Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by Griffo

 

prove it... I am just going by what I am reading on wiki...

This chap does well with his dissertation to understand the basics of the proof overall. Of course this is but a minor scratch, it does give a good general understanding






I am sure you will watch all 4 videos with a open mind and attempt to understand exactly what is being discussed...surely...I mean, why wouldn't you.

I look forward to your summation of the videos and your opinion after you have gained this knowledge

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
ok I will agree to that but it would seem Cosmology uses the same principles,

Well, all science uses more or less the same principles. Unfortunately, there is no reproduction or genetics coding or anything similar to such anywhere in cosmology.

Biology relates to life, evolution relates to variance in life. Cosmology deals with entirely different topics

only it's missing link would be the explanation of the 'Big Bang'

...the Bang itself is quite well explained.

Also, 'missing link' is a misnomer. Nobody in modern science really refers to those.

There is always the theory of Panspermia which is based very much so in biology.

...Panspermia would be the origin of life on Earth, which has nothing to do with cosmology.

Quantum Physics would have you look at a neutron star as an individual atom...

Which would have nothing to do with biology.

All in all it's just another branch of Darwin tree to me.

Then I suggest you look into the science more closely.
Darwin was concerned with a single concept, the means by which life diversifies.

His ideas hold true regardless of anything else about the universe.

The "Darwin tree" contains only one theory.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

after all Evolution is just a Theory too.. it is not proven fact and requires faith from the individual.

No, no...
Nonononono

I'm sorry, but I'm sort of exhausted at having to explain what a theory is.

A theory is the highest level of certainty a scientific idea can attain.
Proven facts are still theories.

Here are some theories:
Gravitation
Cells
Germs
Circuits (I guess our computers can't be working since it requires faith)

So much more....
Theory doesn't mean 'unproven'.

reply to post by kykweer


Snipped the unnecessary quoting.

Originally posted by kykweer
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.

And neither evolution nor the Big Bang are hinged upon the events that proceeded them. We can prove them regardless of what proceeded them. If the cause of the Big Bang was a guy named Ron eating too many beans it would still hold true.

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.

Why?
I'm sorry, but simply saying that it must be so is not a reliable position.

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.

And eventually you go on to regress to the point of the Big Bang...so what?

"Why am I here?" is sort of a...well, egocentric intellectually masturbatory existentialist drivel.

You are here, deal with it.

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?

...I'm not arguing that there is an original event. It's possible, but right now it's a question mark. Either there was an original event, there wasn't an original event, or the concepts we're dealing with are actually too alien for the term 'original event' to even make sense.

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.

Yes, but what does that prove?
And again, prior to the Big Bang time might not have existed.

Now if there is no scientific explanation, where do we look now?

We do more research. Science isn't about having all the right answers, it's about asking the right questions (I'm sure I got that from somewhere, can't remember where)

Which brings us back to OP, why would creation then be insane or a sympom of insanity?

Because every single point made by creationism is contrary to observed evidence.

When no scientific data can explain the big bang, when our laws don't apply.

Um...it can explain the Big Bang. Explanations of events aren't contingent upon explaining the entire chain of events that lead up to an event.

Well science should then eventually come to a point whereby, "this had no cause".

Not necessarily. Causality might not have a place in what existed prior to the Big Bang for all we know.

And here's the crazy thing, you and I are speculating on things which we aren't experts. I don't have a background in astrophysics, you don't either.

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?

I stared at this sentence for quite a while...it doesn't actually make any grammatical sense, so my answer is more or less in reply to an approximation of what I think you're trying to say.

Science is a work in progress, it always will be. We're nowhere near the end of the quest of science, so to dismiss scientific principles because they don't explain everything is really silly. We know the method works, we're using evidence of it right now.

Science can't just stop explaining.

Exactly, it keeps trying. It doesn't give up.

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.

Well, by that standard explaining a crime scene is an explanation of the Big Bang.
...the Big Bang explains the expansion of the universe...

When will people actually learn what scientific theories state before commenting upon them?

