:39 PM

Quote :

"Therein lies the irony. One cannot disprove his statement, nor can one prove it. Thus, it cannot possibly be fact. It can only be conjecture. Thus, my point"

actually it's not that the statement can't be disproved, it's that we haven't figured out how to prove/disprove it yet. as such, if it falls in line with our current understanding, if our laws of nature (chemistry, quantum mechanics, mathematics, etc) work within and around the theory, then until otherwise necessary, there is no reason to not believe in the big bang

keep in mind as well, scientific "fact" is a term that simply means "scientific theory that thus far has stood the test of time"

7/25/2007 1:39:58 PM

Quote :

"Let's start with the fact that just because I wasn't around to see an event happen, doesn't mean I don't know that it happened."

True, but when NO ONE is around and there is no hard evidence for it, then you DON'T KNOW that it happened. You can say with a great degree of certainty that it happened, but you can never prove it happened.

Quote :

"I wasn't there when your mother gave birth to you, but I know it happened."

Actually, there are other ways to prove that my mother gave birth to me, such as DNA and mitochondrial DNA, as well as the testimony of witnesses to the event and such. Thus, it can be proven to you that my mother gave birth to me.

Quote :

"The important consideration is whether or not God exists, and there's no reason to believe he does (or would even have a reason to create Earth if he does.) "

You fool. Yes, there's no reason to believe that God exists, but there is ALSO no reason to believe that he doesn't exist. AKA, a lack of proof either way. Absense of proof is not proof of absense. Jeez.

Quote :

"actually it's not that the statement can't be disproved, it's that we haven't figured out how to prove/disprove it yet."

Thus, it's not "fact," and that's the whole point. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Quote :

"there is no reason to not believe in the big bang"

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that there is no reason not to believe in it (believe, like religion? no way....), but even if I did go that far, just because there isn't a reason to doubt it doesn't mean that it is fact.

Quote :

"keep in mind as well, scientific "fact" is a term that simply means "scientific theory that thus far has stood the test of time" "

Keep in mind that altering the accepted definition of words in order to suit your argument is a logical fallacy.

Quote :

"con·jec·ture –noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."

There is the key point. sufficient evidence FOR PROOF. You all speak highly of the sufficient evidence for belief, but I don't think I need to remind you that there are many believers in various religions around the world who have found sufficient evidence for belief in their deities; however, none of those believers have sufficient evidence for PROOF.

Quote :

"You act like being around during an event allows us to prove it true. "

It is one way that the factual nature of an event can be established, yes.

7/25/2007 9:19:50 PM

Quote :

" Quote : "You didn't disprove his statement." Therein lies the irony. One cannot disprove his statement, nor can one prove it. Thus, it cannot possibly be fact. It can only be conjecture. Thus, my point "

C'mon burro, i know you're smarter than this.

Asking if he was around during the big bang has no bearing on the statement that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not true. Big Bang theory is the least of worries for someone who interprets the bible completely literally.

Quote :

" but there is ALSO no reason to believe that he doesn't exist. AKA, a lack of proof either way. "

Actually, that's not true. If you have a model for a god (ie. the Bible) you can demonstrate that he either exists or doesn't exist using that model. The main problem is that there is no one model for god based on the bible (it's why there are so many beliefs about god among even people of the same denomination). For many Christian models of god, you can demonstrate that he doesn't exist, at least not in a way that would be consistent with a particular model. So if for an individual, you show that god can't exist for their particular model, they just readjust their model to one that works, but it requires re-interpreting their religious text.

Quote :

"There is the key point. sufficient evidence FOR PROOF. You all speak highly of the sufficient evidence for belief, but I don't think I need to remind you that there are many believers in various religions around the world who have found sufficient evidence for belief in their deities; however, none of those believers have sufficient evidence for PROOF. "

Maybe you're thinking of a different Big Bang than me, but there is definitely sufficient evidence for proof of a Big Bang. I wouldn't call it a fact, because the specifics aren't hammered out (and won't be for a LONG time), but our knowledge of the early universe increases drastically with each decade. The newest technology in this endeavor is the Microwave Anisotropy Probe: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11859210/ .

