Is Creationism Dead?

a reply to: ThePheonix16482

a reply to: Another_Nut

I see what you're talking about. But I don't think the original poster was talking about the various creation myths from all time. I believe they were talking about Creation by the Christian God, found in Genesis of the bible. That's what most people mean when they say, "Creation"... I thought you meant that biblical creation was corroborated somewhere other than the Christian bible.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Creationism is not dead. It's an idea from a book and it will not die. We still have the Flat Earth Society, remember. It's simply a thought, a story.

Creationism and Flat Earth cannot be compared to evolution. The first are thoughts. Evolution is science. There is no science whatsoever involved in the other two. Comparing them is like comparing gravity to garden fairies.

And science gets it wrong often. There is nothing at all linking primates to humans, but this doesn't mean all evolution is wrong. Evolution is a natural bi-product of creation. There is plenty of reason to consider creation other than just science, especially since science doesn't have the answers about human existence in any way. Just faith based theories which can't be proven.
There is also the fact that our human DNA is far less viable today than it was thousands of years ago, so we are definitely not evolving and this has already been proven by science.
The human race will never "Evolve" since it is deteriorating as we speak. 10,000 years ago humans were taller, smarter, and far stronger than today.
Everything in the cosmos is governed by physical laws and are well ordered, but you wish to believe all of that is done by magic and a universe that has no awareness at all but just put it all together in a big flash of light.
Okay... I'll use faith for what I believe based on my own experience and awareness, and you can do the same. You get no argument from me.
Humans are creatures of faith whether you like it or not, since everyone uses faith in order to plan for what may come tomorrow. And science also uses faith which is proven out when new discoveries show they had it completely wrong.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I think people say creation as a proxy

So they pretend they are not singling christians out

But its just a way to bash christians while pretending to be above it

a reply to: Another_Nut

Howdy,

I agree with you that most people think of Christianity when they think of Creationism (do note the capital C). This is likely because many of the posters here on ATS (myself included) grew up in a nation of predominantly Christian peoples. When I hear Creationism in the news, it is most often (in fact always in my case, but I certainly don't read as much news as many...) the Christian varieties. Here's a link from wikipedia, where you will notice that the god of Abraham is the core belief unifying many forms of Creationism...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, I do not think I'm trying to "bash Christians" when I argue against Creationism. I do believe I am merely arguing against Creationism and the logic it "employs." Personally, I have nothing against Christians, and living in rural America, many of my friends and family are indeed Christians. Honestly, I don't even mind if you want to disregard all of science and believe in Creationism. That's your right (if you live in a country where it is so).

What I take offense to is when people start trying to force Creationism into schools as a form of science. It is not science. What Creationism is is a belief system, and it should not be forced upon anyone receiving a public (government funded) education for the same reason that I would not force others to accept reality as portrayed by science. In short, stay away from science and the secular bureaucracies of my nation and I don't care what you believe. If you want to believe that the moon is made of holographic goat cheese flung up into the sky by Zeus during a battle with a giant beaver, I won't stop you. I may sigh and lose a little faith in humanity, but I won't stop you.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

Edit: Apologies if this was a bit off topic. I was arguing with myself over whether or not I should post this here.

a reply to: hydeman11

No problems im agnostic lol

But to many times here at ats ive tried to debate creation

Either old religion or new thoughts such as fine tuning or simulation

And it seems that when I get into these discussions it always boils down to Christianity and the bible and six thousand years

Its the same ol evolution vs creation

Nevermind that they explain two different phenomenon

On up to two different levels

I spent more time trying to get people to see that all creation isnt christian than actual creation

It can be very disheartening sometimes

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Astyanax


Creationism started dying nearly two hundred years ago when the knowledge of Geology began to tear down the dogma.

I stopped debating E vs C ten years ago as the C's had run out of anything interesting to say other than, E would die so and didn't work and God did it.

Is C dead? No and I suspect it will continue on for many generations, becoming more and more isolated, denial bound, marginalized, laughed at until, many generations from now, it will becomes an odd little cult and a footnote to history.

In my circles, and soon ALL circles, the circle-**** of the new religions disguised as science are revealed as no more telling the truth than flat-earthers.

Science does NOTHING to explain anywhere NEAR enough, because it is controlled by the same group that lead the religions, to totally make sure the SCIENTISTS are not allowed to really find out the truth,

Neither Creationism or Evolutionism are complete, and they are never going to be, since the actual reality could be more of a combo of both, mixed in with a WHOLE LOT of other things no one is allowed to mention.

I scoff at the Evolutionists, as much as the Creationists, because in reality they are the SAME THING.

Gatekeepers, sworn to make sure we do not look in the other areas, they stifle information, and pretend to release astonishing results here and there, but NEVER allow full truth.

As per agreement.

When you say "Creationism",
are you referring to Gods or Aliens? Because my Uncle told me there is no God but I'll be damned if I don't believe in aliens.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Another_Nut

I'm certainly glad you weren't offended. I'm an agnostic atheist, so that should make my stance on this issue clearer.

It seems to me as though the OP had the Christian Creationism hypotheses in mind when writing this, but I do agree not all creation myths are Christian. Now, you've also seemingly accepted one of the things that the OP was apparently discussing.

Creationism vs. evolution is a stale debate. Scientific evidence does not change drastically, although it may be added to and refined, and certainly Christian beliefs do not change, although more contrived hypotheses that more often than not require multiple miracles might be postulated. Really, the evidence is out there on both sides, regardless of your personal beliefs, and neither science nor faith are going to drastically change, right?

Although, let me just say, thank you for addressing the fact that evolution and Creationism address somewhat different things. Sure, they both address the origin of the variety of life on Earth, but evolution seeks to explain the diversification (speciation) of life while Creationism is only interested with the spontaneous creation of organisms as unique species. In a way, it should be abiogenesis against Creationism, as the theory of evolution only explains the diversity after life began and does not seek to explain a beginning of life on Earth.

