15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BigJohnKC

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2001
2,448
1
0
I was just reading and noticed this:

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.



Aliens, huh? ;)

I think a lot of people here would argue that since we don't know how God works (for those of us who acknowledge that he exists), we don't know if maybe he used evolution to create. Nowhere does the Bible describe how He created, only that he created. The Bible doesn't say that he uttered some magic phrase and suddenly life as we know it sprang into being. Evolution takes a lot of time, but it's human time. God is timeless. Maybe we can say that instead of where this article says aliens that we say God.

I think it would take more faith to believe that aliens of a superior, benevolent race transplanted cells into our solar system so many millions of years ago so as to develop a future civilzation than it takes to believe that a loving God created the world.

<obligatory catch phrase> Just my 2 cents </obligatory catch phrase> Cheers! :D
 

hoihtah

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2001
5,183
0
76
damm... a well written argument.

however, it still lacks juice.
it goes only as far as defending evolutionism.

weak. :)
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
Some observations:

1) Science is a self-correcting entity. Science never assumes it once and for all knows everything, it constantly questions itself and everything around it.

2) Given #1, and for now let's leave "God" completely out of the equation, why can't evolution theory be questioned? Why do we dismiss questions about the lack of fossil record instead of trying to answer them with open, and scientific minds. i.e., why does questioning macro-evolution = creationism?

3) Why is the belief that Evolution happened, the big bang theory happened, etc , BUT were set in motion by a deity, considered the same thing as pure creationism by many opponents of religion here? Are you unable to seperate the 2 belief structures, or is it simply much easier to attack the latter, and lump the former in with it?

I suppose what bothers me is the following line of "reason" pushed by threads such as this:

1) There are religious people who believe in pure creationism
2) Pure creationism is highly doubtable given evolution theory and evidence
3) Therefore creationism is stupid
4) Creationism is so stupid, that even if you believe in science, evolution, big bang, etc - BUT believe that a deity started it all - you are stupid too (deity = creation = pure creationism = stupid)
5) Oh yeah, and religion is stupid too.

And yet we are all open minded people here - unlike those closed-minded religious zealots!


rolleye.gif
 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
Blah blah blah, and the Creationists say blah blah blah, and then Evolutionists reply blah blah blah...

I'm not going to try and persuade you to think the way I do(I am a conservative Creationist Christian, f#ck off. Yeah, that's right. I said F#CK OFF. Get over it.) because it is a usless gesture, as you believe what you want and I believe what I want, and not a damn thing that you do will change that.

*sigh*....yet another flame bait Christian bashing thread. Ah, well, I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell. :)
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
. Nowhere does the Bible describe how He created, only that he created


It clearly states that he did it in 6 days. Moreover, the order in which he did it is almost opposite to what science has accepted as the norm.


god order: Earth, light, plants, sealife, STARS, then humans

science order: stars, earth, sealife, plants, animals, humans.

moreover, the science order is supported by observations, the god order is supported by the bible.
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
Marty:

Again - you lump a vast group into one strawman there.

6 days meaning "six rotations of the planet" is Bible literalism.

There are a LOT (most by far) of Christians who believe the Bible is a non-literal book, needing to be interpreted.

In fact, the Bible literalists and pure creationists are often the same folks. And they are just one type of Christian, one I don't agree with.

So how does the entire group get pulled into the line of fire by one segment like that?



 

LAUST

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
8,957
1
81
Originally posted by: LordMaul
Ah, well, I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell. :)
AND HERE IT IS FOLKS!!! LAUSTS FAVORITE religeous quote!!!
seen it a million times, the religeous person passes judgment (even though it's AGINST their religeon)

Guess your burnin with us Maulie boy :p
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

Nice flame bait
rolleye.gif



As for the article... Scanning through it I saw very little mention of any philosophy. The article may be quite good from a scientific standpoint (though I cannot vouch for it personally, as I have not researched the subject extensively), but if you are implying that this article disproves creationism then you are wrong. He doesn't even attempt to.

