Creationism

Post Reply New Topic

I wanted to post this a while ago........

My wife and I got a real laugh from both these pics.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

---

Agree. I also laughed.

Some years ago my wife and I visited the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. From the lookout area I shouted at the top of my lungs: "Six Thousand Years, my ass!" and it echoed back from all the surrounding rocky cliffs "My ass... my ass ... my ass".

My wife says she cannot take me anywhere.

ruveyn

You all seem to have a huge misunderstanding of creationism. just because evolution deniers are vocal doesn't mean they are the end-all be-all of what creationism is. You're all making fun of an idea you know nothing about, and thus aren't really any different from evolution deniers yourselves.

At the age of 21 you probably have not had the opportunity to examine the facts properly.

The creationists who aren't deniers of history are merely theists arguing against Stephen Hawking and the physicists and astrophysicists of the world.

It's not exactly a winning argument considering that even with such a claim, there still lacks the necessary empirical evidence needed to back up such a claim. Arguments of coincidence claiming of a fine tuning of a world is pretty daft considering that you're essentially stating an obvious fact and then giving the credit to a deity; or, in other words, of course things would have to have happened as they did or else things would not have occurred as they have and this is not evidence of any deity...just merely a repeating of known facts and claiming that they obviously indicate a deity when in all observation, it doesn't.

Ah, I feel so at home on this thread.

Even if God created the world, which God was it?

Perhaps it was the God(s) of the Egyptians, or Persians or Greeks or Romans or Norse or Zulus or Navajo or Australian Aborigines?

Sand: as a solipsist, I probably have a very different idea of what constitutes a "fact" than you do. But I have studied evolution and don't deny it, if that's what you mean.

Wombat: that's why I study them all, and I like Christianity's idea of God the best.

Sorry. I apologize. Creationists usually deny evolution. I assumed you did.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgPiuhqgZYc[/youtube]
This guy is a legend. His username is jesusophile and all of his videos are satirical.

And you fully understand the works of Hawking, no doubt. I'm not too dumb and it doesn't take long for the math (the real stuff, not what is in his popular books) to overwhelm me.

It kills me that Hawking makes a decidedly unscientific statement (it is not necessary for a creator) and people take it as gospel.

What is really interesting to me is that even if THIS universe spontaneously emerged from a quantum fluctuation of a zero energy state, Hawking himself said that it was gravity and quantum mechanics that allowed this. So to say the universe emerged from "nothing" is a dumbing down of the facts for the masses. First, a zero energy state is not nothing. "Nothing" has no properties and this zero energy state still has gravity and quantum mechanics as part of its dynamic. And, both gravity and quantum mechanics are NECESSARY conditions for the quantum fluctuation to even occur. Surely Hawking is not claiming gravity and quantum mechanics are "nothing". Which brings us right back to the original problem - the infinite regress of "where did it all come from". Whence came gravity? And once that is determined, whence came the progenitor of gravity? And there is the pesky existence of quantum mechanics itself.

Does this answer the question of God's existence? No. But Hawking's work ONLY describes the progress of THIS universe from a set of first principles observed by THIS species. It is an egregious error of scientific method to extend it beyond that.

This one's made it on my bucket list.