What do people think of Creationism?

[Bestbird]

It is pretty hard to deny evolution, it is all around us, just look at how a TV has evolved in 60 years or so, or how a from a computer a new species of sorts evolved in a tablet.

 

[dalt]

Who to say how other animals species will evolve in the distant future.

What's even more interesting is that we've only been around for 200,000 years.

 

[skilts]

What's even more interesting is that we've only been around for 200,000 years.

No wonder I'm so tired.

 

[skilts]

It is pretty hard to deny evolution, it is all around us, just look at how a TV has evolved in 60 years or so, or how a from a computer a new species of sorts evolved in a tablet.

A very interesting comment. Some might carp about making the connection between evolution in technology and in nature. However, as the beings who have the potential to learn by experience, and modify things and methods accordingly, it could be said that our observations of evolution have made our tendency to mimic this process innate (or learned). It is something which might easily have previously gone unnoticed.

 

[son of meto]

It is pretty hard to deny evolution, it is all around us, just look at how a TV has evolved in 60 years or so, or how a from a computer a new species of sorts evolved in a tablet.

It's a theory! Theories are not proven, they are simply there to be tested until 'evidence' leads one to assert it is the 'most likely' option available to us. The problem that 'Darwinian Evolution' has is that it raises more questions than it answers. It is far from conclusive in the scientific realm.

The reason why most of us feel that it is undeniable ('hard to deny') is that it is now an accepted 'popular' premise. Yet it is far from conclusive! Even Darwin had his doubts!!! I might go further and say that science concludes or proves nothing...that's right 'Nothing'. That is not the point or purpose of the scientific method. Science simply provides tested data! Then we make a decision of 'faith' when we draw a conclusion. All faith is actually based upon varying degrees of evidence, from lot's (more reliable, though not fallible) to virtually none (more fallible, though not completely unreliable).

For the record, evolution has no bearing on the subject of Creationism. After all, where did the first cell come from and where did life originate? Let's step back further, where did the 'stuff' (matter) come from for the Big Bang...A closed system can never answer that question!

PS - Regarding the machines analogy...that aint evolution you are talking about. It's external (human initiated) upgrades, which is really an argument for the existence of God.

 

[Long Live HFC]

trust /= faith.

and even if we accept the pointless distinction that nothing is ever 'proven' (what purpose that serves i have no idea), it doesn't open the door for rampaging nonsense like creationism. creationism as a subject is all about "evolution". the only reason creationism even exists is because of what evolution implies for the "creation" of man. the court cases, the rhetoric, the "museum", the organised anti-science tactics- are all about poking holes in evolution.

 

[skilts]

It's a theory! Theories are not proven, they are simply there to be tested until 'evidence' leads one to assert it is the 'most likely' option available to us. The problem that 'Darwinian Evolution' has is that it raises more questions than it answers. It is far from conclusive in the scientific realm.

The reason why most of us feel that it is undeniable ('hard to deny') is that it is now an accepted 'popular' premise. Yet it is far from conclusive! Even Darwin had his doubts!!! I might go further and say that science concludes or proves nothing...that's right 'Nothing'. That is not the point or purpose of the scientific method. Science simply provides tested data! Then we make a decision of 'faith' when we draw a conclusion. All faith is actually based upon varying degrees of evidence, from lot's (more reliable, though not fallible) to virtually none (more fallible, though not completely unreliable).

For the record, evolution has no bearing on the subject of Creationism. After all, where did the first cell come from and where did life originate? Let's step back further, where did the 'stuff' (matter) come from for the Big Bang...A closed system can never answer that question!

PS - Regarding the machines analogy...that aint evolution you are talking about. It's external (human initiated) upgrades, which is really an argument for the existence of God.

I laugh like a drain when either scientists or the religiously inclined think that their argument is with each other. Their twain shall never meet. Why either side bothers is beyond me. Maybe both are in pathetic pursuit of unwarranted relevance?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It's a theory! Theories are not proven, they are simply there to be tested until 'evidence' leads one to assert it is the 'most likely' option available to us. The problem that 'Darwinian Evolution' has is that it raises more questions than it answers. It is far from conclusive in the scientific realm.

The reason why most of us feel that it is undeniable ('hard to deny') is that it is now an accepted 'popular' premise. Yet it is far from conclusive! Even Darwin had his doubts!!! I might go further and say that science concludes or proves nothing...that's right 'Nothing'. That is not the point or purpose of the scientific method. Science simply provides tested data! Then we make a decision of 'faith' when we draw a conclusion. All faith is actually based upon varying degrees of evidence, from lot's (more reliable, though not fallible) to virtually none (more fallible, though not completely unreliable).

