Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

reply to post by SevenThunders

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.

I'm going to hope that you are being sarcastic. An Intel Quad Core Chip necessarily has an assigned purpose. Life does not necessarily have assigned pupose, and so does not have to conform to specific requirements. It's more like finding 8 million grains of sand in a pile. The odds that each grain will be precisely where it is are almost infinite against, and yet they have to be somewhere. You can't look back after an event and say "this happening is so unlikely that it must have been on purpose", because something HAD to happen.

Moving on, though:

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.

Are you aware of how hard it is to get fossilised? The hard tissues of most animals decay before they get the chance, and so soft tissues rarely get the chance. Aquatic or marine vertebrates, echinoderms and molluscs are really the only ones with a significant chance of fossilising, and even they generally get eroded to nothing before the process is even begun.

As for transitional forms, without reference to the fossil record, please do me the great favour of googling the hagfish. It is not a vertebrate. Then, in a separate window, google lampreys. They are vertebrates.

Do you see much difference there?

We can go further back, too. Hagfish are cephalochordates, but lancets are not. Lancets are generally smaller than hagfish, but the similarity - especially once you cut them open - is clear. Larval sea squirts are not unlike lancets, although after metamorphosis the difference becomes rather more pronounced.

Nervous systems DO exist without circulatory systems in the cnidaria - animals quite far removed from us, with very simple nerve nets rather than brains. I'm fairly sure that all of them lack circulatory systems, certainly the corals do not have a system separate from their digestive tract. Sponges, often considered to be the most divergent of all animals, have some level of circulatory system but lack any nervous system whatsoever - their circulatory system is based on ingeniously simple "siphons" which draw water - and thus oxygen and organic particles - through their hollow innards. Sponges in general also lack any noteworthy differentiation of tissues.

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.

Did you know that all domestic dogs are the same species? Now, with a greatly accelerated timescale, human imposed selective pressures have created that much divergence, and you can still say it is incapable of innovation in any meaningful way and tends to revert to form?

Imagine, if you will, what would happen if we killed all dogs except airedales and yorkshire terriers. Do you think that those two would interbreed successfully? If you do, well, there's no hope, and you might as well drink that kool-aid down, but if you don't, surely you can see that the two lineages would continue to breed true, and would not end up looking like their wild ancestor?

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

Well, if the universe didn't work the way it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? So there might be countless universes which don't work in a way that will support our peculiar brand of existence, where we cannot stand up and say "if it was a different way, we could exist." Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Ah yes, Hitler and Stalin again. Do you know what else Hitler and Stalin had in common? They were both male. Should we ignore all men, because they are like Hitler and Stalin and following anything that they say leads inevitable to doctrines of terror? What about all humans - after all, Hitler and Stalin were both human, were they not? Maybe we should just stop using words, because Hitler and Stalin used words and bad things happened.

I still hope that your post was a parody. If it wasn't, I'm deeply worried, but not hugely surprised.

EDIT: Saturn said everything first... ah well. I'll live.
PS -
reply to post by Xcalibur254


Thanks for that, sorry to have got it mixed up. I shall have to look into the greek versions over the weekend - I'm shocked at myself for never having heard that before. It makes my point rather better than I did (and excludes the implication that religious leaders conspired to spread ignorance).


PPS reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Again I fail at the use of words - I did not mean that religion started as a conspiracy, more that it was used (or abused) by people, and this is not specific to a post-Christ era (remember Jesus getting cross in the temple? People abusing religion... in that case as a marketplace, but in other places too the Pharisee are shown to be corrupt).

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I think I have to agree with you on that, scientists found a gene which forces us to pursue GOD.

Anyways, even Atheists are pursuing GOD, but are in denial, if they were not pursuing GOD, they wouldn't have made this thread, it shows they care

Originally posted by SevenThunders
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.

aka, drakes equasion

This is another absurdity in the nothing created everything religion.

aka, creationism

Now you want to enforce your flawed biases on everyone else.

We were considering a crusade to enforce our system of understanding...but the christians already had the best swords and horses..so we decided instead to simply have coffeehouse chats and publish papers..besides, the thing with crusades...they are soo last century. totally unoriginal

I suppose this is standard for psychotic liberals who can't stand to be contradicted in their failed belief systems.

yes...because only liberals can -ever- know what science is and how its employeed. non-liberals literally cannot process scientific research and understanding. I would explain the science behind this, but meh..only a psychotic liberal would understand it anyhow...but ultimately, yes...your correct. Liberals are the only species of humans that can be educated with facts...I am suprised you found out about that actually...typically we just chuck sausages and playboys at you lot and you happily grunt away while watching nascar (lol...they have no clue the cars just keep making circles).
moving on from insults...


Incidently, I broke your post up into many sub-posts, because the tactic of throwing a ton of nonsense up in one post, hopeing the reply becomes a wall of unreadable text, is rather boring to me...its a age old tactic to bury any truth into a mountain of letters that the average mind bypasses. But..nice try. Now...care to talk about any of the many zany arguments you posted one by one?

Oh Jesus !

are the left hemispherians able to grasp the concept of "keeping it short and sweet"

?

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.

Are you suggesting people are not controlled anymore?

The educated and un-educated.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

I think I have to agree with you on that, scientists found a gene which forces us to pursue GOD.

Anyways, even Atheists are pursuing GOD, but are in denial, if they were not pursuing GOD, they wouldn't have made this thread, it shows they care

I've always said even Satanist are above Atheists, it is total ignorance showing no vision of how we got to where we are as humans.

reply to post by oozyism


Exceedingly no, I am not saying that we are not controlled any more. In fact, it is primarily through observations of modern attempts at control (keep people stupid) coupled with a less than half-decent knowledge of western european and southern african history, that leads me to believe that religion has been (ab-)used to keep people ignorant and make them easier to control. We are very much controlled by how much we know and when. Not just in "Don't drink the kool-aid" situations, but in less immediately noticeable examples (note that the post recession media does not talk about the great depression and inflation as a result of printing more money to deal with economic decline - rather, it is called "quantative easing")

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


very forward thinking of you, I have to say, considering classes of people "above" one another. Really progressive, integrative, forming a heirarchy with "like" at the top is not at all elitist. Well done for being so open minded.

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by oozyism

 

Exceedingly no, I am not saying that we are not controlled any more. In fact, it is primarily through observations of modern attempts at control (keep people stupid) coupled with a less than half-decent knowledge of western european and southern african history, that leads me to believe that religion has been (ab-)used to keep people ignorant and make them easier to control. We are very much controlled by how much we know and when. Not just in "Don't drink the kool-aid" situations, but in less immediately noticeable examples (note that the post recession media does not talk about the great depression and inflation as a result of printing more money to deal with economic decline - rather, it is called "quantative easing")

edit on 9/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)

Knowledge.

There are different sects of knowledge.

There is hidden political knowledge.

There is scientific knowledge.

There is knowledge of man-made laws.

There is knowledge of how to cook a good crispy bacon.

There is knowledge of how to fly to the moon.



The above being said.

Scientific knowledge doesn't get you free, nor does it set you free, nor does it help you get free.
You can be a scientist and still be controlled.

So ignorance in Universal knowledge (hence science) has nothing to do with being free or not.
Ignorance in History and World politics, at least the hidden politics would help you, or at least pave the way for freedom.

For you to say that religious people held Universal Knowledge back to control people is absurd, it is evident that they had their own wisdom, look at the pyramids for example.

Originally posted by oozyism
For you to say that religious people held Universal Knowledge back to control people is absurd, it is evident that they had their own wisdom, look at the pyramids for example.

Pyramids are massive tombs built by slave labor to house pharohs once they died so they would have a place to hang out in the afterlife.
the afterlife was -not- for the average citizen, only royalty. the rest..the slave class, well...their greatness came in serving a God made flesh.

Ya..that wisdom we don't need.

reply to post by oozyism

For you to say that religious people held Universal Knowledge back to control people is absurd

Look at the crusades, the inquisitions, the witch-hunts, the protests whenever any holy book was translated into a more widely accessible tongue, the indulgences, and perhaps most recently suicide bombings for example. Do you honestly believe that, in a religion that started out preaching non-violence to monotheistic religions, blowing yourself up on a train carriage full of people (statistically speaking, most of them Christians) represents being given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by oozyism

 

Look at the crusades, the inquisitions, the witch-hunts, the protests whenever any holy book was translated into a more widely accessible tongue, the indulgences, and perhaps most recently suicide bombings for example. Do you honestly believe that, in a religion that started out preaching non-violence to monotheistic religions, blowing yourself up on a train carriage full of people (statistically speaking, most of them Christians) represents being given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

edit on 9/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)

I think I have proven my point, don't play the musical chair game with me.

