What are the evidence of Creationism?

[HOWITIS]

gotta include this:

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a sh**, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't f*** around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that c**ksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

even if your religous, gotta admit hes funny.

 

[rpc64]

One thing I've noticed that always goes on in these creation/evolution threads is that the evolutionists love to bash, degrade and insult creationists on the basis of their beliefs. Where's your justification for that? Creationists believe what they believe, just as you are free to your beliefs. The immaturity of some of you, who act so sure that what you're saying is absolute truth, amazes me.

 

[Cyberian]

Wow!

This is really neat!

We have never, ever had a discussion about Evolution vs. Creation here before.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Gosh, how science defines love is a lot like how accountants define happiness. Stop thinking in terms of chemical reactions in the brain, and consider why science isn't designed to test/prove intangible concepts. Love is just one example, you could just as easily substitute something else in its place. Would you try proving the concept of "honor" by testing dopomine levels in the brain?

That's why i'm saying that asking for evidence of creationism based on scientific method is somewhat silly. If you consider yourself a scientist, you shouldn't care what a creationist thinks about how life arose, trying to test their ideas by the scientific method is a fool's errand on its face. Let scientists stick to what science is designed for, and let religion concern itself with what it cares about, and everyone's happy.

Well, that sounds a lot better than it actually works out! As one example, religions such as "Christian Science" (an unfortunately inaccurate label) do not believe in the effecacy of modern medicine; and so the rest of us are supposed to sit back and chill while some god-fearing parents allow their children to die for lack of medical attention or a blood transfusion. And the push to add so-call "Creation science" into public school biology courses is another example. I'd be very happy if we could be truly insulated from the misguided beliefs of others...but we can't.

 

[rpc64]

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

Evey word of that is wrong. Anyone who knows anything about this subject would find that so incorrect as to be complete nonsense. Shows what George Carlin knows, bashing the crap out of Christianity when he so OBVIOUSLY doesn't know a damn thing he's talking about.

 

[FrustratedUser]

LOL!!
Funny stuff.
-----

It looks like Evolution can be discussed and debated because there is substance to base the discussion on.
Both paties exchange arguments in this case.

And it looks like Creation can not even be discussed because there is absolutely nothing to base the discussion on. Even Creationists seem to agree on that.

Someone just got 0wned.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: rpc64
One thing I've noticed that always goes on in these creation/evolution threads is that the evolutionists love to bash, degrade and insult creationists on the basis of their beliefs. Where's your justification for that? Creationists believe what they believe, just as you are free to your beliefs. The immaturity of some of you, who act so sure that what you're saying is absolute truth, amazes me.

um k. evolutionists bash creationists on the basis of their beliefs because their beliefs are based on bastardizing science. yes you are free to your beliefs, but if a creationist feels the need to push their beliefs through false evidence, they can be called on it. creationists believe they know the absolute truth because its entirely based on faith. creationism is not falsifiable. it is dogma trying to pass itself off as science.

you will get bashed if you engage in hipocrisy. trying to punch holes in evolution because of scientific doubt, incomplete knowledge, using dishonest reasoning/refuted/obsolete data etc and not applying the same standards to your own belief. it is creationisms inherent hipocrisy.

 

[Vic]

Woohoo... Troll thread!

:disgust:

 

[rpc64]

Let me ask you something. What if science isn't all there is to the universe? I mean come on, everything we know is based on human experiences and observations. All the things we now know to be scientifically true, we didn't always know them. They had to be discovered. What if there is still something that we *gasp* haven't yet observed to standards that we have deemed satisfactory? How can you prove it's NOT there?

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Woohoo... Troll thread!

:disgust:

?

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't like creationists because they have an agenda, to prevent the spread of the scientifically obvious. In my opinion they want human beings to be ignorant of a whole branch of knowledge. They are the same 'idiots' that oppose stem cell research. In short they are the retrograde boobs that want to throw a two thousand pound anchor of a row boat at sea. I see them as diseased, trying to push a disease on others. They suffer and support the curse of ignorance and would wish it on everyone. They do this for the simple reason that they are too feeble minded to realize that God does not need them to exist. He does not need the Bible to be literal. Such people suffer from an inflexibility of mind and a cowardly clinging to fantasy. I could give a crap what they believe. It's the brainwashing of their kids and their extension of that brainwashing to the rest of us that I object to. I intend to swamp them with reason, challenge every one of their absurdities, crush every stupid notion the put forth. I want to flatten them with the blazing glory of truth. I see no reason why I shouldn't be as good at their game as they are. Why in this punitive world shouldn't they suffer the same fate as they deal. Nobody knows the truth, but I (the evolutionists) have the better lie. We can change our story at the drop of any new evidence. Imagine that.

