Creation is a Scientific Fact

Greetings all,
I am a frequent reader of this site and I get great enjoyment and insight out of it. When I read this topic I cant help but have to impulsively add my 2 cents to it for I feel it needs it.
We as a society have only been given 2 explanations by the CROSS and the CROWN (church and state which makes up the Establishment) on the subject of our existence on 2 very finely crafted silver platters.

1. Evolution/Random chance (Crown/State)
2. Creationism/God (Cross/Churches)

But there is one platter which has never officially been handed to us.
This platter is very dangerous to the powers that be for it offers us all a way off this tight-rope of self destruction the world is on.
This platter finally unites science and religion.

Here is the bombshell.
We WERE created BUT not by a Singular impulpable, immaterial being that is everywhere and nowhere known to Christians as GOD, but by a Multitude of advanced material beings using knowledge of advanced Sciences in genetics.

The establishment would much rather you all keep your minds occupied with the First 2 platters for it keeps your minds off the Third.

Not only can Science and Religion co-exist, they belong together.


And thats my 2 cents.

Let the poo flinging begin

Well a court found that creationism is not science but religion - as does every scientist on this planet - except three crackpots.

what are the odds on a God - now those would be BIG numbers - imagine a divine omniscient, omnipresent entity capable of anything spontaneously coming into existence only 2000 years ago - wow!

I would like to see this power - turn the ocean into jelly, cure cancer, do anything, something, one thing !

Not only are the odds against an entity of this nature so far beyond the spectrum - but whatever this thing you bang on about is - its pretty lame....hasn't done a single thing beyond getting nailed.

Originally posted by audas
Well a court found that creationism is not science but religion - as does every scientist on this planet - except three crackpots.

what are the odds on a God - .... spontaneously coming into existence only 2000 years ago - wow!

I would like to see this power - turn the ocean into jelly, cure cancer, do anything, something, one thing !

A court you say?!? what does a court have to do with truth ? not much anymore, I'm afraid.....



and " 2000" yrs ago, He just visited for a short time

you can read all about Him, here;

quod.lib.umich.edu...

but I know that won't do you any good, you really need a teacher who can explain it all

and I doubt you'd even bother.


goodluck on your quest

Reeeaaaaly ?

No evidence, nothing - let me get this straight - of all the historians of the period there is not a single reference of an earthly visitation of a divine being who performed numerous miracles and changed the entire known world - not a scrap outside of what has come to be proven as a forgery ?

WOW....

So there is absolutely not a single shred of proof - not a single thing that has not been made by man - and we are expected to believe that all of this was the work of a mystical, fantasy being who has never, in any way revealed his existence - and the fact that the consequences of this "mystical being" also, just happen, to be utilised in the total subjugation of humanity and the empowerment of elites with MASSIVE financial rewards reaped over centuries is simply a matter of coincidence ?

The fact that almost every culture creates its own forms of religion, thousands upon thousands of deities all created to explain the unknown is also simply an unfortunate coincidence of no relevance - on top of all of this is the SCIENTIFIC FACT - proven, established, accepted laws of physics, geology, chemistry, (etc,etc,etc) which has proven beyond all measure of doubt that the stories conveyed within the Bible are lies. A situation which has repeatedly found the church simply "changing the story" - another coincidence -

The fact that modern history clearly, concisely has recorded the reality surrounding the "creation" of the modern church?!

The fact that the Church has simply abandoned its foundational myths from the old testament and simply conjured up new ones ?

The fact that religious impulses have been completely explained through evolutionary forces, that religious zealously has been proven to be a "medical" condition often brought on by trauma to the brain (yes its a fact) -

All of these things are simply coincidences which can be over ruled by denying the global rule of law, history, science, etc, etc in preference for a baseless fantasy story perpetuated out of fear ?!

Riiiiight.

reply to post by audas


Can we please not derail yet another topic by turning this into a religion-bashing fest? This is a scientific discussion with a side dish of theology. If you want to discuss religion, Christian apologetics, the historical references of Jesus, and the pros and cons of evidence supporting Christianity then please take it to BTS. You are discussing off topic issues of the Christian faith. This thread is discussing and debating a scientific matter that may or may not lend credence to a divine creation but the focus is still the science of a finite universe vs. an infinite universe. Lets stick to that.

Originally posted by audas
The fact that religious impulses have been completely explained through evolutionary forces, that religious zealously has been proven to be a "medical" condition often brought on by trauma to the brain (yes its a fact) -

It also appears that religiosity is associated with OCD symptoms...

There is evidence that religion and other cultural influences are associated with the presentation of obsessive–compulsive symptoms, as well as beliefs and assumptions presumed to underlie the development and maintenance of these symptoms. We sought to further examine the relationship between Protestant religiosity and (1) various symptoms of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) (e.g., checking, washing) and (2) OCD-related cognitions. Using self-report questionnaires, we compared differences in these OCD-related phenomena between highly religious Protestants, moderately religious Protestants, and atheist/agnostic participants drawn from an undergraduate sample. Highly religious versus moderately religious Protestants reported greater obsessional symptoms, compulsive washing, and beliefs about the importance of thoughts. Additionally, the highly religious evinced more obsessional symptoms, compulsive washing, intolerance for uncertainty, need to control thoughts, beliefs about the importance of thoughts, and inflated responsibility, compared to atheists/agnostics. Results are discussed in terms of the relationship between religion and OCD symptoms in the context of the cognitive–behavioral conceptualization of OCD.

linky

Also some findings about disgust-sensitivity and religiosity. Which is actually very very interesting when related to morality ('Eew! Gays are disgusting') and also prejudicial attitudes and dehumanisation of outgroups (e.g., associating outgroups to infestation etc).

I might make a thread on this eventually, as it has many implications. But I'll probably find somewhere it might invoke reasonable discussion.

@ash, if this thread was meant to have a side dish of theology, I think it is meant to belong in BTS faith.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by melatonin]

Well it looks like the ATT demolished and derailed another one into a religion bashing fest. Surprise, surprise.

Religiosity = Mental Defect.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Not sure if this has been brought up yet or not, but you seem to think that the Big Bang was an actual explosion, like you see in action movies. The little I know of the theory is that it is not an explosion of fire, but an sudden and instant existence of what we would later call the space-time continuum.

Correct me if I misunderstand the Big Bang theory, or your own claim's, Whammy.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Well it looks like the ATT demolished and derailed another one into a religion bashing fest. Surprise, surprise.

Religiosity = Mental Defect.

Who said mental defect? Perhaps people with OCD tend to become overly religious, perhaps being overly religious fosters an OCD like personality. The data is there, interpret it how you want.

So not really a religious bash, ash. It was already essentially an atheist and darwinist bash, with attempts at christian martyrdom along the way. The thread was a pile of poop from the very OP. Whammy has been eviscerated, his video was full of crap, and the thread was turning to discussions of the bible.

So does it matter?

Whammy doesn't even want to discuss his specious claims or, more likely, he is completely unable to. He just wanted to score points against atheists, darwinists, and other 'infestations'. He even made it fairly clear that his motivations for the thread were deceptive. Evangelism - O&C do not want.

And so you play the ATT card. Who is this ATT, ash? Do they send e-mails to each other to discuss tactics? Do they bring a 'congregation' to the forum? Do they work threads as a team, bumping and giving cookies?

Or is it more derivative BS?

One tactic I've picked up is that someone will make the most ridiculous thread, then show they are completely ignorant of science or whatever, unable to answer honest questions and issues. People call them on their idiotic blatherings, then someone (usually con) will say 'look! nasty atheists calling people idiots, how dare they the savages!'.

If it walks like a duck, midear.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Melatonin,

You are my hero.


With love,
John

Originally posted by AshleyD
Well it looks like the ATT demolished and derailed another one into a religion bashing fest. Surprise, surprise.
Religiosity = Mental Defect.

Stars on that one -

Originally posted by melatonin
Who said mental defect? Perhaps people with OCD tend to become overly religious, perhaps being overly religious fosters an OCD like personality. The data is there, interpret it how you want.

Er... the 'D' in 'OCD' stands for Disorder. Mental disorder, mental defect. Then the EX quote talked about how Protestants are more prone to compulsive washing. Well, as they say, "Cleanliness is next to godliness," I suppose. It is an interesting study, I will admit, but still off topic and appears to me to just be a jab.

And nothing else in your comment was worth responding to because it was just another Whammy-bash. You two have opposing world views but I will say this: In spite of his brazen opinions he sticks out his threads to the very end and tries to reply to everyone. Once this thread began to drift off topic, he pointed this out. That does not mean he was not or could not reply to the bunny trails but instead wished to keep his thread on topic. I'm not sure why we always have to resort to intelligence attacks just because our world views differ.

And since I am now just as guilty as taking this thread off topic, I guess I should bow out of this line of discussion as well.

EDIT: I see you added in some edits after I replied but I will stick to what I said about bowing out to prevent this thread from drifting further off topic instead of arguing your newly added points. Sometimes it's just not worth it. We have enough ATS Atheists vs. ATS Christian feuds around here as it stands.

[edit on 7/7/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
It is an interesting study, I will admit, but still off topic and appears to me to just be a jab.

As for the defect part, it was only the most religious who had high OCD traits. So there will be very many with only mild personality traits. I might make a thread in time, as it goes further than just OCD, but also speaks to wider issues.

Not a jab actually, I saw a comment that was related, the thread has been off-topic for a while really, falling into discussion of the bible and other naff stuff.

