It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:32 PM
From what I understand, "Creationism" is just another vehicle for "Christianity" to facilitate it's religious ideals into a modern era of ideologies. Nihilistic Reductionist Materialism offers no other explanations worthy of any factual value short of the working mechanics of systems; although the underlying processes are still unobtainable by science.

Having no belief in Christianity or any religion for that matter, I do struggle with the underlying idea that we must conform our science to a religious belief-system and even if there is evidence of a creative intelligence behind the framework of physical reality; does that mean the "religions" of the world got it right with speculation or should science continue to do what it does best and validate and make factual such ideas.

We all know that through technology and information processing, computers etc. Humans are capable of creating very elaborate virtual worlds both in Video Games and Movies. Every detail of these systems are defined by simple mathematical formulas and processes by which a rule-set governs the underlying "designer universe" of 3D Movies and Video Games.

It is quite possible, and has been certainly supported mathematically that we may exist in a scaled up, "Designer Universe" or "Simulated Virtual Reality". "Digital Physics" certainly supports such a hypothesis. Brain Whitworth is someone I have been in e-mail dialog with in regards to his publications that detail, "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" and he has many emerging papers in support of this theory:

My interests in VR Theory and Digital Physics stem from underlying personal evidence that a recursive feedback interface exists and is itself something we are all facilitating from the vantage point of a consciousness observing reality. I strongly support the reality of "Precognitive Dreams" as an issue of causality and point of origin for "Reality pre-processing".

What makes precognitive dreams so interesting is they have a direct link to a future event. Although scaled down in terms of one's vantage point, having observed tomorrow, today in a dream is quite revealing of deeper underlying mechanics. Before you scream impossible know that as impossible as it might seem, our current paradigm is shifting in such a way that theoretically now it's becoming more plausible.

How you might ask?

Just recently, Jeff Tollkasen and his group from Chapman University in Orange County, California have proven that the "arrow of time" can flow backwards. This is known as Backwards Causality or Retrocausality. It has been reproduced at the University of Rochester and is now becoming accepted fact that in quantum mechanics at least, the arrow of time points in other directions then what Sir Issac Newton proposed with this theory of time being forward moving only.

There is another "time" defying experiment conduced that used the old double-slit experiment. “We have complete which-way information and no which-way information at the same time for the same electron,”

Skeptics have argued that if precognition was "real" then why hasn't anyone ever predicted 9/11. The fact is, one person has had several dreams of it leading up to 9/11 with timestamped evidence in the form of a compelling painting. His name is David Mandell - The Man Who Dreams The Future. And you can watch a video documentary covering this, plus the timestamped photo of him and the 9/11 picture in this video:

If you still think there is no evidence of precognition, then here are just two famous cases:


Mark Twain: The American writer, Mark Twain, and his brother Henry once worked on riverboats on the Mississippi. One night Mark had a dream about his brother's corpse lying in a metal coffin in his sister's living room. It rested on two chairs, with a bouquet and a single crimson flower in the center. He told his sister about his dream.
Just weeks later, his brother was killed in a massive explosion on a riverboat. Many others died and were buried in wooden coffins. But one onlooker felt such pity for young Henry that she raised the money for an expensive metal coffin. At the funeral, Mark was shocked to see the coffin exactly as it was in his dream. As he stood over Henry's casket, a woman placed a bouquet with a single red rose in the middle.

Abraham Lincoln: In 1865, two weeks before he was shot dead, Abraham Lincoln had a psychic dream about a funeral at the White House. In the dream, he asked someone who was in the casket and they replied, "the president of the United States". He told his wife about the dream but neither of them took it to heart - for on the night of his assassination he gave his only bodyguard the night off.

J.W Dunne applied the scientific method to his precognitive dreams and detailed this in his book, "An Experiment with Time" in 1927.

Christine Mylius (her stage name) who was a German movie actress. She often had precognitive dreams that had to do with upcoming film roles. She sent her dreams to Prof. Bender at the Institute for Border-line areas of Psychology for archiving. When later a pre-dreamt film role happened, she could point him to the dream that presaged it. Her 1974 book is called (appropriately enough) "Traumjournal" [Dream Journal].

