Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

Originally posted by immortal coil
And yet there are many questions arising that keep evolution from becoming more than just a theory. It works both ways.

what questions?
Evolution is empirical fact. its being taught in school because of the universal acceptance of its fact. you cannot get more factual than that
Gravity is fact also
Gravity and evolution are also still theories in regards to...continuing to be understood.

Also, something can be taught without ramming it down each others throats. Teach equal viewpoints, make it clear that we don't know with mathematical certainty if one viewpoint holds more water over the other, and go from there.

Sure, once creationism produces enough empirical evidence and universally accepted in the scientific field, then definately give both equal time...actually...give creationism -some- empiricle evidence...

For the record, as I've stated before, I do believe parts of evolution as I do parts of creationism, but neither viewpoint seems to add up in its entirety to form a complete picture.

For the record, I think ice floats and doesn't float. (hint...it floats)

Should "evolution", still a theory, be considered a sign of stupidity? Maybe its a little of both. Who knows for sure? LOL I believe that ppl should lean to tolerate and respect other's opinions and find constructive ways to include each other's views. END OF STORY

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Or just willful ignorance?

There are two points to this thread..one is obvious, the other you will have to speculate on.

Will toss up some videos for those that hate reading but can bother hitting play

Here is the question...should "creationism" be consided a sign of insanity? Willful ignorance? Should teaching children in a scholastic environment be considered willfully be teaching a known falsehood

First, some boring science stuff videos for those whom want to know exactly the science behind the tools and measuring

Now the theory of intelligent design:
Here is the meat and potatos overall..."irreducible complexity".

Behe lacks simple understanding overall. irreducible complexity is a myth also. Sadly, the true "brains" behind the irreducible complexity argument use this specific argument as their core scientific belief system. A absolutely disprovable pile of elegantly put together tripe. They have asked how the flagellium can be reduced..well, it can't while serving the current function, however, if you remove the functional aspect of the "motor" to something else completely, be it breathing or a ton of other possibilities, then its very easily disproven. To see if anyone is actually reading this bit (quick social experiment), type somewhere in your post the word "sparkle". Don't quote that exclusively, just a test to see who is reading before posting, and who is simply rehearsing their preconceptions. Anyhow, back on topic, but do put that in your post somewhere. Basically, Behe is saying a bird must always be a bird, no matter how far back you go..which in itself shows a absolute lack of understanding about evolution...

Thats a basic...very basic...primitive really way of explaining it...but feel free to skip that paragraph and simply watch the next video.

Watch this one video here and you will never again believe in irreducible complexity. Creationists..challenge yourself to press play..take a moment to potentially reveal a truth..even if it may make you uncomfortable initially

So...whats left? What is there honestly left about "creationism" in any of its forms? There is nothing, yet 50% of America still believes in evolution.

This is about as sensible as believing Gandalf created everything..there is absolutely no merit..yet it is being pushed by politicians, some corporations, and being taught by parents homeschooling their children to perpetuate the absolutely known falsehood.

Should it be made a crime to purposefully teach a known falsehood under the guise of truth?

Would it be ok for politicians to teach that women have only half a brain, or that the average black person has a brain defect that forces them to eventually murder senselessly? How about Asians have less nerve endings, making them ultimately feel no pain in the same way a human experiences it, therefore you cannot actually torture them so much as..slightly annoy them. Such concepts are unacceptable, dangerous, and warp the minds of those whom actually believe it...yet we allow "creationism" to continue on in society not just as some silly myth, but as mainstream belief equal to scientific understandings...

I personally think that churches and any place that is found to be teaching a known falsehood should have any state money removed from them, taxed, and be forced to put disclamers up that what is being "taught" is for entertainment purposes only. Also, anyone teaching this crap whom tries to suggest they are teaching anything other than a fictional piece of garbage and dismissing the "entertainment only" sign should be charged with fraud.

Your thoughts?

