Creationism: Why is it still here?

[ReThink]

http://www.creationontheweb.com/

The site above is not a fake, it is a real, very extensive attempt to defend creationism.

Take a brief look at the site, particularly the "Questions Awnsered" section, there's some very amusing topics in there, and not because they indend to be. My personal favorite is the "Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust " topic. Hillarious.

How is it that people will completely reject science in favour of a 2 millennia old text? I am utterly baffled as to how there are still people who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they can't believe their religion could be anything but "infallible".

(B) BASICS

1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

This paragraph is right out of their "What we believe" section.

I should make clear that I don't have a problem with most christians who on average seem pretty level headed. But these few who can't believe they're anything but right I have this to say:

Religion should not be about being right.

Faith based beliefs are not based in reason, as such anything that reason can determine should not be determined by faith. Nuff said.

[Drakim]

I too find the debate over what religion is right silly. You can't compare faith like evidence. Most religions point their story to things that happened a long time ago, which is now impossible to prove/disprove. The problem is that a lot of religions tell you to convert others. Those are usually the religions that cause most violence and separation amongst people.

People don't like to think of their faith, the thing they keep most sacred, as social construct. When they are told they will be rewarded with eternal bliss, they want it to be the truth, not just wishful thinking.

[skatin-andy]

So far, my favorite part of the article is when they answer the question, is there really a god? They say scientist get excited because they find stone tools because they know they didn't create themselves. Just like Mount Rushmore was man made and that nobody would try to argue that it was created by millions of years of erosion. It also says that we can recognize the influence of outside intelligence by what is created.

Then it says, "many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent God but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. But is this a defensible position?"

The answer would be yes. Things could evolve because they needed to. Mount Rushmore or stone tools wouldn't be created from erosion because they wouldn't need to be. Living things however would need to adapt to changing surroundings, hence evolving.

Time to find a new argument.

[Korriken]

At 4/10/07 08:22 AM, skatin-andy wrote:

Time to find a new argument.

Let me give it a try, although i know I'm gonna fail miserably.

a cosmic explosion randomly happens, in this explosion everything is randomly created. in a random chain of events the earth just so happens to be orbiting the sun at the perfect distance to make the world not too hot and not too cold. somehow, in the dead universe a single cell of life emerges. this single cell splits.... countless times, over the course of eons the single cells begin to mutate in a completely random fashion to form many many balanced ecosystems.

in this random chain of events taking place of eons, the mammal appears, eventually this first mammal's offspring, over the course of billions of years, slowly evolve into everything from rats to elephants to humans. of all the mammals the human is the only one to develop tools beyond rocks and sticks, written language, and dominates the world. this human, though, is born with a random and false notion that a higher power exists.

to me, that is pretty freaking hard to believe.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 4/10/07 09:06 AM, Korriken wrote: to me, that is pretty freaking hard to believe.

Yet you find the prospect of an omnipotent, omnipresent being with the power to do all that easy to believe in?

Both are equally hard to believe, and both, however much scientists might disagree, are based on a certain amount of faith.

[Korriken]

At 4/10/07 09:14 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Yet you find the prospect of an omnipotent, omnipresent being with the power to do all that easy to believe in?

who said i didn't?

Both are equally hard to believe, and both, however much scientists might disagree, are based on a certain amount of faith.

personally, I'm against trying to ram theories down people's throats. However, religion, to some small point, can be proven, and yet, we have no evidence, except for a few stone tools and a few skeletons, which may or may not have been human, and people wanna scream "we came from monkeys!!"

now, that in itself isn't bad, but the schools are trying to ram it down childrens' throats as if it was a set in stone fact that is irrefutable. I remember sitting through science classes "learning" about evolution, and not once did any book or teacher or test EVER mention the word "theory" upon asking my teacher how they know this, she goes on some big rant as to how scientists came to know about the world, and never used the term "theory"

personally, who's to say that creationism and evolution can't coexist? perhaps come almighty power created everything, set his plan into motion, then sat back and watched? people get the wrong idea that "if god can, then god must" god could very easily unmake everything and start over, and yet, we're all still here. just because god COULD direct everything personally, who's to say he would want to?

[EndGameOmega]

At 4/10/07 09:06 AM, Korriken wrote:

Let me give it a try, although i know I'm gonna fail miserably.

a cosmic explosion randomly happens, in this explosion everything is randomly created. in a random chain of events the earth just so happens to be orbiting the sun at the perfect distance to make the world not too hot and not too cold. somehow, in the dead universe a single cell of life emerges. this single cell splits.... countless times, over the course of eons the single cells begin to mutate in a completely random fashion to form many many balanced ecosystems.

