Is Creationism Dead?

originally posted by: edfloaters
a little of topic but check this out proof that the sun orbits the earth or does it

there is an easy way to prove this and nasa and many others must of seen it already and lied
here it goes if you take an image from a polar satellite travelling around the north pole towards the oncoming sunrise then the earth should appear to be spinning west to east and the sun should move towards you through out the orbit of the satellite this would prove the earth orbits the sun
if the sun moves and the earth is stationary then the only scenario is that the sun orbits the earth

there is no relativity in this experiment therfore deffinitivly proving it one way or the other for good

if you can find time lapse footage of sun movement relative to earth from non relative(if earth spins) satellite then you have the answer i cant find it

Sorry, take your 'theory' away please. Utter round objects.

a reply to: Astyanax

Again this seems that you are defining creationism to mean christianity

This is a proxy war against them

Just come out and say it

If it wasnt yiur definition wouldn't be so obvious

a reply to: Prezbo369

ones mans "mountains of evidence" is not everyone's version of "mountains of evidence", so get back to me when you have an eye witness, I'd love to speak to him/her, and i'll get back to you when I see GOD.

As for now, I see mountains of reasons why I believe we have a CREATOR, I also see a "good reason to believe", and you'd have realised this from my previous post if you really studied anything at all.

On a side note, is your avatar a selfie?

a reply to: Another_Nut

There are plenty of creation myths. I realize, however the story in the bible isn't believed to be a myth by a great many people.

originally posted by: Thejaybird
This is, at best, reductive, and at worst, disingenuous. Either way, you have taken an extremely complex collection of books and tried to use your disbelief of it as a blunt tool to further a petty argument that stakes no claims nor introduces any level of discourse. Bravo.

If this is your true understanding of the Bible, then you have not spent very much time researching its history, studying the huge amount of evidence that supports its veracity, and you have missed the mountain of critical papers written by both historians and scholars in support of its authenticity.

Of course it's reductive, I'm not about to write an epic post detailing my beliefs concerning the bible.

Petty argument? Not petty, not arguing, just stating my opinion.

This isn't the extent of my knowledge or understanding of the bible. Again, I am not about to write a book's worth of information to satisfy your curiosity, gain your approval, or have a debate. I have been having, often times, heated theological debates with people of different belief structures since I left Christianity 20 years ago. The truth is I don't care to debate, because in the end I just don't care anymore.

So my official response to your reply is: So?

a reply to: Another_Nut

Again this seems that you are defining creationism to mean christianity

Only to you, I suspect. Have you checked with some of the other posters?

Most all believe that u are talking about Christianity

See hydemans replys and apology

Reread the thread most think u are . So much so that they assume it from the get go

reply to: Astyanax

originally posted by: borntowatch
...
The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.
...
The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.
...
The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
...
The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.
...
A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA.
...
Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

I'm an evolutionist but generally unless the other side come out with something incredibly stupid, I don't really care.

I've not highlighted the above because I think they're incredibly stupid points, I've highlighted them because I think they encapsulate a fundamental difference in approach between the two camps.

As a general, sweeping statement, creationists seem to believe that if science was correct we would already know, as if one day you get given a badge that says "scientist" and a big book with all the answers to everything. Scientists, in contrast, accept that they can only base a theory on the evidence available and the limitations of their own knowledge - they can know something is wrong, even if they cannot yet identify what is right.

The points I highlighted above are symptomatic of this - there is nothing that proves creationism, simply a list of things that scientists haven't yet managed to explain to creationists' satisfaction in relation to the models currently in use - in other words, if you don't know the answer then it must be God. If you can't give a perfect answer right here, right now, then everything you have ever said on the matter must be incorrect. Because God.

Try applying that logic to other areas of science. Go back 200 years and ask a scientist to build a fully-functioning nuclear warhead. If they can't give the right answer right there and then, under creationist logic this is proof that it simply cannot be true. So clearly, all those scientists building them in the 1940s were delusional and no bombs were ever dropped on Japan. Because God.

At the centre of all creationism arguments is the simple yet terrible conceit - if we cannot imagine it happening, then it could not happen. In other words, creationism relies entirely on the premise that God is not allowed to be any smarter than the theory's exponents.

originally posted by: Astyanax
It certainly seems to be on ATS.

There has been a dearth of new threads in this forum lately, and the ones that are still active are simple variations on the yes-it-is-no-it-isn't theme. Nothing new seems to be happening in this area at all.