Again, I do believe that this thread was addressing Christian hypotheses of Creationism only, and I am sorry that you have become disheartened. I too have experienced continued inabilities to properly communicate with others because they refused to operationalize (define) the terms they were using or simply conflated definitions (common definition of theory and scientific definition of theory are a big problem...). It would be a noble goal indeed should we all strive to be more clear in our communications.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

Gadzooks!

a reply to: StalkerSolent

How are you defining creationism?

Good question. Thanks.

I define creationism as 'a sociopolitical movement to deny the veracity of scientific theories of biogenesis and evolution and to promote in their place a spurious narrative in which the origins and variety of life on Earth are attributed to a supernatural creator, usually the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic God.'

Just to be clear, I include the 'intelligent design' movement within the larger creationist movement. The details may vary, but the claims and the underlying narrative are no different.

*

I notice that my thread shows signs of degenerating into the usual battle of declarations ('Creation!' 'No, evolution!' — repeat ad infinitum). This is a sure sign that the debate is moribund. A lot of people are saying that creationism is alive and that new stuff is coming out of the movement but nobody's posting links to any of it.

In the wider sociopolitical arena, I don't see creationism making any headway, anywhere in the world. There are many places where it is strongly entrenched — basically, wherever religious hierarchies rule and education is sub-standard — but it seems not to be spreading. Not, that is, unless you count the recent territorial gains in the Middle East by ISIS, which you may be sure is loaded to the scuppers with evolution-deniers.

a reply to: hydeman11

I think u might need to reread the op

He mentions id political creationists
And all sorts of baseless assertions before mentioning anthing christian

And that is a thing about noah

Christians and the bible and the 6k

All brought up just by thr term creation

And for gods sake man he still thinks that the other side of creation is evolution

Which ,I believe we already agree , dont even go to explain the same thing

UNLESS you are speaking to the christian omnippotent god

Therfore making creation a proxy

I think that brings us full circle to my original 2 posts on page one

Thank you

a reply to: Another_Nut

Again, I think Astyanax's post rather clarifies of which Creationisms he is referring to with this thread, and those are indeed the Creationisms that invoke the Abrahamic god, which includes the god of the bible, which does make Christian Creationism a proxy for evolution in these cases. I agree with you otherwise, but your argument here is a straw man (unintentional, as his definition of what he considers Creationism was lacking clarity) in this regard. Clear communication does a world of good.

Regards,
Hydeman

edit: Apologies, perhaps I assumed too much here, as indicated by the below post. I too missed the point of this thread.

a reply to: Another_Nut

he still thinks that the other side of creation is evolution

You have not understood what this thread is about. It isn't about 'creation vs. evolution'. The attempt to oppose them is itself a creationist ploy. This thread is about creationism vs. science — a confrontation between two narratives in the public mind. I am proposing that science has bested creationism in that encounter, and that while there are still plenty of creationists in the world, creationism as a sociopolitical movement, particularly in America, is dead.

What are your views on that?

The utterly childish and foolhardy lack of respect for people of different views in this thread is off-putting to the point of being disgusting.

From magical monkeys, to evil imaginary sky men. What is wrong with you people?

Both sides are disparaging the beliefs of the other on baseless grounds.

To Evolutionists: That is someone's God that you are callously demeaning. Attempt a bit more decorum.

To Creationists: Just because an Evolutionist doesn't believe in your God creating the universe, that doesn't give you the right to disregard all observations made by science over the centuries.

In short, ALL of you need to grow up.

I think you can relate Creationism to all the recent discoveries of things that "shouldn't" be happening according to the laws of physics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread addresses several.

Evolution is nice and all but terribly dull & takes far too long to fit into the human ideal of instant gratification.
I think spontaneous evolution is not the exception, but in fact the rule. & we are long overdue.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Howdy,

I disagree about that thruster discovery. Apparently the physics behind that are based in quantum mechanics, which is governed by a whole different type of physics than what is covered by traditional physics. It's why physicists argue over relativity and quantum mechanics, searching for a unified theory. The laws of physics aren't "unbreakable", and they are indeed human constructs that serve to model reality under certain circumstances. It just so happens that the circumstances under which the law of conservation operates in our physical world does not operate the same way in the quantum world. I'm not a physicist though, so I'd suggest doing some more research on what actual physicist have to say and not taking my word for it.

As for the idea of instant gratification, are you seriously suggesting that evolution is not real because humans wouldn't like it?

Regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: pennydrops

I agree but at least your are not over simplifying something into magical monkeys.

For the record i am not a staunch evolution believer just was taken back by that comment
Eta: you kinda are over simplifying things with the magic cell containing all the dna for all life. While yes it is kinda true what you are saying, still a rather simplification of the theory.
My biggest prob with creationism is the 6000 year timeline. Not saying you all subscribe to that but just don't see how people can stick to that

Well then you don't have a problem.

The 6000 year time line is not Biblical, at all. The earth is millions of years old, and mainstream preachers have it wrong because they hardly research themselves.

I'm a Christian, and I know the earth is hundreds of millions of years old.

a reply to: xstealth

Thank you for preaching some truth. Nowhere in the bible does it say 6000 years, that's just the genealogy given in the bible. Unfortunately, I'd argue that the Earth is more on the order of 4.54 billion or so years old than merely hundreds of millions, but thank you for being reasonable.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

is definition of what he considers Creationism was lacking clarity

Iis perfectly clear from my opening post that I am speaking of creationism as a political movement. In what other sense could the post otherwise be understood? Enlighten me, please.

a reply to: Another_Nut

So then you know of the Archons?