First, the earth isn't at a perfect distance from the sun, we could easily be 15 Gm closer the sun or an additional 30 Gm from the sun and still be with in the capabilities of our plant to support life as we know it. Second, nothing is random, everything in the universe follows a set of deterministic mathematical equations (ignoring wave collapse for the moment).

Now as for cell formation, it wasn't quite so instantaneous as you make it out to be, and took several million years (at lest) for it to happen; Starting first with rather complex naturally forming biochemicals (i.e. Amino acids, etc...), simple protein like structures and naturally forming lipids. The simple bio chemicals have a tendency to bunch up in certain environments and produce longer polymer chains. What makes so of these polymers really interesting is many are capable of self replication, and have influencing properties on the naturally forming proteins and lipids. The self catilization isn't always perfect so you end up with deformed and mutated strains. It's really not that hard to envision these interacting parts further coming to gather to form a simple cell membrane.

Sites:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-0 7/uoc--uss072006.php
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

The “balanced” ecosystems you speak of aren't perfect, and there highly dynamic. If I was to pull a species out of one environment entirely, the environment would adapt, another species would move in to fill it's niche and quite possibly severing from it's original specie to become it's own, or it's niche would disappear entirely.

in this random chain of events taking place of eons, the mammal appears, eventually this first mammal's offspring, over the course of billions of years, slowly evolve into everything from rats to elephants to humans. of all the mammals the human is the only one to develop tools beyond rocks and sticks, written language, and dominates the world. this human, though, is born with a random and false notion that a higher power exists.

Again it's not random, there are rules involved. No human is born with the concept of god in there head, it's something we learn as we grow.

to me, that is pretty freaking hard to believe.

And with the errancy in the way you put it i can see why.

At 4/10/07 09:14 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 4/10/07 09:06 AM, Korriken wrote:

Both are equally hard to believe, and both, however much scientists might disagree, are based on a certain amount of faith.

No, not quite right. Faith in science amounts two following two fundamental axioms:
1 - he universe is deterministic,
2 – It's also fundamentally understandable.
Thats it. Everything else in science is methodology and logic, these are the only two axioms you need to follow (Note, that from 2 explanations like god are thrown out). So yes there is faith, but it's obviously a different kind of faith, it's more akin to the faith I have that I exist, and that I'm actually talking to someone right now. It naturally flows from what we see as existence. Where as faith in something fundamentally untestable, unverifiable, and unknowable, doesn't flow from anything expect our inherit desire to believe in order and reason, there is no physical phonomena which calls forth the idea of god, when examined empirically.

[uhnoesanoob]

I can see why it is still being defended, as it is one of the basic points of religion, but this site is nuts, even worse then THIS one.

[chazeverest]

At 4/10/07 09:06 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 4/10/07 08:22 AM, skatin-andy wrote:

Time to find a new argument.

Let me give it a try, although i know I'm gonna fail miserably.

a cosmic explosion randomly happens, in this explosion everything is randomly created. in a random chain of events the earth just so happens to be orbiting the sun at the perfect distance to make the world not too hot and not too cold. somehow, in the dead universe a single cell of life emerges. this single cell splits.... countless times, over the course of eons the single cells begin to mutate in a completely random fashion to form many many balanced ecosystems.

in this random chain of events taking place of eons, the mammal appears, eventually this first mammal's offspring, over the course of billions of years, slowly evolve into everything from rats to elephants to humans. of all the mammals the human is the only one to develop tools beyond rocks and sticks, written language, and dominates the world. this human, though, is born with a random and false notion that a higher power exists.

to me, that is pretty freaking hard to believe.

Do you think that some magical being (God) that can blink everything into existance is any more believable. It's all just a matter of belief anyway. An eveolutionist believes what he believes and a creationist believes what he believes. At least the evolutionist has some impirical evidence, the creationist has none that can stand any kind of test or investigation.
I think that creationists need religion and God to make themselves for less insignificant. Afterall in the grand scheme of things mankind and even our planet are pretty insignificant. If the planet earth and all living things on it were destryoed by an asteroid tomorrow, would it even effect the rest of the Universe, no.

[uhnoesanoob]

Dicey Chavez, while there may not be a magical god who snaps his fingers and creates shit, there has to be some Grand Being, otherwise, how the heck does anything exist? Big Bang? What created the big bang? What created that? What created that? Life is so confusing;_;

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 4/10/07 09:53 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: No, not quite right. Faith in science amounts two following two fundamental axioms:
1 - he universe is deterministic,
2 – It's also fundamentally understandable.
Thats it. Everything else in science is methodology and logic, these are the only two axioms you need to follow (Note, that from 2 explanations like god are thrown out). So yes there is faith, but it's obviously a different kind of faith, it's more akin to the faith I have that I exist, and that I'm actually talking to someone right now. It naturally flows from what we see as existence. Where as faith in something fundamentally untestable, unverifiable, and unknowable, doesn't flow from anything expect our inherit desire to believe in order and reason, there is no physical phonomena which calls forth the idea of god, when examined empirically.

