Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?

smokey2117

Member
I don't see why one can't intertwine Religion and Science.. not that nobody does.. just the majority pick sides for whatever reason.. IMO God created everything but not in the way that creationists say.. God IS Creation.. Keep that in mind. Just because Science proves what really happened doesn't mean it wasn't by God's hand.. There's always room for mistakes though, but that is my humble opinion. I'm a Science nerd and I also have a personal relationship with the being that created us... whether it's the "God" that Christians worship or some other deity.. nonetheless I have a place in my heart that my Lord resides in.
 

Tym

Well-Known Member
Get rid of a few things and both CAN EXIST. You can CREATE LIFE. and their can be a CREATOR. EVOLUTION CAN HAPPEN AFTER BEING CREATED.. screw the conflicts, Conflicts are just that. where the two cannot meet. and where the two are WRONG. Both exist, both Sides have some false statements.
The thing is, one is wrong and the other is correct by default.
But yes, I would have to agree with you, they can both exist.
But so can the FSM, IPU and the infamous Tea pot.
I am not interested in what can be, I am interested in what is..
 

destructo

Member
You cannot prove a negative.
Everyone always seems so focused on "proving" things when they should also be trying to disprove them.

And it's a lot easier to find evidence in support of creationism.
You are supposed to look for disconfirming evidence as well. If you don't, you will be lead to believe the wrong things. I'm not interested in doing what's "easier" i'm interested in finding the truth.

Meanwhile Holy books declared scientific facts thousands of years before their "scientific discoveries."
Sure, why don't we go back to that technological age of wonder. Where the cure for everything is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting. i'm sure things will be so much better!

When typically people don't talk on subjects they know nothing about politics and religion seem to be the exception.
Why would people talking about things they know be a bad thing? What makes you say that everyone who talks about politics or religion doesn't know anything? How does this help your argument? You have nothing better to say other than to acuse everyone that doesn't take your side of "not knowing anything".
 

Tym

Well-Known Member
Everyone always seems so focused on "proving" things when they should also be trying to disprove them.
That is insane, I don't even think you believe that. If you actually think of the implications, you would prefer to believe everything till someone could prove to you that it is false.
You automatically believe in big foot, santa, spider man, pixies, flying spaghetti monster, Invisible pick unicorn etc... Till you can disprove them, that is just insane.
This is why atheism is the default position. You reject extraordinary claims till they can be show valid.

As for actively disproving claims, many people do it. what's the claim?

Unmoved mover?
Infinite regress?

If nothing moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well. Otherwise God is nothing, which contradicts the conclusion. Thus, either the premise is untrue, in which case the argument is unsound, or the conclusion doesn't follow, in which case the argument is invalid. In fact, as stated, the argument is clearly self-contradictory.

Who created God?

Which god? The word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random quantum fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be very misleading.

Two bodies at rest will start to move towards each other due to gravity. They can be each other's first mover. Therefore, the prior mover requirement is unnecessary.

Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, out of literally nothing. These particles affect each other's motion, thus disproving Aquinas's premise.

More exotically, if time were circular (i.e., if time repeated every so often, so that the year 1 were also the year ten trillion and one), then every motion could have a prior cause without infinite regress. This does not seem to be the case, though.

Even if there is an infinite regress of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.

These are just a few of the standard refutations.

The thing is, we don't have to disprove anything. In order to disprove something, it must first be proven, by definition.
The rational default position is non belief.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
That is insane, I don't even think you believe that. If you actually think of the implications, you would prefer to believe everything till someone could prove to you that it is false.
You automatically believe in big foot, santa, spider man, pixies, flying spaghetti monster, Invisible pick unicorn etc... Till you can disprove them, that is just insane.
This is why atheism is the default position. You reject extraordinary claims till they can be show valid.
I think you might have missed the point. I agree with destructo, rejecting the null hypothesis is the standard for whether or not to accept a claim. For any claim that I want to examine, I need to be looking at reasons to not accept, probably even more so than trying to confirm it.

You are both saying the same thing.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I think you might have missed the point. I agree with destructo, rejecting the null hypothesis is the standard for whether or not to accept a claim. For any claim that I want to examine, I need to be looking at reasons to not accept, probably even more so than trying to confirm it.

You are both saying the same thing.
Agree. I took his comment as saying negative proof is as important as positive proof. After all, Science is systematic doubt. People who oppose science often don't understand what it is. Maybe if they did understand it they would still argue against it, but then I would at least be more inclined to listen.

