Is Creationism even valid?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2017, 07:54 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
It's not valid because it has no evidence to support it. I don't think it matters who wrote about it, that's the essence of science.

Of course those theists who live a little more in reality can try and fudge it so that it fits in with current models, but they're really just doing a "God of the gaps" argument. The gaps are closing fast, motherfuckers. Stop it with this pathetic shit. Humans and The Earth are not the centre of everything.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
03-06-2017, 08:26 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
Nope.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2017, 08:50 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
No, it's both scientifically and legally invalid.

The Dover Court decision made that abundantly clear when a Bush-appointed Republican judge found that "intelligent design" was a fraud perpetrated by religious fanatics in order to influence the school system. See Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
03-06-2017, 08:50 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
Of course it's not valid, because there is zero proof. Nada. Ziltch.

There is as much evidence of creationism as there is that a giant invisible pink elephant is crapping invisible $100 billls in your living room.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2017, 09:11 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(03-06-2017 01:07 PM)av0vad0 Wrote:  I made a post on Reddit about Creationism yesterday:

"Creationism is invalid because the author of Genesis is unknown/up for debate.

If a book has no identified, verified author, it's illogical to place more weight on its contents than on those theories that have been empirically supported and repeatedly tested/researched by the scientific community (Big Bang and evolution).

As for the argument that creationism preceded evolution, there is still more support for the Big Bang than there is for Creationism, which is based entirely on assumption. So how do you justify your belief in Creation despite evidence pointing elsewhere?"

I've received a few personal insults from the responding Christians already, and one particular commenter is very set on denying any claims I make, regardless of the support I provide.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I am willing to change my viewpoint, I'm just tired of debating in a forum where I have to defend my intelligence in addition to my beliefs.

The point of no known authorship is a decent one to use, why would anyone accept what a book tells them when the author is unknown?

There were two authors of the Genesis creation myth and they both derived their mythological framework from the Babylonian creation myths. This similarity to older Babylonian myths is enough to dismiss it as myth.

From a scientific sense, the very first verse in the first chapter is off the rails, it says the heaven and the Earth were created together, if you're interpreting heaven to mean the cosmos, that's flat-out wrong. The Earth formed from an interstellar cloud billions of years after the big bang and millions of years after the sun.

The Genesis account is so wrong that it has multiple levels of wrong wrapped around deeper levels of ignorance. This is exactly what we would expect from ignorant, ancient people making wild, unsubstantiated guesses about the origin of things with absolutely no clue about reality, all that they could do was invoke superstitious nonsense to explain it and it falls apart with the most basic scientific scrutiny.

Any Christian believer is forced to back away from a literal interpretation of it to be taken seriously or they double down and assert a massive intellectual dishonesty to prop it up and go into complete denial of the evidence and invoke conspiracy theories to prop up this untenable viewpoint laden with terms like "Darwinists" and "Secularists" and "Evolutionists" to make and us vs. them world view while they deny reality and circle the wagons in their intellectually bankrupt world view.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
03-06-2017, 10:37 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
Just tell the dumbass to come over here and get schooled. There are people here who are experts at it. If he doesn't get it here, he's beyond hope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2017, 11:20 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
Why do I need to stick to Genesis version of creation?
There are many creation stories around the world.If I call them metaphorical accounts of actual events and interpret in a way that it sounds scientific I think I can come up with better story than Genesis [without the baggage of original sin]. Other creation stories should go through same amount of mental gymnastics as Genesis and then we can pick and choose what we like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sea_tiger's post
04-06-2017, 12:47 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2017 12:52 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
You're right, why stick to mocking one story when we can mock them all? Tongue

I feel it can be a little unfair at times because we don't actually know whether the authors were simply telling a story, or really trying to explain things. If it's the former, then slating them for scientific inaccuracy is irrelevant.

The "enlightened" religious attitude seems to be doing your own editing. If something would be scientifically viable, then it's meant literally. If it would be all kinds of stupid wrong, then it's just a story, duh. And so we can go through and switch modes as we like so that we can avoid committing to either literalism or fiction. This is ridiculous (whether they were being literal or not depending on the current level of scientific knowledge), but it does at least mean such theists can learn about science rather than plug their ears up. So in that respect, I'm all for it.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
04-06-2017, 01:42 AM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(03-06-2017 01:07 PM)av0vad0 Wrote:  I made a post on Reddit about Creationism yesterday:

"Creationism is invalid because the author of Genesis is unknown/up for debate.

If a book has no identified, verified author, it's illogical to place more weight on its contents than on those theories that have been empirically supported and repeatedly tested/researched by the scientific community (Big Bang and evolution).

As for the argument that creationism preceded evolution, there is still more support for the Big Bang than there is for Creationism, which is based entirely on assumption. So how do you justify your belief in Creation despite evidence pointing elsewhere?"

I've received a few personal insults from the responding Christians already, and one particular commenter is very set on denying any claims I make, regardless of the support I provide.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I am willing to change my viewpoint, I'm just tired of debating in a forum where I have to defend my intelligence in addition to my beliefs.

If anyone tries to argue about creationism with you, I'd recommend that you ask them what the bible says. ...and they'll tell you "6 days, blah, blah, blah." Then I'd ask them what it says in Hebrew. They'll tell you that their KJV bible is accurately translated, but just insist that they learn how to speak, read and write Hebrew and to understand the Hebrew meanings of the words and phrases before they tell you what the book scrolls say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
04-06-2017, 05:08 AM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(03-06-2017 01:07 PM)av0vad0 Wrote:  I made a post on Reddit about Creationism yesterday:

"Creationism is invalid because the author of Genesis is unknown/up for debate.

If a book has no identified, verified author, it's illogical to place more weight on its contents than on those theories that have been empirically supported and repeatedly tested/researched by the scientific community (Big Bang and evolution).

As for the argument that creationism preceded evolution, there is still more support for the Big Bang than there is for Creationism, which is based entirely on assumption. So how do you justify your belief in Creation despite evidence pointing elsewhere?"

I've received a few personal insults from the responding Christians already, and one particular commenter is very set on denying any claims I make, regardless of the support I provide.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I am willing to change my viewpoint, I'm just tired of debating in a forum where I have to defend my intelligence in addition to my beliefs.

> “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” (Thomas Paine)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Gwaithmir's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: