Origin of Creationism

originally posted by: wtf2008
Anyone in this thread that claims to 'know' whether one theory or the other is correct is, in nice terms, really closed minded, and in not so nice terms, a narcissist with delusions of grandeur.

You can all cite bible quotes and scientific papers all you want. There is no right or wrong answer because nobody 'knows'. Not respecting another persons beliefs is the absolute height of arrogance and hubris.

Irony.

Science is a new word from the middle ages in Europe. It means experimentation to reach knowledge.
Bones can't be dated period!!!!

Fossils of bones are dated based on association. Association has no scientific binding meaning is not accepted. Period!!!

a reply to: wtf2008

Ps. The notion that we must respect another's beliefs in this way is politically correct bilge water IMO. The very point of a discussion is to discuss, if you think a belief is ridiculous.....


The problems seem to come about when people become so emotionally attached to their view that they take criticism of it as personal insult, or are prepared to use such as a method of debate. The ad hominem style of argument is what should never happen.

Evolution was forced by court decree s.

It was never a science.. it was forced on people by terror of secular revolution s.

Look at them evolution propagandists totally passing through my posts not daring to challenge my challenge being creationist also represent Christianity here. They afraid to lose their fake superiority based on enforced lies and scams and Freuds.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolution was forced by court decree s.

It was never a science.. it was forced on people by terror of secular revolution s.

Lol.

It was found that it was based on genuine science and thus (unlike creationism) relevant to science based education...in one very small part of the world that adheres to the religious fundamentalist approach of using scripture in science class. For the rest of the 1st world, where science is accepted, it isn't an issue.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Not sure where the 'irony' is unless your an Alanis Morissette believer in irony. I'm actually undeclared. Not believing the bible and being an atheist are two very different things. I think most atheists don't know that you can believe in a creator without believing in the bible.

Obviously they ignore the scientific principal that observation and association has no scientific binding

originally posted by: wtf2008
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Not sure where the 'irony' is unless your an Alanis Morissette believer in irony. I'm actually undeclared. Not believing the bible and being an atheist are two very different things. I think most atheists don't know that you can believe in a creator without believing in the bible.

I wonder how you got to speak on behalf of atheists, or how you might really know what most atheists believe? Apart from the obvious lack of belief in religious gods, from there on it could be very diverse.

Though I don't doubt that you miss the irony.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The notion of anyone thinking they know the unknowable is ridiculous. It's not emotion actually, it falls into your scientific fact. Find me a scientist that thinks he can disprove creationism and I'll show you a person that has no reason and is very closed minded and narcissistic. Any one that claims to 'know' something that is unknowable is by very definition narcissistic.

The bible can maybe be proven to be false, I agree. But thinking that the very little we know about 'science' right now somehow proves that there was not something, someone, or some force to create us is very naive as well.

I'm just saying that it's very easy and almost necessary to think about both. Thinking that it was just some serendipitous set of circumstances is just as ridiculous as believing in a guiding force. We currently don't understand either.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolution was forced by court decree s.

It was never a science.. it was forced on people by terror of secular revolution s.

Look at them evolution propagandists totally passing through my posts not daring to challenge my challenge being creationist also represent Christianity here. They afraid to lose their fake superiority based on enforced lies and scams and Freuds.

Can someone please explain what this means? I don't have a clue. Some kind of confused babble based on extremely bad information perhaps?

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Obviously they ignore the scientific principal that observation and association has no scientific binding

What do you mean by this? Can you expand on this so called scientific principle?

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Science is a new word from the middle ages in Europe. It means experimentation to reach knowledge.
Bones can't be dated period!!!!

Fossils of bones are dated based on association. Association has no scientific binding meaning is not accepted. Period!!!

You really don't know anything about this topic do you? Please stop reading AiG, it will rot your brain.

Prove me wrong. Try it..tell me bones can be dated or power of association is scientifically binding..
Let me laugh. I

originally posted by: wtf2008
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The notion of anyone thinking they know the unknowable is ridiculous. It's not emotion actually, it falls into your scientific fact. Find me a scientist that thinks he can disprove creationism and I'll show you a person that has no reason and is very closed minded and narcissistic.

In general, science doesn't consider creationism (or give it a moments thought), because there is no scientific reason to consider it. That we don't "know" doesn't magically make creationism the valid alternative. It simply means we don't know (as yet).

Any one that claims to 'know' something that is unknowable is by very definition narcissistic.

The only people I see claiming to "know" are creationists.

The bible can maybe be proven to be false, I agree. But thinking that the very little we know about 'science' right now somehow proves that there was not something, someone, or some force to create us is very naive as well.