And there is more, suffice to say this is just the tip of the iceburg in favor of precognitive dreaming.

I am well aware that about a century ago Russell used Occam’s razor to cut down the idea that life is a dream:
"There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that the whole of life is a dream, in which we ourselves create all the objects that come before us. But although this is not logically impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations." (Russell, 1912)

Yet, in the above examples and including my own experiences will argue that there is an underlying relationship between dreams and reality. Like particle/wave duality, there is dream/reality dualism implying an direct interconnection between what is "Real" and what is "Dreamed".

This may seem fallacious and impossible but retrocausality proves that the future already exists. Consciousness scales up from the Quantum into the macro-universe and is not particle/chemical rather the product of holographic photon packets arranged within the dendril/axion alpha/beta tubulin lattice within the microtubules found in the exoskeleton of the neuron.

Consciousness itself may be a holographic photon based system where "spooky action from a distance" is just a fact of quantum reality and neurology. It's already proven that plants use quantum superposition to maximize energy efficiency in photosynthesis. Nature already uses quantum states and our brain neurology is no exception. Obviously everything scales up from the quantum scale into the macro universe. The Holographic Principle and Craig Hogan's findings supported with the GEO600 experiment suggests this reality right now could be a Hologram. We could be holographic projections of ourselves within a holographic virtual world.

Photons clearly exhibit retrocausality as per Tollkasen's findings and our brain utilizes photons as part of our information processing from the quantum scale up; this may help bridge the paradigm for those of you who think that the future cannot be known. In the world of information processing and through what evidence there is of precognition (personal and historical) the fact is we seem to already exist tomorrow today. But somehow filter it out into a chronological order as if we are simply reading a book, or reading a tape-drive accessing the information in a serialized format.

We already know reality isn't physical, that atoms are merely the smallest matter block that can be reduced through chemistry. Sub-particles start to behave differently then atoms and break all the rules of Relativity and Newtonian Law, they simply contradict everything we "want" to believe about how the observed world should work.

Wave-Function collapse and particle/wave duality should inspire you to think past physical objects and start looking at the information system underlying all of it. An information set that exists in a non-linear and non-localized way outside the restraints of macro systems.

For all we know, reality could be a dream scaled up and or we could all just be players in a cosmic role-playing game. There is so much more under the hood to what is really going on.

As far as I am concerned, "This is the physical side of dreaming". And it's awesome!

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

I'm not going to bother with my typical point-by-point style, as we're not really disagreeing on anything more than where we should apply these labels.

I think the average creationist doesn't have enough scientific foundation to be properly labelled as 'insane'. Sure, some of the creationists we encounter on here are either willfully ignorant, have problematic brain function of the sort which could be labelled as insanity, or are outright 'liars for Jesus'.

Or maybe they just don't get it.

I'd say there are probably more liars in the creationist community than there are insane individuals. I mean, look at my most recent reply to edmc^2's post in his compatibility thread. I showed that he's lying (and recycling lies).

Most of the creationists I encounter are coherent or rehearsed. The coherent ones seem ignorant, the rehearsed ones come off as 'liars for Jesus'.

Then there are some who baffle me.

I'd actually stab at the idea that they're all very, very ignorant of science. I mean, I made a whole thread about it for that reason. Most creationists don't even know a proper definition of evolution, so how are they going to accept it?

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by SaturnFX

Let me make sure I understand you correctly.

You have performed testing, and have verified the radiometric data for yourself. You understand what you are looking at, and have examined all bones, and found them to be a part of a chain of evolutionary events. You understand in full the "science" of generational mutations and cellular comparability, and have examined the findings of multiple repeatable experiments, and have determined their relation to the remainder of the evidence in support of an evolving species.

No? Then you are still operating on faith that what is being presented to you is verifiable fact. But you have not taken the first step in verifying it, because you have limited means to do so. Therefore, you are as religious as the creationist you want to declare insane.