So, I thought, does it matter? I don't think it does. The OP has made it clear the thread was a deceptive one, and he was not really interested in discussing science, but just converting the unclean.

What I said is fairly new stuff, off-topic of course, but no more so than this whole thread for this forum.

And since I am now just as guilty as taking this thread off topic, I guess I should bow out of this line of discussion as well.

We probably are, ash.

As for the OP, it was deceptive. It was just evangelism. I've responded numerous times rather fairly and openly, yet he has little but rants about darwinists, atheists, and materialists, along with an issue of atheist infestation.

I called this from the very start, and perhaps should have ignored the thread. But that's my own stupidity, maybe I just want to give people the chance for redemption. In the end, only mockery remains.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Lasheic

As for BigWhammy, I fail to see where you think you're making a point in quoting people like Einstein and Anthony Flew as some sort of an argument from authority, when they obviously do not support your biblical standpoint nor your views on the universe or it's creation. Einstein, for all intents and purposes, was an atheist. However, he was rather vague in regard to referencing god. At best, he could be considered a pantheist or possibly a deist. Anthony Flew vehemently denies he is affiliated with ANY organized religion, and also expresses a his position as being a Deist.

Thanks for the post... Very simple simple theist (or a deist) supports my Christian view a heck of a lot more than an atheist or anti-theist does my friend. Truthfully a basic belief in God is a very necessary first step to Salvation in Christ.

The famous writer C.S. Lewis was an atheist largely because of what me perceived as the evil in the world. Until he asked himself "Evil compared to what" and he gradually worked his way from atheism to theism.. and later to Christianity. Lewis then went on to convince his Oxford associate J.R. Toilkein to convert from atheism to belief in God.

So as you can see it is a monumental event, when a mainstay of the atheist literature like philosopher Antony Flew makes a public admission that he thinks the evidence supports a creator God. Moreover his reason for his conversion being the evidence of intelligent design. This is a particularly huge deal because Flew was the critical thinking model that the so called neo-atheists modeled themselves on. The same one ones use that very critical thinking to ridicule and discredit intelligent design because in my opinion they fear having an open dialog.

I didn't present an argument for Christ but a case for creation. I find it is usually best to start at the beginning. Unfortunately in todays cold materialistic world many people have lost even the very basic framework of a spiritual life. Belief in their creator.

I only claimed Einsteins general relativity requires a finite universe. It does. It requires a beginning. That's an argument from evidence. You are using an argument from authority fallacy by associating him with atheism (which is a double fallacy) - he did not even care for atheism at all:.

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

If A is atheism B is theism or deism and C is Salvation in Christ Jesus. Obviously you have to go through B to get to C.

Best wishes.


[edit on 7/7/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by melatonin


Also some findings about disgust-sensitivity and religiosity. Which is actually very very interesting when related to morality ('Eew! Gays are disgusting') and also prejudicial attitudes and dehumanisation of outgroups (e.g., associating outgroups to infestation etc).

I might make a thread on this eventually, as it has many implications. But I'll probably find somewhere it might invoke reasonable discussion.

@ash, if this thread was meant to have a side dish of theology, I think it is meant to belong in BTS faith.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by melatonin]

This wouldn't be anything like the "God Cooties" I so often see exhibited by Atheists who wouldn't become Nazi Soldiers because the belt buckles had the word "God" on them or the Atheists that get "offended" ad-nauseum because the pledge of allegiance had the word (brace yourself mel) GOD in it, would it?

Their is a couple law suits going on now where Christians are starting to fight fire with fire and suing a school because evolution offends their religion which is the flip side of Church and State, turns out, the law works BOTH ways ha ha I think Christians need to get the word out on that idea and do it in every freaking school in the damn country till that garbage BS crap they call science is GONE!

Yeah Babay!

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
This wouldn't be anything like the "God Cooties" I so often see exhibited by Atheists who wouldn't become Nazi Soldiers because the belt buckles had the word "God" on them or the Atheists that get "offended" ad-nauseum because the pledge of allegiance had the word (brace yourself mel) GOD in it, would it?

Not sure, con.

But in this sample, those with the lowest religiosity expressed the lowest levels of OCD traits. That was a US sample.

I think most atheists in the UK don't particularly care, I'll sing 'god save the queen' under pressure, not due to the 'god' part, but because I think royalty sucks.

I think Christians need to get the word out on that idea and do it in every freaking school in the damn country till that garbage BS crap they call science is GONE!

Yeah Babay!

- Con

Problem is many christians don't have an issue with evolutionary science. Just the special ones. Maybe you should retake the south, you could go back to the good old days.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Thanks for the post... Very simple simple theist (or a deist) supports my Christian view a heck of a lot more than an atheist or anti-theist does my friend. Truthfully a basic belief in God is a very necessary first step to Salvation in Christ.

