Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You can either believe a supreme being came to earth and created us in His image or you can believe that there was a sudden big bang from colliding membranes of different universes with different universal laws... point is both ideas are insane

Well thats not quite right, you mean a supreme being created the heavens and the earth then created humans in his own image ?

or you mean that there was Nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs ?

I'm not saying one theory is more valid than the other, I'm just saying that both theories rely on a series of events. Obviously from what we know these events don't lock and tie into each other perfectly. I'm just saying that in the current way of thinking , there was no nothing at any point, there was ALWAYS something to predece an event, it is logical.

All Im saying, is that the "logical" thing might not be the answer.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by kykweer

 

Originally posted by kykweer
Again you seem awfully uptight, maybe you need a drink or to get out of the house for a walk or something?

Nope, not uptight at all. I just have an eye for precision in argument.

About M-Theory I wasn't implying that it is the alpha dog theory. Obviously there are countless theories and even though M-theory is already very old. I also wans't implying that M-theory is BS,

Well, here's the thing, you sort of set up a false dilemma.

No I'm not, It's either evolution or creation, obviously both are a part of even wider fields that include numerous different theories and possibilities, sorry if i offended you, but the main debate is about big bang or creation, is it no?

...you're switching fields of science.

Big bang theory is a theory of cosmology.
Evolution is a theory of biology.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not does nothing to impact the validity of the big bang theory.
Whether the big bang theory is true or not does nothing to impact the validity of evolution.

Evolution concerns a single issue, biodiversity. Where the biological organisms came from doesn't matter. Where the planet those organisms live on came from doesn't matter. Where the universe that planet resides in came from doesn't matter.

Creationism, on the other hand, concerns itself with overturning a very large portion of established science, though this portion is dependent on which strain of creationism you believe in and which religion the vreationist happens to subscribe to.

Lets simplify this... as you said...
Big bang theory is a theory of cosmology.
Evolution is a theory of biology.
Creationism, Largely againt science.

All three have wide fields, but all three have a preceding timeline of events.

Science has never been able to answer philosophical questions,

Because that's not the point of science. Science answers scientific questions like how things work.

Which is the fundemental flawed when looking at the creation of the universe.

like where we come from,

Well, science did tackle this one...

You see, when a man and a woman get a certain physical urge....

Nice... They got the physical urge, but why? their bodies had hormonal changes for them to get these urges, but before that they were born. Without the man's father and his father, the said man would never have gotten this physical urge.

has it, has scinece proved why you exist and why there is certain scientific laws?

Well, it's actually working on natural laws with current theories related to astrophysics.

As for why I exist? Well, I exist because of a string of events occurring that eventually led to the...and I shudder to say this...copulation of my parents.

Yet again, you bring up the point, wherby there is a linear timeline of events, events leading to events, with that thought, how could there possibly be an original event?

It s still insane and imaginative for if the theory of the big bang-big crunch-big bang, we are looking at a timeline of infinity, as he timeline of our universe might be 14ish billion years it doesn't take into acount the timeline preceding the universe.

Well, we're not sure if it's bang-crunch repeat.
Even if it was, we have no way of knowing if each universe created through this process has the same natural laws and dimensions.
We don't even know if those universes have time.

But ours does, for us to exist in theory there has to be time. For an event to procede another, there has to be a timeline. Now if there is no scientific explanation, where do we look now?

and the timeline preceding the cause of the big bang.

Time might not even be an issue.

But again, this has nothing to do with insanity, this is all stuff that's being reasoned out.

Which brings us back to OP, why would creation then be insane or a sympom of insanity? When no scientific data can explain the big bang, when our laws don't apply.

For the ultimate question is how did the big bang start, so there had to be a cause. and preceding that, in the search for the "ultimate question" you will go back to and indefinate timeline to find a cause of the cause of the cause.

Not necessarily. You're simply stating that there must be infinite regress.

Well science should then eventually come to a point whereby, "this had no cause". When we use science to explain how things work, how could science explain how there is no cause and can't explain how something works, when will science come to a point where they give up? Science can't just stop explaining.

Do you have a dog or something? A mans best friend.

I was simply urging you to find a way to express yourself. 'Try harder' is normally the best way to achieve self-expression.

A predecing event of sarcasm is usually caused by sarcasm.

No matter the theory, don't they all, (well the one's i have researched) involve a linear timeline?

