The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

reply to post by DaGremlin


...it takes no faith to acknowledge the work of scientists you don't know personally. Why? Because their work is open for review and testing, as that is how the whole published peer review process works!

Seriously, people need to get off of this whole "It takes faith to accept the claims of scientists" crap, the peer-review process is there to get rid of that.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs
The whole damn universe was made for us.

That's a ridiculous statement given that the large majority of the universe is deadly for us

And no, I don't believe blind faith would make us better. If it did, we'd still believe snails can melt, or that women were created from the rib of a man

Your biggest mistake on ATS is your constant use of the word I.

reply to post by samaka


So where does the genetic code that occurs in a child that is not present in either of the parents come from if it is not a mutation? Seriously, you have some really basic misunderstandings of real basic science. The average human has ~180 mutations that separate itself from both parents.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cuervo

 

If it makes you feel any better, I believe all religions got it wrong. Some (like Buddhism) are more flexible, and don't blatantly go against proven scientific facts...but then again, many of them, including Buddhism, don't believe in a creator god

You don't have to believe in any god at all to be open to creationism. Everything is created. Your parents created you. A tree was created by another tree. The computer you speak to me on was created by some dude in a sweatshop that resembles the bee hive that manufactured the honey that fed that dude's poor kids, purchased with money created by some mint. At some point, going back to the big bang and before, there has to be an explanation and creation is no less feasible than any other idea. None of that means you have to have religion to entertain.

edit ps - And I'm on the same page with you about religion: none of them got it "right".

reply to post by randyvs


So now the word "I" is outlawed?

It's pretty clear why objective evidence is superior to blind faith. Hell, there's people who don't eat pork even though there's nothing wrong with it. Or believe if they wear special clothes, they get into heaven...even though there's ZERO evidence that "heaven" even exists.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


By "Bridge the gap" you mean trying to claim that infinity is self aware and then pull a switch-a-roo and substitute God for self aware infinity with a bill hicks amusement park ride analogy tacked onto it.

Of COURSE is makes PERFECT sense! Keep on keeping on with that awesome bridge gapping. Enjoy the ride.

Creationism benefits from a well understood concept that the truth is what the majority believe. how can anyone prove or disprove god - 2000 years ago a short period of our time on earth there was no way we could understand even the most basic concepts on many things we take for granted today.

The fact is no one knows god more than the same basic thing everyone agrees to - we came from somewhere and whether its a sentient being or a force of nature it's still our creator it's still our god and if it had a plan you have to think evolution was part of it - were not ready for immortality for instance but maybe in 500 years ? Were not ready for the end of the mainstream religions but maybe in 100 years ? that's evolution of our intelligence which i think is more important than evolution of our physical being.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

So now the word "I" is outlawed?

It's pretty clear why objective evidence is superior to blind faith. Hell, there's people who don't eat pork even though there's nothing wrong with it. Or believe if they wear special clothes, they get into heaven...even though there's ZERO evidence that "heaven" even exists.

Typical scientific rational. Putting words in peoples mouths. No wonder you guys whine about all the problems you have. when you can't understand normal thinking.

reply to post by circuitsports

Creationism benefits from a well understood concept that the truth is what the majority believe.

Majority opinion is pretty much worthless, only objective evidence counts. 3,000 years ago, people believed the earth is flat, in fact, the majority believed it...but of course that wasn't correct. It wasn't correct because they didn't back up their claim with objective evidence.

Stuff like that lead to the development of "scientific method" that makes sure claims are backed up with objective evidence rather than blind belief or lies.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

So now the word "I" is outlawed?

It's pretty clear why objective evidence is superior to blind faith. Hell, there's people who don't eat pork even though there's nothing wrong with it. Or believe if they wear special clothes, they get into heaven...even though there's ZERO evidence that "heaven" even exists.

Typical scientific rational. Putting words in peoples mouths. No wonder you guys whine about all the problems you have. when you can't understand normal thinking.

You were the one claiming me using the word "I" is a problem...ridiculous

Also, love how you complete ignore the rest of my post simply because it shows how ridiculous your initial claim is

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Sigh... I was obviously a giving a very basic example of mutation to coincide with my explanation that random numbers can't exist in genetic mutation.

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

 

By "Bridge the gap" you mean trying to claim that infinity is self aware and then pull a switch-a-roo and substitute God for self aware infinity with a bill hicks amusement park ride analogy tacked onto it.

Of COURSE is makes PERFECT sense! Keep on keeping on with that awesome bridge gapping. Enjoy the ride.

Tao, The Universe, TRUE Infinity, God, The Self, whatever word you want to call it... the word isn't important.

And thanks! I will!

Again remember, I was writing your very same arguments a couple of years ago. The same arguments, the same jokes I thought were oh so clever, the same repetition of the same stances without having actually spent any time challenging them myself, just accepting them as is. I've been on both sides of the bridge. I can write your arguments for you.

It's of course easy to say "Oh well you just went crrrrazy and lost touch with reality", which is understandable, because that too was what I argued against others myself. You are following such a flawless script that it is also a nice reminder of the vague concept of Karma for me. I'm having to experience what it was like when I did it to others. But since I can see the bigger picture now... I also am not in a rush to convince (it's impossible to convince someone who doesn't *want* to learn anyways)... and can enjoy this whole thing with a grin and a giggle.

Switch-a-roo... haha. Yes... I can work with that.

Enjoy and thank you again for your time and energy! I mean that truly and honestly.

Namaste.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by something wicked

 

Hey look the old "Stop preaching" personal attack!

