Creationism

Post Reply New Topic

I believe this thread is about how life began on earth. Not how the universe began. They are two different things.

Wrong. Creationism is a lot more generalized than abiogenesis.

Biblically, on the first day God created light. On the second day, God created the expanse. On the third day, the ocean and the super-continent as well as plants. On the forth day, the sun, our moon, and the stars, on the fifth day, the creatures of the sea and the birds. On the sixth day, land animals other than birds, and man. So, going from the Bible a lot more is addressed than merely life upon the earth alone, regardless of whether or not evolutionists today seek to isolate and obfuscate the matter in a sea of vague definitions and equivocation.

Suppose the cosmos ALWAYS existed in one state or another. Then it need not have been created by some agent separate from the cosmos.

ruveyn

Perhaps it makes better sense to say that the forces that we know have the potential to bring us to the present state of the universe and any proposition that something with the psychology of a human started the universe is extremely far fetched and the concept of an extremely naive mind.

I suppose perpetual motion must also exist in one form or another, if that be the case.

So the forces that we know now, the electromagnetic force operating with no charges, the gravitational force operating with no mass, the strong force operating without nucleonic particles, brought about the masses and the charges... everything made itself out of nothing.... Ruveyn's supposition is more reasonable even though it would imply an infinite duration of perpetual motion, even having the universe expand and collapse itself ad infinitum.

emphasis mine.
"just because something can't be science..." please figure out what "science" means. that might help you avoid statements like this.
"religion is important for questions of morality." questions like "is it ok to own a man and treat him like farm equipment?" or "should women be allowed into the priest class?" or "should gays be allowed to marry?" or "should women be allowed to drive?" "is genocide ok?" ...'cause yeah..... religion's done a great job with moral questions, so far....
don't get me wrong. i understand that some religions have come up with some good answers to moral questions, over the years. i'm just saying religion doesn't always get it right and that they might do a bit better if their method were a bit more, scientific. i'll get back to that in a moment.
"science is very limited in it's ability to explain where we came from." compared to religion, yes. science is very limited in it's ability to explain where we came from. if only it weren't so limited. what is that limitation? oh, that's right. you can't just make something up and call it science. i think this goes back to the first quote. you should really look into this whole science thing. it might not be as stinky as you've been told. if you want to say that either science or religion is "limited in it's ability to explain where we came from." you might consider which is more limiting. science's answer to everything always starts out the same: "i don't know, let's find out." after science answers a question, you can ask "why is that true?" and simply follow the trail of science back to the original question. ask "why is that true?" of a religious answer. if you're satisfied with the answer you get, come see me afterward as your deity has spoken to me and he said you are to give me all of your money and follow my self-serving rules and i'll totally pay you back the day after you die.
"as religion is more open minded,..." really? "religion" is more open minded? so if i were to present evidence contradicting some piece of religious dogma, that religion would amend itself? so if i were to point to astronomers who say the universe is billions of years old, christians who believe that the bible is the literal word of god will compare this evidence with their doctrine and objectively decide which makes more sense instead of just discarding it because it contradicts the 6 day creation story? if i do a chemical analysis on the eucharist and show that it has not changed at all since being blessed by a priest and therefor has not been transubstantiated into the flesh of a 2000-year-dead jew, the catholic church will stop saying that this is what happens during communion? just what is religion open minded about?


if you really want to know how a lot of us secularists feel about science and religion, as they pertain to morality, i suggest looking up Sam Harris.

click here for a 23 minute ted talk where sam harris explains how science can answer questions about morality.

or you can just keep believing really really hard that you're open minded without doing any of that annoying work of "actually listening to what people who disagree with you are saying to determine why you have come to different conclusions."



*edit* oh yeah...."the big bang theory can't explain the creation of the universe, as in order to explode, the universe must already exist, and abiogenesis contradicts everything we know about biology."
http://everyjoe.com/technology/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space-191/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
you are misrepresenting the "big bang" theory. i don't think you're doing it on purpose, so i've provided a few references to help you out. the first is an article clarifying what you got wrong with that statement and the second is the wikipedia page for "big_bang."

as far as abiogenesis is concerned, you're having the same problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Spontaneous_generation
that link will take you to the section of the wikipedia page about abiogenesis that explains the difference between modern notions of abiogenesis and the older (discredited) notion of abiogenesis that is spontaneous generation.
spontaneous generation contradicts most of what we know about biology. "bees come from flowers" and "amino acids can form naturally" are statements representative of two completely different ideas. to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

also: "miracles."

