It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do people laugh at creationists?

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
The answer is simple, they want to believe that we are the highest in the food chain, and we are superior. Does anyone truely believe that?




posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
"Whenever anybody tries to tell me that they believe it took place in seven days I reach for a fossil, and go: FOSSIL"

Lewis Black

richarddawkins.net...

[edit on 24-9-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
Within the United States, 10-15% of survey respondents are non-religious. In the world, however, an estimated 96% of the planet has some deity.


This simply isn't true, Hon. However, it really is a non issue and not the point. 96% is definitely wrong, though. No worries, though. HERE is a link to where it was discussed already. That should help since the percentages aren't the issue at the moment.


Evolution does not necessarily imply atheism, but creationism implies religious belief.

Furthermore, it seemed to me that you were claiming that people were programmed to be anti-Christian, and not referring to evolution at all.


No, sorry. I never brought Christianity into this or Anti-Christianity. Although that is actually what I believe, I never brought it up on purpose. I strictly stuck to the point of being a conspiracy against spirituality as a whole because that is what is also happening. Too many people, upon accepting evolutionary theory, not only toss the Judeo-Christian God aside, they toss the concept of spirituality aside all together.

This is such a huge part of the programming as I see it, as well. When we think of creation, we are having it shoved into our head that a false dilemma exists and that to believe in creation is to believe:

The universe is not one day over 6,000 years old.
The dinosaur fossils were put into the stratum by God to test our faith.
Adaptations do not occur.

Etc.

The above is laughable, even to many 'creationists.' However, when someone thinks of creationists, those are the first stereotypes that come to mind.


The reason for this is that though evolution does not directly have any bearing on the existence or non-existence of a god, it explains the biodiversity on this planet without supernatural agents.

Whether or not evolution occurred has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god... but the fact is, we do not need god to explain how biodiversity arose on Earth or why species tend to be well (though imperfectly) adapted to their environments.


That is what I JUST said.
You might need to reread my above post to you. No, evolution on a scientific level does not even bother to include the concept of God into it's theory. That's the scientific way. However it doesn't stop there and I made this very clear- I see evolution being used by some to actually negate the existence of God. That is when problems arise. Not that God is not taken into the equation in evolutionary theory but that the theory itself is used by some people to 'Kill God.'


For the scientifically minded, it becomes a function of Occam's Razor- remove that which is not needed for the explanation of observations: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

God is an entity being multiplied beyond necessity.


Please reread my post. It's that evolution and science are being used as a weapon against God and those who believe in God. I am not saying we need to start teaching in the science classroom that we have little invisible angles tinkering with our genetic code to help the evolutionary process.
THIS thread might help you better understand where I am coming from.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Not me. I understand evolution completely but I still allow room for some kind of intelligent force.


Yes, I know you do. Sorry, 'You' was just a general term. Not directed towards you specifically.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
OK, let me ask something. To be a true creationist, someone who takes Genesis very literally, then doesn't that imply, by definition, that:


Originally posted by AshleyD
The universe is not one day over 6,000 years old.
The dinosaur fossils were put into the stratum by God to test our faith.


You seem to be advocating the the universe was created by a Divine Being, which would still allow for evolution. I'm just a little confused about your viewpoint on the issue. It seems you are taking more of an ID stand on the issue, not a creationist one.

On another point, watch this:



Now my question from this is are there any Jews out there who are Creationists? He raises a good question, it's their book, so what is their take on it? It's something I've never seen any info on, and would like to know.

I would also like to say that I respect the right to believe whatever you choose to believe or not believe. This is not the type of discussion I would ever engage in elsewhere. But this is the forum to have such debates and I learn from these debates how the mindsets of others work, so never take it as an assault to your belief, whoever you may be.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
Within the United States, 10-15% of survey respondents are non-religious. In the world, however, an estimated 96% of the planet has some deity.


This simply isn't true, Hon. However, it really is a non issue and not the point. 96% is definitely wrong, though. No worries, though. HERE is a link to where it was discussed already. That should help since the percentages aren't the issue at the moment.


Evolution does not necessarily imply atheism, but creationism implies religious belief.