I took a critical thinking class a couple years ago as an elective. It was three months of doing brain teasers and watching detective shows. The final was an essay on a person you feel is a critical thinker. Not one excersise actually taught anyone how to think criticaly. There was no mention of logical fallacies, no lessons about deductive/inductive reasoning, no explanation of Ocam's Razor... Most of the people signed up for the class for easy credits, something to breeze through, including the instructor. One girl did her final paper on Nostradamus. After three months of a critical thinking class she felt Nostradamus was a great critical thinker.

This article outlines a study that says not only do many of today's students not know basic science facts, they also do not understand how to think in a scientific way. So with the nations apparent recent focus on science, how come we do not see an emphasis on skepticism? It does after all go hand in hand with science, and in my opinion offers a way for someone who isn't a well taught scientist a way to understand the methods and needs for science.
 
Have you read those passages lately?

God Himself says he would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from God's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, God repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls.

To be accepted by the people, the false prophet would sometimes pretend to be a righteous Jew who fulfills the Law, but at key moments he would turn against certain details of the Law in order to make the breach (v. 6, 7).

In Deuteronomy 17, this false prophet is also described as someone who would rebel against the authority of the judges of the Jewish people, and who should be put to death for his rebelliousness (v. 8-13, esp. v. 12). Who are the judges? The highest court in Israel was the Sanhedrin, which was established by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26; Numbers 11:16-29), and which lasted more than 15 centuries. The members of the Sanhedrin were the rabbis known as "Pharisees" (Pirushim, "those with the explanation"). God gave permanent authority to these judges to interpret the Law and God's Word, and it is a commandment to follow their decisions without turning even slightly to the right or the left (Deut. 17:11). But the false prophet would challenge the authority of the Sanhedrin, thus revealing himself to be an evil man.

This is all sounding awfully familiar.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law—thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his agenda. The following 'sins' of Jesus are recorded:

1. Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.]
2. He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26).
3. He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26).
4. 4) He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to God's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.]
5. Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (Do I really need to point out examples?)
If this is how you read and discern scripture I won't argue with you as we would only look like big wheels (going round and round)

I will just say that I disagree with your understanding and conclusion of what you are reading.

About 1 nano second after death everyone will know if they were right or wrong but then it will be to late to change anything and all that will be ahead of them is eternity and the fruit of their decission.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
If this is how you read and discern scripture I won't argue with you as we would only look like big wheels (going round and round)

I will just say that I disagree with your understanding and conclusion of what you are reading.

About 1 nano second after death everyone will know if they were right or wrong but then it will be to late to change anything and all that will be ahead of them is eternity and the fruit of their decission.
I think you miss the point. My interpretation of scripture is just as valid as anyone else. The fact is that scripture can be used to defend many various POVs. If you come to the party already believing that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Jewish people, you will have a hard time understanding why he was rejected by the vast majority of Jews. We all know the Gospels were written with this same bias, yet even in those stories it is clear that Jesus tried to change the law by claiming he fulfilled it.
 
No...I got your point...it's like I said someone will be right and someone will be wrong in their understanding of scripture and and upon their death they will know the answer and their decission will follow them all through eternity.
 

stonedmetalhead1

Well-Known Member
"Monkeys do still evolve. Every living organism evolves."

I should have clarified, I don't mean adapt - why don't monkey's still evolve into humans, in front of us showing us that, that is where we came from?!
lol, Here's some evolution you can see. If you don't think this is significant remember we are clasified as homoerectus do to our ability to walk upright.


http://www.break.com/index/gorilla-walks-like-a-man-1994323



Just an Article I think you should read.

This is the first article in my series of 10 bad reasons to reject evolution, this post deals with the objection that "you can't see evolution happening".

