Why are people afraid of creationism?

GardenLady said:

Countries with a state religion have historically engaged in discrimination and suppression (often violent suppression) against those who do not follow that religion. Is that a world you advocate? Or would you favor countries expelling those who do not follow a state religion?

BTW: It's "separation" not "seperation." Very common error, of course. Easy way to remember: "There's a rat in separate."

Click to expand...

Hah! There is a rat in seperate too. Perhaps you one could use another phrase. "Seperate is not up to par."

TagliatelliMonster said:

Here, you literally affirm your intellectually dishonest approach to science and evidence.

Click to expand...

Any other thinking, which is seen here more than not, is intellectually dishonest to religion.

And accepting the evolution theory without reservations is certainly also intellectual dishonest or just ignorant. It isn't fair to call it anti-science thinking since the disagreement is over something that the disbelievers also debate about.

TagliatelliMonster said:

You are free to do that off course, but by doing that, you have effectively rendered yourself completely irrelevant in discussions concerning science.

Click to expand...

If it's because I won't change my mind or respond on the way you'd like to what you consider evidence then that would make all atheists completely irrelevant in religious discussions.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Which is correct.
Egg laying species, ancestral to chickens, existed before chickens.

Consider this: "what came first, roman languages or french?"

Well, french is a roman language and evolved from latin, which is also a roman language.
So roman language existed first.

Click to expand...

I just can't see how something that is not a chicken can lay a chicken. Can you explain that?

Language is not a great comparison because it doesn't lay eggs and because I'm not asked to call French the egg of Latin and to acknowledge that they are two different languages altogether.

Clara Tea said:

Most theists here are not scientists, and their arguments (presumably based on science) don't seem valid to real scientists.

However, there are some very famous scientists who, nonetheless, remain theists.

Many theists are awestruck by the complexity of life. Thus, you might see a lot of doctors who insist that there must be a God intelligently designing life.

My mom's cardiologist said that in his 50 years of practice he has seen a lot of out of body experiences of people whose hearts stopped. He says that they recounted in full detail, conversations in other rooms of the hospital that they could not possibly have heard as they claim that their spirit roamed the halls. Highly educated, not brought up religious, yet, with no other way to explain events, he turned to religion.

Click to expand...

That's not surprising. We all have our own experiences that influence what we believe.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Indeed. Personally, I haven't ever met a creationist (including on this site) who simply states his / her beliefs are 100% bible based, while acknowledging that the science of biology draws a different picture.

Click to expand...

Yep. I can recall one, maybe two, people who fit that description (neither were at RF). I got along quite well with them.

No. Every single one of them will argue against the science of evolution, claiming that it is not proper science and thereby thus implying (or literally stating) that their opposition to evolution is science-based.

At best, I've seen creationists state both. That they 1. follow the bible and 2. argue against evolution from a supposed scientific point of view.

Click to expand...

For sure. And to be fair, many of them are just parroting what they read and hear from creationist organizations, whose material is very heavily focused on trying to make a scientific argument.

I also notice that the extreme vast majority of creationists who argue against evolution, don't know the first thing about it.

Click to expand...

Which is why they're so easily duped by creationist organizations. If one doesn't know science, their material can seem very professional and persuasive.

The most common hint for that, is that they'll say that "we never see species changing kinds" in the sense of dogs evolving into cats or alike. Or they'll say silly things like "finches are still birds!!!!" as if that is an argument against evolution.

They'll imply that if they would see finches evolve into non-birds, then that's when they will consider evolution to be accurate. Ironically, if we would see such a thing, evolution theory would actually be disproven.

Click to expand...

LOL...those aren't "hints" to scientific ignorance, they're more like slaps upside the head with a dead fish.

This is the level of ignorance of your average creationist....
The evidence they demand to see in support of evolution, is actually evidence that would disprove it.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen, their demands are deliberately impossible, which provides them guaranteed wins in debates (at least in their minds). After all, if their demands were reasonable, they'd be met and where would that leave them?

Shakeel said:

Any other thinking, which is seen here more than not, is intellectually dishonest to religion.

And accepting the evolution theory without reservations is certainly also intellectual dishonest or just ignorant. It isn't fair to call it anti-science thinking since the disagreement is over something that the disbelievers also debate about.

Click to expand...

Your "accept the evolution theory without reservations" is a strawman. No one is suggesting that . Study the basics of science. It is clear that evolution is correct if one understands the basics of the scientific method and scientific evidence. That is why when one counts all scientists that the acceptance of evolution is close to 99%. A very very low percentage of scientists reject it and scientists do not tend to accept ideas And it is proper to call opposition to it anti-science since no one has ever shown a scientific reason to oppose it.

If it's because I won't change my mind or respond on the way you'd like to what you consider evidence then that would make all atheists completely irrelevant in religious discussions.

Click to expand...

And there you go proving our point. It is not what "we consider to be evidence" it is what is evidence based upon the scientific method. I quite often try to get creationists to learn what is and what is not evidence because they all too often repeat the lie of "No evidence for evolution"

I just can't see how something that is not a chicken can lay a chicken. Can you explain that?

Click to expand...

Because "chicken" is a human term. It describes what we see today, but it cannot handle the fact that life is the product of evolution.

Language is not a great comparison because it doesn't lay eggs and because I'm not asked to call French the egg of Latin and to acknowledge that they are two different languages altogether.

Click to expand...

And language is an excellent example. What was Latin became several different Romance Languages. Just as the ancestors of chickens became multiple species of birds.

Subduction Zone said:

Hah! There is a rat in seperate too. Perhaps you one could use another phrase. "Seperate is not up to par."

Click to expand...

I should have used quotation marks. There is "a rat" in separate.

Shakeel said:

You would have to ask those aquinted with the evolution theory at which point did the chickens become true chickens.

Click to expand...

Everything is constantly evolving, it is just a very slow process, which we humans given our short lifespans doesn't really like, for us 20 years is a long time, for evolution it is barely a blink of an eye.

Think about this, homosapiens are estimated to be around 200-300 thousand years old, which is quite some time. Now to put that into perspective, lets look at the dinosaurs:

Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago (at the end of the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million years.

Think about that for a second and let the number sink in.. 165 million years, it's almost impossible to even get your head around such number. Even though it is not evolution, just try to compare it to what humans have accomplished in just 2000 years and how much we have changed the Earth, societies, technologies.

Now imagine going 200 years into the future and humans living on Mars, those people born there, most likely won't be able to return to Earth due the difference in gravity, because their bones, muscles might not be strong enough including all other kinds of health issues. So it probably wouldn't take that long before humans on Mars might change into something else, that might at some point not be able to procreate with humans on Earth, if they were left isolated.

So they would still be part of the homosapiens, but might be called homomartians or something and would be a new branch of the great apes . And given enough time they might change enough so they hardly look humans as we know them now, depending on how the environment etc. would evolve them on Mars. But again, we are not talking 20 years or something. The scale we are talking here are thousands and thousands of years.

Even looking at humans living on Earth today, you can clearly see how they look differently, africans, asians, europeans etc. Now obviously since we travel all over the world with ease now, there is probably a good chance that we won't see a new branch coming off from homosapiens like in the past and it will just be a continuous development for us here on Earth, but colonizing space and given enough time, that could probably change.

So in regards to your true chicken question, at which point wouldn't the homomartians be homosapiens anymore? It's a long evolving process.

GardenLady said:

BTW: It's "separation" not "seperation." Very common error, of course. Easy way to remember: "There's a rat in separate."

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Hah! There is a rat in seperate too. Perhaps you one could use another phrase. "Seperate is not up to par."

Click to expand...

Or, we can all install the free version of Grammarly. It's not perfect, but it does know seperate is wrong and suggests separate.

Shakeel said:

Language is not a great comparison because it doesn't lay eggs and because I'm not asked to call French the egg of Latin and to acknowledge that they are two different languages altogether.

Click to expand...

Amusing, but Latin speakers did produce offspring that eventually came to speak French through gradual changes, so the comparison is apt no matter your desperation to muddy the waters with strawmen

Shakeel said:

Definition of creationism:

"creationism, the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo)."
creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

[kind of dubious that the article goes on to say, "It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory," since the idea of creationism was definitely there before the evolution theory.]

So we're not talking about biblical view to creationism alone.

I, as a Muslim, believe in science (in the sense that I acknowledge what has been achieved and found by it and that it is useful to study) and I don't deny much of the evolutionary theory, nor do I confirm it. I don't think it's important. The main thing about it that Muslims object to is the creation of man and that he supposedly evolved from the ancestors of monkeys. So there's plenty of room for science.

But there doesn't seem to be room for creationism anywhere according to some atheists and even some hypocritical believers.

What is the harm in it being said that God created everything? The children are going to hear it anyway.

In my opinion it is nothing but one of the many tactics used to attempt to annihilate religion, belief, and righteousness.

Click to expand...

Shakeel said:

Definition of creationism:

"creationism, the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo)."
creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

[kind of dubious that the article goes on to say, "It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory," since the idea of creationism was definitely there before the evolution theory.]

So we're not talking about biblical view to creationism alone.

I, as a Muslim, believe in science (in the sense that I acknowledge what has been achieved and found by it and that it is useful to study) and I don't deny much of the evolutionary theory, nor do I confirm it. I don't think it's important. The main thing about it that Muslims object to is the creation of man and that he supposedly evolved from the ancestors of monkeys. So there's plenty of room for science.

But there doesn't seem to be room for creationism anywhere according to some atheists and even some hypocritical believers.

What is the harm in it being said that God created everything? The children are going to hear it anyway.

In my opinion it is nothing but one of the many tactics used to attempt to annihilate religion, belief, and righteousness.

Click to expand...

"But those in whose hearts is and deviation follow that which is co-similar therein, seeking discord and seeking to misinterpret the same whereas none knoweth the interpretation thereof a save Allah. And the firmly grounded in knowledge say: we believe therein, the whole is from our Lord." - Surah 3:7

Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.

Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle. Based on this signal of intelligence left in our genetic code, I suspect our genetic coding was created by a greater intelligence beyond the limited scope of us humans on Earth.

TagliatelliMonster said:

So what do you think are those boundaries and why?

Click to expand...

Those boundaries so that science does not over step what God has written down in his word..
In other words...when science tells that we came from monkeys.and God's word tells exactly that God created us from the dust of the earth..
This is where science over steps it's boundaries..

Shakeel said:

Sure.

I don't know who makes the boundaries, but for us, as far as I know, it is simply a matter of accepting what there is proper evidence for and that which does not contradict the teachings.

Click to expand...

You just showed yourself...of not knowing anything about God..
For God sat the boundaries for science not to step over..
But as it is science over steps it's boundaries...being set forth by God..

When you have science saying that humans came from monkeys..
When God's Word explicitly said God created man from the dust of the earth..
That's science over stepping it's boundaries..

Faithofchristian said:

You just showed yourself...of not knowing anything about God..
For God sat the boundaries for science not to step over..
But as it is science over steps it's boundaries...being set forth by God..

When you have science saying that humans came from monkeys..
When God's Word explicitly said God created man from the dust of the earth..
That's science over stepping it's boundaries..

Click to expand...

I was taught in biology class that humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor rather than humans came from apes.

Suave said:

I was taught in biology class that humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor rather than humans came from apes.

Click to expand...

That's science for you..
Science over stepping its boundaries..

Faithofchristian said:

Those boundaries so that science does not over step what God has written down in his word..
In other words...when science tells that we came from monkeys.and God's word tells exactly that God created us from the dust of the earth..
This is where science over steps it's boundaries..

Click to expand...

What do you do when what is supposedly God's creation tells us that we come from monkeys too? It appears that you are claiming that God is a liar. Or, perhaps he isn't and you are merely misinterpreting the Bible.

Suave said:

I was taught in biology class that humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor rather than humans came from apes.

Click to expand...

That was not quite accurate. Humans are apes Teachers often get science wrong. In fact we are "monkeys" too. The English word "monkey" is not a proper biological classification since it is not monophyletic.

Shakeel said:

In my opinion it is nothing but one of the many tactics used to attempt to annihilate religion, belief, and righteousness.

Click to expand...

First, I have no argument with people who think we should all treat others with decency, respect and inclusion, common sense allowing. As to holding such views and acting on them, I see no important difference between believers and atheists. As best as we can, we should try to be one people.

Second, I don't think teaching antiscience ─ hence teaching creationism ─ is fair to children. Let them consider it when they're old enough to vote. Don't drum it into them when they're too small to discriminate.

In the real world the closest to magic we get is what we create for ourselves, and we have no better tool than reasoned enquiry including science for that purpose. After all, if God created the universe, then its nature is written with [his] own hand, so that learning the objective truth about reality is in such a case learning the truth about God ─ including how evolution works.

Shakeel said:

@Neuropteron
How do you know energy is God's attribute? You are proposing God didn't create from nothing, but from something. If God needs something to create from then He is needy. Who created the energy? Or do you suggest God created from a portion of Himself?

Click to expand...

Hi,
do you suggest God created from a portion of Himself

Not at all, I'm suggesting that using his energy makes more sense than using nothing.
When a person uses energy to lift an object , he just uses a finite but regenerating feature of his anatomy, he doesn't have to forego a part of himself to fulfill this task.

This comparison is limited by the fact that God's energy is infinite.

danieldemol said:

Energy and power are different.
Power is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit of time.

If energy always existed why does one need a God to convert it at all since it appears to convert naturally?

Click to expand...

Energy needs direction. A builder can have all the power tools required to build a house, but he still needs to use his skills to complete the project.

Things happen naturally according to physical laws set in place by a lawgiver, not haphazardly.

Neuropteron said:

Energy needs direction. A builder can have all the power tools required to build a house, but he still needs to use his skills to complete the project.

Things happen naturally according to physical laws set in place by a lawgiver, not haphazardly.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that you learn what "energy" is.