I have a question for those who hate creationism

[hortysir]

I said "theocrats", not "Christians". There is a difference.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution. They don't try and fit God into a 1200 page box.

You're right.
Catholics just keep adding more pages until it fits their belief structure.

Whatever that's supposed to mean, it's THEIR book?!?! THEY assembled it and Christ said whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, so any additions were already OK'd by Jesus.

psst......
HE wasn't talking about a book, numbskull.


Binding and loosing, which Jesus brings up twice in the book of Matthew, refers to saved souls that His disciples/followers gather in His name.

If you're gonna quote the Bible out of context, get it right.
I promise I won't try and decipher DNA sequences.

And, speaking of, I'm sure you've noticed that twice now your incoherent babble about "64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids" has been ignored.
If you're a biophysicist or geneticist, that's great for you. But the rest of us function better when our USMB posts are made in English.

Is it your position that these groupings could only have happened randomly? That it couldn't have possibly been "made" that way intentionally?

 

[Immanuel]

similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens. Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened. Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening. From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.

Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.

There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.

Immie

Of course your "odds" are based on many false assumptions, the most obvious being that chemical reactions happen over the whole globe only one at a time in series. Or to put it in the lightning strike terms, one specific person being struck in one specific place has very high odds against it, but any person being struck anywhere in the world brings the odds down quite considerably.

Good Lord! My odds? Are you kidding? I hope no one took those "odds" as being a serious laying of odds. My initial number was something like One Hundred Billion. I remember seeing someone's "odds" and they were astronomical. I was just making a point.

Still there is zero evidence of Abiogenesis.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

What if that God is the Islamic God?

The odds would be much greater than a hundred million lottery winners. But that's only if you presume that this pathway was the only pathway and that there are no similar worlds elsewhere in the Universe. Statistically, there is most likely life elsewhere in the Universe, perhaps all over the Universe, but it could look very different from what we have on Earth.

What if he is? Well, for one thing, I don't think I will qualify for the 72 virgins.

I don't think finding life on other planets would shake my faith. Hell, I don't understand the entire Word of God that I have in front of me. This would simply be something else that I want explained after entering those "pearly gates".

Immie

My point is that the attack on Evolution does not generally come from scientists. It comes from religious people. Why? Because it challenges their belief system on the origins of the universe, and implicitly, their belief in God as explained by their religion. This does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is necessarily correct, and most scientists know this. Instead, Evolution as a theory on the origins of man is one that best fits our understanding of the world around us through the scientific method. If a better explanation comes along, Science will abandon Evolution.

But (most) Creationists aren't interested in discovering the origins of the universe. They are interested in promoting their religion. Their agenda is to tear down the edifice of Evolution so that their explanation is the only one remaining by default.

I, like everyone else, cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. And perhaps God did initiate the Big Bang, I don't know. But if He did, it is highly likely that God is something very different than the one described in the Christian bible, or any of the holy books for that matter.

I think you should consult your other evolutionist friends. Because whenever I have this discussion with them, they scream at me that Abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution and I pretty much agree with them.

As a Creationist myself, I have no desire to "tear down" the scientific theory of Evolution. My personal belief is that science generally works to improve our knowledge and brings us closer to the truth. I generally take a literal reading of the Bible, but I also realize that it has been translated from other languages. Even though I believe God created all things and gave the information to Moses to put in the Book of Genesis, I believe that our understanding of God's message has been corrupted. It is not God that is wrong, but us.

Personally I would love to discover the origins of the universe. I am fascinated by the "Big Bang Theory". Evolution is intriguing. What always bothers me is evolutionists who pretend that they know everything even how life was formed.

Immie

 

[mike beev]

The only thing I hate about creationism is someone trying to put it (a religious dogma) into a science book. Also, the general disbelief in the natural sciences in preference to a literal Biblical interpretation of what and how the First Cause created in a bit scary.

If we were made in God's image, that would imply an ability to learn from the book of nature as well as the book of scripture.

 

[Flopper]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it. Scientifically they can theorize on a big bang, but not provide hard enough evidence to satisfy those who won't believe it anyway.

Let's face it, and be honest about it, there is no evidence I could provide that would make you believe anything but creationism. Your mind is made up and there is no changing it. That is the problem with debates like this one. All the facts in the world will not change the mind of someone who believes in a creator that cannot be proven exists.

The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools. The church is the place to teach religion based creationism. The home is the place to teach religion based creationism. Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.

The mind of the fanatic cannot be changed but that doesn't mean that you cannot instill doubt, which is the bain of the religious fanatic and the spark that drives scientific discovery.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why do creationist hate evolution? They don't think God was smart enough to come up with evolution?

Exactly

 

[Flopper]

The bible has some wonderful rules for living our lives and interacting with one another, however it's a piss poor scientific text. Why anyone would try to use it as such is just plain dumb.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

I don't hate creationism, I just find it a fairy tale...

Do you believe in creationism?

Honestly I dont know how all this got here. Im not a very religious guy, that is to say I so believe in a power greater than us but I dont follow any religions as a result of that belief.

