Creationism… September 25, 2008


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nice. I also like:

    CREATIONISM: Because it’s much easier to read one book than a bunch of hard ones.

  • Ty

    I always liked:

    The Bible

    Because all of human knowledge can’t compete with the teachings of bronze age cattle herders that thought every animal on earth lived within walking distance of Noah’s house.

  • joe

    I think creationism is so much more likely because just look around and see the complexity. The evolutionist charles darwin who came up with the evolution scale, you know the one with a monkey turning into a man, died a christian even he knew he was wrong. There are laws in science that prove that something not alive cannot spawn something that is alive like the soup we all supposedly came from and evolved from. Science is just there to weed out any belief in something bigger than it. Dig deep in your heart and you will find a whole somewhere only the creator can fill. Trust in Jesus and He will take you to that creator.

  • @joe: You are wrong. Darwin did not die a Christian, that is Christian propaganda. You are also wrong in your understanding of scientific laws. It is obvious you have never studied evolution — I would recommend reading about it from someone who is not a creationist, as they always distort it.

    However, I found your exhortation to “trust in Jesus” quite amusing. You have blind faith in a delusion; we have evidence for reality.

  • The universe and the planets were created, then evolved…you’re both right…congratulations!

  • @ Daniel Florien: You are too kind. ;-) It’s not just Christian propaganda, it is a lie, and thus breaks the 9th commandment. Even when I was a Christian I was sickened by all the lies that were told in Jesus’ name. Sick. Sick. Sick.

  • Oh, and the picture is awesome by the way. Thanks for sharing!

  • Couldn’t we just shorten this to: Creationism: Because for some folks it’s just too difficult to think.

  • Ian

    That gets brownie points for featuring a picture of space, but I like this better:

  • tolscript

    The spirit world was created before the beginning of time, before the physical world was launched by the creator.

    This world consisted of everything that existed before, now, and in the future, throughout the universe, in spirit form.

    God also created an infinitely small particle, a physical particle, and gave it momentum. Evolution took over and continues to this day.

    The spirit of each and every living thing, from insects to mammals to whatever physical, becomes part of that living entity until death.

    Reincarnation, the reality of all living spirits, continues until the end of the physical universe.

    In summation, death applies to the physical entity, not the spirit.

    Yes, Virginia, there is an afterlife.

  • neopsychic

    @ tolscript

    There is no spirit world, there is not god, there is no spirit.

    Why? Because there is no evidence for any of those things.

  • @tolscript: How do you know there is an afterlife? Have you been there and returned? Anyone you know? How do you know there is spirit? This has never been proven, and we know the body works quite well without one.

  • Roger

    Well, the book tells tolscript that there’s an afterlife, so he/she swallows the little blue pill without question. And joe’s comment makes about as much sense as Sarah Palin before she’s had her morning moose.

  • jonboy

    @ neopsychic

    so you are suggesting that nothing can exist unless there is evidence for it?

    That’s tricky ground… are you prepared to defend that statement?

  • @jonboy – i defend them!

  • I must wonder if joe is for real… Either way he makes me laugh a bit. Seriously, his comment crams in almost all of the major misconceptions about evolution trudged out by the creationists who do not read enough to realize that they have been debunked and explained thousands of times over. I’ve seen them all before, but it is unusual to see so many in a single, relatively short comment.

    Let’s see. There’s the argument from complexity, which is both misinformed and fails to be explained by a more complex creator.

    There is the claim about Darwin’s death bed conversion and his disbelief in his own theory. This is not only false, but also inconsequential. Even if Darwin didn’t believe he was right, that means nothing at all to science. We have the actual evidence, and that stands whether anyone believes it or not. Science does not need faith.

    The claim that monkeys turned into men, which is a common straw man. Sure, in a very, very wide sense, with liberal interpretation of the words, it has some truth to it, but it almost always stated in that way to make evolution look ridiculous.

    There is the assumption that being a Christian means that you can’t accept the theory of evolution. In its extension this is the all too common straw man claiming that science is anti-religion, that all scientists are atheists and so on. In reality, many Christians understand and accepts the validity of the theory of evolution, and many evolutionary biologists are Christians.

    This is coupled with the claim that “science is just there to weed out any belief in something bigger than it,” as if science is nothing but a big anti-religion conspiracy instead of something vitally important for the products that we use in our everyday life, and for our understanding of the universe.

