Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal1 min ago
Explaining creationism
Why don't creationists explain creationism with the same enthusiasm and in the same generous detail with which scientists have explained evolution for the last 150 years?
Why this obsession with attacking evolution? Do they really think that if they can find a major flaw in that science then all evolutionists will abandon reason and rush to the supernatural? If a carriage designer finds a fault in his design does he discard all his engineering and go in search of a Fairy Godmother with a pumpkin and a magic wand? If a gynaecologist fails to make a couple conceive does he tell them to go and find a gooseberry bush and a stork? Do creationists not realise that if evolution were totally discredited tomorrow it would have be replaced by something equally logical, equally rational, equally explanatory of life on this planet and equally supported by mountains of evidence? In other words it would have to be a science not a religious superstition.
So tell us about your creator. What sort of a creature is he/she/it? What does it look like, sound like, feel like? How did it go about designing a whole universe? What materials did it use and where did it get them? Did it have help?
You might start by explaining why the unknown writer of Genesis claims that the earth existed a least three days before the rest of the universe, and what light it was that was separated from the darkness on the first day, and supplied morning and evening on the first three days, when the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Come on, creationists, you've got 150 years of catching-up to do.
Why this obsession with attacking evolution? Do they really think that if they can find a major flaw in that science then all evolutionists will abandon reason and rush to the supernatural? If a carriage designer finds a fault in his design does he discard all his engineering and go in search of a Fairy Godmother with a pumpkin and a magic wand? If a gynaecologist fails to make a couple conceive does he tell them to go and find a gooseberry bush and a stork? Do creationists not realise that if evolution were totally discredited tomorrow it would have be replaced by something equally logical, equally rational, equally explanatory of life on this planet and equally supported by mountains of evidence? In other words it would have to be a science not a religious superstition.
So tell us about your creator. What sort of a creature is he/she/it? What does it look like, sound like, feel like? How did it go about designing a whole universe? What materials did it use and where did it get them? Did it have help?
You might start by explaining why the unknown writer of Genesis claims that the earth existed a least three days before the rest of the universe, and what light it was that was separated from the darkness on the first day, and supplied morning and evening on the first three days, when the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Come on, creationists, you've got 150 years of catching-up to do.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It never ceases to amaze me that seemingly intelligent people try to justify the many contradictions of their 'sacred texts'. The bible does not stand up to scrutiny for a moment, yet people desparately cling to their beliefs. I think believers have an 'emotional' need to think they are not alone, and they will not die, but go to paradise forever. Look at the many thousands of confident religions throughout human history, they can't all have been right. They could however, all be wrong.
What is it that religionist have against learning something new? They eventually end up giving the glory to �God� anyway once every other moron has come to accept it as fact; that is if they do not succeed in silencing the open minded rational thinker who discovered it. The only reason we do not still live in the dark ages is that the church finally fell out of graces with government. But that doesn�t mean it cannot happen again, ala king gwb.
Where do you all get off being so self-righteous? You're as bad as the creationists you're condemning! Okay, so evolution does seem very rational and logical, but can you explain its flaws? The main one of those being: Wtf catalysed the start of life (and the universe) in the first place?
You seem to misunderstand the concept of God: he (who is not male, the pronoun is used in convention) transcends the universe and all perception. Consider this: the Big Bang theory, the most widely believed theory regarding the creation of the universe states that all matter occupied a volume of 0 prior to the big bang, in otherwords nothing existed. Then something catalysed this giant explosion called the Big Bang and our universe was born. Now what could have started the Big Bang if nothing existed before it? It had to be something that exists outside of the universe i.e. GOD. As God exists outside of the Universe, I conjecture that he is beyond the constraints of the Universe, he was not created and cannot be perceived.
Now, in scientific terms creationism cannot be falsified, but if you consider both Creationism and Evolution from an epistemological perspective, neither theory is any more likely than the other. So as always, it boils down to faith: some put their faith in science and others put their faith in God. To each their own I say.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of God: he (who is not male, the pronoun is used in convention) transcends the universe and all perception. Consider this: the Big Bang theory, the most widely believed theory regarding the creation of the universe states that all matter occupied a volume of 0 prior to the big bang, in otherwords nothing existed. Then something catalysed this giant explosion called the Big Bang and our universe was born. Now what could have started the Big Bang if nothing existed before it? It had to be something that exists outside of the universe i.e. GOD. As God exists outside of the Universe, I conjecture that he is beyond the constraints of the Universe, he was not created and cannot be perceived.
Now, in scientific terms creationism cannot be falsified, but if you consider both Creationism and Evolution from an epistemological perspective, neither theory is any more likely than the other. So as always, it boils down to faith: some put their faith in science and others put their faith in God. To each their own I say.
To equate the knowledge provided by science with anything one chooses to believe demonstrates either logical absurdity or a profound ignorance of what science is and does. The knowledge gained by science is in no way a product of faith nor is faith a requirement or a means to practice science or appreciate what science provides.
Faith is belief in whatever, divorced from a need for the knowledge that supports and thereby gives a reasonable basis for that belief. This is as far from what science is and does as it can possibly be.
The creationist�s/religionist�s gripe, �that science does not have (or may never have) all the answers�, is like the cries of a spoiled child who has never been denied any whim their reality deprived minds can conceive. It�s an �all or nothing� mentality that feels no need to demonstrate that it has earned anything.
Even if it was somehow proved that everything that science claims is wrong, this would still not provide a rational basis for turning to faith to obtain knowledge and understanding of reality. The beauty of science is that it clearly shows what its claims are based on and is open to rational refutation. When science can not (as yet) provide evidence and a reasonable basis for its claims, science is silent. This allows each of us to determine, based on our individual understanding, whether or not to accept those claims. Science in general is not concerned with what an individual believes. The purpose of science is to obtain and substantiate knowledge of reality based on a rigorous and proven process of observation and experimentation.
cont.
Self-righteousness is detrimental to gaining knowledge and understanding of anything. So believe as you wish, but don�t claim that because you believe in �God� your �shortcut� to �knowledge� in anyway shares the same justification for belief as the answers that science has so generously and carefully provided.
Whether a person chooses to put their faith in science, �God� or whatever, this is a personal choice which should be respected as an essential individual right. But faith in anything will not bring anyone knowledge or understanding of anything.
Whether a person chooses to put their faith in science, �God� or whatever, this is a personal choice which should be respected as an essential individual right. But faith in anything will not bring anyone knowledge or understanding of anything.
Science doesn't have all the answers. Neither does it want all the answers. Scientists would rather have something they don't know about compared to something they do.
But to say that the bible isn't logically justified misses the whole point of the bible, a miracle isn't scientific just as the x-men or superman don't need full scientific credentials, its magic, a superpower, or in the case of the bible it is the power of almighty God.
mibn2cweus im afraid has issed an importnat phase in human civilsation, the one where the church encouraged scientific advance and research through the 19th and 18th centuries, most great scientists were also clergymen and had a strong faith, they sought to understand God's work and the church promoted this.
Also the bible doesn't contradict itself, and neither does any holy text. Some of the cleverest people alive have studied and interpreted these books without finding any contradictions. Please give them a little credit.
All i can say is respect both view-points and try to be rational. You wax lyrical about the irrational behaviour of religion and the logical approach of science, then ruin it with your !!! and petty insults.
Zevon, I really don't know where to start with a response to your answer,but let's start with your assertion "the bible doesn't contradict itself"...The bible is stuffed full of contradictions! A good starting point I would suggest would be http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/. Take your pick from the many, many contradictions and inaccuracies there.
All the contradictions I've looked at lie in translations, as aLAtin student the lack of definite articles and the lack of definite definitions in hic,haec,hoc and qui,quod que etc. allow for these interpretations made by people who are just as bad as those that they ridicule. Or in Latin they/them/those/those whom/the masses/the crowd/the rabble/the people they ridicule.
Aside from minor grammatical flaws of slightly vague personal pronouns that can only be conmsidered a true contardiction by a true pedant, the bible contains no major contradictions. By major i mean something that would actually affect the faith of the believers and their actions/thoughts.
And please watch the ! sorry to be pedantic but you wouldn't normally shout the sentence so why write it?
The very fact that the annotated bible is illustrated with laughing heads and pictures from the brick testament (pure genuius I agree) may hint that they aren't a concrete source. I prefer to take qualified theologians and philosophers explanatiuons and views, then consider them before making my own mind up rather than jump on the first bandwagon that suits my personal opinion and seems the cleverest. Remember the thin line between cleverness and arrogant smugness, I always do, as a matter of fact I'm dancing on the line right now.
