What do people think of Creationism?

[son of meto]

Now to the Cray, Cray part of your post. Creationism is not a scientific theory at all there's no evidence on basis nothing it's completely unsupported and the evidence goes against, arguing that it is a theory in the context of scientific theory is to disingenuous in the extreme.

People once believed thunder and lightning were signs god(s) was angry and yet science which you continue to ignore was the tool used to show that baring notions that aren't based on observable information is ludicrous and misguided.

Thanks, I will check out the evidence from the Berkeley website.

Now, if you read my posts carefully, I didn't say Creationism is a scientific theory. I said Evolution was.

Yes, people once believed that gods were behind things like thunder, growing crops, under the earth, even the sun was a god, etc...this was a god of the gaps worldview indeed!

But that is not what Christianity does at all. Christianity says that everything is the result of the One True God. He is creator of the the stuff we can observe scientifically and understand and the stuff we can't yet. God is not hiding in the gaps of human understanding...he is supreme over it all.

I find it somewhat bemusing that Evolution is viewed as an argument against saying that the universe was created. Could you explain to me how these two ideas compete?

 

[son of meto]

Creationism is completely without evidence it is not a theory it is an idea and an old idea, much like drilling holes in the skull to relieve headaches, it is not only stupid it is dangerous.

Completely without evidence? Yet, here we are! Interesting isn't it?!

'Stupid' and 'dangerous'...you seem threatened by the possibility that you and I were made. Why is it 'Dangerous'?

I like this quote from Physicist Paul Davies,

"“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics"."

 

[son of meto]

By the way...just so you don't fall for the trap. I haven't actually argued against evolution at all in this discussion.

 

[son of meto]

First the evidence you requested start here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

SB, had a look at that website...sorry but that was not evidence, it was just evolutionary theory fundamentals 101. I learned that 25 years ago at high school.

Evidence is not general statements advocating for a theory. Evidence is testable data.

Again, not denying evolution is actually true, just awaiting testable and verifiable data.

 

[awaremind]

Completely without evidence? Yet, here we are! Interesting isn't it?!

'Stupid' and 'dangerous'...you seem threatened by the possibility that you and I were made. Why is it 'Dangerous'?

I like this quote from Physicist Paul Davies,

"“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics"."

There are literally more than 50 Trillion stars, and perhaps endless time - that said more or less every imaginable thing can occur! If there is conscious being that is truly personally connected to each and everyone of us, I'm sure it don't care if you are homo.

 

[Floor Pie]

Hey, Just friendly advice, How about you stop the obsession discussing topics on things that are imaginary according to you ???.

I don't see any topics on evolution that were started by people who believe in GOD & troll the threads, On the other hand atheists trolling threads on creationism/GOD & creating discussions on things they don't believe in.

Just some friendly advice, but you should stop using such a weak argument.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

SB, had a look at that website...sorry but that was not evidence, it was just evolutionary theory fundamentals 101. I learned that 25 years ago at high school.

Evidence is not general statements advocating for a theory. Evidence is testable data.

Again, not denying evolution is actually true, just awaiting testable and verifiable data.

you're actually denying fossil records are evidence?

 

[RUNVS]

Completely without evidence? Yet, here we are! Interesting isn't it?!

'Stupid' and 'dangerous'...you seem threatened by the possibility that you and I were made. Why is it 'Dangerous'?

I like this quote from Physicist Paul Davies,

"“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics"."

Yes if you change one of them we would not exist but you are forgetting that if we did not exist then we would not be saying "if only the universe was slightly different as then we could exist". You should also look up the multiverse theory as that talks about an infinite number of universes, trillions of which would not be able to support life at all. We are just lucky to be in a universe that does support life and the only reason we know we are lucky is because we are in a universe that supports life.

 

[RUNVS]

SB, had a look at that website...sorry but that was not evidence, it was just evolutionary theory fundamentals 101. I learned that 25 years ago at high school.

Evidence is not general statements advocating for a theory. Evidence is testable data.

Again, not denying evolution is actually true, just awaiting testable and verifiable data.

Look up the fossil record and look up how humans as we are today did not exist a million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

 

[son of meto]

Yes if you change one of them we would not exist but you are forgetting that if we did not exist then we would not be saying "if only the universe was slightly different as then we could exist".

Circular reasoning that basically asserts we can not investigate first causation. This is unscientific! Science is all about discovering causation.

You should also look up the multiverse theory as that talks about an infinite number of universes, trillions of which would not be able to support life at all. We are just lucky to be in a universe that does support life and the only reason we know we are lucky is because we are in a universe that supports life.