Oh, and finally...a bit of toungue in cheek fun:

While everything was not created, like "poof" 6000 years ago, it's important to bear in mind regarding the possibility of intelligent design, that there may be both a localized and isolated, classical, newtonian evolutionary process, as well as, a non-local, quantum holographic, morphogenesis. If the universe and all the forms it contains turns out to be "housed" within a self aware mind of God by intent, and all indication is pointing in that direction, are we then to declare all atheists "insane" because of their belief in a materialist monist (matter is primary), WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), isolationist (purely localized) POV..?

reply to post by immortal coil


The entertaining thing is that I had said exactly the opposite (contrasting view points may both be valid) on another thread just yesterday.

Anyway, concerning lumping you with the creationists - I apologise. As a fence sitter for all of my life that I can remember, I should learn not to lump people, but it's my habit. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to understand your claim that you accept parts of evolution and not others.

Evolution doesn't really have parts: as madnessinmysoul's signature says, or did when I last checked, it can be defined as a shift in the ratios of alleles in a population from one generation to the next (wording may vary). this relies on three things:

1) organisms have generations
2) organisms are variable.
3) organisms can inherit variable traits from their parents

Evolution is simply the logical application of these three assumptions. Reject any of them - or logic - and you reject evolution. Accept all of them and apply logic, and you accept evolution.

The only things that are open to rejection are the hypothesis, evidence and theories relating to the specifics of particular organisms' evolutionary history. Unlike written history, what evidence that there is, is non-subjective, and I choose to believe that the genus Homo is the fourth extant genus of great ape, that horses and rhinos shared a common ancestor not unlike eohippus, that whales and hippos are closely related and that dragonflies are the most basal group of winged insects. Rejecting these is not rejecting evolution, it is rejecting scientific evidence and the hypothesis and theories therein derived.

If I go on any longer I'll go on for days, so understand that evolution as a concept is either/or, and creationism does not have any bearing on evolution (although the biblical account is at odds with the evidence concerning the deep evolutionary history of much of earth's biota).

reply to post by texastig


Of course, being an astronomer Hoyle knew SO much about biology.

well I figure that I should at least pop in a voice of sanity for the home team on this thread. If you reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God, then you ARE GOING TO HELL. there is no other way around it. Once you come of age to decide right from wrong, you need to choose your path in life, and Jesus Christ IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN. Salvation is by Faith Alone! you don't need any works to do it! believe me please. You will be greatly 'disappointed' after you die and see Jesus Christ face to face. He will ask you what you did with the life that He gave you and you will say, 'well I didn't know'. Well... here's your wake up call then!

check out Pastor Anderson's youtube channel for some serious Christian learning

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by immortal coil
And yet there are many questions arising that keep evolution from becoming more than just a theory. It works both ways.

what questions?
Evolution is empirical fact. its being taught in school because of the universal acceptance of its fact. you cannot get more factual than that
Gravity is fact also
Gravity and evolution are also still theories in regards to...continuing to be understood.

Also, something can be taught without ramming it down each others throats. Teach equal viewpoints, make it clear that we don't know with mathematical certainty if one viewpoint holds more water over the other, and go from there.

Sure, once creationism produces enough empirical evidence and universally accepted in the scientific field, then definately give both equal time...actually...give creationism -some- empiricle evidence...

For the record, as I've stated before, I do believe parts of evolution as I do parts of creationism, but neither viewpoint seems to add up in its entirety to form a complete picture.

For the record, I think ice floats and doesn't float. (hint...it floats)

What questions? There are many. For starters , the missing link in human evolution. And I think you're confusing a theory with a law. If evolution was 100% agreed upon, it would be a law. It isn't, thus we are here.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Should we go Soviet on people who think they came from God or the ones who think they came from slime? That is a hard one!

reply to post by immortal coil

And I think you're confusing a theory with a law. If evolution was 100% agreed upon, it would be a law.

No, you are the confused one. The word theory in scientific jargon has nothing to do with something being true or not. Germ theory of disease is also "just a theory", and it is a fact. Evolution is a fact, described by the theory of evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

I'd just like to answer the second part of the topic"Or just willful ignorance?". It's willful ignorance, I work at a bakery, not the best job but it pays the bills, and for University. My partner( we work in teams of 2) is a Greek Orthodox Christian, he believes the bible is the inspired word of god. I think he's never read the damn book in his life, and I tell him so. I show him through articles and books, all the hard work that has been done by archeologists, physicists, astronomers, geologists and all other scientists. He says the Theory of Evolution is just that... a theory so I brought him a dictionary and told him to look up Theory.