I applaud those who want to fill this thread with silly.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK6tkcxAHIw[/youtube]
DPRJones is awesome
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P591Yt6dIHY&feature=channel[/youtube]
and so is Edward Current.

I don't really get what the big deal is. "How did the universe begin?" Isn't something I really ponder every day. It's the last of my concerns. Evolutions explains how we (Humans) came to be on Earth.

Another argument that annoys me is that evolution is only a theory. Seriously? The theory of gravity exists as well. Just because our observations may not be correct doesn't mean that what we're observing isn't real.

Theories are also backed up by tons of information, so what do you mean 'only'? It's not the hypothesis of evolution!

both of those videos are hilarious and terrifying at the same time.

jookia: first, not all creationists are anti-evolutionists. the ones that are aren't likely to be persuaded by arguments explaining the difference between a "scientific theory" and "some s**t i thought up while on drugs."

speaking of "anti-evolutionist creationists" and "omfg is this just some s**t someone thought up on drugs?" check out this website that makes any attempt to out-crazy the anti-evolutionist creationists in america impossible. http://www.answersingenesis.org/

that is not a satirical website. i recommend reading their "after eden" comic strip and searching "what happened to the dinosaurs?" in their searchbar. again, because i don't think it can be said enough about these guys..... this website is not satire. this is actually what millions of american christians believe. not all creationists (or even all christians) believe this crap but a lot of them do.

if someone believes this stuff, why would you be surprised that they would say something so silly as "evolution is just a theory?"

again, not all creationists are young-earth creationists. this is, however, a great example of the type of mental gymnastics required to see the bible as the literal word of god.

oh yeah....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx <-gallup poll from 2008 showing less than 40% of americans believe in evolution. it's got a lot of other depressing numbers too and it sorts by education level and church attendance too.

then again, the the theory of statistics is just a theory...

*edit*
here, have a hilarious timeline in comic form. again, these are from answers in genesis' article explaining what REALLY happened to the dinosaurs.

First, let's get to the bolded part.

It doesn't add that question: God is by definition the prime creator. The ineffability religion bestows upon God relates to the fact of how little we know about this creator. the act of religion (as oppose to the doctrine of religion) is in many ways, our attempt to understand this creator.

Secondly, who says God favors earth out of the entire universe?

And you misunderstand what I meant by open-minded. I didn't mean dynamic, and I don't know why you would assume that that is what I mean. I meant it has more of an ability to accept things.

as for your morality, tell me why you think murder is evil, exactly?

You can't accept the Universe being created by nothing but can accepted a god being created by nothing?



He sent his ONLY son to die on THIS planet for OUR sins. He apparently watches over this planet, etc. It's implied.



That's what I meant. Religion only really accepts what's in its own book as opposed to scientific discoveries that change how you think about the world.



Because I don't do to people what I wouldn't want done to me.

Again, I think you're struggling with the concept of God. God is what we call the prime creator. religions are ultimately theories about God, you could say.

As Jesus is implied to be an avatar of sorts, the possibility exists for multiple incarnations for multiple planets. what's more, the possibility exists that what happened on earth affected all worlds, or that only humans needed someone to redeem them. Or God did something entirely different on another world. I would love to hear about the religions of an extraterrestrial world.

about the world. science is a good source of answers about the physical world, but religion is not concerned with the physical world because the physical world doesn't matter in the long run. In the same way, science isn't concerned with concepts like spirit an morality because they can't be studied with the scientific method. that however, doesn't mean that they are not worth exploring.

taking aside the fact that you more or less quoted scripture, why not do to other people what you wouldn't have done to you?

There is a militant form of rationalism that believes precisely this - if it can't be explored through rational process it is not worth exploring and in fact should NOT be explored. The most radical form of this is that exploration of ideas not subject to scientific/rational methods should be vigorously obstructed. I find it ironic that this is not a rationally defensible position.