Of course, the evolutionist side (that's my side, in case you were wondering) posts news of recent scientific discoveries that further substantiate evolutionary theory from time to time, because science is always advancing. But from the creationist side, there's been nothing but the same old same old ever since Michael Behe's spurious claims of irreducible complexity were blown out of the water nine years ago.

Unless a new Dark Age dawns upon the earth (or perhaps just in the USA), there is very little hope of political creationists and members of the Intelligent-design movement making any further headway in the culture. Without credible science to prove their claims, their cause is hopeless.

The realization of this seems to be affecting more and more creationists. They're losing heart. They're closing down their Noah's Ark 'museums'. They're giving up.

It is, of course, always unwise to count the religiously-motivated out, even when they're down. For all that, it is looking more and more as if creationism as a political movement is dead, and that is is dying as a belief system, too, although there will be places — mainly America and the Muslim world — where it will be maintained on life-support for a few years yet.

I say the Creationism and Evolutionist thinking are both dead! In my opinion neither one can stand on its own as they are taught today. I would like to add that I believe in both, sort of.

I say that meaning I believe that the Creator created the universe and all that pertains thereto. I also believe the technique utilized for creation of mortal creatures on the worlds of time and space is evolution. It is a controlled evolution until the appearance of creature will, more specifically the attribute of Wisdom and Worship. At that point the given creature is biologically developed enough to carry on on their own.

Evolution still persists, but it is not externally controlled as it was in the earlier epochs.

I believe the problem people have with the thought of creationism is that it is primarily based on the Christian story of creation. I completely understand that. It is a story that is thousands of years old and was from a much more primitive time in our history. There is more advanced information out there to be found that discusses the origins of life, if one is interested in finding it.

Another problem that I believe gets in the way of people accepting creation is another problem with Christianity and that is the utter lack of descriptive detail of the celestial world. The bible would have you think that God alone does all things. It's like saying the CEO of McDonald's runs all the restaurants, it just doesn't work that way. God has created many differing orders of beings that control the different aspects of maintaining creation. Similar to how our body has different organs to keep us going, so does the universe, but those "organs" are intelligent beings.

One of those orders are called Life Carriers and they fashion and develop life on the worlds of space. They follow the master patterns of life, but life has to be developed for each planet (Evolution). They do not bestow life though, they can and do control the electro-chemical aspects, but the "breath of life" is bestowed through them into the dead matter and that comes from the spirit of God.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Another_Nut
If u guys think all the creation myths of the planet come from the bible

Then you have much more studying to do

Really? Where does it come from besides the bible?

The torah, quran, book of mormon ect

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Those guys don't belong in this thread.


They deserve they're own thread in a completely different forum..

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent


Try these:

1. Plants and animals did not evolve into their present forms, they were created as they now appear.
   
   How can this be disproven without time travel?
   
   
2. Human beings did not evolve into their present forms from a primate ancestor, but were created as they now appear.
   
   Again, this is a unfalsifiable claim made by creationists.
   
   
3. Human beings are in some essential way different from animals.
   
   Well, we do have air conditioning.
   
   
   
4. Living matter is in some essential way different from inanimate matter.
   
   What do you mean by this? Actually, nevermind, I'll cause thread drift again
   
   
   
5. Microevolution (the evolution of variation within a species) and macroevolution (the evolution of one species into another) are different. The first is possible. The second, never.
   
   I don't believe macroevolution has ever been observed in real-time, so I'm uncertain as to how it has been proved to exist. (With that being said, I think Creationists define it differently on purpose, so it may be that their definition of macroevolution has never been observed in real time.)
   
   
6. Complex organs such as the eye cannot have evolved through natural selection.

Again, this seems up in the air until it can be observed in real-time. The problem with Creationism is you can't directly disprove the idea that a God created everything, and most evolution is supposed to happened so long ago that it is only observable indirectly. As thus, much of is not reproducible, a key tenet of modern scientific theory. (Of course, unless a Deity shows up and creates another moon, Creationism isn't reproducible either!

On abiogenesis, that was my mistake; I made the typo And I apologize for getting off topic. It's a fascinating discussion.

I definitely disagree that Creationism is dying. For better or for worse, the idea is still out there, and will be as long as organized religion exists. Organized religion has existed as long as the advent of man, and I've seen no signs of it disappearing.