Thank you, obviously as you stated, the LHC isn't solely to support all theories of the big bang,

...what? I just posted every single question the LHC means to answer, none of which involves big bang cosmology.

Please, look at that list of questions again, please show me one where the LHC aims to speak about the big bang.
Please show me a single credible source that says that LHC's experiments have anything to do with big bang cosmology.

edit on 8/12/10 by madnessinmysoul because: I suck with quoting today. Fixed it yet again.

What can I say, you already made me blush, LHC isn't directly aimed at the big bang, but the standard model is designed to understand the universal structure better, a structure created after the effects of the big bang. Correct my again.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Let me give you an example:

1. One day you accidentally smash your keyboard with a hammer.

2. Couple of keys are destroyed, but the computer works fine.

3. You come to ATS, click the reply button and try to type "Creationism equates to insanity".

4. Unfortunately that was what you intended to type, since "c", "d", "s" and "f" keys did not work any more, your message came forward like "reatinoim equate to inanity".

Let me ask you a question, are you and your computer separate?

Anyways, I have proven my point, that mind hasn't been proven empirically, Atheists have this idea that knowledge revolves around empirical evidence, in that sense they should avoid talking about mind, it makes them look insane.

reply to post by kykweer

Your posts are almost impossible to understand because you are not nesting quotes. There is no way to tell who has said what. I suggest you click quote over a few posts with nested quotes and observe how they are done.

Please help me to believe in evolution.
But now the same problem occurred as for Christianity, you must be insane to believe in it
For me it's easier to believe in Santa than in the big bang theory. For Santa I just need to believe its true, I can't prove anything, so it boils down to faith in him.
For me to believe in evolution I have to accept certain stuff for what there is absolutely no proof and above that, this is needed so that the rest of the equation can work out, so x become axially the ultimate truth while there's no evidence of x and if I don’t believe in x I must be insane

Let's give x a name: Dark Matter

I will call it the god of the atheists, he cant prove it to me and without it he want me to believe in something that can't hold water and without it this whole evolution story doesn’t look so colourful anymore as this big bang thing fall apart, or at least the part that suppose to help me to believe in it, so now it's expected from me to just have faith and believe that dark matter exist
This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
So be it

Obviously things change. In a sense evolution is an undeniable fact. But, does the scientific community have a satifactory answer for why things change. I think not.

Science is comprised of people and people are wholly corruptable. Scientists need money just as much as anyone else. There is no reason to believe that scientist don't have just as many character flaws as anyone else. Money is power and power corrupts. Don't believe everything you read just because a scientist says so.

There is such a thing as technocratic dogma. The scientific method is not a panacea for mendacity.

To your question, "should creationism be considered a sign of insanity?": Insanity is not a word that can be defined easily but we all know it when we see it. I don't believe it is a sign of insanity. I think ignorance and arrogance would be a better description.

There is nothing wrong with religious faith. But one needs to remain open minded and allow that others might not see things their way. We all must be on guard against hubris invading our souls. People are their own worst enemies.

Originally posted by kykweer

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You can either believe a supreme being came to earth and created us in His image or you can believe that there was a sudden big bang from colliding membranes of different universes with different universal laws... point is both ideas are insane

Well thats not quite right, you mean a supreme being created the heavens and the earth then created humans in his own image ?

or you mean that there was Nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs ?

I'm not saying one theory is more valid than the other, I'm just saying that both theories rely on a series of events. Obviously from what we know these events don't lock and tie into each other perfectly. I'm just saying that in the current way of thinking , there was no nothing at any point, there was ALWAYS something to predece an event, it is logical.

All Im saying, is that the "logical" thing might not be the answer.

All I was saying was your 'chain of events were incorrect' and noticed the inaccuracy in your post/statement.

reply to post by Master Jack


You shouldn't be so judgemental towards the technocrats. At least they try to make sense which is more than can be said for the superstitious.

And, if you are going to quote Jesus, don't you think that you should give Him the credit for the quote and tell the rest of us where it is in the Bible?

Here is a quote for you: "and a man's enemies will be the members of his household." Matthew 10:36

Watch your back.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


You best be trolling. The "evolution is just a theory" argument has been debunked at lest 5 times in this thread alone. How many more times does it need to be repeated until you understand it?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You can either believe a supreme being came to earth and created us in His image or you can believe that there was a sudden big bang from colliding membranes of different universes with different universal laws... point is both ideas are insane

Well thats not quite right, you mean a supreme being created the heavens and the earth then created humans in his own image ?

or you mean that there was Nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs ?