His overall point appears to be that evolution is real and should be taught in schools (and I tottally agree, by the way). His arguments seem more against the those who would exclude ideas/theories of science from schools. In that respect, I totally agree with him. Keep the science in schools and the religion at home.
I *despise* the very thought myself of some religion or religious group controlling what children learn in schools.

However, if you are seeking a poster boy for your athiest beliefs I'd look elsewhere. He certainly appears to be an athiest, but not even he can prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being (at that point the argument becomes philosophical not scientific).
 

Samsonid

Senior member
Nov 6, 2001
279
0
0
BigJohnKC wrote:
Aliens, huh?

I think a lot of people here would argue that since we don't know how God works (for those of us who acknowledge that he exists), we don't know if maybe he used evolution to create. Nowhere does the Bible describe how He created, only that he created. The Bible doesn't say that he uttered some magic phrase and suddenly life as we know it sprang into being. Evolution takes a lot of time, but it's human time. God is timeless. Maybe we can say that instead of where this article says aliens that we say God.

I think it would take more faith to believe that aliens of a superior, benevolent race transplanted cells into our solar system so many millions of years ago so as to develop a future civilzation than it takes to believe that a loving God created the world.

That's a plausible idea.

An advanced species "seeding" the first proteins. These first proteins were embeded with instructions to propagate in an evolutional fashion.
It is also possible that this "advanced species" has been constantly overseeing the process thoughout the course of the "experiment".
At specifyed key time-intervals the advanced species induces calculated spondaneous mutations (generating or deleting species) to alter the course of the experiment in a predictable way.

If that is the case then this advanced species did not create life on earth just for the kicks of it, but it probably for the purpose of advancing its own knowledge of the universe; in much the same way that a computer algorithm serves to assist a computer scientist to solve a problem that the scientist couldn't solve by hand.

-It is possible that life on earth is an iteration prosess which is meant to solve a complex problem for the "advanced species" that set it in motion.

Or maybe not.
The possibilities on such a normative matter are endless.

If we are part of a "computational" meachanism, then it is also possible that OUR computational power exceeds that of our creator (in the same way that our computers process numerical data astonishingly faster than we (the designers) can).
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Optimus
Some observations:

1) Science is a self-correcting entity. Science never assumes it once and for all knows everything, it constantly questions itself and everything around it.

2) Given #1, and for now let's leave "God" completely out of the equation, why can't evolution theory be questioned? Why do we dismiss questions about the lack of fossil record instead of trying to answer them with open, and scientific minds. i.e., why does questioning macro-evolution = creationism?

3) Why is the belief that Evolution happened, the big bang theory happened, etc , BUT were set in motion by a deity, considered the same thing as pure creationism by many opponents of religion here? Are you unable to seperate the 2 belief structures, or is it simply much easier to attack the latter, and lump the former in with it?

I suppose what bothers me is the following line of "reason" pushed by threads such as this:

1) There are religious people who believe in pure creationism
2) Pure creationism is highly doubtable given evolution theory and evidence
3) Therefore creationism is stupid
4) Creationism is so stupid, that even if you believe in science, evolution, big bang, etc - BUT believe that a deity started it all - you are stupid too (deity = creation = pure creationism = stupid)
5) Oh yeah, and religion is stupid too.

And yet we are all open minded people here - unlike those closed-minded religious zealots!


rolleye.gif


2. There are two kinds of people who question macroevolution
a) Those that say macroevolution is wrong and therefore god must have created everything
b) those that say macroevolution is wrong (or part of it is wrong) and then offer their own theory supported by facts and observations.
This article deals with type a) poeple. Questioning a scientific theory is not wrong, questioning it while insisting that the only explanation lies in your god is wrong. As the article mentioned no creation "scientists" have ever come up with a solid, coherent completing theory based on real science.


3. Because it is adaptive religion, that's why. People saw that "pure" creation was bullsh!t, so they went back and adapted their religion to be compatible with science. yet, the source of the "intelligence" lies not in science, but in the bible (or other religious texts). That is why amny people refuse to believe that evolution, big bang etc were "set in motion" by a deity. We know that the bible is full of lies, so why should we belive them when they say there is a god? Why should that god have a place in a theory based on observations and not on books written by men.