Difference being, If I want to examine every bone, every claim, it is literally right there for me to test for myself..
I cannot go speak to a creator, but I can verify and validate the science.

I -have- been to many museums and seen first hand the bones
I -have- watched the videos and such to understand carbon dating, both arguments.
If I choose to go further, turn a career into it, then I have that option.

Can someone decide to validate creationism by talking to deities or angels?
Sorry, but you cant.Creationism is 100% faith..step 1, ignore all scientific discoveries...

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:47 PM
As much as I think it is baloney, I don't think it should be considered a sign of insanity. This is mostly because I'm wary of starting to label things that are unpopular or based upon willful ignorance as insanity. Almost everyone has some kind of weird belief about something.

Beyond that, I seriously doubt that putting a Creationist on medication is going to magically make them see that Evolution is real. I seriously doubt that putting a Theist on anti-psychotropics is going to suddenly turn them into an Atheist. Whereas if you put a bipolar on medicine, most of the time they're going to stop having mood swings, and if you put a schizophrenic on medication, they're going to stop seeing dogs that tell them to kill people.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:17 PM
Hook, Line, and sinker!

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Then the answer to my questions is: No. You have not done these things, and you are not a scientist. Going to museums, and watching videos is not evidence, it is the sharing of information. Therefore, you live by faith and conviction that the church of science is unimpeachable. Which is fine. That is your right, and I support your right to believe the way you choose to believe.

As to whether creation or intelligent design could garner enough scientific evidence to be proven remains to be seen. Although it's doubtful we'll ever know.

Ignoring all scientific discoveries would be foolhardy at best. However, blind faith, and radical belief in a system with no checks and balances to speak of is just as foolhardy.

It was a lively little debate, and I respect your thoughts and beliefs just as I would anyone elses.

edit on 5-12-2010 by Klassified because: Correction

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by TheWill

I hear you brother!

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:02 PM
well if someone believed he was an ape and that his fur fell out and he went around claiming he was an ape, i would consider having him commited.
edit on 5-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Here is my answer to you...

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by randomname
well if someone believed he was an ape and that his fur fell out and he went around claiming he was an ape, i would consider having him commited.
edit on 5-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Verses...animated mud..unless of course it was a woman, in which case, clearly it is a living rib bone

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:35 PM

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by SaturnFX

Here is my answer to you...

Your first sentence immediately dismisses it being relevant to this topic overall. You ask if its child abuse, then you immediately say "not in school, but..."
Why not in school? what you didn't say speaks louder than what you did say...your intellectual mind made sure to put that caveat in because you know its not actual facts or even worthy of an academic light.

I understand the desire to want something bigger and better than yourself...but believing in fairy tales and championing things you personally do not believe in at your core will only distance yourself from a true connection to something that may in fact be real.

Religion kills spirituality and corrupts knowledge.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:38 PM
Creationism is a sign of both insanity and outsanity. Haha playing around with pre-fixes here but seriously I think those that argue against creationism are both ignorant and arrogant. Things cannot evolve by themselves without an outside force bringing about that "change".

I am not a big fan of any mainstream religion because they tend to beat around the bush without giving solid answers to burning questions, but when it comes to choosing between religion and science I will always choose religion.

When science stops hiding everything under the pretense of "national security" this and "national security" that and most importantly stop acting like god by doing dangerous experiments that could have terrible ramifications on our planet, THEN I might give science some credit.

There is no excuse for stupidity and sooner or later we will pay for our mistakes!

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:42 PM
NO, thinking all creationist believe the same thing and that they do not believe some science should be considered ignorance though. Neither creationists nor scientists have all the pieces of the puzzle so for any party to claim the other is wrong beyond doubt is just an opinion.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by YouAreDreaming

Yes, all religion is insane. I need the facts, and I think it is silly for a grown man(or woman) to believe in an entity that has power over everything and knows everything. This sounds so primitive and I find it to be harmful to real progress. Progress that should be advancing human kind.