Furthermore, it seemed to me that you were claiming that people were programmed to be anti-Christian, and not referring to evolution at all.


No, sorry. I never brought Christianity into this or Anti-Christianity. Although that is actually what I believe, I never brought it up on purpose. I strictly stuck to the point of being a conspiracy against spirituality as a whole because that is what is also happening. Too many people, upon accepting evolutionary theory, not only toss the Judeo-Christian God aside, they toss the concept of spirituality aside all together.

This is such a huge part of the programming as I see it, as well. When we think of creation, we are having it shoved into our head that a false dilemma exists and that to believe in creation is to believe:

The universe is not one day over 6,000 years old.
The dinosaur fossils were put into the stratum by God to test our faith.
Adaptations do not occur.

Etc.

The above is laughable, even to many 'creationists.' However, when someone thinks of creationists, those are the first stereotypes that come to mind.


The reason for this is that though evolution does not directly have any bearing on the existence or non-existence of a god, it explains the biodiversity on this planet without supernatural agents.

Whether or not evolution occurred has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god... but the fact is, we do not need god to explain how biodiversity arose on Earth or why species tend to be well (though imperfectly) adapted to their environments.


That is what I JUST said.
You might need to reread my above post to you. No, evolution on a scientific level does not even bother to include the concept of God into it's theory. That's the scientific way. However it doesn't stop there and I made this very clear- I see evolution being used by some to actually negate the existence of God. That is when problems arise. Not that God is not taken into the equation in evolutionary theory but that the theory itself is used by some people to 'Kill God.'


For the scientifically minded, it becomes a function of Occam's Razor- remove that which is not needed for the explanation of observations: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

God is an entity being multiplied beyond necessity.


Please reread my post. It's that evolution and science are being used as a weapon against God and those who believe in God. I am not saying we need to start teaching in the science classroom that we have little invisible angles tinkering with our genetic code to help the evolutionary process.
THIS thread might help you better understand where I am coming from.




You speak a lot of "programming". What is it you call indoctrination from birth?

Evolution is a concept learnt much later in life. Atheism is a concept realized only after ruling out all the craziness you're bombarded with during your youth.

Between me and you, only one of us has been "programmed"



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
yepp sorry Ash a creationist believes in the literal truth of the bible

meaning its exactly how it was written in the bible

becasue the bible is the word of god and cant be wrong it there fore is exactly as it says in the bible 6 days, adam +eve, noahs flood of 40 days/nights of rain and 128 days of rain

becasue its a belief that it is literal and on a human time scale it means if your not believeing exactly that then your not 1

its like calling your self an athiest then saying well there might be a god, your not an antheist your agnostic

except we dont really have a term for non creationist creationists (we should invent one ..anyone got a suggestion)

so youve got

creationists
none creationist creationists (believing as teh bible but not exactly)
intelegent designers (evolution just with god prodding it and decideng dinsaurs become birds)
creationist deigners (mix of the 2 camps, sorry couldnt allow my self to call them intelegent creationists)


see we have it easy over here

atheist evolutionists
agnostic/spiritual/religeous evolutionists



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


This is what I meant on the other thread when people were complaining about the term 'evolutionist' and I said 'creationist' is misused in some cases as well. In the stereotypical creation vs. evolution controversy, 'creationism' is the 6 day literal creation creation. I have mixed feelings on it. I am a 'creationist' in that I believe in a creator but I am not a 'creationist' the way the controversy defines it. Essentially, a 'fundie creationist.' I'm currently doing a study of the Hebrew account and learning a lot of interesting things. So, that is the point I was getting at.

We're programmed with these very stringent things due to the English translation of Genesis. Most people are going to laugh when they are told if you believe in creation, you must accept the world is 6,000 years old and created in six literal days, when in reality it is much more ambiguous in Hebrew. Then, they then connect the dots and say so this is what creation is, yet science seems to obviously contradict this account, therefore the Genesis account is not true, therefore ANY type of creation belief must be wrong. Boom. Viola! Secular explanation only and God is dead.

