Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Both are absurd on face value!

The validity of an idea is not based upon whether it is absurd by anyone's standards but by the evidence in support.

All doors are available and unlocked however in order to open a door you need evidence. Evolution has a mountain of evidence and so it is the door science opened.

It is not closed-minded to reach a conclusion based on the evidence. All the scientific evidence points toward Evolution being the source of bio-diversity, not magic. It isn't closed-minded to align yourself to the facts and to go where the evidence leads, in fact being open to the evidence is the only way to be an open-minded skeptic.

So if you want to open a mind you better present some evidence.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

There is no cherry picked data with evolution, there is only data. And it is more than just a fossil record that supports evolution. However, feel free to show me the data that contradicts evolution since biologists have apparently cherry picked facts to support it.

Your telling me to prove a negative by asking me what part of the data is cherry picked and how...that is not only difficult but next to impossible unless you have all the data at hand. Here is an interesting excerpt from "Our Haunted Planet" by John H. Keel; page120:

"Archaeologists digging in the middle east have found artifacts which indicate that neanderthal, cro-magnon and modern man all existed during the same peroid. This not only shoots down the theory of evolution, but it suggests that modern man-a creature with a conscience and a consciousness-was seperate and distinct from primitive man."

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Your telling me to prove a negative by asking me what part of the data is cherry picked and how...

Well, you're actually making a positive claim if you're saying that the data is cherry picked. The negative would be proving that the data isn't cherry picked.

Claiming data is cherry picked is a serious accusation.

that is not only difficult but next to impossible unless you have all the data at hand.

Then how did you come to the conclusion? You must have evidence to support your own personal confusion when you make such a serious claim of the scientific community.

Here is an interesting excerpt from "Our Haunted Planet" by John H. Keel; page120:

An interesting, unsubstantiated excerpt that is full of all sorts of holes that are big enough to drive a semi through.

"Archaeologists digging in the middle east

Which ones?
When someone makes this sort of claim in a book, particularly one that is hundreds of pages long, without any sort of citation or reference to names or affiliated institutions or any specific locations or specific digs it sets off all sorts of BS meters.

have found artifacts

What sort of artifacts? Where? When?

which indicate that neanderthal, cro-magnon and modern man all existed during the same peroid.

Well, since there is no referenced dig, no referenced researcher, no referenced artifact, and no explanation of how the nebulous discovery proves that the three coexisted....why am I supposed to believe this?

Evidence is required.

This not only shoots down the theory of evolution,

I'm sorry, but this author must not understand evolution. The theory of evolution isn't predicated on the certain notions of how modern humanity emerged. There is still dispute in the academic community over exactly how modern humanity emerged, though there is a rough somewhat agreed upon lineage which does not include Neanderthals.

In fact, it would take a hell of a lot more than some evidence of modern humans not quite conforming to exactly what we had thought was true of human evolution.


...wow...ok, there's a lot wrong with this next statement, so I'm going to have to break it down into very small parts.

but it

It being the off-handed, unsubstantiated, unexplained claim.

suggests that modern man

I forgot to mention this earlier, he has not defined the term 'modern man'. Is 'modern man' Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

-a creature with a conscience and a consciousness-

What? I'm sorry, but what evidence do we have that Neanderthals and Cro Magnons didn't have these traits?

was seperate and distinct from primitive man."

Well, what exactly would make Neanderthals 'primitive'?

Now, here's the crazy thing. We know that Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted. Some think we might have even interbred. Here's the other crazy thing, they weren't 'primitive'. They made tools, buried their dead, and had brains that were actually larger than ours.

This author you quote? He clearly was misinformed. Of course, he was writing in 1971 with the last revised edition I could find being from 1999, so he has between a 39 and 11 year gap of knowledge. I can't blame him too much, but a basic understanding of evolution isn't too hard to attain.

reply to post by InertiaZero


Well said. The first ones to condemn the authorative control of thought and speech at the time of Catholic rule in Europe would be atheists. Yet first thing they do when they even get a sniff of power is call for the oppression of anyone who does not agree with their "religion" - evolution. In fact, atheist governments have made Catholic Popes into pikers when it comes to slaughtering incorrect believers.