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 02:21 AM
people who don't believe God created humans would rather believe that we are apes that evolved over millions of years even though it's odd that many animals on earth according to scientists have remained unchanged, like crocodiles, for hundreds of millions of years.

750 millions of years from now humans will look exactly the same way they are now. why? because it's programmed in our genetic code.

just like crocodiles look the same way now as they did 250 million years ago.

key word programmed. to say everything is a random event is like hitting a royal flush 800 million times in a row.

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:20 AM
Of course, this appears to be a thread baiting Christians. I'm a sucker, so I'll bite.

I believe that God can make this Earth and this Universe in 6 days if He wants. That's why we Christians call Him omnipotent. By the way, He can also make it appear aged. Heck, you can make furniture appear aged, and Hollywood can make actors appear aged. Is it a big deal for an omnipotent God to make the Universe in 6 days and make it all aged? I think not.

Maybe your idea of God is too small.

Creation is not so much about scientific fact, and should not be. It's about faith.

And something else: some of us have actually seen Him. No question about it.

edit on 12/6/2010 by Jim Scott because: Simplify.

edit on 12/6/2010 by Jim Scott because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

I think the bases of your thread is wrong.

you have to answer another question in order to answer whether "Creationism" should be considered a sign of insanity.

What is that question?

That question is:

What is insanity?

Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms


The above question being answered, now we can answer whether "Creationism" can be considered as a sign of insanity?

The answer is



Because "Creationism" is the norm.

Now let's turn the tables around:

Should "Atheism" be considered a sign of insanity?



Because Atheism is not the norm of this world, Atheists consist only of a small population of this world.

The hugely majority believe in GOD and a Creator ----> Creationism.

Now we have reached a philosophical stand point:

" If the whole world was insane, but you were the only sane, would the world regard you as insane? "


posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:26 AM
You know what truelly amazes me?
That in atleast 2000 to 5000 years of so called civilisation an growth of humankind, we havent evolved or grown at all.

After every horrible thing that has happened, every war or crime in the name of a God, we still love to judge and attack eachother on what we believe or think.
One would think that after all that crap we as a species had to endure we would've learned our lesson.
When push comes to shove most of us still are the freaking monkeys, trowing poop at each other.
That's so uplifting.....

It's like we refuse to accept that people think different and want different things out of life.Who cares if somebody believes in God and creationism or if that person doesn't? If there is a God, he would be so #ing proud wouldn't you think?

edit on 6-12-2010 by Subjective1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2010 by Subjective1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:22 AM

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by SaturnFX


Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that I am sorry for you. I am sorry that you have no faith in anything larger than your narrow existence. I am sorry that it seems you are desperate to have someone, anyone prove you wrong in your beliefs. It seems that you badly want someone to come up with an argument that would prove to you that God exists so that you can finally have something to believe in. You keep asking people of faith to prove to you that He exists, and that is an endeavor doomed to failure.

I am sorry that you seem so lost and looking for an answer that you cannot receive in the way that you are asking. God really only wants one thing, and that is unconditional trust in Him without evidence or proof. That is the one thing that you will never receive, and I am sorry for that.

Those are my thoughts. You asked.
edit on 12/5/10 by jennybee35 because: to add the ridiculous "sparkle" to prove I read the OP.

Could you be any more preachy?...see this is the problem.

Insanity dictates that you hold strong beliefs in the imaginary.

Sanity dictates that you question those beliefs in order to ascertain a logical point of view.

Lord of the Rings stands up better than the Bible does. And you can't disprove Goblics, Orcs or Dragons can you!...that must mean they exist...because I have faith. right?

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:23 AM
funny thing

I am not saying the creationists
are right...


scientists claim that they know
how the life emerged?

and yet, they never created
even a living one-cell organism from scratch
(using, what they call, basic elements)
in laboratory based on their 'superb'

on the other hand
the NATURE creates life
every nanosecond without any problem

it created people too, remember (scientists included)?

compared to silly scientists
NATURE looks like all-powerful god...

if the scientists are so intelligent,
why is this simple fact escaping them?

maybe because they are not so
intelligent and too arrogant:
the worst combination

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in