The word theory is defined as:
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.
contemplation or speculation.
7.
guess or conjecture.

He laughs when he tells me about the big bang theory, and then demands I tell him how we got everything from nothing. I tell him that sounds a lot like his god.
The thing with Science is that it's always improving upon itself. The big bang has a single point of origin, a new theory by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok show the universe to by more of a cyclical phenomenon. I like to call that Evolution of Science

He refuses to even consider all these findings and research, I then ask him to show me evidence of the existence of his or my soul. Yeah, I used to think we all had souls, but there's only that "I believe" line I get from people, and no evidence to back it up. We learn through trial and error, and in this way we improve ourselves and our way of life.

People demand scientists create life in an artificial settings... I demand data that will prove the existence of the Soul.

There is no Theory of Creation.

p.s.
I wrote this after 3 hours of sleep so excuse my grammar and punctuation.

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Most people, (all Jews, Catholics and many other sects,) who have faith in Yahweh also accept the fact of evolution

Are you saying that these other people with faith in Yahweh don't believe that He had anything to do with creation? Really? And when you conducted this poll of ALL Jews, Catholics and many other sects, they stated that God didn't have anything to do with creation.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying what I said, and perhaps you should learn to comprehend what you read.

No point in me repeating what I said if you're lacking in the ability to understand English.

It was just a happy circumstance that the first spark of life appeared out of thin air and then we evolved to the species that we are now to create our own God? They don't really believe in a God, then. He is just a myth they cling until questioned and faced with all the FACTS of evolution?

The event of the first spark of life is not part of evolutionary theory. It is part of abiogenesis.
Many people believe god was smart enough to set the process in motion in such a way that the laws of physics and chemistry would ensure the evolution of man.

I'm sorry if you don't have that much faith.

Did you bother to read what I believe about creation and evolution? I don't think so. You just got thru stating that ALL Jews etc. believe in the FACT of evolution. What fact of evolution? Oh, you mean all those transitional fossils and skeletons that have been discovered showing how we branched out and became so many different species? Yeah, speaking of straw men and all.

Obviously you don't understand the concept of a straw man, either.

It is part of Jewish faith to respect truth, and not be afraid to face facts.
Jews don't need to believe the bible is literally correct to bolster their faith in god.
Yes, that's right, "all those transitional fossils and skeletons that have been discovered showing how we branched out and became so many different species". I couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm impressed you are not like many creationists who believe the creationist sites that these things don't exist.

Maybe ALL women who dye their hair are insane. Is that what your problem is?

At least the standard of your "arguments" remains consistant.

reply to post by Xinthose


Now who precisely defines the age at which we have to decide, and where is it written down?

Oh, and if you say God wrote it down, a) where, b) prove it was God and c) can I have God's return address, because I have some questions?

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by immortal coil

 

The entertaining thing is that I had said exactly the opposite (contrasting view points may both be valid) on another thread just yesterday.

Anyway, concerning lumping you with the creationists - I apologise. As a fence sitter for all of my life that I can remember, I should learn not to lump people, but it's my habit. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to understand your claim that you accept parts of evolution and not others.

Evolution doesn't really have parts: as madnessinmysoul's signature says, or did when I last checked, it can be defined as a shift in the ratios of alleles in a population from one generation to the next (wording may vary). this relies on three things:

1) organisms have generations
2) organisms are variable.
3) organisms can inherit variable traits from their parents

Evolution is simply the logical application of these three assumptions. Reject any of them - or logic - and you reject evolution. Accept all of them and apply logic, and you accept evolution.

The only things that are open to rejection are the hypothesis, evidence and theories relating to the specifics of particular organisms' evolutionary history. Unlike written history, what evidence that there is, is non-subjective, and I choose to believe that the genus Homo is the fourth extant genus of great ape, that horses and rhinos shared a common ancestor not unlike eohippus, that whales and hippos are closely related and that dragonflies are the most basal group of winged insects. Rejecting these is not rejecting evolution, it is rejecting scientific evidence and the hypothesis and theories therein derived.