    There are unfounded claims, like that there are “laws of science” that say that life cannot come from non-life, while in reality there are no such laws. And this leads to the false assumption that evolutionary theory fails because it cannot explain the origin of life on earth. In reality, evolution doesn’t try to explain the origin of life, that is another, separate theory, abiogenesis.

    Evolution deals only with what has happened after the first life occurred, and there are mountains of evidence for the ongoing process. Whether life came spontaneously from non-life or if God or the FSM or intelligent aliens created the first life, we know that it has evolved since then.

    Then there is the total non-sequitur that if we somehow “disprove” the theory of evolution, then Jesus is the only option.

    So much fail in such a short comment. I’m impressed.

  • Chuck

    Creationism: Thou Shalt Not Use That Comically Oversized Brain That I Went Through All The Trouble To Cram Into Your Swollen Neck-Melon.

  • M

    It’s not an issue of science vs. faith, it’s an issue of faith vs. faith. None of you were there to see it and there is no legitimate evidence for what is suggested by macro-evolution. It takes more faith to believe in the god of evolution and humanism than the real God of the universe. You’ll see that when you meet Him someday.

  • Anonymous

    I’m arguing for neither idea. My argument is simply against the adherence to either scripture or scientific thought to such a degree that one would limit themselves from looking at our existence from all possible angles is a disturbing practice. The human, being unlike anything other in the animal kingdom has the ability to imagine, create, dream, hope, and ultimately, destroy in such a unique way because of this so called intelligence. However, even with these amazing abilities what is physically present in this universe is much more than we as humans could ever hope to fully understand. We are simply not equipped to even begin to comprehend the full structure of the world around us, and yet, in the full awareness of this limitation, some have allowed themselves to become indoctrinated with “knowledge” (and I use the world very liberally) about the very nature of the creation of existence itself.
    What was taught thousands of years ago is not fact. God as humans have imagined him is a myth. If one truly reads the Bible they will find discrepancies and references to ancient pagan cultures and practices- the imaginings of tyrant priest and zealots who sought to control the nature of their respective societies. This is clearly evident when comparing historical figures to possibly mythological characters in the bible. I’m sure many of you are familiar with this story: A child is sealed in a woven basket, sent to float in a river, discovered in the reeds, and then rises to become a savior of his people. Familiar, right? Yeah, its the story of Sargon of Akkad. Looks like the Sumerians got the claim to that legend before the Hebrews and their Moses. Even in what God is called there is discrepancy. Sometimes he is referred to (in the ancient Hebrew texts) as Elohim. Yet “Elohim” is generally translated as “gods” plural. This coupled with the region in which these texts were most likely written has lead to greater acceptance that the “god” referred to in some parts of the old testament was actually a reference to the pagan pantheon of the ancient port city of Ugarit. Other discrepancies in naming such as “YHWH,” “Adonai,” and references to Baal, Ashera, and other gods in the Hebrew texts make it plenty clear that the original idea of the “Christian” god is actually a conglomeration of myths of the ancient middle east. When looking at other religions, it is much of the same case. There was a blending of cultures, a juxtaposition of practices and beliefs between warring cultures, and finally a “true” god is born. Right.
    As for science, I do not argue against the validity of research or evolution, the big bang theory, or other theories that have more evidence for them than religion ever could, but what I do argue against is this: Science, when believed in whole heartedly without question is just as bad a religion. It is the duty of a true scientist to be skeptical. It is key for those who agree with new discoveries and groundbreaking research to also be wary of the implication of such experiments and to understand that because of our previously mentioned limitations that we understand that we are in no way ready to label anything as completely factual. I don’t know if there was a god at the beginning of things, and, although that question is something that plagues me constantly, it is also something that gives me a purpose of sorts. It should give everyone purpose. As human beings are, there is no possible way to understand how or possibly why anything was created, but what we can do is allow the freedom of inquiry and release ourselves from both the bonds of religion and the arrogance of seeing only what we have learned of the physical world as fact, and live for what we are. No matter what a person believes, what we are is a group of deeply spiritual beings who are defined not by the knowledge that they have gathered, but by the knowledge they have yet to search for.

  • Chad

    Creationism is an incredibly ridiculous notion. Intelligent design(not the same as creationism) is the best explanation as to where life came from, but Darwinism(evolution) is 100% absolutely valid and there is much proof to the theory. A recent study of monarch butterflies witnessed evolution in that species over a mere 10 generations.