For the record, evolution has no bearing on the subject of Creationism. After all, where did the first cell come from and where did life originate? Let's step back further, where did the 'stuff' (matter) come from for the Big Bang...A closed system can never answer that question!

PS - Regarding the machines analogy...that aint evolution you are talking about. It's external (human initiated) upgrades, which is really an argument for the existence of God.

it's a nice little rant about science you've got going there but the simple, undeniable fact is creationism fail's by the scientific method.
that's right, science which deals with theories and supporting data says creationism doesn't stack.

Of course Darwin had is doubt's a basic tenet of science is to question never accept anything at face value rely on the data.

disregarding you're clearly erroneous assumption that Evolution is far from conclusive (there's a shit ton of evidence arguments against evolution at this point are arbitrary.

When it comes down to it all these simpletons that say its just a theory, (harsh but its true you utter this line you clearly are limited in your ability to comprehend the difference between a theory based upon supporting evidence that has been peer reviewed and accepted by 100'000's of people who specialise in related fields who have tried to find anyway to show theory is false (not to mention religious whack jobs ) and some uneducated buffoon who who has a "theory" about how how a pink sky means rains on its way.) well i'm sorry but creationism doesn't even pass the "just a theory" stage.

it just doesn't stack there's no evidence, In fact the evidence goes against creationism.
the simple fact is all the evidence supports evolution NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CREATIONISM, IT SAY'S ITS BULLSHIT.

even fields that don't give a shit about evolution for instance NASA's modeling has shown the sun is older than the earth even though creationism says it was the other way around.

creationism says the earth was covered in water before the land appeared geology say's nope when the earth was formed it was far to hot for liquid water to exist the land had to come first.

again and again creationism failed and each time the knuckle draggers, Deny and deny and deny until there's so much evidence against what they are saying they are forced to retreat and come up with work arounds (which again have no supporting data) and now we have this complete half arsed crap where every sane person, Hell even the POPE accepts that evolution and the formation of the earth and the universe according to science is legit, but "oh god put it all in motion" as a fallback defence, rather than admit your wrong and have to start asking hard questions.

Creationism as a theory died long ago when every piece of evidence uncovered and proposed went against, what you have now is that there's secretly a bloke behind the curtain who made it all happen.

That's not a theory, it's an idea. a vague idea that so far not a shred of supporting evidence has been uncovered. It's an Idea that lingers because people are dumb enough to listen to the words of Swami and commit their entire lives to one utterly stupid idea, The Idea that god exists.

The Idea of Creationism Exists not to understand the universe, not to help us understand ourselves, arm us with knowledge so we may learn from it nor is it about uncovering the truth or explaining things. The Idea of Creationism is nothing more than propaganda, A fabrication designed to shore up the populations ever eroding belief in god.

 

[Gough]

6 Dn in today's Times Cryptic.
Paint a rosy picture of creationism for a change (11)

 

[RUNVS]

I find it amusing that the super religious so easily dismiss the mountain of evidence that evolution is a fact, saying scientists are dumb, godless or liars but on the same day they say that they go out and buy their new iphone or if they need medical treatment then they will very happily take the best treatment available. If they really believed scientists were godless or wrong then there is no way they would let medical science save them as it would be much more effective to let god remove their cancer.

 

[Ceagle]

So if you believe in creationism, does that mean you believe that it happened several thousand years ago as well ?

 

[Lester Burnham]

6 Dn in today's Times Cryptic.
Paint a rosy picture of creationism for a change (11)

Romanticise

 

[son of meto]

I find it amusing that the super religious so easily dismiss the mountain of evidence that evolution is a fact, saying scientists are dumb, godless or liars but on the same day they say that they go out and buy their new iphone or if they need medical treatment then they will very happily take the best treatment available. If they really believed scientists were godless or wrong then there is no way they would let medical science save them as it would be much more effective to let god remove their cancer.

I am Christian. And to be completely honest with you, I have never heard a rational Christian say that Scientists are dumb (most are certainly not), godless (many Scientists believe in God or are Agnostic), or liars (Scientific method neither lies or deals in truth claims). I understand your incredulity at the 'super religious' as many dumb things have been said against strong scientific evidence...but please don't dismiss 'faith' based upon the worst proponents. We wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[son of meto]

So if you believe in creationism, does that mean you believe that it happened several thousand years ago as well ?