Stick to one topic, last I checked you claimed that religious Gooks kept science back for more control.

Stick to one topic, last I checked I prove that it is a Bull #istic claim because people are being controlled right now, scientists and engineers and doctors, they are all in world military, doing as their commanders tell them to do.

Soldiers are like slaves, prove me wrong. The military owns them, if they refuse duty, they will be imprisoned blablabla..

So it is evident that people are controlled even today, people who are educated, and who have immense Universal Knowledge.

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Pyramids are massive tombs built by slave labor to house pharohs once they died so they would have a place to hang out in the afterlife.
the afterlife was -not- for the average citizen, only royalty. the rest..the slave class, well...their greatness came in serving a God made flesh.

Ya..that wisdom we don't need.

You are an Atheist, stick to empirical evidence and forget about how the pyramids were built, hence you will never know empirically

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I'm not sure whether to laugh at your ignorance or throw up in my mouth.

I've always said even Satanist are above Atheists, it is total ignorance showing no vision of how we got to where we are as humans.

First of all many Satanists ARE Atheists, many don't actually believe in God or Satan but they follow the ideals of the Biblical character (pride, self-reliance, pleasure, etc)

How exactly are atheists ignoring how we got where we are? The only atheists I see doing that are the atheists who believe in ancient astronaut theory who ignore the evidence for human evolution nearly as often as Creationists do.

If there were evidence for such god(s) every single atheist on the planet would be a theist but there is no evidence and without evidence there is no reason to believe. The same goes for fairies, aliens, unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster, no conclusive evidence and therefore no good reason to hold the belief.

Atheism is a skeptical viewpoint, there is nothing shameful in being skeptical of a claim. The claim being made is that a God exists and has had a hand in our origins but I see no evidence of that and no reason to conjure up such a being.

Where exactly is the evidence we are supposedly ignoring? This is a thread on Creationism - where is the evidence that we have been created? It certainly isn't in genetics, every discovery we've made in human genetics only strengthens evolution. It certainly isn't in the fossil record, every discovery we've made there further supports evolution. It certainly isn't in morphology - we sure do look like apes. It certainly isn't in behavioral studies - we sure do behave like apes. So where is this evidence that makes atheists so low?

reply to post by oozyism


I am really sorry to say this, but what the (CENSORED) are you on?

I did not say religious gooks kept back science to retain control.

I said that RELIGION was (ab-)used as a TOOL for PEOPLE to propogate IGNORANCE. I was not being specific about ANY KIND OF INGORANCE, but it is a lot easier to control people that know less than you do. I did not say that keeping knowledge to a select few was unique to religion - it happens everywhere. Why do you think that there is so much scientific jargon? Just about everything I have learned at university I would have learned on my own - if the information was presented using words with accessible meaning. Elitism is bad for the public, which is why magazines like "New Scientist" are so popular - they make information accessible - and why every religious text, regardless of the loss of meaning involved, eventually gets translated.

I certainly did not use the word "Gooks". Nor did I imply that people currently, or ever would, give complete freedom of information. However, the freedom if information allowed today - as evidenced by the thousands of pages publically available both on the internet and in libraries - is considerably greater than it previously has been. This does not stop people keeping other people in the dark when they can, because people are inherently selfish. Do you understand me?

EDIT

You are an Atheist, stick to empirical evidence and forget about how the pyramids were built, hence you will never know empirically

You should probably know that HOW is the domain of science and empirical knowledge. WHY, once iterated sufficiently to separate it from HOW, is the search for reason which is (often) beyond evidence.

In regards to that "sparkling" video in the museum with those two brainless adult men explaining their creatonist views, I have NEVER in my entire LIFE seen someone playing the role of a "teacher" while having ZERO TRUTH OR COMMON SENSE WHATSOEVER in anything that they are "teaching"!!! WOW, what a SHAME for those kids!!!

