Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?

RawBudzski

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.
 

RawBudzski

Well-Known Member
Simply Put. an intrinsic being aka god could create all, universe worlds matter.. and life can evolve from that to a point where it too can create life forms. but that dose not make them the original creator. Human KIND CAN AND WILL create LIFEFORMS that do not exist yet on this planet. life forms that will be CREATED in the LAB and DIE in the LAB. .. Bacteria that has never lived on this planet before. I dont think humans are godly, but I know we have learned enough to alter/mimic/create life
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Man kind is not far from CREATING life in some form itself. so Creationism is POSSIBLE IS TRUE. SO IS EVOLUTION this isnt some republican / democrat bs. both can co-exist. expand your mind, Time heals all & makes what you do not understand possible
Don't forget, an -ism is a doctrine. Saying that things are created does not equate to creationism, the religious doctrine of special creation which claims the origin of the universe and all life in it suddenly sprang into being by divine decree.
 

RawBudzski

Well-Known Member
Taught me something new, I just believe both can exist. equally. I see no reason gods creations cannot evolve or create themselves.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Taught me something new, I just believe both can exist. equally. I see no reason gods creations cannot evolve or create themselves.
It's understandable. Many people have different ideas of what certain terms mean. However, generally when the word creationism is used, it is a shortened version of the more accurate biblical creationism, but can be also considered the basic premise -- an intervening deity or creator -- without the baggage of the rest of Genesis. Beliefs like Deism and theistic evolution are compatible with both a creator and evolution but aren't typically considered creationism (although most religionists will claim they are forms of creationism to boost their numbers).
 
I still think you are missing a step. All that would prove is that abe has the power of life over death. Or rather it would APPEAR that he does by virtue of him raising himself from the dead.
What if Abe also could make someone blind since birth see, or someone who was unable to walk walk, or give life to another dead person. How about someone coming up behind him and touching him and being healed of a sickness they had had for decades. Would that be enough?
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
What if Abe also could make someone blind since birth see, or someone who was unable to walk walk, or give life to another dead person. How about someone coming up behind him and touching him and being healed of a sickness they had had for decades. Would that be enough?
Most of those would be good if I could have a committee of competent medical professionals to investigate the illness/death, preferable both pre and post miracle. Let's not forget about modern day faith healers that have been found to cheat. However, if he could heal an amputee, THAT would be good.
 
You mean if every single person that he tryed to heal, was healed, bar none, you would still need proof? Even people just touching him without him knowing it? And giving life to dead people other than him self?
 

KBRoaster

Active Member
How many jobs are there for creationists? Versus jobs for biologists?

You can't apply cosmology from a wandering tribe from three thousand years ago to the same framework we have in place today. And that is why people laugh at creationist: it's like using rock tools to build a skyscraper...ain't going to happen.

nuff said...sheeit.
 

I already Node

Active Member
So what about the indians beliefs in Gods? Or the ancient Celts, Or the Romans, Or the Chinese, ect. ect. why does all EVERY NATION believe there is a God of some kind?
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
You mean if every single person that he tryed to heal, was healed, bar none, you would still need proof? Even people just touching him without him knowing it? And giving life to dead people other than him self?
No, I'm saying that I would want confirmation that people were actually healed. I fail to see how I was unclear. Anyone being truly resurrected would certainly make me at least consider the possibility that he was a god. Yet didn't the god of the Old Testament warn the Hebrews to beware of a false prophet displaying "signs and wonders?" (Deut 13)
 

That's why I use the good ol' Shermer technique... Creationists bitch about "teaching the controversy" so much, you know what Michael Shermer does? He says "OK, go for it. You have the science class, what would you like to teach?"..."...uhh... ....umm... well..." CRICKETS!!!

And that is the essence of creationism, and in fact everything you just referred to. Science is a tool. It only works when there is something to test.

Souls, ghosts, spirits, demons, monsters,ghouls, goblins, unicorns, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, etc... all that shit is psuedoscience. It's psuedoscience because there's nothing to test.

They have NOTHING. It isn't the failure on the part of science. As soon as you guys come up with some shit for us scientists to test, we'll GLADLY do it. How bout the shroud of Turin? You guys brought that, we tested it, and it failed the "this is Jebus' death cloth!!" test. Dated hundreds of years after he supposidly lived...

Shit like that happens constantly.

There is nothing to support creationism, that's why people laugh at creationists, because you'd have to be an idiot to believe it.



