"Why Do Creationists Get Laughed At?"

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mickierocksman
 

Well said, Mickierocksman. I am a little happy to see a thread asking why some of us laugh at Creationists, and I guess now they will know why. I see it both ways, and I will tell you all why I see it both ways.

Something created all of this, that much is pretty easy to figure out. Some highly intelligent force became fully aware, and began to have formative thought.
Plato's Theory of Forms
It also makes perfect sense to know that whoever, or whatever did create all of this did not stick around to run it like a carnival ride. I know some love to think a God is always right there to answer their prayers of kill a few people in a storm, one can hardly watch TV without hearing someone thanking God for this or that, as if he was right there doing their bidding for them.

The question at hand here is why are Creationist laughed at by Evolutionists? Well, we can all see evolution, we are not forced to "believe it exists," we know it is a real thing. I myself have watched at I evolved from a skinny, gangly child with a lung disorder, into an old man who has lived life to it's fullest, accumulating a great deal of knowledge along the way. I have watched as Society evolved. Anyone who says this did not happen is blind. Everything has changed since I was a young man in the 1960s. If there was a God involved with Human Reality, he surely would not have let some of the atrocities happen that destroyed a generation's power killed or imprisoned many of their ranks? Speaking of atrocities, I guess if the God of the OT was around, he would have sent fiery serpents, like in Numbers 21:6? Or took another 32,000 virgins as war booty like in Numbers 31:31-40?
God, by whatever medium you may see him or her as, may have spoke all this into being, but does not prosecute it on a daily basis, but lets it rum like a program.

Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

Is Intelligent Design (ID) a valid scientific theory?

ID theory has been criticized on the following basis:

No model has been presented
Since there is no model, there are no predictions from the theory
No refinement of the theory is possible

In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to

define the Intelligent Designer
reject young-earth creationism

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?
source




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I don't believe in evolution. I accept it based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it.

I often laugh at creationists because they accept it based on no evidence, and the reasoning they do to begin with. Basically since they personally cannot understand how it works, and refuse to do the research, they find it impossible.
By that logic, creating a transistor must also be made by god because they cannot understand the mechanics involved. (or whatever...raining, building a car, balancing checkbooks...anything you don't know personally = from god).

Its childlike..and there is something pathetic about a grown up person with access to the information be so intellectually lazy as to demand belief over logic.
There is also something dangerous when that belief is being pushed as fact and requested to be taught in class alongside proper science.

A creationist whom understands and accepts the overwhelming evidence of evolution, accepts evolution as the scientific understanding of the "how", and would like to find counter evidence of their hobby belief..thats fine. I also would like to find stuff that alters the understanding of mankind..would be awesome to find out deity or alien interventionism...but until there is evidence, then it is just sci-fi chatting and pondering and not something that should be even in the same arena as scientific understandings.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 



Some highly intelligent force became fully aware, and began to have formative thought.


This doesn't make any sense :/ Intelligence can't come before an aware state when intelligence is specifically in relation to the ability to apply knowledge. This is backwards logic and what I think you are trying to say is that a conscious being evolved.. So no, you can't have it both ways technically speaking. But you could argue without assertion and fancy the idea of the evolution of a conscious being(s) that induced "This" Big Bang.. But again there is no evidence for that.. This Universe could simply be a virtual particle of a much larger Universe to where we make up that Universe's quantum physics. But again there is no evidence for that...All evidence points to a self-generating existence as a whole, and that is essentially what science is studying. Plato is really outdated, and he had no concept of modern quantum mechanics, physics, information science, information theory, genetics, or a whole slew of things.. And Plato's theory of forms can't properly address or classify anything, and is often used by Creationists as an ever moving goal post when it continuously contradicts itself. It tries to address these trivial issues:


1. The Ethical Problem: How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where every thing they attach themselves to can be taken away?