That is the connection people are being programmed to make.

reply to post by ANoNyMiKE
 


Are we also not indoctrinating our children from birth with a secular way of thinking? Regardless, I totally understand those who see it the opposite way I see it. All I ask is that I am allowed to see it from my way is well. I completely understand why people see religious indoctrination occurring. All I ask is that people take the time to look and ponder why I see secular indoctrination occurring.


reply to post by noobfun
 


Read what I said above to Jaxson and here are some more thoughts. Among creationists we have:

Young Earth Creationists.
Old Earth Creationists.
Theistic Evolutionists.
Some who are undecided on the specifics but believe in a creation and creator.
Some who consider aspects from all of the above.

So even among creationists there are many schools of thoughts.


It almost seems like a straw man is taking place. Most people seem to think creationism is the most stringent interpretation. Well because this often is contrary to the evidence, they toss out the baby with the bath water.

A six day creation goes against the evidence. Therefore, any type of creation must be false. That's the way I see it.


[edit on 9/24/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I would be very interested in your research on the hebrew translation when you are finished! I'm also in agreement with you that you can have a creator without buying into the creation story word for word. In a way, that is where I come from. In my 'story', the first line is "In the begining, there was the One, the Source, the Divine...". The rest of the story is still being written and rewritten as the evidence comes in. See, we do have some common ground! I may not believe what you believe, but I will die defending your right to believe it!



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


no no dont get me wrong

im trying to deffine the differance between a creationist and a believer in creation

the creationist by the very deffinaition is the 6 day 6000years becasue that is the literal word of the bible

thats why i say we need another phrase for the old earth creationists, the gods days arnt our days is an interpretation not a litteral so they fall into the as yet unnamed nearly creationists

that covers everyone i think

hard line creationists
un-named group of nearly creationists (we really should give these guys a name lets start a topic and ask em)
it
it/creation colaberation


wouldnt Theistic Evolutionists have come under the religeous/spirtual/agnostic grouping? as a mix of spirtual and religeous



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by n0tsan3
 



Why do people laugh at creationists?


Because it is very typical behavior of the brainwashed.

You're all being programmed.

Ponder this.


People that laugh at creationists are not brainwashed.
The reason they laugh at creationists is the same reason Christians laugh at the idea of Zeus or even (dare I say it) the flying spaghetti monster. They think that the idea that people actually believed in Zeus in funny, yet they have no idea what they themselves believe in nor have they looked at their own belief with the same amount of scrutiny.
Isn't this a more accurate description of 'brainwashed'? Yet many Christians claim that athiests or evolutionists are brainwashed when they seem to forget that WE are the ones that base our decisions on logic and not faith.

Tell me which one (logic or faith) is an indicator of being brainwashed?
Logic based on evidence or faith based on a lack of evidence.
The reality is clear to anyone that wishes to see it.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I see evolution being used by some to actually negate the existence of God. That is when problems arise. Not that God is not taken into the equation in evolutionary theory but that the theory itself is used by some people to 'Kill God.'


Well doesn't evolution negate God? The Bible states that man was formed from the dust of the Earth. We are not formed from the dust of the Earth but from chemical reactions and a series of adaptations over long periods of time. Also the Bible seems to imply that Adam was formed in an instant and not over millions of years.

Animals apparently could talk back then (at least snakes could). So if God is fond of using evolution then why did he de-evolve animals in an instant and not over a period of millions of years as he had with humans? And since we know that he did take the gift of speech from the snake, then we know that he could have created humans in an instant and would have no reason not to.

What about the birth pains? Apparently, women didn't have birth pains before the time that God gave it to them in an instant and not through adaptation.

What about Adam's rib? Anyone that believes in evolution and God would believe that God spent millions of years to evolve man and then changed Adam's skeletal system in an instant.

To top it off, God said that he created men before he created women. The human race could not have evolved through millions of years without females, as they would have no way to reproduce.