7/25/2007 11:27:55 PM

^

7/26/2007 6:29:15 PM

Quote :

"Asking if he was around during the big bang has no bearing on the statement that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not true. Big Bang theory is the least of worries for someone who interprets the bible completely literally. "

unfortunately, he said "Evangelical creationism," which implies a concern only about creation. It's a cop-out to take the parenthesized words of "literal interpretation of the Bible" and take them to mean "the whole Bible." Don't give me that crap. Because he was talking about creation, it is perfectly legitimate to bring up the big bang.

Quote :

"If you have a model for a god (ie. the Bible) you can demonstrate that he either exists or doesn't exist using that model."

Oh, I have to hear this explained. I have a model of the Bismarck, but it doesn't float. Therefor, the actual German battleship could never have floated, right? A model is an interpretation. Thus, it is NOT the real thing. And your idea of "proving inconsistency" is always done via misinterpreting texts, so that hardly counts as "proving" anything.

Quote :

"but there is definitely sufficient evidence for proof of a Big Bang."

Then provide it. All you say is "well, we get closer to it every day." I can play that game, too, and say that we get closer to proof of literal creationism every day, too, but it doesn't mean I have proved Creationism.

Quote :

"but our knowledge of the early universe increases drastically with each decade."

Wrong. What we THINK we know of the early universe increases over time.

7/26/2007 10:27:14 PM

You tell 'em aaronburro, what does "science" know, anyways?


But I was wondering...

do you reject the fact that there are visible stars further than 6,000 light years away? Or do you reject our current measurement of the speed of light?

7/26/2007 10:48:15 PM

I posed that very same question to a very Christian guy that I work with. He filed it under the "all things possible with God" category". Yeah, total cop out.

7/26/2007 11:56:44 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "If you have a model for a god (ie. the Bible) you can demonstrate that he either exists or doesn't exist using that model." Oh, I have to hear this explained. I have a model of the Bismarck, but it doesn't float. Therefor, the actual German battleship could never have floated, right? A model is an interpretation. Thus, it is NOT the real thing. And your idea of "proving inconsistency" is always done via misinterpreting texts, so that hardly counts as "proving" anything. "

I think you misunderstand what i'm saying.

I'm saying that for most Christians, if they took the time to explain to me what they think god is, I could point out flaws in their reasoning that would make their idea of god impossible. It would have nothing to do with the bible on my end, because it would be mostly pointing out paradoxes in their beliefs. If you're saying that most Christians mis-interpret the Bible, while that's not something that's always objectively provable, it's probably an accurate statement. But whose fault is that?

I've really only met 1 single person that had a literalist interpretation of the Bible that was consistent with itself (but not with the majority of the scientific community), but it requires some pretty obscure means of interpreting the Bible.

Quote :

"Quote : "but there is definitely sufficient evidence for proof of a Big Bang." Then provide it. All you say is "well, we get closer to it every day." I can play that game, too, and say that we get closer to proof of literal creationism every day, too, but it doesn't mean I have proved Creationism. "

I posted one good link to get you started. Your Googling is as good as mine.

But, it's ridiculous for you to believe that creationist "science" has progressed even as much as big bang theory over the past few decades. Church attendance overall has been dropping, and secular ideals increasingly are taking over society. I predict religion in the first world becomes significantly marginalized within the next 100-200 years.

7/27/2007 1:17:47 AM

Quote :

"You fool. Yes, there's no reason to believe that God exists, but there is ALSO no reason to believe that he doesn't exist. AKA, a lack of proof either way. Absense of proof is not proof of absense. Jeez."

That's a retarded argument for anything.

"Hey, I just went into the future and had sex with your daughter."

"That's stupid, you can't prove that happened."

"Oh yeah, well can you prove that it didn't happen?"

Therefore, it must be true!

7/27/2007 12:35:39 PM

Quote :

"Oh really? were you around for the Big Bang? try not to state conjecture as fact, no matter how incredibly likely this conjecture is to be true"

Science isn't fucking court of law, dumbass. Eye-witness testimony doesn't count for jack. People have this nasty tendency to not recall events very accurately, whether it be that they weren't paying attention or they were acid-tripping or they let their personal biases color their description of events. If you've ever read an actual scientific paper, you'll notice that nobody worth his salt ever says "this is what I saw and you'll have to take my word for it." Scientists instead have to meticulously record everything from what equipment they used to how they actually went about collecting the data to how they performed the statistical analysis of that raw data. The purpose of all this being that other people can do exactly what you did and see if they get the same results. To say nothing of the fact that the paper will more than likely be peer-reviewed first to see if you made any glaring mistakes that will instantly discredit the work.

