• 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!

Scientists and Clerics Agree: Keep Creationism out of Schools

sonofskeptish

It is what it is
I for one can never accept a theory as true whose premise excludes the origin of life with no scientific proof that living matter can spring from the enert. If life cannot be created by thinking individuals, the mathamatical, scientific possibilities that unaccountable life forces can spontaniously generate and then diversify given enough time seems the religion of idiots...

So you will "never accept a theory as true whose premise excludes the origin of life with no scientific proof that living matter can spring from the enert."

But you WILL accept a belief that God exists and created said life with not a shred of scientific evidence of any kind to support such a belief.

:ignore:
 
Last edited:

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
I for one can never accept a theory as true whose premise excludes the origin of life with no scientific proof that living matter can spring from the enert. If life cannot be created by thinking individuals, the mathamatical, scientific possibilities that unaccountable life forces can spontaniously generate and then diversify given enough time seems the religion of idiots...
You- and other creationists here- have been corrected on this mistake over and over again. Abiogenesis studies are fascinating, but evolution presumes the presence of life; evolution is simply an alteration of inherited traits over generations. And nobody, anywhere, argues for the spontaneous generation of life from inert matter- except for those who believe in the literal interpretation of Gen. 2:7 of course.

You're simply being disingenuous; I'll bet millions that even if we isolated the cause(s) of the origin of life, even if biotic origins were as well known as evolution, you'd still reject it. Even if you accepted the probabilities involved you'd still reject evolution because at its heart you are offended that humans are just another species of primate; it diminishes the importance of you in your eyes- in the same way many thought the heliocentric theory diminished our position in God's universe and caused such offense. Your morality and faith is so intimately tied to seeing evolution as a moral affront to your entire faith that you're a walking Index Librorum Prohibitorum when it comes to accepting the indisputable evidence.

The creationist movement is a textbook example of what anthropologists call "folk science". There's a classic similar case of a society's refusal in the face of unrefutable evidence that's comparable to creationists. The Trobriand Islanders are remarkable in that they refuse to accept any connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. They've domesticated and bred animals for decades, understood the necessity of a male and female for pregnancy, are incredibly intelligent, have a working culture built around subsistence horticulturalism, and utilize and understand modern medicine- but they ridicule claims that insist there's a connection between sex and pregnancy. Their traditional religious beliefs insist that different spirits inhabit the world and interact with humans on a regular basis; they have a complex series of ritualized belief systems to respect and honor these spirits. Very simply put, the Islanders believe that pregnancies are caused by a baloma (basically a dead spirit) that inhabit a woman and creates a baby. The idea of connecting pregnancy to sex contradicts their long held magical belief system, so anything that offends or challenges this belief is dogmatically ignored no matter the evidence.

So Littlenipper, feel content in the knowledge that your rejecting something un-rejectable isn't unique, and your ignorance may or may not be sheer stupidity (admittedly, creationism has more than its fair share of the dumb, and I hate to compare them to the Trobrianders in any way other than the shared pious obstinance), but you and your fellow creationists are fascinating examples of a mindset and sociology that isn't unique among human cultures.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Top