I have to disagree with you there. The very nature of science is too understand the universe. This is done via theories. I repeat, theories. They may have evidence to support them but there are very few, if any scientific theories that we can systemically say are the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Take evolution for example. The final piece of evidence we need to systematically prove that it occurs beyond all reasonable doubt is the missing link. Untill then the belief in Evolution is partially based on faith.

There are aspects of science that rely on certain key equations and numbers that have only been developed because without those numbers, our way of thinking, our entire foundation of science doesn't work. The Higgs Boson I believe is one, it is the basis of why Particles have mass or some such theory. Without it, alot of what we know about particles is wrong. To my knowledge, it has yet to be discovered. If it doesn't exist then our knowledge of certain areas of science is moot. Particle physics will be proven to be wrong in certain areas.

Yet we continue to work on the basis that it DOES exist despite lack of evidence ( sound somewhat similar to how religions act doesn't it?), and to my knowledge that counts as having faith. Scientists have faith that the Higgs boson exists
along with many other things I'm sure.

So, in my eyes at least, whilst Science is more empirical than religion, it is based on faith as we can not prove that certain key aspects exist..

[SolInvictus]

At 4/10/07 04:49 AM, ReThink wrote: My personal favorite is the "Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust " topic. Hillarious.

its interesting since Hitler was a creationist and was driven by religious belief.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/10/07 10:10 AM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Dicey Chavez, while there may not be a magical god who snaps his fingers and creates shit, there has to be some Grand Being, otherwise, how the heck does anything exist? Big Bang? What created the big bang? What created that? What created that? Life is so confusing;_;

ah the argument out of incredulity and infinite regress.

[Dre-Man]

Okay, they have a heading that says...

This is what we believe:

HOW THE FUCK IS THAT A "I'm right and you're wrong, shut the fuck up" KIND OF STATEMENT?!

[EndGameOmega]

At 4/10/07 10:28 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

I have to disagree with you there. The very nature of science is too understand the universe. This is done via theories. I repeat, theories. They may have evidence to support them but there are very few, if any scientific theories that we can systemically say are the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yes, and that flows from what I said.

Take evolution for example. The final piece of evidence we need to systematically prove that it occurs beyond all reasonable doubt is the missing link. Untill then the belief in Evolution is partially based on faith.

What missing link are you referring to? We have a whole shit load of them. Your operating under the assumption that there hasn't been any discoveries in the past 80 some odd years, you really need to read up on this.

Some of the “missing links” we've found:
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s8 77478.htm

There are aspects of science that rely on certain key equations and numbers that have only been developed because without those numbers, our way of thinking, our entire foundation of science doesn't work. The Higgs Boson I believe is one, it is the basis of why Particles have mass or some such theory. Without it, alot of what we know about particles is wrong. To my knowledge, it has yet to be discovered. If it doesn't exist then our knowledge of certain areas of science is moot. Particle physics will be proven to be wrong in certain areas.

No, the knowledge isn't moot. We still have the data we've been working with for the past 50 years, we still know that the basic equations, and most of the assumptions are ether right or have some similar analogs in the correct theory. The model may be wrong but it would end up being an approximation of a bigger theory.

Yet we continue to work on the basis that it DOES exist despite lack of evidence ( sound somewhat similar to how religions act doesn't it?), and to my knowledge that counts as having faith. Scientists have faith that the Higgs boson exists
along with many other things I'm sure.

Um, not quite. The Higgs boson is one of several possible explanations for where a particles mass comes from. However many theorist work under the assumption that it exist, because it makes sense from a particle point of view, it has a natural symmetry to it which fits other laws an phonomena we have observed (A strong indication of it being there). It allows us to fit data which normally wouldn't have any fit, and unlike religion we have ways of seeing if it's real or not. see: CERN

So, in my eyes at least, whilst Science is more empirical than religion, it is based on faith as we can not prove that certain key aspects exist..

Nothing, and I do mean nothing is provable and every thing has some degree of faith associated with it, so your point is moot.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 4/10/07 11:48 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Nothing, and I do mean nothing is provable and every thing has some degree of faith associated with it, so your point is moot.

My entire point was that Science was based on a certain amount faith. You just agreed with my original statement.

[EndGameOmega]

At 4/10/07 12:09 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 4/10/07 11:48 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Nothing, and I do mean nothing is provable and every thing has some degree of faith associated with it, so your point is moot.