Evolution and God just don't go hand and hand, and anyone that believes they do has an uphill battle to fight. You would have to ignore certain things written in the Bible as well as assume a whole Hell of a lot in order for God to have used evolution. For the rest of us, evolution does negate God's existence, at least the God written in the Bible.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
no no dont get me wrong

im trying to deffine the differance between a creationist and a believer in creation


I understand your concerns. I personally prefer, at least what describes me right now, 'I-don't-know-all-the-details-but-God-Did-It-All-Ist.'



the creationist by the very deffinaition is the 6 day 6000years...


According to the evolution vs. creation controversy, absolutely.


...becasue that is the literal word of the bible


In English, it seems very stringent indeed. So far it appears much more fluid in Hebrew. The book I am studying ATM is 'Genesis Unbound.'


wouldnt Theistic Evolutionists have come under the religeous/spirtual/agnostic grouping? as a mix of spirtual and religeous


In some cases, absolutely. All that means is people who believe a theistic force is responsible for the evolutionary process. So, Christians who believe in a theistic force (in our case, the Judeo-Christian God) and evolution is a process guided by our God, would also be considered theistic evolutionists.

 


And just for the record, I DO believe the God of the Bible is responsible for our creation and I DO believe in the Genesis account. My mission ATM is to figure out exactly what Genesis is saying in the original Hebrew.


I'm a Bible thumper through and through. Always.
I can't re-write it or re-interpret it just to 'fit in' with modern science. But I would like to see what exactly does not come through correctly in the English translations.

On thing I never, ever do is laugh at YEC's or the 'fundie creationists.' Who knows? Maybe they'll be right after all. I don't like discounting any view.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Well doesn't evolution negate God?


No, it does not. It just negates the Biblical account of creation. This argument is like saying the Theory of Gravity negates a peanut butter sandwich. Apples and Oranges, my friend. One can believe in God without believing what the Bible says literally, or at all.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Well doesn't evolution negate God?


No. It looks like that is what we are being programmed to believe, though. I explained this all above.


The Bible states that man was formed from the dust of the Earth. We are not formed from the dust of the Earth but from chemical reactions and a series of adaptations over long periods of time. Also the Bible seems to imply that Adam was formed in an instant and not over millions of years.


Interesting you bring up the dust issue. In the book linked to above, it mentions the word 'dust' being an improper translation but actually a word possibly implying chemical compounds. Then something about the 'chemicals' found in dust are almost identical to humans. Still reading, though. I don't want to shoot my mouth off. lol

Also, this book believes parts of the Genesis account refer to the creation of the garden and not all of creation that happened in the beginning. It's pretty fascinating but not only do I have to read what all the author is saying, I also have to research and confirm what he is saying. I have a lot of work cut out for me because I don't ever take any one scholar's word at face value.



Animals apparently could talk back then (at least snakes could). So if God is fond of using evolution then why did he de-evolve animals in an instant and not over a period of millions of years as he had with humans? And since we know that he did take the gift of speech from the snake, then we know that he could have created humans in an instant and would have no reason not to.


LOL. Christians DO believe animals regressed over time, we believe all of creation has regressed over time. We also believe this degeneration accelerated after the flood. Also, I do not believe that necessarily means snakes could talk- or all animals. But instead was Satan who appeared as a serpent, who was a beautiful creature. Some scholars do not believe serpent is the same as what we know a snake to be. But instead, was some creature described as a serpent.


What about the birth pains? Apparently, women didn't have birth pains before the time that God gave it to them in an instant and not through adaptation.


It's possible. I believe they became worse over time.


What about Adam's rib? Anyone that believes in evolution and God would believe that God spent millions of years to evolve man and then changed Adam's skeletal system in an instant.


It sounds like a form of cellular mitosis, IMO. It intrigues me how the creation account shows God sometimes speaking things into existence and then at other times showing him creating things from previous creation. Sometimes I even speculate this is evolution embedded in the Genesis account but I refuse to go so far as to claim it as fact or doctrine.


To top it off, God said that he created men before he created women. The human race could not have evolved through millions of years without females, as they would have no way to reproduce.


Ya think?!
However, it looks like it was only a very short time after Adam was created that Eve was created. Hint: Adam also didn't have offspring until Eve came into the picture. You seem to think the Genesis account shows man being created and then women being created ages later. This is not so.