If I go on any longer I'll go on for days, so understand that evolution as a concept is either/or, and creationism does not have any bearing on evolution (although the biblical account is at odds with the evidence concerning the deep evolutionary history of much of earth's biota).

No prob man. If my ideas are going to be debated, I at least want them to be portrayed right.

Anyway, regarding rather seemingly conflicting viewpoints, I don't really hold either theory to be necessarily true, rather a few select ideas contained in each theory.

As I've mentioned before, you can reduce things down to a smaller and smaller level, but sooner or later you have to come to the realization that either 1.) This process goes on infinitesimally, or that 2.) Something has to be derived from nothing. Moreover, the hard science certainly demonstrates a process where organism are refined over time - sometimes creating new species altogether. Two ideas which are "true" to me. Hope that helps.

reply to post by TheWill


Where do you think everything started out at? It wasn't on earth. It was in space.

Originally posted by fonenyc
Should "evolution", still a theory, be considered a sign of stupidity? Maybe its a little of both. Who knows for sure? LOL

aka, I know you are but what am I.
I think we moved past that style of discussion after age 10..clearly some haven't

I believe that ppl should lean to tolerate and respect other's opinions and find constructive ways to include each other's views. END OF STORY

Sure...ok...its my opinion your an idiot...
now...are you going to tolerate or respect my opinion? Coming up with ways to include my opinion about you being an idiot?
naa...didn't think so.

Not all opinions have merit.

and the story continues...

reply to post by SaturnFX


I was deliberately (although it a bit naturally cynical at the same time) a smart butt in this thread. If you are serious in that straw man of comparing hitler to christians, I am sorry. Hitler was more of an antichrist from an honest perspective. He kind of thought he was Jesus, and trust me, no matter if you think the character fictional or real, nobody can sit in that archway forever, and especially nowadays. Plus, I will give you some friendly advice, whatever you view as reality might just suck you up one day. So be careful with your beliefs (not saying I can even fathom your inner workings). You just might be answerable to these beliefs when you die. And I am not necessarily talking about physical death. More like your conception of "truth" is a code of sorts, and if taken to its conclusion or "perfected," you will hold your very own self accountable for your beliefs. Just saying.

Originally posted by immortal coil

What questions? There are many. For starters , the missing link in human evolution. And I think you're confusing a theory with a law. If evolution was 100% agreed upon, it would be a law. It isn't, thus we are here.

This is one of the biggest and most common laymen's mistakes about science.

Theories do not "grow up" to become Laws.

Laws are not more important than Theories.

Laws explain how something works but does not explain why something works.

A Theory tries to explain why something works.

A good example:

Newton's Law of Gravity. We can use this law to predict that a dropped object will fall to the ground, but we use Theory to try to explain why it falls to the ground

Originally posted by Xinthose
well I figure that I should at least pop in a voice of sanity

Finally...sane, rational thinking based on fundamental aspects we all can agree on empiracly..whew.

you ARE GOING TO HELL. there is no other way around it.

Oh well, so much for that.
thanks for playing anyhow.

btw...sidenote...if Jesus asked me what I did with my life in some sort of condesending way, my reply would be "I spent most of it trying to unscrew what you screwed up you damn griefer".

hellbound with a smile on my face

reply to post by texastig


Where everything started out is necessarily in space, because the Earth is in space.

That, however, is semantics.

Unless I'm getting my threads crossed, the point is that Hoyle, as an astronomer, studied stars. Stars are not typically considered to fall within biology, which is the homeland of evolution and the thereby explained speciation, diversification etc. etc. etc.

Got it?

EDIT - yes, I know that astronomers study more than stars. But what they study and what evolution is typically applied to are nonetheless separate

reply to post by sara123123


No, we should go Soviet on the Soviets, and Hitler on the Hitlers. Or maybe just ignore them. After all, angels and demons are below humanity. They like attention. They are a bit like attention prostitutes. And I am the end-all, be-all arbiter of truth, so what I say goes.