Atheism is actually:

SaturnFX:
To acknowledge there is a divine, but then to discredit all who would draw man's connection to that divine throughout history is pretty absurd.

You would accept the 100 year old ideas of evolution, but not the 1000+ year old ideas about spiritual issues? Why? Because you can "prove" one?

You can't prove a matter of faith, and your acceptance of the divine shows you understand that.

What I see is a simple unwillingness to surrender the fact that you're not in control. I think they call that pride, or even hubris in some circles.

I think there is a story or two about that in most religious texts.... may be something to them after all.

reply to post by InertiaZero


Hi, I'm not particularly of one faith or another, neither do I think there is actually a valid arguement around creation and evolution so I'm not going to muddy the water on that. The point I would make is the 3,000 years since year zero. It was a vicar in England who proposed that based on well intentioned but ill schooled geologist schooling (i.e. self taught). It wasn't and has never been accepted by a mainstream religion but has been adopted by fundamentalist creationist schools of thought.

I share your thoughts though that the whole ET thing is for all intents and purposes another belief system, but there is one difference... with a faith classed as a religion, to believe is all, you do not need supporting facts - in fact if such facts were unearthed, then there would no longer be a need for faith.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by newBodyoldSoul

 

There's evidence for evolution, there's none for the existence of god or that this magical being created life.

~

I'm not taking sides here, but where has anyone in a recognised church said that evolution is not part of their acknowledged view of how life progresses? Could you or anyone else on this thread please point that out? And please, I do mean someone quoting with at least a modicum of credibility - no-one from the Creationist fundamentalist party who are more than welcome to say what they want, but who do they represent?

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by newBodyoldSoul
Creationism isn't ignorance.

I believe God CREATED life to EVOLVE. Sounds logical to me.

God evolved from cosmic dust and magnetic fields...therefore evolution wins. Sounds logical to me

sounding logical to you does not mean its logical...often "logic" is a catch all word for not knowing all the facts, or being intellectually lazy.

Where is the contest? Who are the people that believe it's one or another? You, I guess. Personally I have no problem thinking of a divine creator and ongoing evolution - it may not be the case, then again it may well be, I have no more substance to argue the fact than you do. The difference is, I don't think it's a contest.

Originally posted by Master Jack
Please help me to believe in evolution.

No. I will not help you believe in anything. Facts are presented..help yourself...or not

But now the same problem occurred as for Christianity, you must be insane to believe in it
For me it's easier to believe in Santa than in the big bang theory. For Santa I just need to believe its true, I can't prove anything, so it boils down to faith in him.

Santa is an approprate example.
When you were a child, you were taught a jolly man whom uses elves to create toys to give to good girls and boys around the world was the truth. He rode a flying sled powered by magical flying reindeer and in the matter of a single night, circled the world and dropped into the homes of almost every person on earth..giving toys and candy to good kids. Of course he had all these toys in a large magical bag that could hold toys for a world audience.
He ate milk and cookies from everyone.

You believed this...you had faith.
Did your faith actually manifest this as an objective truth, or were you simply a product of incorrect teachings about the world?

If you took a few moments and considered "how does he go around the world in one night...and drop into everyones home?" and other questions like that...then you would have become curious about this.
Many kids do when they start getting a bit older
However, the do not question their parents initially...out of fear that they may lose their toys and candy.

Its a religion based on carrot and stick mentality.

or me to believe in evolution I have to accept certain stuff for what there is absolutely no proof

Care to explain what proof is lacking? keep the subject to biological evolution

and above that, this is needed so that the rest of the equation can work out, so x become axially the ultimate truth while there's no evidence of x and if I don’t believe in x I must be insane

The theory of evolution requires no faith or blind belief...it actually is meant to dismiss any faith or belief by simply going with evidence presented which is painting a very clear picture.
In the same way that if you study a automobile, you see a picture develop of creation, when you study the origin of life, you see a picture develop of evolution.