Originally posted by FIFIGI
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.

I am thinking he is not going to do well on his finals. Meh..its not like there is a ton of jobs for theology majors out there...one less contender gives her better chances at getting a job.

Some people in society are simply built to dig ditches for the rest of us.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


ok can we prove that humans evolved from ape ? or as it's own sentient being...

reply to post by SaturnFX


thx man, I will watch those this evening when I get more time... I am not against evolution I just like it to fit with my theory of Creation.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Religion and Science

You forgot to mentioned the factor "Human-Nature". Science and religion are just tools to allow humans to justify their nature. Either for Evil or Good.

Peace

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I am not against evolution I just like it to fit with my theory of Creation.

You cannot force something to be something else.
I want evolution to fit into my theory that I am overlord of the universe..but my desires has little to do with reality.

Am I simply wanting a egocentric worldview based on willful ignorance...or do I want to try and uncover the truth, even if it is not a pretty truth...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


No, we cannot. Why? Because we didn't evolve from apes, we are apes. This is actually a very common misconception about human evolution.

We do have evidence of our common ancestry with the rest of the great apes both genetically and in the fossil record.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I am not against evolution I just like it to fit with my theory of Creation.

You cannot force something to be something else.
I want evolution to fit into my theory that I am overlord of the universe..but my desires has little to do with reality.

Am I simply wanting a egocentric worldview based on willful ignorance...or do I want to try and uncover the truth, even if it is not a pretty truth...

the truth would seem that you are the 'master' of your own universe which your mind has created using it's senses. Evolution comes after Creation that's how I see it, after all the idea was not introduced until 1854 though we can be sure the ancients spoke of it in some way they may have just attributed it as not worthy of discussion because they were onto something bigger.

It has it's place though but does not erase a Creator...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

No, we cannot. Why? Because we didn't evolve from apes, we are apes. This is actually a very common misconception about human evolution.

well that doesn't make much sense... it must be a hemispherical thing ? how can we be apes if we evolved on our own... all life on this planet is related genetically.

and to answer another question you had refuted... all life basically are just matter and atoms are they not ? this is where Cosmology philosophy and Evolution Philosophy have alot in common. Most all science is a loopy-loop though it has brought advances which I enjoy the use of everyday.

Evolution can not replace Creation period, there is always another level...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

after all the idea was not introduced until 1854 though we can be sure the ancients spoke of it in some way they may have just attributed it as not worthy of discussion because they were onto something bigger.

Or, of course, 6000 years of religious zealots retaining control through propogating ignorance might explain the lack of much ancient evidence of an understanding evolution. Not to mention that the one-time repository of all western knowledge (which, at one point, probably rivalled eastern knowledge) burned with almost all of its contents? Not entirely unlike modern chemists having to rediscover the medicinal properties of plants because 2000 years of religious zealots burning anyone who interfered with God's plan by curing people where prayer and blood-letting could not?

Yes, I know that burning was actually relatively rare in England, but the point is that there was persecution associated with knowing more than the church wanted you to, and so it seems to me not unlikely that a fair amount of our understanding of the world was lost through this.

EDIT: please also note that the idea of Evolution was around well before Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection - the concept of evolution was the basis for selective breeding, and had been recognised by many before Darwin, including his own grandfather, Erasmus. I think Lamarck may have also preceded Darwin, but I'm not sure. Mendel certainly did, and while his results weren't actually about evolution, they do underlie a great deal of our current understanding of how evolution happens.

reply to post by TheWill


Hi

I am not a young earth creationist if that is what you are implying ? or trying to introduce...

all through this thread certain few keep trying to make the connection that creationist think the world is only 6000 years old.

that is not the case... and those select few who adhere to that belief are your only horse you can beat.

nice try though

You wrap yourself in a belief system which is utterly absurd. The idea that nothing created everything. That all this order and complexity is a mere accident. How completely foolish. It's like finding an Intel Quad Core chip in a pile of sand and saying it came about spontaneously by randomly combining silicon atoms. Why God even placed a software engine within life, the dna and yet you still have to claim its random so that you can ignore the requirements God has placed on the way you live your life. Very sad and pathetic.