Easy.. Accept reality rather than ignore it. Whatever universal rule (positive, negative, or neutral) you apply to it is up to you .. Hence, you can enjoy life and accept it (positive), have no worry or care of the world changing (neutral or grey areas between positive and negative), or fear it and hide under a table all your life (negative)



2. The Problem of Permanence and Change: How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways?


Because energy can interfere with itself.. simply, yeah, things can move and interact by the nature of their properties. Yes there is a reason why rivers flow down a mountain and meander to the paths with the less resistance. These are pretty trivial things. but let me tackle something here:


It exists independently of the basketball and independently of whether someone thinks of it. All round objects, not just this basketball, participate or copy this same form of roundness.


Everything deals with states of energy, patterns of energy, or forms of energy. Roundness is a descriptive tag a cognitive system assigns to such objects.. The tag is not even relevant as the objects simply are as they are regardless of tag or descriptive context a cognitive system attaches to it in order to categorize it.. And it can't be said that it will persist because existence holds only the potential probability of having objects fitting that description, or having the description itself. In a pure vacuum, these state of energy wouldn't exist, and if no cognitive system existed to give a description, nor would the description exist as it to is a state / pattern of energy (information).. There is only the probability and potential of these states existing according to the laws of the self-generating system. Both cases would have to be generated by the system to which persists to exist irregardless of either or.
edit on 3-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Well mister Evolutionist please explain how life came to be on this earth .


And right out of the gate you show you don't know the subject. Evolution has nothing--NOTHING--to say on the beginnings of life. For that, go look up abiogenesis. There's even a thread on it.


With the discovery of RNA and DNA in every living cell in every living plant and animal and the fact that DNA does not randomly occur in any environment ,


Nonsensical. DNA and RNA are nucleic acids. Period. It's been proven in the lab that RNA can autocatalyze and self-organize...all on its own with no help from anyone.


how did it come to be and in a living cell .


That would be because of a cell membrane.


Both do not occur in any form in any condition much less together . Then this rock we live on was red hot and as steril as the space that surrounds it with extremes in radiation and temperatures as well as no oxygen . How about enlightening us on how something was there to evolve .


You may want to look up the term "extremophiles." Microbes can survive under almost ANY conditions, and there are several multicellular organisms that can do it, too. Look up Nanoarchaeum equitans. Deinococcus radiodurans. Strain 121. Bacillus infernus.

Lichens can survive the depths and vacuum of space. So can tartigrades--they are very tiny, and there are 750 species of them. They have multi-lobed brains, digestive and nervous systems. They reproduce sexually. And they've been around for at least 200 million years.

Now, these hardy little critters can survive anywhere on Earth and in space, too. They can handle temperatures in the range of -300 degrees F to 300 degrees F and pressures anywhere from 1,000 atm to vacuum. They can also handle 1,000 times the radiation that would kill us.

To say they couldn't handle a young, hot Earth is ridiculous.
edit on 8/3/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





I don't believe in evolution. I accept it based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it.


I agree...It would be like saying " I believe in rain."

Evolution is not something you believe in, it's something you accept and understand as a scientific fact.
It's testable, it's falsifiable and it makes predictions. It is the unifying theory of biology, it unites every independent discipline of biology.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I don't believe in evolution. I accept it based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it.

I often laugh at creationists because they accept it based on no evidence, and the reasoning they do to begin with. Basically since they personally cannot understand how it works, and refuse to do the research, they find it impossible.
By that logic, creating a transistor must also be made by god because they cannot understand the mechanics involved. (or whatever...raining, building a car, balancing checkbooks...anything you don't know personally = from god).

Its childlike..and there is something pathetic about a grown up person with access to the information be so intellectually lazy as to demand belief over logic.
There is also something dangerous when that belief is being pushed as fact and requested to be taught in class alongside proper science.


Bingo. For the life of me, I can't understand such willful ignorance. If they took the time to educate themselves, that would be one thing. But they don't. Or can't, because it would upset their personal apple cart and maybe force them to evaluate their own lives and what they believe.