I agree completely. The reverse is also true. Claiming that you do actually "know" we were created and that it is valid science, based on belief, is not only naive but lacks intellectual integrity.

I'm just saying that it's very easy and almost necessary to think about both. Thinking that it was just some serendipitous set of circumstances is just as ridiculous as believing in a guiding force. We currently don't understand either.

I agree with this also, in part. Science will base itself on what it can reasonably find using modern scientific methods. To include a creator (especially a religious god) at this stage can't be based on genuine science. If it could, science would accept it. That doesn't mean there cannot be anything, there could well be.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Prove me wrong. Try it..tell me bones can be dated or power of association is scientifically binding..
Let me laugh. I

Given by your high-handed sudden superiority and the way that you are dismissing anything that disproves your religious contentions, I doubt that anything will convince you otherwise. Are you Ken Ham?

a reply to: wtf2008

The claims of Creationism regarding the origins of life and the cosmos have been debunked.
No evidence in favor of creationism has ever been presented.

I know you think you're coming at this from some new and impressive angle but you're not. These arguments have been debunked countless of times in this forum alone.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: wtf2008
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Not sure where the 'irony' is unless your an Alanis Morissette believer in irony. I'm actually undeclared. Not believing the bible and being an atheist are two very different things. I think most atheists don't know that you can believe in a creator without believing in the bible.

I wonder how you got to speak on behalf of atheists, or how you might really know what most atheists believe? Apart from the obvious lack of belief in religious gods, from there on it could be very diverse.

Though I don't doubt that you miss the irony.

Theism, in most cases is based on a biblical God. The 'term' Atheist literally means that you don't believe in God. Most of the ''Atheists" I know, or have spoken to, aren't so literal.

They just don't believe in the bible. It's a book with fairy tales that may or may not have happened. I don't think I speak for all Atheists, but I can say that the atheists I've spoken to are mostly concerned with not believing bible stories. Guess why? Because they can be proven wrong.

What can't be proven is how life, supposedly intelligent life, somehow evolved.
It's really just as unbelievable as theism. If we weren't here to argue about if some kind of God did or didn't exist then it wouldn't really matter. We'd be monkeys throwing # at each other (I'd throw so much # at you). But somehow it 'magically' happened very quickly. I haven't kept up, is human evolution an actual proven fact yet? Because I thought science knew everything.

a reply to: wtf2008

I'm an atheist and I don't trust the bible and I literally don't believe in god. In any way, shape or form.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: wtf2008

I'm an atheist and I don't trust the bible and I literally don't believe in god. In any way, shape or form.

I can certainly understand that, in fact I find that view fair enough. At least it is consistent with what we can observe.

I find that most atheists that I know, arrive at a similar opinion after evaluation of both sides of this argument and seem to be more knowledgeable of religion, than religious devotees.

Though it is possible there could be "something" (IMO)...that doesn't mean there definitely is, it certainly won't be the anthropomorphic being as depicted in popular religious myth. Now there's narcissist! This being simply cannot be supported in any way, scientifically, philosophically or anything else-ophically.

originally posted by: wtf2008

Theism, in most cases is based on a biblical God. The 'term' Atheist literally means that you don't believe in God. Most of the ''Atheists" I know, or have spoken to, aren't so literal.

...and who could blame them for that?

They just don't believe in the bible. It's a book with fairy tales that may or may not have happened. I don't think I speak for all Atheists, but I can say that the atheists I've spoken to are mostly concerned with not believing bible stories. Guess why? Because they can be proven wrong.

Fair enough, couldn't agree more regarding the bible.

What can't be proven is how life, supposedly intelligent life, somehow evolved.
It's really just as unbelievable as theism.

Does science "prove" things? That's a subjective term to begin with.

If we weren't here to argue about if some kind of God did or didn't exist then it wouldn't really matter. We'd be monkeys throwing # at each other (I'd throw so much # at you).

But somehow it 'magically' happened very quickly. I haven't kept up, is human evolution an actual proven fact yet? Because I thought science knew everything.

Science hardly claims to "know everything". Otherwise science itself would be unnecessary lol. What it does claim to understand is always being revised and discounted if necessary.

Evolution itself is a fact.

The notion that it is the process responsible for the diversity we now see on this planet and the theory that propose this, is backed by a lot of science (every relevant branch of science) and has no viable alternative. So it is accepted as a common fact by most scientists. It seems more the details that are always being challenged and refined.

Though if you genuinely feel it isn't (based on the science itself), that's up to you. Having people that think out of the box isn't always a bad thing, one day you might give science a better alternative. You also, might not.