If �God� is an essential ingredient to your belief system than you have my blessing. What I object to is the negative impact that many believers have with their disparity of humanity and the human struggle to find the value, meaning, and respect that is required to live as a responsible and caring individual here on this Earth. Belief in �God� (whatever that is and means) does not automatically include a person among their ranks.
By the way, the dancing, nice moves!
By the way, the dancing, nice moves!
Either scientists (such as my slef) or creationists (such as my frineds) are more or less the same, they can both be sound but they can both be jerks. ironically this jerkiness arises at the same time, when people are so convinced their ight and can't understand what anyone else is doing that they miss the other people's point.
Creationists ask why we can't see how fantastic and beautiful the world is and how we can't see that this is divine. Ignoring the fact that scientists don't set out to prove the wolrd isn't divine, but simply to understand the world whatever it is.
Meanwhile Scientists ask why creationists can possibly believe in these scientifically impossible stories and how they can put their trust and live their lives according to an invisible, unprovable impossible being.. Missing the whole point of faith and the essence of belief, it is precisle y that belief not proof, it doesn't need facts and evidence to enforce it just the person to believe its true.
I don't care which view you hold unless you can have a proper discussion about ti, as I said earlier I have many interesting conversations with theologians and yet I don't believ, while I have had interesting discussions with biologists and there are oparts of creation that they can't convince me about. I'm just waiting. But if all you can do is try to shout out opponents and belittle them to get your point across then I don't want to hear it.
People get a lot more angry in this issue and other religion vs scince issues, yet there is never this much brouhaha about UFO believers and peoiple convinced in conspiracy theories and abductions, yet they are a matter of belief and have no evidence. Why do peope, get so worked up abput creationism on both sides of the fence?
Passion and Reason must share an intimate relationship to produce a successful outcome for either.
Reason can not be practiced consistently without impassioned motivation, and devotion and a reciprocal emotional response to what is gained in the process.
Passion divorced from reason, the source from which it is derived, will wane with the growing impotence of mindless uncertainty and inevitably regrettable consequences.
There is no passion for truth where meaning has withered in a mind that has relinquished reason.
Reason can not be practiced consistently without impassioned motivation, and devotion and a reciprocal emotional response to what is gained in the process.
Passion divorced from reason, the source from which it is derived, will wane with the growing impotence of mindless uncertainty and inevitably regrettable consequences.
There is no passion for truth where meaning has withered in a mind that has relinquished reason.
mibn2cweus, you're a good writer I'll give you that, but you're argumentative skill leaves a lot to be desired - using a high degree of formal lexis along with a few amateurish metaphors doesn't distract from the fact that your opinons, which you so confidently propagate as fact are fallacious.
"There is no passion for truth where meaning has withered in a mind that has relinquished reason."
Poetic? Yes. Factual? No
Theists have made myriad discoveries and countless contributions to Science and the world...from where have you derived this conclusion?
You're comments on this topic wreak of arrogance and self-importance. Does this debate with Zevon need to go on, you've clearly made up your mind and are unlikely to even begin to seriously consider any alternative point of view.
Chakka35, sorry about hijacking you're thread with that little game there.
Science, whether in its most complicated and advanced forms or even when it is at its simplest, is based on a few axioms. If anyone of those basic axioms is put under sustained and serious logical scrutiny (of the kind that those on this thread claim to prize) an element of faith can be found. In mathematics 1 + 1 = 2...or does it? Can you tell me why? or how? Why doesn't 1 plus 1 equal 3 or some as yet undefined quantity, if any at all? Is the first 1truly equivalent to the second? While it isn't pragmatic to live a life denying axioms such as this one, their shortcomings shouldn't be forgotten. Science itself accepts that nothing is certain...just look at quantum physics. Open you mind!
"There is no passion for truth where meaning has withered in a mind that has relinquished reason."
Poetic? Yes. Factual? No
Theists have made myriad discoveries and countless contributions to Science and the world...from where have you derived this conclusion?
You're comments on this topic wreak of arrogance and self-importance. Does this debate with Zevon need to go on, you've clearly made up your mind and are unlikely to even begin to seriously consider any alternative point of view.