Let's give x a name: Dark Matter

Lets not...Dark Matter is a hypothetical element used in cosmology

I will call it the god of the atheists,

I would think coffee is more deitylike for an athiest...

he cant prove it to me

Although dark matter has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, I will correct this for you also
Proof of dark matter
Feel free to brush up on the data if your using it as some strange argument against evolution.
deny ignorance...or not.

and without it he want me to believe in something that can't hold water and without it this whole evolution story doesn’t look so colourful anymore as this big bang thing fall apart,

How does anything fall apart?

or at least the part that suppose to help me to believe in it,

If your believing in anything scientific by nature, your doing it wrong.
Science is a tool to dismiss or prove a previously held belief...you know..lightning is god spears from deities standing on clouds, rain is contingent on how many chickens your slaughter to the rain gods, etc..

so now it's expected from me to just have faith and believe that dark matter exist

You can make assumptions...you can accept hypothesis's as being likely..but religious belief in any concept is frowned upon and compromises you to find out the actual truth. aka...your doing it wrong.

This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
So be it

Isn't that the chap that lived in the belly of a fish for a few days?

and btw...you can only speak about yourself. If you are evil, meh, you are evil. I would prefer you not judge me..
I remember a warning somewhere...some book of philosophy warning about judging others...cant place it...but either way, I would appreciate you not judging me or an entire generation as evil...unless of course you can prove that you are a deity capable of making such a sweeping judgement.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
Obviously things change. In a sense evolution is an undeniable fact. But, does the scientific community have a satifactory answer for why things change. I think not.

Change? what...like why things evolve? or why theories alter? sort of being general...
so until thats clarified, I will simply assume your talking from a rolling stones sociological aspect

To your question, "should creationism be considered a sign of insanity?": Insanity is not a word that can be defined easily but we all know it when we see it. I don't believe it is a sign of insanity. I think ignorance and arrogance would be a better description.

Which is why the first line of the first post is :Or willful ignorance?
because yes...many will refuse proof when it challenges their belief.
Of course, as madness suggested, many are "Liars for Jesus"..purposefully ignoring and burying information and proof that challenges the religious view to indoctrinate trusting people into their flock

YES - it is insanity. There is no cure.
Yes - it is insanity. You can no cure someone, who does not recognize their illness/insanity - this is the thing about insane people - they do not know they are insane.

My sister is studying theology. In her class there is a guy who would not listen to what professor has to say at lectures - he is reading bible with his ears covered by his palms.

Originally posted by gncnew
SaturnFX:
To acknowledge there is a divine, but then to discredit all who would draw man's connection to that divine throughout history is pretty absurd.

I entertain thoughts of a deeper connection for us to the universe. Is it a fact to me? nope...just a entertaining philosophy.
I discredit and fully reject any rulebook said to be created by a deity that defines such a concept. I reject fully religion in all its forms on earth. They are lies built on lies. Not a shred of proof, yet they have caused murder, intolerance, destruction, horrors, torture, evil, devolution of intellect, and scientific crippling because of this scourge on earth known as "religion" and I cannot say that putrid word with any more venom.

Let me put this into context of something I actually do respect...aka, philosophy.
Now. What I am about to post is a very good and relevant philosophy to consider..nothing divine about it, just some common sense.
It comes from a philosophy and psychology book called the bible, by a philanthropist known as Matthew
He, on pondering the universe, had a interesting...some would say spiritual...insight that should be considered

16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Religion and Science
Science uncovers new fields that allows for technologies that could turn the world into a utopia of plenty
Religion takes scientific achievements and fuels gadgets of war.

Bad Fruit








The rational population is -tired- of living in a religious prison of death and hate.
War is indeed on, you betcha...time to crush your space ghost religions that drive such bad fruit on the world.

You would accept the 100 year old ideas of evolution, but not the 1000+ year old ideas about spiritual issues? Why? Because you can "prove" one?

YES. in the same way that I will use the fairly new concept of taking a aspirin to relieve a headache verses the time honored ancient tradition of drilling a hole on my head to let the bad spirits out.

You can't prove a matter of faith, and your acceptance of the divine shows you understand that.

My "acceptance" of "divine" is better summed up as pondering things unknown..to create a self designed point of my existance that in no way is an objective fact.

What I see is a simple unwillingness to surrender the fact that you're not in control. I think they call that pride, or even hubris in some circles.
I think there is a story or two about that in most religious texts.... may be something to them after all.

Your short sighted. Of things I am in control of, I control. Of things I am not in control of, I accept. I am not in control of how the universe functions, therefore, I accept proof given.

reply to post by Griffo


prove it... I am just going by what I am reading on wiki... you can not prove humans evolved from apes like they show in a museum. If I were to accept evolution it would seem more logical to me that humankind evolved as their own separate species independently.

this meshes with creationism rather well...

reply to post by Griffo


prove to me please what "a point in space-time" actually is ?

Nothing maybe