Originally posted by something wicked
Pray tell me, why do you keep making these threads?

Because people read them, some people find them interesting, others find them useful, some may even change their minds based upon what they read in these discussions.

You have your opinion,

...it's not my opinion, it's an acceptance of scientific fact.

you know many will agree with you, you know many won't. You never actually say anything new so is there a point?

I'm sorry, but I say quite a bit that's new...now, when I'm responding to people I do tend to have to repeat the same things over and over again...but that's because I keep having to respond to the exact same ignorant lines over and over again. "It's a theory, key word theory" is something I read if not weekly then monthly.

Your arguements on this are reaching a point some would say is based on your faith.......

...I'm sorry, but I don't have a faith. There is no faith here, there is merely an acceptance of scientific fact. Just like I don't take the principles of physics that explain how computers work on faith, I don't biology on faith.

just let it drop, if you want to be a missionary, just say so and do it.

No preaching here, merely trying to explain science.

No, your opinionated and don't accept that if it doesn't come out of your mouth it has no value. You don't biology on faith, does that even make sense?

Frankly, you add nothing new to an arguement that has run for centuries and will continue to run as long as mankind exists. Add something new please, or don't bother.

reply to post by filosophia


Who told you these answers? Who introduced you to this information? How do you know this to be true? What proof do you have of these observations? If a god did create all of this, what is the purpose? Surely there would be a purpose to creating something? God was bored?

If you tell me the bible told you this, I ask who showed you the bible, and why? Who would want you to believe in a god, if a god gave you free will why would he impose rules upon you? Wouldn’t rules go against the whole free will thing? Why would a god give a man ten commandments, why wouldn’t he just present himself and deliver the message, wouldn’t we all follow them as commanded if this god delivered them himself, instead of leaving it all trivial and left to fail at his rules, seems kind of foolish to set up rules and not enforce them until your dead?

What has god left us with? Corrupt governments who use the rule of law to keep us oppressed, but aren’t the laws made by god, why would he let the majority suffer while the corrupt use his laws to control us? If god gave us rights wouldn’t he give us the right to healthy food and fair law and to be thy brother’s keeper, wouldn’t someone who made all the rules enforce them properly? If I made a rule to follow, why would I wait till the person that broke the rule was dead to punish them?

Once again if you tell me you read this in the bible I will tell you that the Jews, the Muslims and every other religion says the same thing, do they all have their own gods or did one god do all of this to mess with people, again we have a rule that contradicts itself as do all the rules and stories in the Bible, Quran and other religious books, so if you tell me you believe it all because the bible told you so, then I would say man has not mentally grown in two thousand years!

If there is a god and I ever meet him, I’ll give him a blast of smack talk and tell him "hey man you haven’t upgraded this ride in two thousand years, and everything has gone to crap, what the hell is wrong with you can’t you fix any of this B.S. you created?" But I know there are no gods, no Easter bunny and no Santa clause, so we can all go back to what we were doing previous to listening to the elite break the gods rules and destroy us all, but hey I guess it’s all god’s plan, evil as it may be!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Schkeptick

 

The Biblical stories directly contradict scientific facts....hell, the book is rife with errors in how the world works. I'm not saying that a 'true Bible' would have to be a text book, but its claims about the natural world should, at the very least, be consistent with how the natural world works. Maybe a few pieces of helpful medical advice...or maybe an advanced farming technique or two to spice things up.

And I don't have a belief system...I'm an atheist, I have a single disbelief. Can't really make a system out of one lack of a part.

Why do you disdain the bible but use the word hell to do so? Sheesh, armchair philosphers, make your mind up - I really struggle what you come here to do..... or is the tv boring tonight?

reply to post by something wicked

Frankly, you add nothing new to an arguement that has run for centuries and will continue to run as long as mankind exists. Add something new please, or don't bother.

Given that a lot of the stuff Madness talks about has only been discovered a few years ago, your statement is kinda laughable

Also, how about you stop the ad hominem attacks and try to refute the actual content of what he says...oh wait, you can't

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

So now the word "I" is outlawed?

It's pretty clear why objective evidence is superior to blind faith. Hell, there's people who don't eat pork even though there's nothing wrong with it. Or believe if they wear special clothes, they get into heaven...even though there's ZERO evidence that "heaven" even exists.

Typical scientific rational. Putting words in peoples mouths. No wonder you guys whine about all the problems you have. when you can't understand normal thinking.

You were the one claiming me using the word "I" is a problem...ridiculous

Also, love how you complete ignore the rest of my post simply because it shows how ridiculous your initial claim is

You were the one using the words blind faith. Sorry doesn't fly. Look it's obvious you're not real aware when it comes to word games. So ....this just isn't that interesting. I've put forth a solid idea as to the reason you guys get so frustrated with all the do overs that constantly drive you nuts. It wasn't even directed towards you as in I. Hence your mistake . You don't have to get so uppity.



Oh hell I forgot to read the OP.


Ahh on second thought why bother ?

reply to post by randyvs


How is me using the words "blind faith" wrong in the complete absence of objective evidence supporting the creationist's claims???

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

How is me using the words "blind faith" wrong in the complete absence of objective evidence supporting the creationist's claims???

Oh now you want answers from me? A creationist ? Who's ever heard of such a thing ?

reply to post by infojunkie2


I have yet to find an answer to the question of why does evolution need two to make one? Meaning that if evolution truly was the survival of the fittest and evolving into the highest form for survival why does it take two to make one off spring? This seems to be a very weak way to maintain a species. Everything from fish to birds to humans needs to have an egg fertilized by the opposite sex to produce an offspring.