Its really something how he calls the truth as science fiction and fairy tale when the REAL truth is the total OPPOSITE of what he said.

Religion should be BANNED in public. Really, this is just a TINY example of the NONSENSE that gets spewed to young innocent minds everyday. This crap has GOT TO BE STOPPED!!!!

reply to post by SaturnFX

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.

Again this is just an assumption of folks desperate to fit data to their preconceived notions. Lets take the Pikaia as an example. At one time it was assumed that these were the ancestors of all vertebrates. That has been disproven, and the creature that disproved it is now being used to further a new revised theory of the origin of vertebrates, apparently from your unsourced quote So every time evolution get's falsified we have to tack on a new twist in order to desperately save the philosophical underpinnings of atheism and thus avoid accountability to God

www.darwinism-watch.com...

By the way this isn't the first time this has happened. Supposed transitional forms were later found to not have the function purported to them. I think the classic example of this fraud or wishful thinking was the Coelacanth, a fish that was a transitional form between aquatic and land dwelling animals, or so it was claimed. And then one was actually caught and it turns out not only are they alive and well, but they are bottom dwellers living at great depths in the ocean.

It's so classic and hilarious in a way. I can just see the esteemed experts looking at the physiology of this fish and conclusively determining, yup these guys walked on land. Clearly we have found our transitional form, lol. The same sort of wishful thinking is applied to all their supposed transitional forms. It's guesswork based on a failed theory. Garbage in - garbage out. Just look at the fraud associated with the origins of man. Piltdown man is a good example. Why when the facts don't fit our theory, we'll just make some facts up to save our philosophies. On the flip side, we'll just toss a bunch of inconvenient artifacts into the ocean, when they don't fit our concept of creation. That's what the Smithsonian did with a lot of their prehistoric American artifacts.

reply to post by TheWill


This is what you said:

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.

You suggest that people were kept ignorance (Universal Knowledge), to control them.

It is evident that ignorance of Universal Knowledge does not equate to control.

Move on to another chair now, I give you official permission.

reply to post by oozyism


So... you, who cannot tell the difference between a manifestation and a definition, know better than me what I mean to say?

I said nothing of "universal knowledge". I simply said that people kept ignorant - regardless of what they are not allowed to know - are easier to control. The post you have dug up and quoted referred to the minimum period within which I judge religion to have been used for this purpose. This does not mean it has ended, this does not mean that ignorance of religious concepts is the only ignorance that makes people susceptible to control.

Further, I did not say that ignorance EQUATES to control. Ignorant people are usually EASIER to control.

I ask again, with little hope for a lucid response, do you understand me?

(EDIT: I am aware that the words of this post are unkind, and I apologise. I offer the explanation that your misrepresentation of my words has frustrated me, and I shall endeavor to be more civil in future posts).


EDIT: I am posting this as an edit to Oozyism's reply to this because posting another reply will make me feel even more petty. This is the last that I will say to you - don't drink the kool-aid.

reply to post by TheWill

Further, I did not say that ignorance EQUATES to control. Ignorant people are usually EASIER to control.

Exactly my point, ignorance towards what?

Scientists who had immense knowledge of the Universe was used to build atom bombs and than thrown in Japan without any religion involved.

You are wrong in every sense of your claim. Keeping people ignorant doesn't equate to more control, hence it doesn't make people more controllable, because they are ignorant.

I just proved that they are not more controllable, I still don't know why you're still trying to argue.

before you go any further, tell us what type of ignorance are you talking about. Political ignorance, or science.

After clarifying the above, prove to me that ignorant people are more easily controlled than non-ignorant people

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

"WE USE OUR PERSONAL INTELLIGENCE to control and form these understandings"(SIC).....blah...blah!

Where does *intellligence* come from?

The chemical process or the creative?
Of course as answered already, the meat bit houses information..bit like a harddrive.
What is intelligence beyond the physical connections...hmm..well, one can argue that there isn't alot of intelligence to begin with..just fancy new ways of doing basic things..we tend to mix and match influences and data...cross referencing things for new results. Sometimes a person has better recollection skills and that is attributed to higher intelligence. Some people like NASCAR, which is a clear signal for inferior intelligence

The part I bolded out highlights your shallow thinking process. Maybe your confusing artificial intelligence with natural intelligence. Computers have lots of restrictions on what they can and/or cannot do. Humans and animals of biological substance have virtually unlimited powers as programmed by the creator and can adopt for many purposes.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You need to clarify more.