This is an excellent question. There are several possible ways of understanding/reading the Biblical account of creation. As you have mentioned, a strict Literalist would advocate 'Young Earth Creationism'. But there are several other possibilities that don't do violence to the creation narrative in Genesis 1-3 and don't ignore scientific evidence and theory. Happy to share if you are interested...

 

[son of meto]

it's a nice little rant about science you've got going there but the simple, undeniable fact is creationism fail's by the scientific method. That's right, science which deals with theories and supporting data says creationism doesn't stack.

The Idea of Creationism Exists not to understand the universe, not to help us understand ourselves, arm us with knowledge so we may learn from it nor is it about uncovering the truth or explaining things. The Idea of Creationism is nothing more than propaganda, A fabrication designed to shore up the populations ever eroding belief in god.

Hey SB, I sense you are pretty convinced...so i won't try and enter debate.

I didn't think I 'ranted', I just stated that Evolution is a theory...which every scientist who adheres to the Scientific Method would happily confess. You may be right in saying that it is the better theory, but then you'd have to supply evidence for that assertion...happy for you to provide specific evidence.

When you use language like 'simple, undeniable fact' you are failing to think or communicate scientifically. 'Simple', 'Undeniable' and 'Fact' are three words that Scientists never utter!

Just for the record, 'creationism' (in ancient and modern philosophical and religious systems) had been the unchallenged 'propaganda' for comprehending our existence since...well forever. It is actually Humanistic Naturalism born from Modernity that is the johnny come lately. Just for the record.

 

[madmug]

Hey SB, I sense you are pretty convinced...so i won't try and enter debate.

It is actually Humanistic Naturalism born from Modernity that is the johnny come lately. Just for the record.

Would that be what yanks call 'Creation Science'?

 

[son of meto]

Would that be what yanks call 'Creation Science'?

No, Humanistic Naturalism is a combination of two belief systems (or non-belief systems).

Humanism - is the belief that humanity is the author of reality and humanity is capable of 'saving' itself or making itself 'better'. Unfortunately, worldwide evidence probably castes grave doubt upon the Humanist's faith in themself.

Naturalism - the material world is all there is. We humans are just molecules...no more! Of course you can see how this would dove tail nicely with Humanism.

Both these belief systems became popular towards the end of the enlightenment (A.D 1500-1950) period, especially in the sub-period called Modernity (1800-1950 - a time of great scientific advancements). Modernity was a worldview that asserted that rational logic was humanity's ultimate tool for creating a utopia (heaven on earth). But as scientific advancement did a wonder of good in our world it also failed to cure humanity's basic ills and character flaws. Thus Modernity 'failed'. Consequently in the 1960's there was a shift away from Modernity towards Post-Modernity (after-Modernity) in Philosophy, Sociology, Pedagogy, etc.

Sorry for the long winded answer...but I suppose my point was, Humanistic Naturalism born out of Modernity is actually a relatively new idea in our world that is now actually in decline. This accounts for the rise in aggressive Atheism...they sense a shift away from logic (They are right on that account) in our world and accuse religion as the culprit. The real culprit in my opinion is 'Post-Modern Relativism' which the Christian or Muslim, or Jew is NOT.

Again, sorry for the 'isms'.

Creation Science is a branch of Creationism that is extremely literal and unwilling to read the bible as anything other than historical narrative or accept scientific evidence on face value.

 

[RUNVS]

I am Christian. And to be completely honest with you, I have never heard a rational Christian say that Scientists are dumb (most are certainly not), godless (many Scientists believe in God or are Agnostic), or liars (Scientific method neither lies or deals in truth claims). I understand your incredulity at the 'super religious' as many dumb things have been said against strong scientific evidence...but please don't dismiss 'faith' based upon the worst proponents. We wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

When I refer to super religious I am more referring to people who ignore scientific fact or dismiss it entirely when it contradicts with their world view. I definitely do not think all people who do identify with a religion are like that.

 

[son of meto]

When I refer to super religious I am more referring to people who ignore scientific fact or dismiss it entirely when it contradicts with their world view. I definitely do not think all people who do identify with a religion are like that.

Fair enough.

 

[son of meto]

When I refer to super religious I am more referring to people who ignore scientific fact or dismiss it entirely when it contradicts with their world view. I definitely do not think all people who do identify with a religion are like that.