Goes to show, the human condition has nothing to do with religion. The lies of atheists are just that.

There is no more proof that evolution is the correct answer than there is for creationism. They are both founded in belief, speculation, and.....FAITH.

reply to post by dialecticchaos77


If they're both the same please provide me with the mountains of empirical data that has been published in peer-reviewed journals that supports Creationism.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Your telling me to prove a negative by asking me what part of the data is cherry picked and how...

Well, you're actually making a positive claim if you're saying that the data is cherry picked. The negative would be proving that the data isn't cherry picked.

The negative is the opinion/fact that humans did not evolve from monkeys. The positive would be the so called "proof"(more like subjective evidence) that humans did evolve from monkeys.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Claiming data is cherry picked is a serious accusation.

[sarcasm] Yeah scientists "never" cherry pick data. [/sarcasm]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Then how did you come to the conclusion? You must have evidence to support your own personal confusion when you make such a serious claim of the scientific community.

Long story made short, I never really trusted science not because its wrong but many things about it just don't make sense. It is more dogmatic than religion and has answers only in regard to what is convienent for the status-quo to have people believe.

Although I do not know all the answers at this point, I believe I know enough to know who is lying more and who is lying less. I have been on ATS for 3-4 years plus read many books, magazines, etc to reach the conclusion something is definitely wrong "somewhere".

I no longer feel confused, at least not as much as before! What about you? You seem terribly frustrated and confused with your aggressive posting habits........

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Here is an interesting excerpt from "Our Haunted Planet" by John H. Keel; page120:

An interesting, unsubstantiated excerpt that is full of all sorts of holes that are big enough to drive a semi through.

How ironic is it that it leaves "a hole" for atlantis and lemuria and that human history goes back WAY BEFORE the old testament and such? There are many legends of these people and the greatness they achieved, no?

Mainstream science has ignored this topic under "mythology".....

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
This author you quote? He clearly was misinformed. Of course, he was writing in 1971 with the last revised edition I could find being from 1999, so he has between a 39 and 11 year gap of knowledge. I can't blame him too much, but a basic understanding of evolution isn't too hard to attain.

Actually the older books are closer to the truth than today's books with a few exceptions here and there. Society keeps regressing rather than progressing. Some would say aged whiskey and aged women give more pleasure because they are more experienced.....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Without replying to anything else that you've said, I do have to say something on this bit:

The negative is the opinion/fact that humans did not evolve from monkeys. The positive would be the so called "proof"(more like subjective evidence) that humans did evolve from monkeys.

Neither "we didn't" nor "we did" is really suitable for being treated as a null hypothesis - a few papers I have read do assume that a one-tailed test for significance failing to find it proves that it isn't so, but that rather defies the object of the null hypothesis - in this case it should be "we don't know". Of the two alternative hypothesis - we did evolve from primates (and therefore are primates) and we didn't evolve from primates (and therefore evolved from... rodents? Rabbits? lizards? frogs? prokaryotes? Or represent a fourth domain of life... i.e. we have the Prokarya, Archaea, Eukarya and Humanya), the second is quite hard to test, but this does not mean that in the absence of exhaustive evidence for the first (primate) we can say that the second is definitely true (non-primate). Currently, although neither has truly exhaustive evidence, the current body of evidence points to us being primates.

I can personally see the overwhelming similarities between humans and apes, (as could queen Victoria, who remarked upon how "painfully and disagreeably human" orangutans were), and so I favour the "primates" hypothesis. Whichever you favour, although as a hypothesis one is intrinsically dependent upon the theory of evolution, rejecting either does not nullify the theory of evolution.

EDIT: got a bit carried away there, point was that, without exhaustive evidence, neither hypothesis is "fact", and as exhaustive evidence is not something readily available, I must lean towards the hypothesis with some evidence, which you claim to be subjective, rather than that with no actual evidence.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The negative is the opinion/fact that humans did not evolve from monkeys.