If you write a program that is procedural and emergent, you are considered a programming genius, yet when the creators of this cosmos do it, they are considered non-existent. Either a procedural mechanism exists which churns out slightly varied universes infinitely, or this universe was finely tuned and designed so that three-dimensional, physical evolutionary life could emerge, evolve, adapt and prosper in this independent cosmos.

The fractal chaos is a perfect order. Only when you realize that everything is exactly as it should be will you begin to see the true beauty of creation. The master does not need to be perfect at everything, he merely needs to change the subtle things that will lead him to his desired destination.

Materialism is lacking in one key area that humanity desperately needs, but it is the antithesis to the proposal that historically monotheists have made. The truth is that human beings are spiritual creatures, but they do not need to worship any gods, but they do need to learn how to become one. Only through mystical practices can you become strong enough to leave this dimension upon your death. If you fail to flex your muscles and to live while you are on this planet, you will perish here forever.

The reason higher dimensional beings hate you so much is that they must squabble for a fixed amount of luminosity, while human beings have all the powers of creation. Within you is a spark that can be blown into a blazing conflagration if you merely learn how to enliven it. You can become greater than even the most self-important beings if you merely choose to.

originally posted by: Haxsaw
a reply to: Prezbo369
ones mans "mountains of evidence" is not everyone's version of "mountains of evidence", so get back to me when you have an eye witness, I'd love to speak to him/her, and i'll get back to you when I see GOD.

An eye witness? is that what you consider undeniable evidence/proof? I guess the hundreds if not thousands of people that would've claimed to have been abducted by aliens/visited by Allah, Jesus, the Tetragrammaton just in the last 24hrs, that you can go and visit right now if you wanted to, were all telling the truth?....

Of course you don't, and for good reason (i hope). What would be evidence for all of those claims would be some form of physical proof, an alien artifact brought back from the spaceship, a gods hair sample etc.

Even if in your pre-school version of evolution an ape shapeshifted into a human in-front of someone and that person reported it to the nearest biology lab, that wouldn't be considered proof. People lie and people make things up to make themselves feel better.

As for now, I see mountains of reasons why I believe we have a CREATOR, I also see a "good reason to believe", and you'd have realised this from my previous post if you really studied anything at all.

I have to study your posts now? wth....

That evidence is things like the birds and the tree's right? sunsets etc? Not the smell of animal feces, the bloodbath that is the natural word, disease, starvation, child abuse etc etc etc?

On a side note, is your avatar a selfie?

No it's my dearest mother I'll have you know...

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Another_Nut
If u guys think all the creation myths of the planet come from the bible

Then you have much more studying to do

Really? Where does it come from besides the bible?

The torah, quran, book of mormon ect

Kinda variations of the same thing no?

a reply to: Another_Nut

they assume it from the get go

The assumption is false.

Creationism, as a movement in America, is largely Christian in its membership. However, it is also deeply entrenched throughout the Muslim world. In the Middle East, any mention of evolution or Darwin is taboo, and the suggestion that we are animals — let alone apes — is considered profoundly degrading.

I don't live in America. Your assumption that I am attacking Christians is false. I don't of think most American creationists as Christians; as a former member of the Anglican Church, I have a fairly strict definition of Christianity.

Besides, I am not attacking anyone; I am simply stating what I believe to be a fact: that the creationist movement is dead or dying. Apart from Kandinsky, who remarks that an agenda does not necessarily lose its potency when discredited scientifically, nobody had actually shown or suggested why I might be wrong.

originally posted by: ThePheonix16482
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Vedic texts, Mesopotamian Epics, Hindu Epics, Buddhist writings, Egyptian texts, One of the most modern and most complex (media and tv shows) , Inner circle documents. These are all (technically) creationism myths.

You indeed do have much more studying to do.

Creationism is indeed nowhere near dead.
The reason why: Dat Alien Theorism Do

Don't forget these
www.indians.org...

originally posted by: Another_Nut
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

Absolutely

I believe in a creator, we are co-creators, I create something new everyday.

a reply to: Nechash

That is a beautiful post,

a reply to: StalkerSolent

The fossil and microbiological records comfortably eliminate five of the six points I mentioned. The remaining point is eliminatd by Occam's Razor: living matter shows no difference from inanimate matter, either to observation or to analysis, so it is safe to say that it is not different.

Incidentally, there is no way to prove any proposition absolutely true or false: even the evidence of one's own senses is not trustworthy. It is a mistake, however, to believe that a proposition can be true just because it cannot be falsified absolutely. Reason has its uses; one of them is to judge what is true, and what is false, based on available, incomplete evidence.