They adhere to "it can't be true therefore it isn't." It's the logical fallacy of wishful thinking.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Well mister Evolutionist please explain how life came to be on this earth . With the discovery of RNA and DNA in every living cell in every living plant and animal and the fact that DNA does not randomly occur in any environment , how did it come to be and in a living cell . Both do not occur in any form in any condition much less together . Then this rock we live on was red hot and as steril as the space that surrounds it with extremes in radiation and temperatures as well as no oxygen . How about enlightening us on how something was there to evolve . reply to post by miniatus
 




You might want to review this article:
www.time.com...

DNA seems to be a part of nature; one of the basic elements of the universe, and it should be placed on that Table of Elements. Likely there should be 144 of them when completed.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
Which tailed ape is this anomaly supposed to be throwing back to anyway? If you go through the apes and alleged ape-men claimed to be in humans' evolutionary lineage, you can't find one that had a tail.

And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments? Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?


Thank you, Great Divider, for giving many specific examples of why people laugh at creationists. How can you attack evolution without even knowing the very basics of how it works? Watch the video series, he goes over everything you've brought up and much more.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


You're welcome. Enjoy life and laugh while you can.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Well mister Evolutionist please explain how life came to be on this earth . With the discovery of RNA and DNA in every living cell in every living plant and animal and the fact that DNA does not randomly occur in any environment , how did it come to be and in a living cell . Both do not occur in any form in any condition much less together . Then this rock we live on was red hot and as steril as the space that surrounds it with extremes in radiation and temperatures as well as no oxygen . How about enlightening us on how something was there to evolve . reply to post by miniatus
 




You might want to review this article:
www.time.com...

DNA seems to be a part of nature; one of the basic elements of the universe, and it should be placed on that Table of Elements. Likely there should be 144 of them when completed.


Er, not to nitpick or anything, but DNA isn't an element. It's a molecule made of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus, and it exists not singly but in pairs. Among other things.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Brian is not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!


Originally posted by bjarneorn
Evolution does not in any way, rule out the possibility of a God. Nor does it in any way, say that God did not do whatever God is supposed to have done.


Truth.



The only thing Evolution does, in this era ... is to disprove the Human Vanity, the racistic belief ... that "some" men are the sons of God.


Truth.



The vanity of believing, that you are the image of your creator ... that you are beyond other life on this planet.


Debatable. Human beings are arguably the highest form of life known to exist. Our creative potential surpasses that of any living creature known to us. Our ability to create is the reflection of our Creator.



I am sorry to have to dissapoint your vanity, and your egoistic belief system. I am sorry to have to tell you, that you are not a god ... that you do not even remotely look like anything that is a God.


The bible wasn't implying that we look like God but that our mind is structured in such a way that allows us to create. It is not vain to believe that we have amazing potential, or that our existence holds some meaning.



You are just a petty life on this planet, klinging on to imaginary beliefs ... no more important, than a Cat, or a dog ... or a mouse. Before you were born, you were a fish ... and right before you turned into a baby in your mommy's tummy ... you were nothing more than a little piggy.


I do not Klingon to imaginary beliefs. My beliefs are malleable when confronted with compelling logic, and I trust my intuition as much as cold hard facts.

I could say I am more important than a cat, by the simple fact that my existence has allowed two cats to live very happy, comfortable lives.

The way you speak of us, of yourself, as petty life shows how negative your point of view really is. I pity you in that aspect.

The rest of your post is pretty accurate. I don't subscribe to the "Israelites are God's chosen" idea, nor young earth creationism or anything that cannot coincide with scientific theory in some way.
edit on 3/8/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass
The bible wasn't implying that we look like God but that our mind is structured in such a way that allows us to create. It is not vain to believe that we have amazing potential, or that our existence holds some meaning.


I know many who would argue about this. Each religious sect that worships the Bible has a different view of God. The Mormons fully believe that he is a flesh and blood being up in the stars. Being centered around creation is also a very specific ideal that is not reflected in some of the larger Christian branches. Most believe that humans are simply intrinsically chosen by God to be better than the rest of nature, hence the whole story with Adam being given dominion of all the beasts that roam the Earth.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I know many who would argue about this. Each religious sect that worships the Bible has a different view of God. The Mormons fully believe that he is a flesh and blood being up in the stars. Being centered around creation is also a very specific ideal that is not reflected in some of the larger Christian branches. Most believe that humans are simply intrinsically chosen by God to be better than the rest of nature, hence the whole story with Adam being given dominion of all the beasts that roam the Earth.