...I think I may have already explained this to you, but I'll just say it again. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that humanity evolved from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with them

The other part is that human evolution isn't the main focus of evolutionary theory. We're just one out of a plethora of species.

Now, in this case you are arguing science rather than philosophy, so it gets interesting. There is plenty of evidence and argumentation in favor of evolutionary theory. In this case you'd have to attempt to falsify the work of evolutionary biology, as the scientific community has already done their part to prove the theory.

The positive would be the so called "proof"(more like subjective evidence) that humans did evolve from monkeys.

Again with the straw man. Even I say that we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from some sort of earlier primate, but it wouldn't be classified as a monkey.

Now, there is plenty of evidence of evolution. It's not subjective, it's entirely objective.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Claiming data is cherry picked is a serious accusation.

[sarcasm] Yeah scientists "never" cherry pick data. [/sarcasm]

...um...so a sarcastic implication that scientists do cherry pick data proves your various serious accusation?

Here's the thing, scientists cannot cherry pick data. Other scientists would catch it. It would actually be incredibly harmful for your career.

Now, can you provide evidence that scientists regularly cherry pick data?

Long story made short, I never really trusted science not because its wrong but many things about it just don't make sense.

That's because science is inherently counter-intuitive. It uses evidence to show that reason isn't necessarily on the side of things that 'make sense'.

And honestly, what about the scientific method doesn't 'make sense'? What is wrong with it?

Hell, if you don't trust it how can you explain the computer you're using? That was developed with the exact same sort of science that went into evolution.

It is more dogmatic than religion

Ok, that's a very serious claim to make of the self-correcting process of science.
How is science more dogmatic than religion?

and has answers only in regard to what is convienent for the status-quo to have people believe.

Yes, it was really convenient for Darwin to maintain the status quo.
It was really convenient for Copernicus and Galileo to maintain the status quo.
It was really convenient for Einstein to maintain the status quo.

I can give you countless examples of science crushing the status quo.

Although I do not know all the answers at this point, I believe I know enough to know who is lying more and who is lying less.

Ok, where is your evidence to show who is lying and who isn't?

I have been on ATS for 3-4 years plus read many books, magazines, etc to reach the conclusion something is definitely wrong "somewhere".

Again, where is your evidence that "somewhere" is science?

I no longer feel confused, at least not as much as before!

So you question the entire basis of modern prosperity, yet you aren't confused? That's...confusing.

What about you?

I'm not all that confused. Well, some habits of certain individuals do confuse me.

You seem terribly frustrated and confused with your aggressive posting habits........

Yay, more psychoanalysis!

The only thing that frustrates me is ignorance.
As for my 'aggressive posting habits'? Well, what's so aggressive about them?

How ironic is it that it leaves "a hole" for atlantis and lemuria and that human history goes back WAY BEFORE the old testament and such?

...with absolutely no evidence to support such claims.

There are many legends of these people and the greatness they achieved, no?

There are plenty of commonalities in legend. Of course, the stories are all inconsistent.

The more likely explanation than 'this is all true' is that the human psyche tends to produce the same sorts of stories. Joseph Campbell did some incredible work about this, particularly in his work "The Hero With A Thousand Faces".

Mainstream science has ignored this topic under "mythology".....

Because it is mythology.

Hey...wait, where'd the rest of my post go? You just cut from my comment on the source to my comment on the author without addressing the meaty parts in the middle.

Why didn't you address my specific critiques of the source you provided?

Actually the older books are closer to the truth than today's books with a few exceptions here and there.

Um...no, they really aren't. Again, can you prove this incredibly ridiculous claim?

Society keeps regressing rather than progressing.

Again, please provide evidence of this.

I mean, I can provide counter-examples. Art, science, technology, social progress, life expectancy, medicine, etc.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...I think I may have already explained this to you, but I'll just say it again. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that humanity evolved from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with them

then why do they have those effigies down at the museum ?

Creation is just cooler than Evolution admit it !