Wow this reminds me so much of the arguments I used to have with madness when I first got here about Einstein and many about the forefathers. He would always say, "They were NOT christians they were "Deists"! I'd be like,, yeah so?

Ill take a Deist like lash over an Atheist ANY DAY when it comes down to it you see Deists usually being allys with Atheists but whenever deists get attacked for anything it's always Christians sticking up for them even after they have thrown us under the bus.

That little joke Dawkins likes to use about Buddhists where he says after they get rid of the Christians using Buddhists help, Atheists will get them next. I wonder sometimes if that ever came to be if that isn't EXACTLY what they would do.

You can tell a lot about people by the jokes they tell and the things they laugh at

- Con

Originally posted by melatonin


Problem is many christians don't have an issue with evolutionary science. Just the special ones. Maybe you should retake the south, you could go back to the good old days.

Mel,, I am sure you'll agree with this as it is true but Darwinism is the only thing taught in schools and THAT is why they don't have a problem with it being taught. Hell I didn't either for that matter. It wasn't till I had seen the way Atheists are using Science as a method to create a society of materialists which ALWAYS has led to eugenics in any country Darwinism is taught. Even our Supreme Court ruled in favor of it.

Hell John Scopes wasn't teaching evolution, he was teaching eugenics
We have every intention of letting kids know what YOUR science is about and after hearing that crap Tyson said,,

hehe that guy makes one wanna go back to those days in the deep southy all over again the religious bigot. and to think I used to like that guy.

- Con

[edit on 7-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

But Einstein wasn't a deist.

He made some noises about Spinoza's god in the 1920s and 30s and later (1950s) said he was an agnostic.

Spinoza's god is basically similar to pantheism, nature is god, god is nature. Which, IMO, is just non-theism for those not wanting to scare theists.

S'pose atheists could use him like theists use Flew. Not much different really. However, I don't think Einstein was suffering anomia and memory problems when he became an agnostic.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Mel,, I am sure you'll agree with this as it is true but Darwinism is the only thing taught in schools and THAT is why they don't have a problem with it being taught. Hell I didn't either for that matter. It wasn't till I had seen the way Atheists are using Science as a method to create a society of materialists which ALWAYS has led to eugenics in any country Darwinism is taught. Even our Supreme Court ruled in favor of it.

Con, eugenics doesn't even need evolutionary theory. Just heredity and variation, which is something you apparently accept. Indeed, what you said above doesn't make much sense.

Parsing it: Atheists use science...to create society of materialists...which has always led to eugenics..wherever Darwinism was taught.

Yet, in the US teaching evolution was generally not allowed in schools whilst eugenics was around. That's why the Scopes trial happened, and he was found guilty and fined for being a naughty boy for doing so.

Moreover, I don't really know of many truly materialistic societies which taught darwinism. If you mean communistic states, they actually denied darwin's theory and taught Lysenckoism. This actually caused millions of deaths, as they implemented Lysencko's pseudoscience in agriculture leading to crop failures and famine. Maybe they should have stuck to science, rather than denying it for ideological reasons. Might be a lesson there.

Also, they don't teach darwinism in school, they teach evolutionary theory. But Darwin is its star. Did you know that Wallace was actually into all sorts of woo?

Hell John Scopes wasn't teaching evolution, he was teaching eugenics

Nope, he attempted teaching from a biology book which contained evolution. He agreed to act as a test case.

We have every intention of letting kids know what YOUR science is about and after hearing that crap Tyson said,,

Why, what was the problem?

Science is about figuring out how nature works. Some think its success is one reason to doubt the existence of supernatural things like ghosts and gods. Doesn't necessarily lead to that, as I'm sure you know many scientists are theists. But a scientific approach can lead one to reject the god hypothesis like any other without evidence.

And that's fine, con. It really is. Whining, lying, and using social forces to deny the science isn't going to do you much good. Reality won't change.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by audas
Reeeaaaaly ?

No evidence, nothing - let me get this straight - of all the historians of the period there is not a single reference of an earthly visitation of a divine being who performed numerous miracles and changed the entire known world - not a scrap outside of what has come to be proven as a forgery ?

WOW....

So there is absolutely not a single shred of proof -

Oh Get Off IT Mary, you act all uppity about believing in things that have no absolute proof as if that's nuts when that is exactly what you do with macro evolution and it's alleged mountain of evidentiary "BS".

Hey! Hey everyone ! You hear about the new Kid that was born yesterday by some woman in Tulsa Oklahoma! Yeah he is showing signs of transition! The doctors say her breast milk contained high concentrations of CITRATE! When the kid was nursing Mrs Thomas and her husband mike were just amazed as she yelled to her husband

Hey MIKEY!

He likes it!

- Con

[edit on 7-7-2008 by Conspiriology]