Evolution and God just don't go hand and hand, and anyone that believes they do has an uphill battle to fight. You would have to ignore certain things written in the Bible as well as assume a whole Hell of a lot in order for God to have used evolution. For the rest of us, evolution does negate God's existence, at least the God written in the Bible.


LOL. See, you have been programmed. The STRINGENT interpretation of Genesis is incorrect to you, therefore ALL creation hypotheses must be wrong, Therefore, only secular explanations are to be considered.


This is my whole point. Strawmen are being set up and are programming us all.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



couldnt you have picked somthing a bit shorter then

'I-don't-know-all-the-details-but-God-Did-It-All-Ist'

cant even abbreviate it to idkatdbgdiai that just looks like the cat sat on my keyboard


god-did-ist? god-did-it-ist? hows that float your boat?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
No, it does not. It just negates the Biblical account of creation. This argument is like saying the Theory of Gravity negates a peanut butter sandwich. Apples and Oranges, my friend. One can believe in God without believing what the Bible says literally, or at all.


Exactly. It negates the Biblical account of creation. Therefor it negates God as the only written source we have that is 'inspired' by God is negated. Is there any other account of God? The God with a capital 'G' has one source, the Bible, which is negated through evolution, therefor the creation story given in the Bible is negated. People could have a different God in mind, but that is not what I am arguing. My argument is regarding God as described in the Bible.

The theory of Gravity does not negate a pb&j, but it DOES negate the belief that pink fairies hold us down to Earth. OF COURSE people can still believe in pink fairies given any logical falacy, that is not the argument I am making.

I think you misunderstood and thought I was saying that evolution negates the belief in God. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that evolution negates what the Bible says about God's creation so therefor the Biblical account of God is negated.

Read the last thing I said:


Evolution and God just don't go hand and hand, and anyone that believes they do has an uphill battle to fight. You would have to ignore certain things written in the Bible as well as assume a whole Hell of a lot in order for God to have used evolution. For the rest of us, evolution does negate God's existence, at least the God written in the Bible.


So I clearly stated that if you ignore certain aspects in the Bible or if you do not take them litteraly, then evolution does not negate God, but for the rest of us it does.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


You say that you do not believe in evolution because there is no evidence. You then say that you are a Christian But there is no evidence to prove that the New Testament Jesus ever existed. There isn't the slightest piece of evidence from a time when there were many who wrote about their world. Nor did the Romans who were so methodical with records, mention this mythical figure. Yes, we know about the Eusebius forgery which even the Church has dismissed as a forgery. That alone should make you wonder.

If you really are open minded then you will examine the records of Ancient Egypt which prove that they believed in an earlier son of God named Jesus (in Egyptian and Gaelic Iosa) who was never more than a spirit god, yet the story is practically the same in almost every detail, even the name Meri (Mary) which was Egyptian for 'beloved of'.

If you continue to ignore facts then you cannot be open minded, but just another Christian lost in a fog of lies and deceit.

The Christian faith was set up to control the Roman people and it is still there to control and far worse to extract as much money as possible from its gullible adherents.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
couldnt you have picked somthing a bit shorter then

'I-don't-know-all-the-details-but-God-Did-It-All-Ist'

cant even abbreviate it to idkatdbgdiai that just looks like the cat sat on my keyboard




Sure... GDI (God did it)!



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malankhkare
You say that you do not believe in evolution because there is no evidence. You then say that you are a Christian But there is no evidence to prove that the New Testament Jesus ever existed.


Other than the rest of your off topic rant, lol, Equinox already explained this. He is NOT saying there is 'no' evidence. He already explained that when someone else had the same objection to his statement as you did. Equinox said there is not ENOUGH evidence for him to accept evolution at this point. Also, I keep hearing, to the point of nausea, that religion and science shouldn't mix due to faith vs. facts. So, if he takes his Christian walk as a matter of faith, it is his right to hold science to a higher standard of fact. That is all.


Faith requires no evidence (although you are wrong about the historicity of Jesus- but let's not go there. There's like 50 ongoing threads on the subject in the CIR forum) but science demands it.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join