  • Woofer

    I have enough trouble just getting my mind around what I can see and feel and hear. It’s pretty hard for me to complicate that with thinking that “invisible friends” and goat boys from thousands of years back are the only true authorities on what I perceive as real.
    Anyone who thinks man evolved from monkeys is an idiot. We evolved parallel on our own track from a root simian way the heck before written time. The other famous argument.. why are there still monkeys if they evolved.. well, hello, they really are monkeys, not proto-people. They are on a “monkey” development track, not a human one. And yes, there is even evidence that monkeys are still evolving BUT not into becoming people. Are people still evolving ??
    Who knows… sure doesn’t seem that way if elections are any indicator of human progress.. LOL

  • misanthropope

    ano, why even bother to use punctuation or spaces? nobody is going to read anything beginning with “my argument is simply” that extends for two pages without even paragraph breaks. we’ve all been babbled at by amateur Platos, ok?

  • just a thought

    alright, yes creationism doesn’t really make any sense. But you’re almost as bad for the same reason that creationists don’t make any sense. You’re taking the bible at literal level. Blasphemy it may be, but you can’t take the bible literally. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s hypocritical and in some places just nonsensical. It’s the moral and ethical ideas expressed that are important (also if you’re into that sort of thing it’s a very interesting literary work).

    So here is my suggestion to you (and keep in mind it is just a suggestion). Yes evolution makes sense but make your argument against creationism more than “the bible doesn’t make sense.” It’s vastly more complex than that.

    Also fwiw, I once heard that Darwin (among other more modern scholars) had a lot of trouble with their own theories as evolution on it’s own involves considering an awful lot of huge coincidences. Darwin realized that while his theory was correct to the extent of his knowledge, there had to be a higher power controlling that. I think this is a common feeling among scientists (especially those who are also christians). Unfortunately I can’t remember the source and have no way to back it up.

    Of course if this is taken as what I hope it was meant to be taken (as a joke) then, bravo; I laughed the first time I saw it as well as the other ones mentioned (and some that weren’t).

    Btw I consider myself a christian but I’ve learned to think for myself not just what the church feeds me (or what one scientist tells me). Instead I take what is given to me by both sides and what I know from my own observations and come to my own conclusion.

    whew, that was longer than I meant it to be but I think it needed to be said, although this is hardly the proper place for it I suppose…

  • just a thought (ammended)

    I went back and read some of the last three posts. I believe what I was referring to in my previous post was Intelligent Design. I was under the impression that this was a cover-up term for creationism to sound more legitimate.

    “Creationism is an incredibly ridiculous notion. Intelligent design(not the same as creationism) is the best explanation as to where life came from, but Darwinism(evolution) is 100% absolutely valid and there is much proof to the theory. A recent study of monarch butterflies witnessed evolution in that species over a mere 10 generations.”

    however, that seems to say that it IS different and based on context I would guess it’s what I was referring to.

  • Anonymous

    @ Misanthropope- I did, but it didn’t show up when I posted. Also, are you going to contribute? Don’t post if you don’t have anything to say. Ok?

  • Joe

    Big Bang theory:
    In the beginning there was nothing; and then it exploded.

  • Chuck

    Creationist Theory:
    In the beginning there was nothing, then an invisible man popped into being and in the course of a week produced everything there is. He has 10 rules and if you break a rule he’ll send you to a place of fire and torture and smoke and agony forever. . .but he loves you.

  • Defarious

    Well I sure am glad this didn’t turn into another one those endless creationism/evolutionary debates. You’re all retarded.

  • eric

    Science and religion can easily co-exist. I am religious, bahai, not christian. I have a great deal of faith in science also, chemistry & physics duel major, which i plan on going for phd in chem. I follow neither religion nor science blindly.

    Science when someone comes up with a theory, if you look into it, you will notice that not a single scientist believes it till many, many, many other people also do the experiment, analyze data, and come up to the conclusions. After that the theory becomes legitimate. theory is not a guess, it is the idea, or the law of nature, that is best supported by the evidence. evolution through evidence we see that things change slightly over time effected by environment, that there are inherent defects in a population which some become the major trait as other stresses are put on, survival of the fittest etc. (dumbed down explanation, if i missed something im sorry, but the idea is there) Laws of science are just the laws of the universe witnessed through observation and experiment. they are not meant to deny god or anything.

    question everything, question faith, question science. by all means question science and faith. if they can not create proof, then they are not legitimate. think about faith logically, dont blindly follow a preacher or whatever, someone who has no more knowledge than you. dont blindly listen to a scientist, do the experiments yourself look at the data, make your own conclusions. you have that big old brain, use it!