Science, in its purest form, is not concerned with "right" or "wrong." It is not concerned with "truth." There's no way to ever completely know whether evolution is true or creationism is true, or if it's some completely different alternative. Instead, science looks at the basic facts (eg experimental data) and, through conventions such as Occam's Razor, comes up with an explanation that is consistent with those facts. That explanation is not necessarily "correct." Technically it's not even possible to PROVE that an explanation is correct. What instead happens is that an explanation gains more and more acceptance as it continues to fail to be disproved. That's the whole purpose of an experiment; to try and disprove the theory/hypothesis/whatever. You never design an experiment to try and prove your hypothesis because that makes the experiment vulnerable to experimenter bias and circular logic.

Anybody can spout off "evolution explains everything" or "creationism explains everything." Talk is uber-cheap. What matters is if those claims can be supported by evidence. Science does not care what explanation you make up, but if it clearly doesn't jive with the known facts then it is disproven. So far evolution has not been disproven. All of the geological, biological, and paleontological evidence so far allows for a planet that is billions of years old and allows for the slow alteration of entire genomes over that time period. Creationist claims that the earth is only tens of thousands of years old is contradicted by basic observations such as carbon dating, and therefore has succeeded in being disproved.

7/27/2007 1:28:48 PM

this guy came to raleigh christian academy when i was in school there

i had to listen to him when i was like 13 years old it was RIDICULOUS

7/27/2007 1:55:21 PM

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

7/27/2007 2:09:44 PM

^Very nice link.

Quote :

"I predict religion in the first world becomes significantly marginalized within the next 100-200 years."

Oh of course. We won't be able to progress much further if people still take those fairy tales literally. Thankfully a very very small percentage actually take the bible literally these days. Most people take it as a book of morals with some historic evidence.

Two things we need to address here.
Faith
and Suspension of disbelief.

First of all you can't argue with anyone who has faith, because they'll play the faith card. Scientists who believe in evolution and theory based upon hard evidence can't really play a "faith card" because everything they believe in is usually backed by some type of evidence.

So there's the first fault. If you wanted to argue you'd have to rid all the creationists of faith, which wouldn't happen so you usually can't have a logical debate.

A creationist without faith is simply a misinformed scientist with little hard evidence supporting the wrong side of the debate. Without the faith creationists usually have very little.

In terms of suspension of disbelief I think this can be applied to most Christian followers today, or atleast most i've talked to. Basically suspension of disbelief for those of you who don't know is the ability of the audience to set aside certain obvious facts disproving the idea at hand, so they ARE able to believe in it. Suspension of belief is often applied to theatre and art because you have to "take that leap of faith" to really immerse yourself in the story. I believe the same holds true for Christianity.

For example many people fall into believing in Christianity and the Bible because it provides reassuring support that there's something after death. This is a perfect example of suspension of disbelief because you can disregard facts disproving the bible, while still believing in those facts fundamentally. You just don't address those facts because you'd rather choose to believe in something that gives you a warm feeling inside in regard to something after death.

It's pretty simple when you think about it. Creationists will always have thier faith to back them up when thier "science" theories full of holes fall through. So no matter how hard you argue with them, they'll just play the faith card in the end and be done with it. I think it's more practical to believe in a religion because it makes you feel good rather than it actually being the truth. Science on the other hand is here to provide us with concrete evidence based answers and is far seperated from religion.

The bible is in no way supposed to provide humans with a legit historical depiction of what occured or how we were created. It was created by humans as a way to explain things we couldn't explain at the time, and to provide people with hope for something after death. Once we humans started to disprove parts of the bible with scientific evidence, suspension of disbelief took over, and people still believed the bible but only because it gives them a sense of satisfaction and community. All these creationists who try to argue they are right are missing the whole point of religion. It's not to prove who is right or wrong, but it's to allow us to feel good about the world. Some people choose to take that path, and some people choose to believe something they can see, feel, and experience.