 

[HOWITIS]

i'm actually scared by the fact that i agree with some of the points you made moonbeam.




*shudder*



but i have no aggressive stance against religon. my view is you don't force your religon on me, and i won't think in your church.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: rpc64
Let me ask you something. What if science isn't all there is to the universe? I mean come on, everything we know is based on human experiences and observations. All the things we now know to be scientifically true, we didn't always know them. They had to be discovered. What if there is still something that we *gasp* haven't yet observed to standards that we have deemed satisfactory? How can you prove it's NOT there?

I hate to repeat myself but once again the Creationists argument once again follows the rule of 'The best way to argue for creationism is to argue against evolution'. Now I'm asked to prove that something is NOT there.

I am sorry for calling you a creationist. You might not be one.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: rpc64
Let me ask you something. What if science isn't all there is to the universe? I mean come on, everything we know is based on human experiences and observations. All the things we now know to be scientifically true, we didn't always know them. They had to be discovered. What if there is still something that we *gasp* haven't yet observed to standards that we have deemed satisfactory? How can you prove it's NOT there?

that is the nature of science, questions. based on science we still know very little, else science would be pretty boring that being said, we now know quite a bit more then we did before science.

the problem is with creationism, you have dogma and an end to questions. as with all dogma, they fear questions.

 

[rpc64]

I don't want to prevent the spread of the scientifically obvious. And there are a lot of creationists that are not ignorant. Maybe there are some that are, but there are a lot that aren't. Here we go again with the name calling stuff. You can argue and debate all you want, that's fine and good, but why must people be petty and resort to name calling? How can you be comfortable believing something that could change radically at any moment?

 

[HOWITIS]

I don't want to prevent the spread of the scientifically obvious. And there are a lot of creationists that are not ignorant. Maybe there are some that are, but there are a lot that aren't. Here we go again with the name calling stuff. You can argue and debate all you want, that's fine and good, but why must people be petty and resort to name calling? How can you be comfortable believing something that could change radically at any moment?

your missing the point of the thread. give evidence for creationism! either do that, or state there is none, it is all based on faith.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: rpc64
Let me ask you something. What if science isn't all there is to the universe? I mean come on, everything we know is based on human experiences and observations. All the things we now know to be scientifically true, we didn't always know them. They had to be discovered. What if there is still something that we *gasp* haven't yet observed to standards that we have deemed satisfactory? How can you prove it's NOT there?

Oh brother!

The whole premise of science is that there are many things that we haven't discovered yet. Our so-called laws of nature are always up to review and modification as new discoveries are made. Newton's Laws of Motion, modified by Einstein's Relativity, and perhaps modified in the future to accommodate some new discoveries. (It's you "true believers" who claim to already have all the "truths" already.) Scientific analysis of the facts we have already discovered provide us with the best explanation of the universe we can have right now. Not perfect -- bound to be proven incorrect in many ways in the future -- but the best basis upon which we can make rational decisions. So, your insinuation that science is not open to new discoveries shows a basic misunderstanding of what science is all about.

And providing the best current explanation does not mean that science can disprove all other possible explanations. For instance, neither of us can prove that an "Independence Day" style alien invasion fleet is not bearing down on our planet as you read this. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go jump in my car and drive up into the hills in anticipation of worldwide destruction. I'm going to bed now, and expect to wake up and see the sun rise tomorrow. Of course, I can't prove to you that the sun will rise tomorrow either...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Woohoo... Troll thread!

:disgust:

?

You are confusing evolution vs. creationism with abiogenesis.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: rpc64
Let me ask you something. What if science isn't all there is to the universe? I mean come on, everything we know is based on human experiences and observations. All the things we now know to be scientifically true, we didn't always know them. They had to be discovered. What if there is still something that we *gasp* haven't yet observed to standards that we have deemed satisfactory? How can you prove it's NOT there?

Oh brother!