My entire point was that Science was based on a certain amount faith. You just agreed with my original statement.

Not quite, as its a different kind of faith. I can test it, I can see it, and I can get results from it in ways that religious faith can't. Science is faith in that there is some empirical structure to the world, thats it.

[ReThink]

At 4/10/07 09:46 AM, Korriken wrote: personally, who's to say that creationism and evolution can't coexist?

These people make that claim. They think that we're all inbred from adam and eve.

At 4/10/07 10:28 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: There are aspects of science that rely on certain key equations and numbers that have only been developed because without those numbers, our way of thinking, our entire foundation of science doesn't work. The Higgs Boson I believe is one, it is the basis of why Particles have mass or some such theory. Without it, alot of what we know about particles is wrong. To my knowledge, it has yet to be discovered. If it doesn't exist then our knowledge of certain areas of science is moot. Particle physics will be proven to be wrong in certain areas.

Yet we continue to work on the basis that it DOES exist despite lack of evidence ( sound somewhat similar to how religions act doesn't it?), and to my knowledge that counts as having faith. Scientists have faith that the Higgs boson exists along with many other things I'm sure.

So, in my eyes at least, whilst Science is more empirical than religion, it is based on faith as we can not prove that certain key aspects exist.

When it comes down to core components that we can't possibly know then it's alright to have some faith one way or another. And I guess if you want to take a foundationalist attitude towards what we know then we really don't know anything. But really, it's a lot nicer to go with the theory that has the best coherent evidence supporting it. And lets face it, you believe things as fact, you do it anyway. So science FTW. Creationism = Fail.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 4/10/07 02:21 PM, ReThink wrote: When it comes down to core components that we can't possibly know then it's alright to have some faith one way or another.

I never said it was a bad thing to have faith.

And I guess if you want to take a foundationalist attitude towards what we know then we really don't know anything. But really, it's a lot nicer to go with the theory that has the best coherent evidence supporting it.

I have no problem with this, but when people go 'ZOMG SCIENCE KNOWS EVERYTHING!' then things start getting stupid.

And lets face it, you believe things as fact, you do it anyway.

True, but in something such as science where you are supposed to be basing everything around evidence, taking something randomly for fact with n support isn't that good an idea really.

So science FTW. Creationism = Fail.

Where did I say creationism was right? I said that both Science and Creatonism/religion were based on a certain amount of faith/

I'm not defending creationism, personally I think the idea is ludicrous, at least if you take it in it's literal sense. I'm more inclined to believe that if genesis is correct then it's a metaphor.

[SkunkyFluffy]

I personally ascribe to the "Master Watchmaker" idea of creation, which has no problems with the concept of evolution. Evolution is a clever mechanism, if you think about it...a way that the Creator could ensure his system would survive even without his direct intervention. He could go off and have tea and crumpets for a few hundred thousand years and come back and find it still working.

Even Darwin could not explain what the force was that first sparked evolution, after all. And he personally believed in God. So scientific, evolutionary thought is not incompatible with religious belief. The phenomenon known as Creationism is unfortunately extremely inflexible to integrating other ideas. Rather than try to reconcile the difficult problems, they would claim that they do not exist.

[SpoogeRag]

Because it's true.

[ZEON-SCUM]

creationism, like throwing salt over your shoulder-is superstitious.

[Kidiri]

Eh... Because of eltist fucks.

[Mashroor]

I think anal sex should be allowed.

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 4/10/07 05:53 PM, Mashroor wrote: I think anal sex should be allowed.

What does that have to do with anything?

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/10/07 04:53 PM, SpoogeRag wrote: Because it's true.

Whoa dude, you need to size down your arguments a bit. I'm sure there was a good point in there somewhere but it was so long and detailed I don't have time to read it.

At 4/10/07 05:53 PM, Mashroor wrote: I think anal sex should be allowed.

SkunkyFluffy:"What does that have to do with anything?"

This is Newgrounds, anal sex has to do with EVERYTHING here.

[Korriken]

At 4/10/07 05:07 PM, ZEON-SCUM wrote: creationism, like throwing salt over your shoulder-is superstitious.

and blatantly saying "someone is wrong" with no proof is ignorant.

[Brick-top]

God man I laughed so hard when reading this stuff. That is going straight on my favorites! I mean my God is that web-site shallow. I mean it tries not to be offensive letting all the nut jobs to point and laugh.

Darwinism, man I love it.

[Memorize]

At 4/10/07 04:49 AM, ReThink wrote:

Religion should not be about being right.

If not then what is the point?

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/10/07 08:10 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/10/07 04:49 AM, ReThink wrote:

Religion should not be about being right.

If not then what is the point?

Showing people a better way to live?