I mean it could be true that some superbeing created everything or maybe it just happened due to infinate random occurances, i have no clue.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The logic of the OP is why people thought the earth was flat and the Earth revolved around the sun. Ignorance of truth does not validate superstition. Thankfully, science has evolved from this kind of stone age intellectualism.

so questioning things is how we stay ignorant? Interesting idea

 

[manifold]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

Don't know.

But I do know that Creationism isn't science.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.

Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.

For example the origin of the universe. We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.

Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

And yet does nothing come from nothing? Where did the substance of the universe come from? How did it come to be here? Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance? Due to some cosmic accident?

If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?

An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.

Well said.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The bible has some wonderful rules for living our lives and interacting with one another, however it's a piss poor scientific text. Why anyone would try to use it as such is just plain dumb.

who was talking about using the bible as a science book? I might have skimmed that post.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see how one can equate the "non-proof" of Creationism vs The Big Bang. The latter has all sorts of empirical evidence to back it up, while the former has none, except the oblique reference to The Big Bang itself, "Let there be light"!!!

And yet does nothing come from nothing? Where did the substance of the universe come from? How did it come to be here? Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance? Due to some cosmic accident?

If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?

An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.

Do you want to talk about creationism or the Big Bang? I have no problem with saying God created the Big Bang and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics which flowed from it, but life itself was not directly created, rather it was the result of those laws.

I just now saw this post and thought it deserved a response.

For me there needs be no quarrel between the 'big bang' and Creationism. The Big Bang is of course the most popular and most generally accepted theory we have for the origins of the universe as we know it, but that theory cannot answer the question of what existed before the Big Bang or where the stuff of the universe came from in the first place. And the science of next week or the next decade or the next century may show us that we have to rethink it all. Yet again.

But even if the Big Bang theory we have turns out to be the right concept, there is still room for a 'Creator' to put the right material and conditions together and light the fuse so to speak.

And if there is a Creator "God", that Creator would also be the author of science and the laws that govern it

And if Spinoza's god is the correct concept, the universe itself becomes an enormous cosmic 'brain' or intelligence that guides and forms itself into what we now see and experience.

Bottom line, I think humankind has so far been blessed with a tiny fraction of all there is to know and we're all going to be surprised at how wrong we are about a lot of things now.

 

[edthecynic]

And yet does nothing come from nothing? Where did the substance of the universe come from? How did it come to be here? Is all the symmetry and beauty and wonder of the universe or even here on our own lowly little planet all by pure happenstance? Due to some cosmic accident?

If the brilliant minds of Spinoza and Einstein concluded that it is as rational to perceive that some kind of cosmic intelligence is guiding the process as it is rational to assume everything happens by chance--neither embraced a concept of a "Supreme Being" of any kind--then how do the ID deniers defend that their concept of beginnings is all that is worth considering?

An open mind leaves room for all possibilities and does not close the door on that which it does not want to believe.

Do you want to talk about creationism or the Big Bang? I have no problem with saying God created the Big Bang and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics which flowed from it, but life itself was not directly created, rather it was the result of those laws.

I just now saw this post and thought it deserved a response.

For me there needs be no quarrel between the 'big bang' and Creationism. The Big Bang is of course the most popular and most generally accepted theory we have for the origins of the universe as we know it, but that theory cannot answer the question of what existed before the Big Bang or where the stuff of the universe came from in the first place. And the science of next week or the next decade or the next century may show us that we have to rethink it all. Yet again.

But even if the Big Bang theory we have turns out to be the right concept, there is still room for a 'Creator' to put the right material and conditions together and light the fuse so to speak.

And if there is a Creator "God", that Creator would also be the author of science and the laws that govern it

And if Spinoza's god is the correct concept, the universe itself becomes an enormous cosmic 'brain' or intelligence that guides and forms itself into what we now see and experience.

Bottom line, I think humankind has so far been blessed with a tiny fraction of all there is to know and we're all going to be surprised at how wrong we are about a lot of things now.

Oh come on now!!!
That question has been answered for you in this thread and in others, and yet you still play dumb! You have simply closed the door of your mind to this proven fact: what existed before the Big Bang is the same thing that exists after the Big Bang and is the same thing that went bang at the Big Bang, ENERGY, which cannot be created nor destroyed. There was no "before energy existed" and there will be no "after energy stops existing."
Get it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate. We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.

 

[manifold]

yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate. We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.

Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[manifold]

I don't hate creationism. I hate it when dipshits try to pass it off as science, or when they apply faulty, convoluted logic to suggest that scientific inquiry, like creationism, is faith based.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate. We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.

Using the term FAITH in this context betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of faith, or it's disingenuous troll fodder.

But whatcha gonna do?

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition 2b

Pot meet kettle, lol.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I don't hate creationism. I hate it when dipshits try to pass it off as science, or when they apply faulty, convoluted logic to suggest that scientific inquiry, like creationism, is faith based.

thats legit, im just talking about those who believe, without any doubt, that it was all from the big bang telling those who believe, without any doubt, that it was God that they are dumb for believing it is God.