I mean seriously, if there was a god, do any of you REALLY think he would have a geographical notion of who should go to hell and who should go to heaven? Just because you're born in India means you go to hell? Believing in a religion is simply a result of being born in a certain location. It's nothing else. All religions have the same archetypes and morals, the whole challenge is picking the religion that fits YOU. No one is right or wrong in regard to religion, it's simply what fits you best.

I'm about to get off work, and i read this whole thread, and didn't want to try to provide some scientific evidence against one or the other so i gave my opinion on the matter, and that's simply what i believe.

I don't criticize a religion for being scientifically wrong, i criticize the follower for trying to prove science is wrong. Religion, as itself is a great idea, and a comfort to many. It's the followers that corrupt it.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 4:17:28 PM

Quote :

"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF"

thanks!

/thread

7/27/2007 7:23:04 PM

Quote :

"do you reject the fact that there are visible stars further than 6,000 light years away? Or do you reject our current measurement of the speed of light? "

Do you reject the possibility that a being powerful and smart enough to create a universe could have also possibly put light already on course from said distant stars?

Quote :

"I'm saying that for most Christians, if they took the time to explain to me what they think god is, I could point out flaws in their reasoning that would make their idea of god impossible."

That's great. You can pick apart one person's interpretation of Christianity. Congratulations. I could do the same with many people regarding evolution and the Big-Bang, but that doesn't mean I have disproved evolution or the BB. What you are failing to comprehend on the religious side is that individual people's beliefs do NOT have to represent the truth. They might be right, they might not be.

Quote :

"But, it's ridiculous for you to believe that creationist "science" has progressed even as much as big bang theory over the past few decades."

Strawman much? I never said that I believe such nonsense. In fact, I don't even believe in a literal creationist viewpoint. Rather, I was merely stating that any claims that the BB is fact are false.

Quote :

"First of all you can't argue with anyone who has faith, because they'll play the faith card."

False. You can't argue with someone who has irrational faith. Contrary to popular belief, faith and intelligence are NOT mutually exclusive.

Quote :

"Scientists who believe in evolution and theory based upon hard evidence can't really play a "faith card" because everything they believe in is usually backed by some type of evidence."

And what you fail to understand is the scientist's evidence is not "hard." They have made a fundamental assumption that their evidence is hard. And that, my friend, is also "faith." It's just faith in something different than a religious faith.

Quote :

"That's a retarded argument for anything. "Hey, I just went into the future and had sex with your daughter." "That's stupid, you can't prove that happened." "Oh yeah, well can you prove that it didn't happen?" Therefore, it must be true! "

Thanks for the SUPER-STRAWMAN. I NEVER claimed that creationism was true based on the claim that BB is not fact. Rather, I posited that BB was not fact. Nothing less, nothing more. Stop putting words in my mouth.

7/27/2007 8:07:23 PM

Quote :

"This particular lecture was in Idaho, where 98% of the population votes republican."

b/c only republicans can be complete idiots.....

what most of you have yet to realize is that MOST OF THE COUNTRY ARE COMPLETE IDIOTS WHEN IT COMES TO ANYTHING OUTSIDE THEIR NARROW LITTLE LIVES.... this includes the proto-wannabe-commies on this board as well as the salsberryboy bible thumpers

now i'm a socially left leaning moderate and a strong fiscal conservative biologist that is Catholic, believes in the death penalty being valid, pro-life, and firmly understands and affirms evolution as being a true process of life in a dynamic environment.

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 10:18 AM. Reason : s]

7/30/2007 10:13:42 AM

the big bang theory was created to satisfy the church, so whats the problem with it today?

7/30/2007 10:43:34 AM

Quote :

"There's no way to ever completely know whether evolution is true or creationism is true, or if it's some completely different alternative"

well, that's not true. There is a way to know whether evolution is true; we can observe it in virii and some bacteria, not to mention faster selection methods such as the forced evolution of current dogs from wolves.

We just can't ever know 100% that WE evolved. Of course, I'm quite sure we did, but there will always be some minor holes in the fossil record and other data to satisfy creationists.

7/30/2007 11:00:06 AM

Quote :

"Do you reject the possibility that a being powerful and smart enough to create a universe could have also possibly put light already on course from said distant stars?"

