Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 34
44
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I won't engage in the "which is more valid" crap but I will say that I believe that in the market place of ideas, given time the truth will naturally emerge and that which is false will naturally die. It's very frightening indeed to think of a world where someone decides an idea is not valid so it should be banned and anyone who thinks it should be quarantined. Scientific inquiry should welcome opposing explanations because the idea will be strengthened by standing up to scrutiny and for a scientific mind to fear that something incorrect will eclipse that which is correct is very sad indeed.

To the OP, might I suggest that science has become your religion? Science should argue its case logically and stand on its own merits, not work to prevent any opposing viewpoint that may exist. The latter is a total waste of time.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by psylence1
 


The problem is that science is about evidence. The evidence has spoken and this issue shouldn't be presented to impressionable children as anything but what it is in the scientific community.

The big issue is that creationists don't want to engage in the debate on the level of scientific inquiry, they want to engage children in the debate because children are less knowledgeable and less likely to see through their crap.

There is a marketplace of ideas, it's called the academic world and creationists avoid it like the plague.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I don't think being a creationist is a sign of insanity. I believe there is enough left unclear or unproven that evolution and creation theories do not have to be mutually exclusive. But, I don't think children should be indoctrinated with any theory that claims to be the only, end all be all. I think they should be taught what modern science knows for FACT, and then shown what is believed but currently unproven by the evolutionists and creationists. The child should decide for himself which theory makes sense, at least until one is proven without a doubt. I think too often people have too much pride to simply say "we aren't 100% sure."

I was raised Christian, and attended private school. I had a Bible class every day. I was taught that evolution and carbon dating were lies perpetuated by people who hate God, etc. I strongly disagree with that type of teaching, I had to learn for myself because my BS-o-meter was going off so badly. For a long time I believed in the creation theory without a doubt, but I am infuriated to this day that they were allowed to tell me outright lies about the theories and concepts behind evolution and modern science as a whole. It was partly the method of teaching, along with many things I disagreed with in the Faith while on my quest for knowledge, that caused me to eventually become a pagan. But that is a different story.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Your beliefs are just as flawed!

You would have a better chance of creating a fully functional 747 by passing hurricanes over a junk yard than you would at creating even the most basic life form. We can make all the things life is made from, but we cannot organize them to life. To sit here and say you have all the answers is just as bad as the bible thumpers and really no different.

It is much more likely that life was intentionally seeded here than it is to suppose it was just an accident. By who you say? Aliens, might view the earth and the seeding of life as a way to build the next big thing etc. .
edit on 21-12-2010 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 




It is much more likely that life was intentionally seeded here than it is to suppose it was just an accident. By who you say? Aliens, might view the earth and the seeding of life as a way to build the next big thing etc


Panspermia hypothesis does not really solve the problem of life origin, it just moves it somewhere else.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


Again with the hurricanes and the aircraft? When is this refuted argument going to find a dark place and die?


Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Your beliefs are just as flawed!


No, they aren't.



You would have a better chance of creating a fully functional 747 by passing hurricanes over a junk yard than you would at creating even the most basic life form.


Seriously? Seriously? There was a whole thread devoted to this and you're going to bring it up again?

...I almost feel...bad...doing this. This argument has been so abused over the years...

Alright. Let's do it.
Outright, this is a false analogy. Abiogenesis would follow known chemical reactions. We know these reactions can occur naturally. Unfortunately, you cannot do this with a 747. There's also the other falsity of comparing something inherently man-made to something that can result from natural processes.

And lastly, oh so lastly...nobody has calculated the probability of the most basic life form forming...because it's a useless probability.



We can make all the things life is made from, but we cannot organize them to life. To sit here and say you have all the answers is just as bad as the bible thumpers and really no different.


Actually, we're working on organizing them into life. It's a bit difficult though, especially since we're operating on such a tiny scale.

Now, the crazy thing is that science doesn't claim to have all the answers, though to does claim to have some of them. It also claims that it has the means to attain all the answers. But things would be a hell of a lot better out there if we had all the answers.