1) Correct
2) Correct
3) Correct
4) Also correct, see my note on adaptive religion/beliefs. It is watered down creationism, but creationism nevertheless. That doesn't mean the people are stupid, but peculiar. Among my friends I have observed "doublethink" where by they can accept to apperantly contradicting things, yet think nothign of it.
5) That's a topic for another thread.

 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
3. Because it is adaptive religion, that's why.

So you are saying science isn't adaptive?
rolleye.gif


Of course it is, EVERYTHING is. If it weren't we would already have all the answers.
 

Ramsnake

Senior member
Apr 12, 2002
629
0
0
god order: Earth, light, plants, sealife, STARS, then humans


ROFL LMAO ... god order...ROFL LMAO....

so light is something that is created is it?.....LMAO.....ROFL...
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
Marty:

There is core belief, and there is the rest of religion.

Certain things are core - God exists, he's responsible for our existance, he loves us, etc.

Other things are NOT core to one's faith: What color was Jesus's skin? Did Jesus have siblings? Is the Noah's Ark story literal, or a parable? What METHOD did God use to create?

See the last one?

Non-core articles of faith can and always have changed - because they are not core to belief. That God is the creator is core - his exact method (clay? wave of hand? 6 literal days, or non-literal? evolution? big bang? distinct species creation?) is NOT.

So you, a science person yourself, are saying that if a system has something wrong at any point in the past, the system is wrong and must be scrapped???

Are you serious? How many times have we been dead WRONG in past scientific beleifs... BIG ones like the constant movement of time, the nature of matter, etc???

What do we do as scientists when we find we were wrong? We adapt to the knew knowledge.

You would be correct if a CORE belief were changed - that would negate religion's validity a good deal. But non-core beliefs, no.

Take your own words here, changed as follows:
Because it is adaptive science, that's why. People saw that "past scientific belief X" was bullsh!t, so they went back and adapted their science to be compatible with new observations

Again - you are latched onto strawmen here. Bible literalists are the ones saying "The Bible says X, so its exactly that".
 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
Originally posted by: LAUST
Originally posted by: LordMaul
Ah, well, I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell. :)
AND HERE IT IS FOLKS!!! LAUSTS FAVORITE religeous quote!!!
seen it a million times, the religeous person passes judgment (even though it's AGINST their religeon)

Guess your burnin with us Maulie boy :p

Why don't you worry about getting some asbestos and I'll worry about just exactly how big my mansion will be, eh, AnalAvenger?
 

Cerebus451

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2000
1,425
0
76
Originally posted by: Samsonid
BigJohnKC wrote:
Aliens, huh?

I think a lot of people here would argue that since we don't know how God works (for those of us who acknowledge that he exists), we don't know if maybe he used evolution to create. Nowhere does the Bible describe how He created, only that he created. The Bible doesn't say that he uttered some magic phrase and suddenly life as we know it sprang into being. Evolution takes a lot of time, but it's human time. God is timeless. Maybe we can say that instead of where this article says aliens that we say God.

I think it would take more faith to believe that aliens of a superior, benevolent race transplanted cells into our solar system so many millions of years ago so as to develop a future civilzation than it takes to believe that a loving God created the world.

That's a plausible idea.

An advanced species "seeding" the first proteins. These first proteins were embeded with instructions to propagate in an evolutional fashion.
It is also possible that this "advanced species" has been constantly overseeing the process thoughout the course of the "experiment".
At specifyed key time-intervals the advanced species induces calculated spondaneous mutations (generating or deleting species) to alter the course of the experiment in a predictable way.

If that is the case then this advanced species did not create life on earth just for the kicks of it, but it probably for the purpose of advancing its own knowledge of the universe; in much the same way that a computer algorithm serves to assist a computer scientist to solve a problem that the scientist couldn't solve by hand.