I think you are unfairly lumping christians and creationists together. There are plenty of people who believe in the possibility of creation who don't believe all of the stories in the bible.

As far as all of that being psuedoscience, do you have any proof for that? Oh, because science hasn't proven that they exist yet? Right, people like you conveniently brush it off as if it can't exist because it can't be tested by current scientific methods. Just like when science hadn't figured out that the earth was round, or that earth wasn't the center of the universe. Thank you for proving my point.

Not believing in something because science hasn't proven/disproven it yet, doesn't make someone an idiot, it makes them someone who can think outside the box of what science has figured out and realize that there is plenty that science hasn't yet figured out.
 
both cannot be true. both sides severely conflict with each other. there are numerous contradictions.

the universe can't be both 6,000 years old and at the same time be 13.75 billion years old.
complex organisms can not have popped into existence yet at the same time evolved from simple cells.

Not all who believe in creation believe in the bible's story of 6000 years.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I think you are unfairly lumping christians and creationists together. There are plenty of people who believe in the possibility of creation who don't believe all of the stories in the bible.

As far as all of that being psuedoscience, do you have any proof for that? Oh, because science hasn't proven that they exist yet? Right, people like you conveniently brush it off as if it can't exist because it can't be tested by current scientific methods. Just like when science hadn't figured out that the earth was round, or that earth wasn't the center of the universe. Thank you for proving my point.

Not believing in something because science hasn't proven/disproven it yet, doesn't make someone an idiot, it makes them someone who can think outside the box of what science has figured out and realize that there is plenty that science hasn't yet figured out.
Read more, post less. Reposting idiotic claims about science won't win you any points here. No one said that one is an idiot for believing in something that science has proven. He said you're an idiot for belief in something for which there is no good empirical evidence. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers. Science requires explanations for natural phenomena that can potentially be subjected to scientific falsification. Supernatural explanations are excluded, not for unfair ideological advantage, but because supernatural explanations, by their very nature, cannot be scientifically falsified. The supernatural (as the very word itself implies) is not constrained by nature, it must follow no immutable laws. We can’t test the supernatural. When you pretend to do science by using scientific jargon but claim to be testing the supernatural, you are not doing science you are doing pseudoscience.
 

Mua Dib

Member
hey guys just piping in, didn't read everyones thoughts. Though I would like to say as a christian scientist I experienced a lot of hate........just not from the scientific community, I'm very bothered that, the word science is almost always used to combat theology.

In 20 years I have never...and I mean never met an atheist scientist (not that they dont exist of course they do) I know none personally, also, what most of the people, with whom I have discussed theological matters with (or creationism even) and trust me its not a rare subject by any means in the fields I work (started out in botany/and organic chem, then got into quantum physics yes I know quite a jump LOL) almost universally (in my encounters) scientists believe in a creator.

I mean, guys, come on, you truly believe that life is an anomaly? from a scientific standpoint I don't believe thats possible, Im sorry to run on, I just cant read another creationists ignore science quote, its a lie, Im both, and so are so many many people, and Id be willing to say that not a single quantum physicist is atheist.

I mean do you guys think your just smarter than all the "religious nuts" and in that case, what kind of God would restrict himself to the smartest people? Often times in my field(s) we find the thing working against us most our minds.

How many of you know the theory of relativity proves that the universe had a begining? How many know Einstien believed in a creator? Does anyone know how much science is based off the theory of relativity? honestly I barely post here, but I cant not say my piece. peace brothers and I hope you find truth
 
No, I'm saying that I would want confirmation that people were actually healed. I fail to see how I was unclear. Anyone being truly resurrected would certainly make me at least consider the possibility that he was a god. Yet didn't the god of the Old Testament warn the Hebrews to beware of a false prophet displaying "signs and wonders?" (Deut 13)
Yes...if they are trying to entice you away from the True and Living God.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Yes...if they are trying to entice you away from the True and Living God.
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?)
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I think you are unfairly lumping christians and creationists together. There are plenty of people who believe in the possibility of creation who don't believe all of the stories in the bible.

As far as all of that being psuedoscience, do you have any proof for that? Oh, because science hasn't proven that they exist yet? Right, people like you conveniently brush it off as if it can't exist because it can't be tested by current scientific methods. Just like when science hadn't figured out that the earth was round, or that earth wasn't the center of the universe. Thank you for proving my point.