Hate to quibble...but there is actually no such thing as 'Scientific Fact'.

 

[Floor Pie]

Hate to quibble...but there is actually no such thing as 'Scientific Fact'.

Hey, just friendly advice, you should read through this thread first. This has been discussed for most of the thread already.

 

[son of meto]

Hey, just friendly advice, you should read through this thread first. This has been discussed for most of the thread already.

Good advice...I was just responding to the immediate thread.

 

[Dirtyglobalist]

I find it amusing that the super religious so easily dismiss the mountain of evidence that evolution is a fact, saying scientists are dumb, godless or liars but on the same day they say that they go out and buy their new iphone or if they need medical treatment then they will very happily take the best treatment available. If they really believed scientists were godless or wrong then there is no way they would let medical science save them as it would be much more effective to let god remove their cancer.

Care to provide the so called mountain of evidence ???.

Must be some pretty awesome time machines the so called evolutionists used to be able to go back in time & observe things that happened millions of years ago.

What's believing in creation got to do with seeking medical assistance ?,
Are atheists only entitled to these things ?.

What's believing in creation go to do with with technology ?.
Are atheists only entitled to these things ?.

Why do science put profit before releasing cures ?, Because they care more about making millions/billions of dollars & don't give a shit.

Because you don't believe in creation/GOD, Should you be entitled to any help from organisations that are run by religions if you come to a crisis.

Should you be entitled to any medical assistance from hospitals that were founded by religious organisations because you choose to believe in Evolution ??.

If you really believe in Evolution there is no way you would go to a charity or hospital that has something to do with GOD, I hope you only seek medical advice from Doctors that are atheists, There is no way a christian Doctor would be trustworthy huh ??.

I agree Science has a lot amazing things, Everyone has the same rights & entitlements regardless if you believe in GOD or not.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Hey SB, I sense you are pretty convinced...so i won't try and enter debate.

I didn't think I 'ranted', I just stated that Evolution is a theory...which every scientist who adheres to the Scientific Method would happily confess. You may be right in saying that it is the better theory, but then you'd have to supply evidence for that assertion...happy for you to provide specific evidence.

When you use language like 'simple, undeniable fact' you are failing to think or communicate scientifically. 'Simple', 'Undeniable' and 'Fact' are three words that Scientists never utter!

Just for the record, 'creationism' (in ancient and modern philosophical and religious systems) had been the unchallenged 'propaganda' for comprehending our existence since...well forever. It is actually Humanistic Naturalism born from Modernity that is the johnny come lately. Just for the record.

First the evidence you requested start here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

Once you've gone through it I can recommend several books on the subject and I'm sure the more learned people bigfootyiers may even be able to give the names of some peer reviewed journals. Of course you could also pop down to your nearest natural history museum take a tour and ask questions from curators, who can give also give you tips on studies and findings and give you a better understanding of it.

As for the language I used, once again you fail to properly understand language. Just like when I explained the difference between the layman's term theory and a scientific theory. I'm once again forced to explain 'fact' scientific theories don't draw conclusions and state them as fact because the data is always open to reassessment.

But of course science deals in fact, it couldn't operate without fact. 1+1 is 2 that's a fact the decay rate of Carbon 14 is a fact.

Science uses these facts as tools. Likewise the complete lack of any evidence for creationism is a fact and this fact will remain a fact until some evidence. (if you have any go collect you're Nobel prize)

Now to the Cray, Cray part of your post. Creationism is not a scientific theory at all there's no evidence on basis nothing it's completely unsupported and the evidence goes against, arguing that it is a theory in the context of scientific theory is to disingenuous in the extreme.

Finally not only has creationism as a philosophical idea is completely ****ing irrelevant, philosophy has no bearing on physical reality.

People once believed thunder and lightning were signs god(s) was angry and yet science which you continue to ignore was the tool used to show that baring notions that aren't based on observable information is ludicrous and misguided.

Creationism is completely without evidence it is not a theory it is an idea and an old idea, much like drilling holes in the skull to relieve headaches, it is not only stupid it is dangerous.

 

[Dirtyglobalist]

Hey, just friendly advice, you should read through this thread first. This has been discussed for most of the thread already.

Hey, Just friendly advice, How about you stop the obsession discussing topics on things that are imaginary according to you ???.

I don't see any topics on evolution that were started by people who believe in GOD & troll the threads, On the other hand atheists trolling threads on creationism/GOD & creating discussions on things they don't believe in.