I will pass on multiverse theory (been there, done that)...as it is largely regarded as 'blind-Faith' within the scientific community. There is absolutely no-evidence and it is pure theory (hypothesis barely). This 'theory' is a reaction against the observable highly tuned nature of our universe and accompanying uneasy suspicion that there might be design or thought behind it all (Math works, laws exist)...Multiverse is a desperate irrational hail-Mary from the Naturalists, "We know it looks designed and ordered, but it really isn't, trust us!" Not one shred of mathematical evidence to support it. This is why Atheists are sometimes charged with being highly religious themselves!

Here is a great article about scientists who have brought the Multiverse THEORY into question through their own experiments...the article is from 'Nature', but if you don't want to read it, here is a little quote reagrding the Multiverse theorists;

"This time, the teams can be assured that the world will be paying close attention. This time, acceptance will require measurements over a range of frequencies to discriminate from foreground effects, as well as tests to rule out other sources of confusion. And this time, the announcements should be made after submission to journals and vetting by expert referees. If there must be a press conference, hopefully the scientific community and the media will demand that it is accompanied by a complete set of documents, including details of the systematic analysis and sufficient data to enable objective verification."

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

NOTICE: Multiverse Theory was announced to the world without....SUFFICIENT DATA, OBJECTIVE VERIFICATION, JOURNAL SUBMISSION, and PEER REVIEW, OMG!!!!!!!! And you call this SCIENCE.

You seem to assume that I have missed something or that I have not considered the Atheistic arguments. This is the sort of assumptive and dismissive attitude that 'some' Naturalists are renowned for. It's the very same charge New Atheists label 'religious' people with.

Now for the Kicker
"LUCK"...you didn't? No, you couldn't have, surely. That is a statement of FAITH!!!! You have just completely torpedoed your own so-called 'rational worldview' when use this word. This is worse than a Creationist who doesn't believe in Luck, but in God. You 'believe' in fluke, luck, coincidence, etc. Can I ask, "You wouldn't be deeply religious would you?"

 

[son of meto]

you're actually denying fossil records are evidence?

Not at all. Totally accept fossil records. What I said was that your link was not evidence, it was a statement about how evidence (Fossil) can be used in Evolutionary science. I have not once denied the possibility of Evolution throughout this entire conversation.

Again I ask, can you show, demonstrate, argue rationally, how Creationism and Evolutionary Theory contradict or eliminate each other? Good 'LUCK'.

 

[hardon]

I by and large know the US and UK positions on creationism, but can't say the same of Australia. What do people think?

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/creationism/

we have imported the crazy that is creationism into australia, but it seems like it's limited to a few cranks from particular denominations that take their lead from america.

i hope it's been pointed out in this thread already, actually i'm sure it has by now, but it's a religious idea and nothing more.

thankfully the right-thinking world is moving away from the creation stories from the bible and the stupification by superstition it produces. i work with a creationist. he can discuss our work on a normal level, but discuss creationism and he changes from normal human to blithering fool, unable to think rationally or hold an intelligent conversation. he once asked me "if evolution is true, then why hasn't someone evolved a fly into an elephant?".

creationism is an all-or-nothing defence mechanism triggered to protect other irrational beliefs.

edit: i didn't check to see if you were talking about the young-earth variety of creationism. the old-earth variety is a bit of a nothing really, but young-earth stuff is the stupid stuff.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Yes if you change one of them we would not exist but you are forgetting that if we did not exist then we would not be saying "if only the universe was slightly different as then we could exist". You should also look up the multiverse theory as that talks about an infinite number of universes, trillions of which would not be able to support life at all. We are just lucky to be in a universe that does support life and the only reason we know we are lucky is because we are in a universe that supports life.

It's not lucky at all. We exist because the conditions are right. Life didn't form and then get lucky enough to survive because the conditions were right.

It's like saying "look at all those people who love surfing that live down at Torquay. Sure is lucky for them that Torquay happens to have good surf."

 

[son of meto]

we have imported the crazy that is creationism into australia, but it seems like it's limited to a few cranks from particular denominations that take their lead from america.

creationism is an all-or-nothing defence mechanism triggered to protect other irrational beliefs.

edit: i didn't check to see if you were talking about the young-earth variety of creationism. the old-earth variety is a bit of a nothing really, but young-earth stuff is the stupid stuff.

Wow...this is knock down stuff. Open minded scientific rationalism would be appreciated at this point.

 

[The rabbi]

Again I ask, can you show, demonstrate, argue rationally, how Creationism and Evolutionary Theory contradict or eliminate each other? Good 'LUCK'.