It is much more likely that life was intentionally seeded here than it is to suppose it was just an accident. By who you say? Aliens, might view the earth and the seeding of life as a way to build the next big thing etc. .


...ugh...the alien seeders are just as bad as the creationists when it comes to basic logic...
Where did these alien seeders come from? How did life arise on their planet? Where's the evidence of their interference?

Oh wait, eventually you'll have to go back to the point where you have something arising naturally. Why shouldn't it be Earth?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Igit! Make some life for me man! Should be pretty simple shouldn’t it? You should have all the tools right?

You guys have to make things up for your standard model to explain anything. You have gone a long way to explain what you see around you, but you really have no clue and thats no different than bible thumping. It is faith you hold on to, all the same!

I'll give you that if the human species survives long enough we they may well have the answers, but that time is not now. To say your beliefs are better than someone else’s is just hypocritical and more of the same thing we have seen for millennium.

Get over it, dude!

Your professor = Modern day prophet. The complexity of interactions that happen in a single cell is beyond human comprehension. We are learning to tinker with cells, but thats it!
edit on 21-12-2010 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


And so the barrage of ignorance, including name-calling, begins.


Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Igit!


Name-caller!


Make some life for me man! Should be pretty simple shouldn’t it? You should have all the tools right?


Um...I'm a 22 year old University student working on a non-sciences degree...no, I really shouldn't have sophisticated lab equipment required to create life.

And you're comparing a closed lab environment to...the entire Earth for a period of millions of years...



You guys have to make things up for your standard model to explain anything.


No, we don't have to make anything up. In fact, making things up is severely frowned upon by the scientific community, they prefer to rely on evidence based hypotheses and theories.



You have gone a long way to explain what you see around you, but you really have no clue and thats no different than bible thumping.


No clue? So...explaining...um...everything that humanity knows about the natural world is 'no clue'? Explaining the motions of celestial bodies, biodiversity, electricity, weather, geology, genetics, etc and providing practical applications for it is 'no clue' and is equivalent to the entire absence of progress made in understanding of the natural world as made by those who advocate just the Bible...I'm sorry, but there's no equivalence.



It is faith you hold on to, all the same!


I'm sorry, but please show me how we have faith.



I'll give you that if the human species survives long enough we they may well have the answers, but that time is not now.


...I already addressed this. You didn't seem to read my post. That's why I like doing these point-by-point responses, it shows that I've actually read the entire post I'm responding to.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Now, the crazy thing is that science doesn't claim to have all the answers, though to does claim to have some of them. It also claims that it has the means to attain all the answers. But things would be a hell of a lot better out there if we had all the answers.


I already explained this. All human progress today? That's the result of science.



To say your beliefs are better than someone else’s is just hypocritical and more of the same thing we have seen for millennium.


I haven't said my beliefs are better than someone else's. Now, the scientific facts of evolution are superior to the superstitious nonsense that is creationism. There is a mountain of evidence in favor of the naturalistic explanations. There isn't even a pebble on the creationist side.



Get over it, dude!


Get over what? The science that actually works. The science whose effectiveness is proven by the medium we're using to carry out this conversation? I'm sorry, but it'll take me a while to get over the incredible achievements that were made by science.



Your professor = Modern day prophet.


Just because you say it doesn't make it so. And which professor? I mean, I don't take any professor's word for anything unless they can demonstrate the claim with evidence....which is the exact opposite of how a prophet is treated.



The complexity of interactions that happen in a single cell is beyond human comprehension.


No, it's quite well within human comprehension. In fact, I studied it in freshman biology in high school.



We are learning to tinker with cells, but thats it!


So...because we can't do more than play around with cells for now...science is as bogus as religion. I'm sorry, but you should really read up on science and rational thought. It would be of immense help to you.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
[Um...I'm a 22 year old University student working on a non-sciences degree...no, I really shouldn't have sophisticated lab equipment required to create life.


Don't you think your a bit too young to know everything? When I was 22 years old I was out looking for a job to pay the bills and here you are TRYING TO LECTURE GROWN UPS about the universe and who(or what) created it.