I can only clarify to the point I am allowed to clarify. If god wanted us to be equal to him he would have done so. There is a hierarchy to everything and life is no exception. This does not mean we should not strive to be better, it just means we are not perfect by design and should accept that as fact.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

What are ghosts?

Culturally, it has been labelled some sort of energy left over by the dead.
What is a actual ghost? don't know...no proof, and by its very concept, it is currently unmeasurable. I would venture to say that until some hard evidence comes in and tools arise that can measure it..we can safely say it is a good antagonist for horror movies...other than that..I don't know, and any guess would be simply me reciting my fantasys.

Good, thanks for being honest and not calling me a liar. There has been limited sucess in this endeavor but nothing concrete. Indeed science is lagging behind creation and "laws" of the universe.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What is a soul? Please don't tell me your one of those people that thinks people are SOULless.

Soul is both a catagory of food, and a type of music.
Anything beyond that is simple philosophical speculation

Actually its a whole lot more than that..........

It is the basis of religion and spirituality!

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What is psychic power and how does it manifest itself?

There is no evidence of psychic powers. would be cool to shoot fireballs by thoughts though...but to date, not a single shred of evidence has been made public.

Is that why law enforcement(including the fbi) uses psychic power to help solve crimes?

Is that why intelligence agencies(including cia and kgb) use remote viewing to penetrate their targets and disseminate information? Do you thing I am lying? Google ANY of the above and learn a few things...

Also do you know anything about white magick and black magick? Do you think its all "fiction"? Google aliester crowley and OTO! What do you thing adept masters are? Why do you think "accidents" happen on certain days and certain hours and have distinct numerical references? What do you make of tarrot card readings?

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Better yet what are its origins? What role does the pre-fix *PYSCH* play in the term *psychology*?

I will answer you that once you tell me what role the prefix "CAR" plays in the word "carrot?

Since you literaly fail to grasp any of my points I will answer the question for you. Psychology should have nothing to do with science and everything to do with spiritualism. At some point spiritualism and science MAY MEET but that is a long time from now.

How can you study the psyche of a person or animal if you don't know what it means and can't even accept such a thing exists? When someone is mentally ill, it means their soul is sick and needs spiritual guidance.

Psychiatry is a pseudo-science and should be treated as such. They attempt to treat the symptoms rather than the cause, but isn't this true in many other medical fields as well? It could be the reason why hollistic health is snobbed in favor traditional practice. Its more than just a money-game for the medical complex...its actually about control and the NWO agenda.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Actually the esoteric meaning of insanity is TO BE SANE WITHIN as IN + SANE = INSANE

just like disclosure means DISC + LO + SURE= I am sure a disc is flying low!

Estoric meanings are fun to play with, but ultimately meaningless. I can give you hundreds of words that estorically is nonsense (see the carrot example).

Fair enough! Lets give up the discussion on esotericism since neither one of us is an actual adept. In fact you don't even believe in spirituality so a discussion in this direction would be fruitless. I simply used a few words to give insight into alternative etymology.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I bet you eat shellfish...you know god HATES shellfish...its in the bible...by eating it, you are a sinner and are going to hell according to your religion.
jesus, according to your religion, only removed the blood sacrifices..the rest are still in play, to include the dietary demands. I am glad the lord you choose is not my master..I sort of like eating crabs, pork, and shrimp.

And I am cool...not because I am athiest, but because I got a sweet leather jacket.

I intially stated I am not a big fan of mainstream religion, despite the fact I am officially an orthodox christian. In fact I rarely go to church and I reserve prayer for special occassions. I dislike/contempt people who go to church and light a candle eventhough they are rotten to the core.

I take religion seriously to a point. I will never kill someone just because they have different viewpoints then me even if they are satanists. You have to give me a better reason than that. Perhaps as a last recourse for self defense only!

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You know what a subculture is also...technically, peeing standing up. there are more females on earth than males, therefore your standing is against statistical norms...welcome to the cool sub culture of man.

There is nothing wrong with being part of a sub-culture provided you know what you are getting into and accept the consequences of your actions.