  • zapper

    I don’t know, and you don’t either!

  • Eric

    i will start of by saying that i am atheist.

    i know there is some kind of spirit but there is no word for what i believe it really is.

    as my proof i want anyone to simply think about the state they are in this very second, you are looking out of your bodies eyes, you have your own heart, mind, brain, emotion, and conscious. there must be something that determines what body your, for lack of a better word, spirit possesses.

    but, this is not religious. it’s rather stupid to think religion is in any way fact. it was and sadly still is a way for people that dont understand the quantum science of reality to explain where thing come from and to give there life some kind of meaning; as false as it may be.

    it is proven there are multiple dimensions to reality. i think every person exists in every dimension but our minds are unaware of the connection to these realities. we are very primitive beings that have not been around for very long.

    if you think about it it makes thing such as telekinesis plausible but very hard to do as it requires you to reach into a level of reality that is incomprehendable by our simple brains.

    i wish religion was gone. i would end 90% of the worlds wars

  • Eric

    it** would end 90% of the worlds wars

  • M.D.Hensel

    Correct me if I’m wrong or this has been said, but evolution has nothing to say about how things started.

    Therefore, generally it is pointless for a creationist to argue against evolution?

  • Kagrath

    @M.D.Hensel: Pointless? yes. Will it stop them? No. Evolution undermines their beliefs because it implies that after life’s creation their was no guiding hand but that of survival of the fittest. As you can see, this would put a hamper in the whole “God created everything in 7 days” thing.

    @eric: Science and religion cannot coexist. Science is the search for truth, the absolute truth. Faith is a way to cover it up with old superstitions and outdated beliefs. They are polar opposites. One based in fact, the other in nothing but someone’s word on it.

    And from me to all those Intelligent Design believers out there: The burden of proof lies upon your shoulders. Bring me facts based on more than “Well, what if?”
    Without evidence it is no more than baseless drivel. Science is not based on the inability to disprove a claim, but the ability to provide strong evidence in support of it.

  • Cole

    joe, if you denounce evolution, your an idiot. even your church now accepts it as reality.

    “nothing exploded”

    makes more sense than

    “there was nothing and then intelligence designed itself”

  • Anon

    M.D.Hensel is correct. Biogenesis is not Evolution.

  • I encourage people to believe in creationism. We need them to mop our floors, do our dishes, and take jobs that people with educations don’t want.

    Snarky? Hell ya. Tired of having to defend logic and reason? More so.

  • StratTele

    To say there absolutely is no god(s) is just as foolish as to say there absolutely is a god(s). I stand behind science 100% with all that it can tell us. Even if some scientific ideas turn out to be false later in our existence, that’s just how the universe works. We have always been wrong and we probably are wrong with plenty of ideas we have today. I believe evolution brought us and the world to what it is today but there is still something that bothers me. Life itself. What makes something alive, what gives us a “soul” or “spirit.” (Please don’t take those terms as religious terms) I believe this is something that is quite unexplainable (or maybe it is who knows) that it doesn’t seem too ridiculous that something is behind it. On the other hand, it could just be a cosmic “accident.” I believe these are the best questions worth asking and I’m happy that it stirs up intellectual arguments. I must say though, to completely deny something, whether it be god, science, or the idea of our soul/spirit, is something you cannot do if you are willing to find the answers to these questions.

  • shadhe

    Can someone please summarise the 18 pages worth of useless banter between people who think they’ll get into heaven if they argue on enough forums versus people who think they’ll magically instill higher iq’s by repeating reason that has not been understood in the first place?

    Thank you.

  • Christopher

    Let me start by saying that i am only 15, but have been fortunate enough to have grown up in a family that does not force its beliefs upon me.

    Let me start by saying not only that evolution is probable, but is in fact unavoidable. Evolutions are simply mutations on an organism, useful or otherwise, that happen purely by chance or due to living that force these changes upon a creature.

    For example in very hot conditions, incresed pigmentation in the skin. This trait will eventually be passed onto the offspring of that creature. Or even a random mutation, sprouting from the creature that, if useful, will once again be passed onto the offspring.

    I apologise in advance for any grammatical or spelling errors that may have occured in this comment. As i said im 15 and in high school, and barely a senior at that.