It's difficult to argue such concepts, since most of those who would argue are entirely rooted in their beliefs.

To the Mormons I would probably suggest that a flesh and blood being could not have created the universe, as that flesh would have to precede all organic matter, which could not be so since the elements of which organic matter is composed would not yet be in existence. However to understand this point would require a rudimentary understanding of scientific theory, which this thread has already shown that most creationists lack...

I should also point out that most scripture refers to God as a being of light, not flesh. I don't regard scripture as rigidly binding fact, but since the Mormon faith was based on Christianity it should probably be taken into consideration.

That's not to say that God couldn't incarnate as a being of flesh...but the full knowledge possessed by God would probably overload a human brain, we simply aren't equipped to handle that volume of information. Prophets are believed to serve as a conduit for God, but the Bible also forbids channelling spirits and warns against false prophets. The danger of deception leads me to dismiss them almost entirely. I wont put faith in any prophet, instead I look for the wisdom and truth in their words, if it can be found.

Christians hold a rather limiting view of humanity despite being "chosen" as superior beings. If we are superior beings then why should we be made to feel guilty of "sin"? I have many issues with Genesis 2 as a literal story, but as a parable it has value.

Why would our Creator try to inhibit us from reaching our full creative potential? That seems counter-productive when one understands that the nature of the universe is to expand and evolve to fully express the magnificence of creation.
edit on 3/8/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/8/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Just because he lives in USA doesn't mean he has the right to generalize, am I right? Then again, Christians are an easy target, that's why Atheists have a tenancy of targeting them, couldn't that be a possible answer also?

That being said, you agreed with everything I said, except that there's no evidence for creation, mind I add, maybe because you don't know what evidence means.

That being said, I'll repeat the difference in belief between an Atheist and a Creationist.

An Atheist believes science is an observation of random incidents which lead to this magnificent Universe, while creationists believe science is observation of creation, there's nothing random about it, just like there's nothing random about your computer going through the same startup process every time it reboots.

In conclusion, reality is not random, it was designed to be what it is, if you reboot the Universe a trillion times, just like rebooting your computer a trillion times, there are only limited programmed results. Go study Determinism to get a grasp of what I'm talking about. And also the definition of "evidence", which might come in handy next time you discuss an issue.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I don't laugh at anybody. But to be honest here I think they are ridiculed because they haven't figured out that God cannot be humanized anymore than discovery of certain truths can be shaped to the interpretation of a particular set of indoctrinated beliefs.

This is not to say that religion and science cannot be compatible. Only that certain people cannot see that science is a process meant to discover the truth of God's universe. It's really sad that creationists feel the need to create an entirely separate and erroneous pseudoscience in order to avoid accepting the truths that are before them.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
This thread is an attack on religion not creationism. I myself am not religious but I will not ignore the fact that everything you see and experience utilizes flawless mathematics. Where did that come from? Maybe, just maybe, the human mind isn't capable of knowing the facts.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CallYourBluff
 


Being part of the universe I believe we are able to understand it. We have been given the tools by virtue of our existence. To me that is God telling us to go and figure it out. To some, however, the discovery of certain truths may be uncomfortable. Like Natural Selection.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlightMare
reply to post by CallYourBluff
 


Being part of the universe I believe we are able to understand it. We have been given the tools by virtue of our existence. To me that is God telling us to go and figure it out. To some, however, the discovery of certain truths may be uncomfortable. Like Natural Selection.



Yes, but by the same logic you could say "a dog exists in this universe and has been given the tools of virtue"but the dog doesn't have the answers we are grasping or the intellect to understand. Then again maybe he does and he just doesn't give a #e.





 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join