Well this one is simply not true, evolution is a common occurrence, it happens all the time and affects our lives directly. The most prevalent example is that of microbes becoming resistant to drugs (for example malaria) and new types of bacteria and viruses emerging that thwart our best efforts at developing vaccines, for example the H1N1 strain of flu is a natural mutation of previously existing strains of flu.
What people often mistakenly mean by "evolution" in this context is not actually evolution in the wider sense it is a small component of it called "speciation", i.e. the changing of one species into another for example dinosaurs into birds or fish into reptiles; speciation of this kind occurs very slowly over hundreds of thousands if not millions of generations, because of this fact we will never actually witness it, so lets explore why.
Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it isn't true, in life we know this to be a generally accepted state of affairs, for example we can't see gravity or ultra violet rays, but if we fall off a building or lie in the sun too long then we can see and experience the after-effects of these things all too clearly. This is the same for evolution, after-effects like the fossil record, the distribution of animals and plants over the planet and the genetic record cannot be explained any other rational way than by accepting that evolution has happened, all of these separate things point overwhelmingly to the fact that speciation has occurred in the past and is still happening today. So how does speciation happen? In the summer of 1995, at least 15 iguanas survived Hurricane Marilyn on a raft of uprooted trees. They rode the high seas for a month before colonizing the Caribbean island, Anguilla. These few individuals were perhaps the first of their species, Iguana iguana, to reach the island. If there were other intrepid Iguana iguana colonizers of Anguilla, they died out before humans could record their presence. As these 15 individuals reproduce and die they will gradually change, the mechanism that causes these changes is the same tiny genetic changes between generations that makes a new flu virus. Tiny changes in genes caused by mutation may lead to changes in bodies, for example a slightly longer jaw (this has actually been observed in another species of lizard that became isolated on a tropical island) or perhaps a slightly different colour, or shorter legs etc. Should any such change (say a bigger jaw) confer a survival advantage for the lizard then that individual will be more likely to pass on his genes to the next generation. Over hundreds of generations the frequency of the "bigger jaw" gene will gradually become greater in the whole population and you end up with an island full of large jawed lizards. Give this process enough time and eventually you end up with a population of lizards that are so different that a member of the remote population could no longer mate with a member of the original population of lizards, and then you have a brand new species.

This is called allotropic speciation, there are 3 other kinds.

Expecting to actually witness speciation would be like expecting to witness the precise moment that a child becomes an adult, it's not possible because it simply doesn't happen like that, there is no precise moment of change, the process is one of tiny increments (clearly for legal purposes we put an artificial "moment" in place which is normally on the 18th birthday) but we all know and accept that it is a gradual process. Speciation happens even slower than this, typically over a time scale that extends beyond many generations of human life and is therefore impossible to witness.

What is the key evidence for speciation?


-Animals marooned on tropical islands are often are very similar but not quite the same species as animals of the same kind on the mainland, the older the island the more differences there are. It's not just water that acts as a barrier between species, deserts, mountains and ice are all effective mechanisms for separating populations of animals.

-When we look at lineages of common fossils over many generations we see gradual changes, sometimes we find fossils that have characteristics of both their ancestors and what they will eventually become in the future, these special examples are called "transitional" fossils, although this is somewhat of a misnomer because every fossil is transitional, no two animals are ever identical.

-The distribution of animals over the world fits exactly with what you would expect if speciation occurred.

-The DNA in our cells contains the precise history of our species, it proves that we are related to every other living thing on the planet, the closer the animal the more similar the DNA is, for example human DNA is 98% the same as chimpanzees, even intuitively and from the fossil record we can see that we are closely related to the higher primate, the DNA confirms that we are in fact a branch of the ape family itself and that many millions of years ago there was a speciation event that separated us.

If you argue that speciation did NOT happen, then you are left with the daunting task of explaining how these things occur some other way.
 

robert 14617

Well-Known Member
SMH your trying to reason with someone who wants to act ignorant by claiming monkeys evolved ,not the great apes
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
If you think evolution claims we evolved from monkeys, then you do not understand evolution well enough to make any sort of informed opinion.
 

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
I laugh at creationist for statements like this;

"The tide comes in, the tide goes out.
The sun comes up, the sun goes down.
No miscommunication about that."
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[youtube]Q92duyCuZMM[/youtube]
Where to begin with that statement?
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I laugh at creationist for statements like this;

"The tide comes in, the tide goes out.
The sun comes up, the sun goes down.
No miscommunication about that."
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Where to begin with that statement?
Ha, I remember the first time I saw that one myself. I had a similar reaction. My brain didn't even know where to begin deconstructing that logic so I just dismissed it entirely for fear of going insane.
 

crackerboy

Active Member
Some one had posted this video on another thread and I thought it would fit perfect on this one.


[video=youtube;17zJhnWJOOU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17zJhnWJOOU&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
Wonderful science for 5 full minutes. Nice!
Too bad it fails mathematically for 3 reasons I can think of.
1. He accepts that his numbers are only close, and that's just because it's ancient text. (In other words, the almighty got it close enough)
2. The universe is not just expanding, it's gaining speed! This means his math has another set of time and space variables.
3. He shows all math, except his math...... EPIC FAIL!

The first five minutes was worth watching over and over again, thank you!
 
Top