I don't mind a good debate about creationism versus evolution, BUT your making concrete philosophical assumptions that even a stephen hawkings or carl sagan would NOT MAKE with decades work in their respective fields. Seriously WHO do you think you ARE???
edit on 21-12-2010 by EarthCitizen07 because: because I feel like it!



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I am done arguing with TROLLS! A few HIGHLY DELUSIONAL KIDS with an ego the size of mount everest trying to tell ADULTS what is true and what is false. You people must be HIGHLY INSECURE to feel the need to gang up on religious posters, minutes after a post is made, and attempt to ridicule sincere efforts of people trying to set the record straight with correct information.

Just because we are religious folks does not make us anything. We value science PROBABLY MORE than the scientists themselves but at the same time we try to be a little philosphical in our quest to explain the unexplainable. Science by itself cannot explain everything just as religion by itself can't...that is the bottom line that narrow-minded individuals cannot understand.

And why the need to star EACH POST eventhough the thread has gone 34 pages? Are you people THAT INSECURE or what??!



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The video in the museum had me face palming and shake my head. I would be laughing if they were just saying this is what they believe but teaching it to children. Filling children heads with pseudo science and telling them utter
B.S. Saying that dinosaurs like t-rex were plant eaters until the fall.
This new atempt by the creationist to take on science is distort its facts is dishonest and has an agenda.
They out right lie and disregard any legitimate research and the scientific method.
Science does not have all the answers science looks for answers but creationist have the answers and pervert science to make it fit their answers.

peanut butter proves evolution wrong






Its more then just creationism its what there filling kids heads with



they are free to speak and worship as they will but keep them out of education and politics please
edit on 23-12-2010 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-12-2010 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Wow, I can't believe I missed this horrid age baiting. I'm reviving this thread just to address the idiocy.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
[Um...I'm a 22 year old University student working on a non-sciences degree...no, I really shouldn't have sophisticated lab equipment required to create life.


Don't you think your a bit too young to know everything? When I was 22 years old I was out looking for a job to pay the bills and here you are TRYING TO LECTURE GROWN UPS about the universe and who(or what) created it.


Hey look, idiotic age baiting. You know, I did happen to study physics, chemistry, and biology. I'm also currently philosophy lectures at a university. Hell, I've learned about science all my life. But I'm only 22, that must mean I'm wrong because I'm younger than you.



I don't mind a good debate about creationism versus evolution, BUT your making concrete philosophical assumptions that even a stephen hawkings or carl sagan would NOT MAKE with decades work in their respective fields. Seriously WHO do you think you ARE???


Concrete assumptions? I'm working off of the scientific consensus. Do you know who I am? I'm someone who doesn't insult people based on age and someone who addresses the entirety of people's posts rather than attacking people. Arguments are to be addressed, not the arguer.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I am done arguing with TROLLS!


Projection.



A few HIGHLY DELUSIONAL KIDS with an ego the size of mount everest trying to tell ADULTS what is true and what is false.


Projection, ageism, argumentum ad hominem.



You people must be HIGHLY INSECURE to feel the need to gang up on religious posters, minutes after a post is made, and attempt to ridicule sincere efforts of people trying to set the record straight with correct information.


Argumentum ad hominem.



Just because we are religious folks does not make us anything.


Projection. Just because I'm 22 doesn't make me anything.



We value science PROBABLY MORE than the scientists themselves but at the same time we try to be a little philosphical in our quest to explain the unexplainable.


And that's why there's the philosophy of science and the field of philosophy. You're not being philosophical, you're being religious.



Science by itself cannot explain everything


Sure, it can't explain the entirety of aesthetics, it can't explain literary preferences, etc...but those are subjective issues. Name an objective issue that it can't explain.



just as religion by itself can't...that is the bottom line that narrow-minded individuals cannot understand.


Religion doesn't explain anything. That's the whole point. I'd like to see one single thing that religion has actually explained ever. Name something that religion has done that couldn't have been done by science, philosophy, or some other application of reason.



And why the need to star EACH POST eventhough the thread has gone 34 pages? Are you people THAT INSECURE or what??!


More argumentum ad hominem.

Out of arguments? Start attacking users.





top topics
 
44
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant