OT: Creationism--a myth or retardation?

[bawang]

You would be surprised at what some hoes would do for some Popeye's!!!

ask your mother to find out.

[SoCo KungFu]

You would be surprised at what some hoes would do for some Popeye's!!!

At least a threesome apparently

[Syn7]

ask your mother to find out.

We've already been thru this, shortsight.

[bawang]

We've already been thru this, shortsight.

consult a spirit medium.

[David Jamieson]

none of these personal attacks are even funny.
take a break from each other.

[Scott R. Brown]

When the title of the thread implies creationists are retarded it sort invites further insults, doncha think?

[David Jamieson]

Well, the title implies that creationism is a farce and falseness. Then it gives you a choice as to whether it's a myth to move on or simply stupidity.

Creationism is worth challenging as far as imposition of it into law and education.

Because, freedom from persecution of religion doesn't guarantee the right to persecute others with things that are not believed by them.

I believe the issue with creationism is pretty much centered in the USA. There is no question in Canada for instance that creationism is not part of ones education and never will be on the face of it because it can be shown through scientific process and proof to be 100% wrong.

Shouting it from a hilltop doesn't make it right. It just makes the person on the hilltop more foolish.

Creationism in it's currently propagated form is indeed willful ignorance. The fact that there are groups out there who want to enforce their belief in it through rule of law and the education system is indicative of those people having some "issues".

Loud ignorance isn't acceptable in most parts, but gets a lot of traction in american media. I guess it's entertaining to watch all the fundies blowing their tops and ranting or something. I find them dull of mind and dull of spirit personally. Crooks and liars for the most part who live in opulence, make demands upon their congregation in exchange for a daydream.

[Scott R. Brown]

That's is an exceedingly narrow view and only worth possessing if one ignores the fact that only the most outlandish claims are the ones that get publicity.

There are scholars that also accept creationism. But they seldom garner any attention because the media relies on spectacle to gain viewers. Reasoned arguments are generally not entertaining for the ignorant masses.

[Syn7]

none of these personal attacks are even funny.
take a break from each other.

I'm good. I can let it go. S'all good. I stopped like two weeks ago, all this is just blow back from folks that carry it with them.



Yeah the title suggests it's either a myth or retarded. Either is offensive. calling something a myth is to imply that it isn't true. Callling a mans religion isn't very different than calling him retarded for believing it. It may be a lil more PC for those who can't read between the lines, but mos def still offensive to any creationist.

[David Jamieson]

That's is an exceedingly narrow view and only worth possessing if one ignores the fact that only the most outlandish claims are the ones that get publicity.

There are scholars that also accept creationism. But they seldom garner any attention because the media relies on spectacle to gain viewers. Reasoned arguments are generally not entertaining for the ignorant masses.

I would ask which scholars accept creationism in the biblical sense?

IE: earth is 6000 years old and a guy with a beard in a robe on a shiny floating platform wished it all into existence? I don't think any critical thinker would accept that on the face of it. I don't think anyone with an education and rudimentary understanding of biology and evolution would give it a moment.

I think it was Neil Tyson who said recently that the cool thing about science is that it doesn't matter if you believe it or not, the results produced are true. Earth is not 6000 years old. There is no bearded dude on a shiny platform smiting us or smiling down on us and so on and so forth.

Now, if we take the view that a division, an explosion followed by a mingling is creation? Yeah, I am good with that. Done by a personified god? That is in my view an error in thinking. God in my view is incomprehensible.

Personification of gods began long ago when forces were given human allegorical forms.

The ancient greek gods cum roman gods et al represent forces and planets and their actions in the myths represent explanations of those forces and reasons for planetary motion etc. Before these, there were other mythical constructs to explain the otherwise unknown.

Knowledge is power. Withholding knowledge is absolute power. That construct has been at play forever. But now, we have more educated people walking the earth than ever before as far as we know and look at what is happening to the religious constructs. They are falling apart left and right and in many cases being torn down as falseness.

The damage done by organized religion is pointed at daily and more an more there are less and less who are willing to participate in organized religion, blind faith etc. An rightly so.

This stems from greed. Greedy people who find themselves in a place of being able to manipulate the messages and make personal gain from them. Oh sure, they say great and peaceful things from their ivory towers about how money isn't everything and how peace is the answer etc etc. Hypocrites. All of them and to the last. A religion cannot defend it's personal wealth and preach about helping others. All religions are guilty of acquiring and maintain great wealth. I understand an infrastructure is required, but if you want to see ridiculous opulent displays of wealth, take a walk through mosque, church, synagogue, temple. You name it. Money pits. Disgusting when you really think about it.

/anti-organized religion rant

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's is an exceedingly narrow view and only worth possessing if one ignores the fact that only the most outlandish claims are the ones that get publicity.

There are scholars that also accept creationism. But they seldom garner any attention because the media relies on spectacle to gain viewers. Reasoned arguments are generally not entertaining for the ignorant masses.

There are many types of "creationism":
OEC - Old Earth Creationists that believe the world was created billions of years ago.
YEC - Young Earth creationists ( those that believe the world is 6000 years old)
TE- Theistic Evolutionists (like myself), that believe the world is billions of years old and the universe even older and the process we call "evolution" was one of the processes God used in the "creative process".

I have read the works from all these groups ( some of them of course, not all) and all of them were done by scientists and scholars.

[David Jamieson]

There are many types of "creationism":
OEC - Old Earth Creationists that believe the world was created billions of years ago.
YEC - Young Earth creationists ( those that believe the world is 6000 years old)
TE- Theistic Evolutionists (like myself), that believe the world is billions of years old and the universe even older and the process we call "evolution" was one of the processes God used in the "creative process".

I have read the works from all these groups ( some of them of course, not all) and all of them were done by scientists and scholars.

I would have to counter that and state clearly that virtually ALL scientists reject creationism outright. "Scholar"...Anyone in a school of some type is a scholar.

Here's the wiki page, and specifically the criticism of the idea you are forwarding here. i use wiki, because it's a one stop shop, but if anyone wants more concrete information, I would refer them to the citations at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institu...ific_criticism

[Scott R. Brown]

I would ask which scholars accept creationism in the biblical sense........

That is not the issue here. The issue was your criticism that bawang and Syn7 were hurling insults at each other to no productive end.

I argued that the title of the tread begins by referring to creationists as retarded and therefore to criticize one form of insult and ignore the other was an "exceedingly narrow view"! It is immaterial to my comment whether creationism is rational as you view it or not.

You appear to be trying to justify calling creationist retarded because it appears to you to be an irrational belief system.

If this is what a person believes fine, but to criticize some for insulting each other while ignoring the inherent insult of the title of the thread and then try to justify that it is okay to insult people you think are foolish but others cannot insult each other whom they are playing with or believe are foolish is being irrational in and of itself!

I am merely pointing out the error of this view!

There are many types of "creationism":
OEC - Old Earth Creationists that believe the world was created billions of years ago.
YEC - Young Earth creationists ( those that believe the world is 6000 years old)
TE- Theistic Evolutionists (like myself), that believe the world is billions of years old and the universe even older and the process we call "evolution" was one of the processes God used in the "creative process".

I have read the works from all these groups ( some of them of course, not all) and all of them were done by scientists and scholars.

I am not the one you want to inform of this information.

One of the mistakes that some people make is presuming that all creationist are Christian Fundamentalists. Then from this presumption an argument is fashioned using assumptions that are themselves erroneous. This reveals the arguer to be just as foolish as those he argues against, but the arguer is too foolish to recognize it.

SOME people who are creationists believe the world is 12,000 years old or so because the Bible says so, others do not.

If one wishes to argue against a particular world view it is important to be specific about which world view you are choosing to criticizing.

What I find amusing is people who fancy themselves smarter and more clever than a certain group, laughing at the foolishness of this group, but then cannot recognize their own foolish assumptions and beliefs.

Atheists are a very good example of this. They posture themselves as so much more reasonable, intelligent and clever than religious people because of the simplistic beliefs of some of these groups, but fail to perceive or choose to ignore the foolishness of their own belief system.

There are no truly intelligent Atheists, a truly intelligent person would be an Agnostic if nothing else! The the arrogance of Atheists is in their belief/faith in their own ability to reason without error, and their belief/faith that they have all the information necessary/available to declare with certainty, "There is no Supreme Intelligence that created everything."

[Scott R. Brown]

I would have to counter that and state clearly that virtually ALL scientists reject creationism outright. "Scholar"...Anyone in a school of some type is a scholar.

Here's the wiki page, and specifically the criticism of the idea you are forwarding here. i use wiki, because it's a one stop shop, but if anyone wants more concrete information, I would refer them to the citations at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institu...ific_criticism

Science is NOT a democracy. It is immaterial what "virtually ALL scientists" believe about creationism. They cannot form absolute arguments that demonstrate their position to be true. If they were honest with themselves and truly as educated and intelligent as they fancy themselves, they would perceive the errors of their own views.

There is virtually no way to demonstrate their is no creative intelligence. At the least they should state they are agnostic. But to be Atheist only demonstrates their own ignorance.

[bawang]

christianity became popular in rome because people found it convenient to convert. in modern society people find it convenient to be atheist. in the end it doesnt matter, most people dont care, and will find reasons to be good or evil, regardless whether they believe in spirits and gods or not.

Loud ignorance isn't acceptable in most parts, but gets a lot of traction in american media. I guess it's entertaining to watch all the fundies blowing their tops and ranting or something. I find them dull of mind and dull of spirit personally. Crooks and liars for the most part who live in opulence, make demands upon their congregation in exchange for a daydream.

they really dont care about religion. its just an outlet for their primal instincts and aggression.