In the same post as this:

Quote :

"False. You can't argue with someone who has irrational faith."

7/30/2007 11:23:57 AM

nvrmnd, I've got nothing to add here.

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

7/30/2007 11:31:36 AM

^^^Perfectly put. As long as the theory of Evolution is still a "theory" creationists will still point out "oh but there's holes in it". Well there's holes in the THEORY OF GRAVITY but that's pretty universally excepted.

Although, are there any "anti-gravity" groups out there? I would put them on the same level as creationists in regard to thier blind disagreement with common scientific knowledge.

again...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

I mean i just agree with the general consensus of the entire scientific community. Come on people it's like a million to one. Of course creationists can come up with an argument, but everyone STILL disagrees with them. I don't think it's even a debate when it's millions of scientists with Doctorates vs a few credible creationists and mostly a bunch of silly un-educated, un-supported, fairy-tale nonsense speaking fanatics who simply want to believe that god created everything.

I mean when someone tells me "but how could this beautiful planet be created WITHOUT a specific design or interaction from a divine being".

Well i say "i can't BELIEVE someone in thier right mind could believe that this complex planet could be created from a single entity alone." It's like the toothfairy. You stop believing in it once you grow up. Creationists have the complete WRONG idea of religion. It's not how it's meant to be. Religion wasn't created to give people a perfect explanation of how things happened, it was simpy created to give people hope and motivation for life. Nitpicking whether the bible is historically accurate or not is stupid. It defeats the actual purpose of the bible.

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

7/30/2007 11:32:14 AM

Quote :

"Do you reject the possibility that a being powerful and smart enough to create a universe could have also possibly put light already on course from said distant stars?"

I reject the plausibility of that.

DO YOU REJECT THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU'RE IN THE MATRIX RIGHT NOW?

If you want to believe anything is possible even when it's super fucking unlikely, that makes you agnostic. Are you agnostic?

7/30/2007 11:43:28 AM

Quote :

"well, that's not true. There is a way to know whether evolution is true; we can observe it in virii and some bacteria, not to mention faster selection methods such as the forced evolution of current dogs from wolves. We just can't ever know 100% that WE evolved. Of course, I'm quite sure we did, but there will always be some minor holes in the fossil record and other data to satisfy creationists."

While you are right, I want to say that you sort of missed my point as well.

My point was that science, despite how thorough it is, cannot ever offer us 100% certainty along with its answers. At first people believed the earth was flat, but then we realized that a horizon could not exist (because it's caused by the curvature of the earth), and so we "updated our model," so to speak. Then people believed that the earth was the center of the solar system/universe/whatever, but our plot of the paths that the planets and stars would have to take were far too complicated, but made perfect sense if the earth wasn't the center, so then we updated our knowledge again. Etc etc etc.

As we move along and learn more, science does offer us more certainty and more clarity. But technically science would never say "God does not exist." The possibility (however small it may be) remains that the universe was indeed created by some intelligent designer. But we cannot say with 100% certainty one way or the other what is true and what is not.

Now, all that said, I'm willing to bet that there is no creator since science has yet to resort to saying that a creator was involved. So far science has been able to explain everything in purely naturalistic terms, without saying that God did it (much less the Christian god). Science never says "this is absolutely right, the alternative is absolutely wrong." It simply gathers all of the known facts and attempts to piece together the most logical conclusion. Sometimes we don't have a whole lot of evidence to work with, and so our picture is largely incomplete (eg paleontology), but we are capable of seeing the larger picture. Other times we have a pretty good working model of some natural phenomenon, but then new evidence comes to light that completely alters the way we view that phenomenon (classical Newtonian physics vs. quantum mechanical effects).

And so even though we've got all these great working models, there remains the possibility that new evidence can come along, and it will either reinforce what we have already concluded, or it will fundamentally restructure it. I guess that's what I really mean by "science can't offer complete certainty." We simply don't know everything yet. But that is not a weakness. It's proof that the system works. A law, theory, whatever, is only correct for as long as contradictory evidence doesn't come along. Once a new piece of evidence comes along that invalidates the old model, science dusts off its hands and rebuilds from there.

That's the difference between science and religion. Scientists acknowledge that uncertainty exists and possess the intellectual honesty to change their views when new evidence comes along. It is the exact opposite with religious people. Their deity of choice is forever unchanging, absolute certainty about moral authority comes from their holy books (even though societal values do change over time), and they ignore any evidence that contradicts their views. As others have pointed out, that's why many creationists scoff at the theory of evolution. They think that "theory" means that it's somehow more uncertain than a law, and any uncertainty means it's obviously wrong. Their god and their holy book, however, are completely certain, and therefore absolutely correct.

That's my overall point. Science does not offer complete certainty, at least the kind that religious people are looking for. But their expectations are simply unrealistic and dishonest. Imo, it takes more courage to say "this is how I view the world, but I admit that it might not be perfect or complete, and if something new comes along that invalidates that view, I'm willing to change" than it does to believe in pixies in the sky who watch your every move.

7/30/2007 12:47:00 PM

Quote :

""do you reject the fact that there are visible stars further than 6,000 light years away? Or do you reject our current measurement of the speed of light? " Do you reject the possibility that a being powerful and smart enough to create a universe could have also possibly put light already on course from said distant stars?"

It's true a god could do this, but it wouldn't be consistent with the doings of a Christian God in the Bible. This would be tantamount to intentional deception, which God wouldn't do.

Quote :

"Quote : "I'm saying that for most Christians, if they took the time to explain to me what they think god is, I could point out flaws in their reasoning that would make their idea of god impossible." That's great. You can pick apart one person's interpretation of Christianity. Congratulations. I could do the same with many people regarding evolution and the Big-Bang, but that doesn't mean I have disproved evolution or the BB. What you are failing to comprehend on the religious side is that individual people's beliefs do NOT have to represent the truth. They might be right, they might not be."

Except with religion, there IS no one truth. The religion is DEFINED by the beliefs of the people, not the other way around. So picking apart individual people's belief does do damage, and when it's done, it demonstrates to others how their beliefs may be wrong.

I know this is true, because it happened to me. I use to be lots more religious than I am now, and it's mostly from these types of discussions that changed my mind.

Quote :

"Quote : "But, it's ridiculous for you to believe that creationist "science" has progressed even as much as big bang theory over the past few decades." Strawman much? I never said that I believe such nonsense. In fact, I don't even believe in a literal creationist viewpoint. Rather, I was merely stating that any claims that the BB is fact are false."

Well, you said this:

Quote :

"All you say is "well, we get closer to it every day." I can play that game, too, and say that we get closer to proof of literal creationism every day, too, but it doesn't mean I have proved Creationism."

Are you now reversing your opinion that a creationist CAN'T play that game?

7/30/2007 1:07:24 PM

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html

Quote :

"Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution. The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence. In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution. “They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”"

The Vicar of Christ even thinks this guy is dumb.

7/30/2007 7:44:17 PM

Quote :

"Are you now reversing your opinion that a creationist CAN'T play that game?"

i don't know what the hell you mean by that, mang...

Quote :

"Except with religion, there IS no one truth. The religion is DEFINED by the beliefs of the people, not the other way around. So picking apart individual people's belief does do damage, and when it's done, it demonstrates to others how their beliefs may be wrong."

that's great, but you are still picking apart individual beliefs, not the actual fact (or not) of the religion.

Quote :

"It's true a god could do this, but it wouldn't be consistent with the doings of a Christian God in the Bible. This would be tantamount to intentional deception, which God wouldn't do."

The question of would he is irrelevant to the discussion of could he. also, just because it seems deceptive to you doesn't mean that the actual intent was deception.

Quote :

"Science does not offer complete certainty,"

And that was my point in objecting to someone calling literal creationism patently false. and, btw, science is very much a religion today. I hate to break it to you.

Quote :

"If you want to believe anything is possible even when it's super fucking unlikely, that makes you agnostic. Are you agnostic?"

false dilemma.

Quote :

"I reject the plausibility of that. "

then you aren't much of a scientist, nor do you understand how "science" works, or at least how it should work. just because you don't like the possibility doesn't mean you should reject it outright without evidence. And that's something in which creationists could use a lesson...

Quote :

"In the same post as this:"

i think you misunderstood the point of that sentence, my friend...

7/30/2007 11:01:14 PM