Chakka35, sorry about hijacking you're thread with that little game there.
Science, whether in its most complicated and advanced forms or even when it is at its simplest, is based on a few axioms. If anyone of those basic axioms is put under sustained and serious logical scrutiny (of the kind that those on this thread claim to prize) an element of faith can be found. In mathematics 1 + 1 = 2...or does it? Can you tell me why? or how? Why doesn't 1 plus 1 equal 3 or some as yet undefined quantity, if any at all? Is the first 1truly equivalent to the second? While it isn't pragmatic to live a life denying axioms such as this one, their shortcomings shouldn't be forgotten. Science itself accepts that nothing is certain...just look at quantum physics. Open you mind!
1+1=2 not because of faiht but because of language.
Humasn made mathematics so we get to set the terms just like in football if the ball goes in the net from a penalty is it a goal? You seem to imply that it might not be as football is an axiom. No, it ius a goal because we made football and we defined what a goal is. We defined what a metre is and how heavy a kilogram is, and 2 or deux or dos will always be twice as big as 1 or une or uno. Mathematics isn't a true science as this thread means, instead maths is the one definite science because we defined what maths is, a science is a logical process of reasonable discussion backed up with evidence.
However your right, true sciences accept that nothing is certain and that everything we have is just a theory and could still change or be proved totally wrong.
But don't stifle mibn2cweus, he is just as allowed to declare his opinions as I am or you are.
If you choose to believe that one plus one equals zero, if we just have an open mind, then you obviously have not been to the Moon, physically or intellectually. To question whether anyone has actually walked on the Moon is certainly within reason. Without an understanding of where and how a fact of reality is derived, knowledge is only as good as a guess. Without the certainty of what knowledge itself is, those who have walked on the surface of the Moon must be black and blue from pinching themselves every morning to confirm that they themselves exist let alone have done the Moonwalk, (and I don�t just mean fancy dancin�).
Certainty is not achieved by believing but by basing what you believe on the only available source we have for acquiring information about reality; the data that is given to us by our perceptual faculties. Beyond what we perceive, all knowledge must be confirmed by an unerring process of logic which shows how a supposed fact of knowledge is related to the self-evident proof of perception.
Logic is the art of non-contradiction. If I were to say, �Certainty can not be achieved�, I would be stating a contradiction. That statement refutes its own premise. If I were to say, �Reason has no power to arrive at truth�, . . . contradiction. If I were to say, �Existence does not exist�, the only way I could attempt to prove my statement is by ceasing to exist.
�Gobbledy gook� you say �What does that have to do with what I choose to believe. What some people believe brings them to fly one product of science into another, simply because some of the people residing there may not believe as they do.
Be careful and mindful of what you choose to believe because ultimately, what you choose to do follows from what you believe, and these, your actions, have consequences that are very real. The Moon and humanity exist; the �Twin Towers� do not.
Certainty is not achieved by believing but by basing what you believe on the only available source we have for acquiring information about reality; the data that is given to us by our perceptual faculties. Beyond what we perceive, all knowledge must be confirmed by an unerring process of logic which shows how a supposed fact of knowledge is related to the self-evident proof of perception.
Logic is the art of non-contradiction. If I were to say, �Certainty can not be achieved�, I would be stating a contradiction. That statement refutes its own premise. If I were to say, �Reason has no power to arrive at truth�, . . . contradiction. If I were to say, �Existence does not exist�, the only way I could attempt to prove my statement is by ceasing to exist.
�Gobbledy gook� you say �What does that have to do with what I choose to believe. What some people believe brings them to fly one product of science into another, simply because some of the people residing there may not believe as they do.
Be careful and mindful of what you choose to believe because ultimately, what you choose to do follows from what you believe, and these, your actions, have consequences that are very real. The Moon and humanity exist; the �Twin Towers� do not.
I have only two words for religions:- Legalised brainwashing.
Why don't all these religious fanatics start to believe in something that they know exists. I don't believe there is some superhuman being up there in the sky that answers to your every whim. Do they have any evidence to back this up? You may as well believe in fairys' at the bottom of the garden.
Why don't all these religious fanatics start to believe in something that they know exists. I don't believe there is some superhuman being up there in the sky that answers to your every whim. Do they have any evidence to back this up? You may as well believe in fairys' at the bottom of the garden.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.