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
then why do they have those effigies down at the museum ?

...those aren't monkeys, they're hominid answers. Intelligent creatures that were already using tools and fire.

Creation is just cooler than Evolution admit it !

Well, I'll admit that the Norse creation myth, which makes reference to the end of the world several lines in, is way cooler. I mean, the clouds are frost giant brains, that's just awesome.

Of course, cooler doesn't mean more true.

Originally posted by dialecticchaos77
There is no more proof that evolution is the correct answer than there is for creationism.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution.

We've even observed it!

Hell, we've observed it plenty of times!

On the other hand there is absolutely no evidence for creationism, not a single tiny shred.

They are both founded in belief, speculation, and.....FAITH.

Nope, only creationism is. Evolution is founded in evidence, reason, and skepticism.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...those aren't monkeys, they're hominid answers. Intelligent creatures that were already using tools and fire.

try explaining that to the children who get free tours of these places by their teachers and such. Heck try explaining that to most adults !

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...I think I may have already explained this to you, but I'll just say it again. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that humanity evolved from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with them

then why do they have those effigies down at the museum ?

Creation is just cooler than Evolution admit it !

This isn't about coolness, and even if it was, how would one be cooler than the other?

We shared common ancestors with apes, not monkeys. Monkeys have tails, apes do not (amongst other things)

What effigies are you talking about?

Originally posted by Griffo
What effigies are you talking about?

the ones down at the museum of Natural History and many other museums around the globe.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7943885e78b5.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d814f500b3d2.jpg[/atsimg]
look at that poor kid !

www.tccsa.tc...
www.amnh.org...

Professor Betsy Schumann, evolutionist expert at Menton's university, admits that the statue's feet 'probably are not accurate', but when asked whether the statue should be changed, she says, 'Absolutely not'

got to love the open-mindedness of the evolutionists.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Le sigh...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...those aren't monkeys, they're hominid answers. Intelligent creatures that were already using tools and fire.

try explaining that to the children who get free tours of these places by their teachers and such. Heck try explaining that to most adults !

...they...aren't...monkeys. I just tried explaining it to you. Hell, they aren't told that they're monkeys. The pictures you provide in a following post are of hominids. The feet are an issue of contention and we're not 100% sure of the foot structures, that's why changing them wouldn't be a good idea. An educated guess is better than a random one.

You don't seem to understand the first thing about evolution as a theory or the evolutionary timeline of humanity.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Religion is part of spirituality and spirtuality is part of religion, no?

no.

Religion, theology, theosophy, spiritualism...what is the difference?

Religion = Boxed rules of a deity and how people must think, act, feel. definitive role of a deity, deity is unchallengable, submit or be eternally tortured, mind control, action control, supression of consideration or exploration outside of the very narrow bounds. Applied to entire societies...forcefully in some places by mankind.

Theology = study of all religions simply for academic curiousity

spiritualism = a personal and private journey to find how you yourself connect to the greater universe and the path of your life that you feel is driving you to achieve a greater understanding and goal. each person is different, some may use bits of religion for framing their life in a context they feel is right, but it is not enforced or even suggested as a path for anyone but yourself..just what road you yourself travel down, forever unfolding as wisdom is gained.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

...they...aren't...monkeys. I just tried explaining it to you.

hold on here, was I talking about monkeys ?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Only subjective evidence has been given; not really proof! I can take a few cave paintings and claim that as "proof" of gaints just like you can take bones of pre-historic man and claim humans evolved from monkeys.

Its called BIASED RESEARCH and cherry picking data to fit a pre-ordained model; much like the global warming hoax.

No, a few cave paintings would be considered evidence..if there is no cooborating evidence, then it stalls out. if there is enough evidence, you may be able to start forming a theory.

Originally posted by dialecticchaos77
There is no more proof that evolution is the correct answer than there is for creationism. They are both founded in belief, speculation, and.....FAITH.

Nope...bzzzt, wrong
go back to the beginning and start reading.

and where is my damned sparkle!!!