Not believing in something because science hasn't proven/disproven it yet, doesn't make someone an idiot, it makes them someone who can think outside the box of what science has figured out and realize that there is plenty that science hasn't yet figured out.
Read more, post less. Reposting idiotic claims about science won't win you any points here. No one said that one is an idiot for believing in something that science has proven. He said you're an idiot for belief in something for which there is no good empirical evidence. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers. Science requires explanations for natural phenomena that can potentially be subjected to scientific falsification. Supernatural explanations are excluded, not for unfair ideological advantage, but because supernatural explanations, by their very nature, cannot be scientifically falsified. The supernatural (as the very word itself implies) is not constrained by nature, it must follow no immutable laws. We can’t test the supernatural. When you pretend to do science by using scientific jargon but claim to be testing the supernatural, you are not doing science you are doing pseudoscience.
fourtwentyish.... ^^^^^ thiiiiiiiis.

In 20 years I have never...and I mean never met an atheist scientist (not that they dont exist of course they do) I know none personally, also, what most of the people, with whom I have discussed theological matters with (or creationism even) and trust me its not a rare subject by any means in the fields I work (started out in botany/and organic chem, then got into quantum physics yes I know quite a jump LOL) almost universally (in my encounters) scientists believe in a creator.
I find that pretty hard to believe..

A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings)(keep that in mind, because it's very important and applies to the rest of your post). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

I mean, guys, come on, you truly believe that life is an anomaly?
False dichotomy. It isn't "God dun it" or "life is meaningless/pointless/"an anomaly"".

I believe the processes that took place to get us here are completely explainable by natural means and I have evidence to back that up.

There might be a god responsible for our existence, but if there is, there is nothing to support that theory.

I mean, Mua Dib, come on, what kind of scientist jumps from theory with no evidence to full fledged belief?


from a scientific standpoint I don't believe thats possible, Im sorry to run on, I just cant read another creationists ignore science quote, its a lie, Im both, and so are so many many people, and Id be willing to say that not a single quantum physicist is atheist.
You either don't believe in the creationism we're talking about, or don't understand how science works.

The 6,000 year old Earth - that's wrong. As a scientist, you would know that. Dating methods date the Earth at 4.57 BILLION years old, MUCH older than Biblical creationism claims it is.

So, specifically, what kind of creationism is it that you believe in, and what kind of evidence do you have to justify that belief?

I mean do you guys think your just smarter than all the "religious nuts" and in that case, what kind of God would restrict himself to the smartest people? Often times in my field(s) we find the thing working against us most our minds.
Are atheists smarter than creationists? Statistics show, on average, yes, they are. But what creationists lack that atheists have is the ability to look at something without a religious bias. There's nothing in the back of my mind telling me "there's no way this rock could be billions of years old because my Bible tells me the oldest it could possibly be is 6,000 years old". That's why you see such conflict between religion and science. Science looks at the evidence and formulates conclusions accordingly, religion is the complete opposite, it formulates the conclusion first, then picks and chooses the evidence to support it and dismisses anything that contradicts it.

How many of you know the theory of relativity proves that the universe had a begining? How many know Einstien believed in a creator? Does anyone know how much science is based off the theory of relativity? honestly I barely post here, but I cant not say my piece. peace brothers and I hope you find truth
You can deduce from redshift that there was a beginning to the universe. That means God did it.... how?

Argument from authority. Einsteins belief in a God (which is a creationist lie, Einstein believed in a non personal kind of force that didn't interfere with human affairs) would have absolutely no bearing on the question of if a god actually exists.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Most of the other scientists I work with don't seem to have any particular beliefs about god. Some of them are Xian, Jewish and Hindi, but for a significant number of them, the idea of a god just isn't even considered. They don't believe in a god but don't even give it enough consideration to even be considered a 'practicing atheist.' :lol:

Mua Dib, please read my posts wrt the difference between believing in a creator and a doctrine of creationism.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
You can deduce from redshift that there was a beginning to the universe. That means God did it.... how?

Argument from authority. Einsteins belief in a God (which is a creationist lie, Einstein believed in a non personal kind of force that didn't interfere with human affairs) would have absolutely no bearing on the question of if a god actually exists.
Actually, the universe did not necessarily have a beginning. The only thing the BB can show is that at one time the universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter than currently. The can say nothing about how long that singularity was present before it began expanding. There is no reason the universe could not be eternal.

Yep, Einstein believed Spinoza's God, which is just another way of saying he believed in an orderly universe where natures laws can be determined. This says NOTHING about a creator being that exists independent of time and space.
 
Top