Evolution has no basis in fact. It's a complete farce. There are no fossil records showing the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates or that show intermediate forms for multicellular organisms. We don't see fossils that have just a circulatory system but no nervous system or vice versa. Instead complex systems just appear at once in the so called fossil record. Evolution is complete BS.

Natural selection exists of course, God put a feedback mechanism in dna, but it is incapable of innovation in any meaningful way and tends to revert to form. Thus when the environmental pressure of the black soot was removed in England, moths reverted to being light colored etc. etc.

Also it turns out that the physical laws of the universe have to be within very tight parameters for something like stars or carbon based life to even exist. This is another absurdity in the nothing created everything religion. Now you want to enforce your flawed biases on everyone else. I suppose this is standard for psychotic liberals who can't stand to be contradicted in their failed belief systems. They claim they want to better humanity and you'd better go along with their ideas or else. I think Hitler and Stalin had similar approaches.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I wasn't saying that you were a YEC. 6000 years is my minimum estimate as to how long people have been using religion as an excuse to keep other people ignorant and thus controllable. No implication upon yourself was intended, merely one hypothesis (mine, I believe) as to why concepts that seem to be common sense to me appear to have been overlooked for so long.

reply to post by TheWill


Actually Darwin and Mendel were fairly contemporaneous, although Darwin published before Mendel. In fact the journal that Mendel's work was published in was on Darwin's desk at the time of his death. However, the concept of evolution goes all the way back to Greek philosophers. In fact what some of them proposed was very similar to Darwin's theory.

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

I wasn't saying that you were a YEC. 6000 years is my minimum estimate as to how long people have been using religion as an excuse to keep other people ignorant and thus controllable. No implication upon yourself was intended, merely one hypothesis (mine, I believe) as to why concepts that seem to be common sense to me appear to have been overlooked for so long.

but religion is Natural, spiritual beings are what we are... Religion was not introduced as a conspiracy, I would rethink that a bit.

Religion came about thru early philosophy nothing more... now people who have abuse the power of the word that is a different story which is spoke of quite a bit in Christianity.

good deal man, I appreciate you not swinging on me

Originally posted by SevenThunders
There are no fossil records showing the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates or that show intermediate forms for multicellular organisms.

1.There are Cambrian fossils transitional between vertebrate and invertebrate:
a.Pikaia, an early invertebrate chordate. It was at first interpreted as a segmented worm until a reanalysis showed it had a notochord.
b.Yunnanozoon, an early chordate.
c.Haikouella, a chordate similar to Yunnanozoon, but with additional traits, such as a heart and a relatively larger brain (Chen et al. 1999).
d.Conodont animals had bony teeth, but the rest of their body was soft. They also had a notochord (Briggs et al. 1983; Sansom et al. 1992).
e.Cathaymyrus diadexus, the oldest known chordate (535 million years old; Shu et al. 1996).
f.Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys, two early vertebrates that still lack a clear head and bony skeletons and teeth. They differ from earlier invertebrate chordates in having a zigzag arrangement of segmented muscles, and their gill arrangement is more complex than a simple slit (Monastersky 1999).


2.There are living invertebrate chordates (Branchiostoma [Amphioxus], urochordates [tunicates]) and living basal near-vertebrates (hagfish, lampreys) that show plausible intermediate forms.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
You wrap yourself in a belief system which is utterly absurd. The idea that nothing created everything.

The idea that everything changes is actually the concept.
its a -creationists- idea that nothing created everything...or everything from nothing.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
It's like finding an Intel Quad Core chip in a pile of sand and saying it came about spontaneously by randomly combining silicon atoms.

No, your confusing evolution with creation again.

You make a very strong argument on how silly the whole argument sounds...the whole creationism argument of course

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I think Hitler and Stalin had similar approaches.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9f34fe74f40.jpg[/atsimg]
The nazi belt buckle reads "God with us"