I think that I get where your coming from SoM, but you may need to dispense with the word "creationism" as it carries far too much religious fundamentalist baggage. Those who are generally defined as "Creationists" are the same people who would deny biological evolution. They are typically anti-Evolutionists and you do not appear to be in their camp.

 

[Max zero]

Did someone supporting creationism just complain about circular logic?

Now I have seen it all.

Creationism is unfalsifiable supernatural claptrap.

No matter what evidence comes along believers will simply place the supernatural deity of their choice above it.

That's easy to do when you theory can never be tested directly itself and therefore never has to justify itself.

 

[benchwarmer5]

I agree

 

[RUNVS]

I am actually somewhat embarrassed that the most famous creationist in the world is an Australian. The University of Queensland should be embarrassed that they gave Ken Ham a degree at all.

 

[hardon]

Wow...this is knock down stuff. Open minded scientific rationalism would be appreciated at this point.

LOL.

the open minded scientific rationalism on the christian/baptist/adventist et al. creation myth is done already. volumes upon volumes, journal upon journal, library upon library. ignorance doesn't make it go away.

there is no serious debate to start from here. the debate ended over a hundred years ago when geologists figured out the earth was ancient, and has only gotten worse for creationists from there.

creationism has been falsified already. it doesn't take much. something like the 'starlight problem' should be enough to dissuade any normal human.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Not at all. Totally accept fossil records. What I said was that your link was not evidence, it was a statement about how evidence (Fossil) can be used in Evolutionary science. I have not once denied the possibility of Evolution throughout this entire conversation.

Again I ask, can you show, demonstrate, argue rationally, how Creationism and Evolutionary Theory contradict or eliminate each other? Good 'LUCK'.

how many times do we have to rehash the same issue?

Creation theory no longer exists, it has been defeated the 6 day thing proven bullshit.

a notion that god created man and all the plants and animals is not a theory

Set out a frame work for "creationism" and it can be considered. a "feeling" is not a theory. give me something tangible.

 

[Long Live HFC]

SB, had a look at that website...sorry but that was not evidence, it was just evolutionary theory fundamentals 101. I learned that 25 years ago at high school.

Evidence is not general statements advocating for a theory. Evidence is testable data.

Again, not denying evolution is actually true, just awaiting testable and verifiable data.

you've had at least 25 years to find this for yourself. why so lazy?

 

[The rabbi]

how many times do we have to rehash the same issue?
Creation theory no longer exists, it has been defeated the 6 day thing proven bullshit.

I don't think that SoM is advocating 6 day creation.
Note what Son of Meto has said:

Not at all. Totally accept fossil records. What I said was that your link was not evidence, it was a statement about how evidence (Fossil) can be used in Evolutionary science. I have not once denied the possibility of Evolution throughout this entire conversation.

I suspect people are just talking past each other.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I don't think that SoM is advocating 6 day creation.
Note what Son of Meto has said:
I suspect people are just talking past each other.

even if it's not "6 day creation" it's pretty obvious where he's coming from. not denying the "possibility" of evolution, but certainly not accepting its validity, and posing questions he could have easily answered himself in the preceding 2 decades. you see these kinds of tactics a lot in the denier sphere of anti intellectualism.

 

[The rabbi]

even if it's not "6 day creation" it's pretty obvious where he's coming from. not denying the "possibility" of evolution, but certainly not accepting its validity, and posing questions he could have easily answered himself in the preceding 2 decades. you see these kinds of tactics a lot in the denier sphere of anti intellectualism.

I have not followed the thread through and so I have not seen him state his position on what he means by "creation". It means different things to different people. Martin Rees (Britain's Astronomer Royal) for instance, could call the first moment of the Big Bang "the moment of creation". But he no doubt did not have in mind what Fundamentalist groups like Ken Ham's mob have in mind when they express the term "creation".

Nor would critical scholars of the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew bible think in the same way as Ken Ham's mob. And that is the problem. In popular culture the term is colored by the fundamentalist understanding of the creation texts as expressing literal a scientific truth that is directly opposed to a scientific understanding of cosmic and biological origins.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I have not followed the thread through and so I have not seen him state his position on what he means by "creation". It means different things to different people. Martin Rees (Britain's Astronomer Royal) for instance, could call the first moment of the Big Bang "the moment of creation". But he no doubt did not have in mind what Fundamentalist groups like Ken Ham's mob have in mind when they express the term "creation".

Nor would critical scholars of the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew bible think in the same way as Ken Ham's mob. And that is the problem. In popular culture the term is colored by the fundamentalist understanding of the creation texts as expressing literal a scientific truth that is directly opposed to a scientific understanding of cosmic and biological origins.

yeah it's natural for the discussion to veer in this direction but i still consider it tangential to creationism which is primarily concerned with evolution.