-It is possible that life on earth is an iteration prosess which is meant to solve a complex problem for the "advanced species" that set it in motion.

Or maybe not.
The possibilities on such a normative matter are endless.

If we are part of a "computational" meachanism, then it is also possible that OUR computational power exceeds that of our creator (in the same way that our computers process numerical data astonishingly faster than we (the designers) can).
Okay, where did the aliens come from? At some point, life had to spawn from nothingness. These advanced aliens at some point had to form, evolve, and become so advanced as to have mastered inter-stellar travel. What was little old earth doing during those billions of years?
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Optimus
Marty:

Again - you lump a vast group into one strawman there. 6 days meaning "six rotations of the planet" is Bible literalism. There are a LOT (most by far) of Christians who believe the Bible is a non-literal book, needing to be interpreted.


And why should the bible not be taken literally? Before modern science, the bible was taken literally, and poeple did not have a problem with it. I'll tell you why it happened, science has made most people question the validity of the bible, but not wanting to give it up completely, people have started extrapolating various meanings from it.


So you are saying science isn't adaptive?

Of course it is, EVERYTHING is. If it weren't we would already have all the answers.

Religion is based on books writen by men. The bible of today is the same it was 500 years ago.

Of course, this is where you would say: "But Marty, the evidence is also the same it was 500 years ago"

And to that I say: "yes, but the tools aren't. Today's people don't need particle accelerators to see some new passage in the bible, but without these PAs, scientists would not be able to see subatomic particles. THAT is the difference. Religion is NOT adaptive, science is. "




Now if you'll excuse me, I won't be back for a few hours since I have exams tomorrow and need to study.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
And why should the bible not be taken literally? Before modern science, the bible was taken literally, and poeple did not have a problem with it. I'll tell you why it happened, science has made most people question the validity of the bible, but not wanting to give it up completely, people have started extrapolating various meanings from it.
That's true. It's truly amazing how far those of the faith will go in changing their ideas and stories just to try and hang on to that hope they call faith, even when their rational side is constantly telling them "bullsh*t!" in the back of their head.
 

Ramsnake

Senior member
Apr 12, 2002
629
0
0
And why should the bible not be taken literally? Before modern science, the bible was taken literally, and poeple did not have a problem with it. I'll tell you why it happened, science has made most people question the validity of the bible, but not wanting to give it up completely, people have started extrapolating various meanings from it.

yup very true.....can't really blame em...some people can get out of the conditioning they receive during their formative years...some dont...even i have a hard time undoing things in my thought process which i know are logically wrong

 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
Now if you'll excuse me, I won't be back for a few hours since I have exams tomorrow and need to study.

Yeah, that Swiss Bell Ringer class is a real PITA, ain't it?


:p

 

LAUST

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
8,957
1
81
Originally posted by: LordMaul
Originally posted by: LAUST
Originally posted by: LordMaul
Ah, well, I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell. :)
AND HERE IT IS FOLKS!!! LAUSTS FAVORITE religeous quote!!!
seen it a million times, the religeous person passes judgment (even though it's AGINST their religeon)

Guess your burnin with us Maulie boy :p

Why don't you worry about getting some asbestos and I'll worry about just exactly how big my mansion will be, eh, AnalAvenger?
Evasion at it's best ;) :p
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Optimus,

Will you deny this simple observation of mine: Science changes because science itself is adaptive, religion changes, because it is forced to change by science.
 

Samsonid

Senior member
Nov 6, 2001
279
0
0
Okay, where did the aliens come from? At some point, life had to spawn from nothingness. These advanced aliens at some point had to form, evolve, and become so advanced as to have mastered inter-stellar travel. What was little old earth doing during those billions of years?

You are exactly correct!

Non of the theories (scientific or not) offer a solution to "nothingness", they only push the problem one step backwords.
The Big-Bang theory suggests "nothingness" before the Big-Bang instant and this is a scientific theory (eventhough springing from nothingness is not plausible).

The human mind is not equiped to handle the notion of infinity (when confronted with infinity our brain cells tend to generate cyclic-loop arguments)