The whole premise of science is that there are many things that we haven't discovered yet. Our so-called laws of nature are always up to review and modification as new discoveries are made. Newton's Laws of Motion, modified by Einstein's Relativity, and perhaps modified in the future to accommodate some new discoveries. (It's you "true believers" who claim to already have all the "truths" already.) Scientific analysis of the facts we have already discovered provide us with the best explanation of the universe we can have right now. Not perfect -- bound to be proven incorrect in many ways in the future -- but the best basis upon which we can make rational decisions. So, your insinuation that science is not open to new discoveries shows a basic misunderstanding of what science is all about.

And providing the best current explanation does not mean that science can disprove all other possible explanations. For instance, neither of us can prove that an "Independence Day" style alien invasion fleet is not bearing down on our planet as you read this. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go jump in my car and drive up into the hills in anticipation of worldwide destruction. I'm going to bed now, and expect to wake up and see the sun rise tomorrow. Of course, I can't prove to you that the sun will rise tomorrow either...

I'll bet anyone a million bucks that the sun will rise tomorrow.









(if it doesn't, chances are I won't be around to pay, nor will the bet taker be around to receive)

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Woohoo... Troll thread!

:disgust:

?

You are confusing evolution vs. creationism with abiogenesis.

?????
You are more than welcome to explain abiogenesis to me and everyone else that does not know what it is.

 

[rpc64]

FrustratedUser all I'm saying is this: Why should we say something to be absolute fact, the be all and end all, when all we know is what we've seen so far? I don't mean to argue completely against evolution. I think that science is a good thing. It's natural for humans to be curious and to learn all we can to explain our universe. If you want to know what I believe, I think maybe there is a combination of creation and evolution. Maybe God created certain things originally, and they evolved from there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Woohoo... Troll thread!

:disgust:

?

You are confusing evolution vs. creationism with abiogenesis.

?????
You are more than welcome to explain abiogenesis to me and everyone else that does not know what it is.

Abiogenesis

Evolution is just that, life evolving. It does not explain how life began in the first place.
Many people who believe in God also believe in evolution, and such thinking is not actually against the Bible. Not every Christian is a Fundamentalist. If you are going to argue evolution, you ought to at least understand what evolution means, don't ya think?
Anyway, to some people, evidence for evolution can also be considered evidence for creation. OR you can see conflicting thinking in both camps. For example, some people may say that the factual existence of sea shells on top of the Himalayas is evidence of the Great Flood, while others could say that science proves how the Himalayas rose from the sea floor through millions of years of geological movement.
As no one really knows, the smart people (in my experience) keep their opinions open and the idiots have closed minds and ruthlessly root for whichever side they have come to prefer in this Ford-vs.-Chevy-like argument.

edit: couple of typos

 

[silverpig]

Yeah, that's what I said.

The question shouldn't be about the accuracy of evolution; that is fairly well established. Rather, the question should be about who believes evoltion and creation are mutually exclusive.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: rpc64
FrustratedUser all I'm saying is this: Why should we say something to be absolute fact, the be all and end all, when all we know is what we've seen so far? I don't mean to argue completely against evolution. I think that science is a good thing. It's natural for humans to be curious and to learn all we can to explain our universe. If you want to know what I believe, I think maybe there is a combination of creation and evolution. Maybe God created certain things originally, and they evolved from there.

I see what you mean. But a magic God that suddenly creates something out of nothing is very hard (for me) to even try to understand. Just poff.. and then something just exists is so way off and against every kind of physics or even common sense (at least mine).

The point of the thread was to let people with the combined view you have to speak up and explain how it all fits together and possibly back that up with something.

As I see it, creationism is just plain religion. And a religion is usually based on some kind of holy book that someone wrote a few thousands of years ago. The content of that book had to come from somewhere and there is absolutely no prof that it is 'The word of God'. None.

 

[Moonbeam]

Science is not in the business of proving or disproving God. Science cannot comment on that. Whether there is a God or not is anybody?s choice to believe or not. There is no proof one way or the other. God may have created the universe and it evolved. I don't know. I do know there is a body of scientific evidence gathered from rocks that says evolution happened. I call that kind of thing a fact. The rocks are a time machine. But for Christ's sakes, evolution does not disprove the existence of God. It just means that one variation of interpretation of the Bible is out to lunch.