• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why don't some people like being created?

M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Mr Cheese said:
Actually I dont believe in evolution or creationism

Creationism, as propounded by modern conservative christians is however, full of more holes than a chocolate tea pot....as such it is moronic....

now if the creationist crowd actually got together, pulled their collective heads from their posteriors and thought out some coherant arguemtns beyond "Here's the bible, read it" or "Well evolution is stupid, this means creationism is correct...then, maybe, there'd be something

Creationism no matter how hard you try, is never goign to be science, thus it is NOT and never will be an ALTERNATIVE to evolution, one that can be taught in our classrooms...why? in its current state, the idea odf creationism as propounded by small of thought conservative christians...does NOT follow the scientific methodology, as such then, it is not an alternative to evolution theory...its something that could compliment it, or as alternative...but it has as much place in a science class as learning how to knit does in science class.

Evolution theory of course is alos fraught with problems. Firstly and foremost of course it only deals with the physical. Now for evolution lovers everywhere that is generally ok, for many of us, this is howver, rather foolish. Science of course, despite the cries of evolution lovers, does not deal with the truth. Science deals with models of the truth, constructs. As does religion, but there. As such then, evolution is a close approximation but is not the truth. We can compare it by imaginign a person who has a book of the streets of London, and their amazement when they see the streets of London face to face...the book is very different to the streets of london. Thus it is the same for evolution. Evolution is the book, reality is the streets....

SO what do we have? Evolution theory is one method of describing how things work, its close but no cigar. Creationism is so simplistic and ill prepared in construction and thought, it is frankly childish, puerile and pathatic.

;) Think for yourself, deny creationism AND evolution

the Map is NOT the territory
Click to expand...

Good post. You have shown that it takes faith to believe either one. I agree with most of this post. However I disagree to deny creationism when it is in the book that I deem the Holy Book. I don't want to be on the wrong side of life and death.
 
Last edited:
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
sonofskeptish said:
In the theme of the creationist "I'm not no stinkin' ape!" argument, I say "I'm not no psycho-sadists property!"

Creation implies ownership, and thankfully slavery was abolished long ago (some slaves just haven't realized it yet).
Click to expand...

Slavery hasn't been abolished. The debtor is slave to the lender. We are still practicing slavery today.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Man of Faith said:
Slavery hasn't been abolished. The debtor is slave to the lender. We are still practicing slavery today.
Click to expand...
And if we accept your version, we have another level of slavery on top of that.

... but that's okay, because our yoke is easy and our burden is light. But gentle slavery's not really slavery, the same way that a gilded cage isn't really a cage, right?
 
johnhanks

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:
You just proved my point and made my case. He imagined common ancestry, the philosophy of life came first, then the evidence followed.
Click to expand...
Quite untrue. Darwin's ideas on common ancestry arose largely from observations of geographical distribution, and in particular the anomalous flora and fauna of oceanic islands. It was strongly backed up by his observations of variation under domestication.
Man of Faith said:
Now the evidence only leads to common descent if one is already predisposed to believe it.
Click to expand...
Again, this is nonsensical. It's hardly surprising that a great deal more evidence has emerged since the publication of The Origin, given 150 years and the expansion of technology; and even if, by some astonishing oversight, no-one had ever proposed evolution before 1950, the evidence that has emerged since would quickly have established it in its present position - the central explanatory theory of biology.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Man of Faith said:
That's part of the problem, the schools programming people into believing evolution, without showing the alternative theory of creation.
Click to expand...

1. Yeah, that whole logic thing--the schools really need to stop teaching it.
2. Yeah, teach the controversy! Why aren't the schools teaching the Flat Earth Theory, or the Evil Spirit Theory of Disease? All they do is program our children with modern knowledge. It's not fair.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Man of Faith said:
Usually what we see from the evolution crowd, is "here is why scientists accept common descent" or "here is how we show relatedness". Then they go about showing how their theory is correct, they don't show how they got to their theory in the first place. The evidence that is provided now days for evolution came after the theory.
Click to expand...

Would you like me to show you how they got to their theory, and what evidence caused them to accept it, against much resistance?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Man of Faith said:
I have an idea about that. Put evolution via common descent along with all the creation stories in to the same class room where they belong, philosophy. Take common descent out of the science class, it doesn't belong there. Leave evolution in, the part we can observe, but take the imaginary common descent out.
Click to expand...

What bothers me when you say these things, MoF, is that you keep saying that there is no evidence, while refusing to look at the evidence. This enables you to keep denying that it exists. Surely you'll agree that's less than honest? Here's my offer to you: I'll lay out, with full support, what all the evidence is. Then you can decide whether it's sufficient or even exists. If you're right, surely you would be willing to demonstrate that?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
johnhanks said:
Quite untrue. Darwin's ideas on common ancestry arose largely from observations of geographical distribution, and in particular the anomalous flora and fauna of oceanic islands. It was strongly backed up by his observations of variation under domestication.
Click to expand...
And it's not like Darwin came up with the idea of common descent all by himself.

It was well known long before Darwin that there were links and relationships between all species. This was most famously described by Linnaeus in the 18th Century. And decades before Darwin was even born, Lamarck (while he was wrong about his hypothesized mechanism) recognized that speciation occurs through evolution.

Darwin mainly did two things:

- change our ideas of how evolution occurs
- identify that the links that Linnaeus identified were links of descent.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
What bothers me when you say these things, MoF, is that you keep saying that there is no evidence, while refusing to look at the evidence. This enables you to keep denying that it exists. Surely you'll agree that's less than honest? Here's my offer to you: I'll lay out, with full support, what all the evidence is. Then you can decide whether it's sufficient or even exists. If you're right, surely you would be willing to demonstrate that?
Click to expand...

That's a catch 22, if I don't look at the evidence, I'm willfully ignorant, if I do look at the evidence and don't accept it, then I'm a liar. I can't win either way.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Man of Faith said:
That's a catch 22, if I don't look at the evidence, I'm willfully ignorant, if I do look at the evidence and don't accept it, then I'm a liar. I can't win either way.
Click to expand...

Not if you can justify your objection to the evidence and present a counter-claim that meets its burden of proof.

But, yes, I think myself and the majority of people who accept evolution would accuse you of either being dishonest or being ignorant if you refuse the accept the evidence of evolution. That's why it's up to you to justify your position.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
Not if you can justify your objection to the evidence and present a counter-claim that meets its burden of proof.

But, yes, I think myself and the majority of people who accept evolution would accuse you of either being dishonest or being ignorant if you refuse the accept the evidence of evolution. That's why it's up to you to justify your position.
Click to expand...

Any you won't accept "God did it" as a justifiable objection I assume. So here we have it, all creationists are either ignorant, irrational, or liars. Pick your poison.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Man of Faith said:
Any you won't accept "God did it" as a justifiable objection I assume.
Click to expand...
Unless you can justify it with evidence.

Man of Faith said:
So here we have it, all creationists are either ignorant, irrational, or liars. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...
While I wouldn't put myself above calling creationists any of those things (I do so on a regular basis) it is only because no such creationists have ever been able to do the above: produce verifiable evidence that their assertions are true.

If your objections are educated, rational and true, then you should be able to support them with verifiable evidence. Without evidence, no creationist has any basis on which to make the claims that they do. Hence, they are either ignorant, irrational or liars.

So, make your claims or counter-claims, support them, and we'll go from there.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Man of Faith said:
That's a catch 22, if I don't look at the evidence, I'm willfully ignorant, if I do look at the evidence and don't accept it, then I'm a liar. I can't win either way.
Click to expand...

Well that's true, but only because the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) In other words, the reason you can't win is that you're wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top