Origin of Creationism

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: randyvs
... and common sense is some "sky man" willed everything into existence?... talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're willing to deny the concept of an ever existing universe and in place pedestal an omnipresent and ever existing will?... seems to be a contradiction there...

Based purely on perception alone, the universe does exist... I think I can touch it... yet devout religious want to anthropomorphise existence with a poorly defined, super powered version of man... funny stuff. ;-j

no, it's the deniers that do that.

example; you said "sky man"

you cannot anthropomorphise God.
well, you can try to.

it's just ignorance, so don't worry about it.
christians don't.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: SuperFrog

Ah yes, the unseen, unfounded, common ancestor. Now
who believes in man made fairytales brother?
Oh brother! all a matter of your own personal selection
according to you. Nevermind that life just doesn't
work that way.

You anti-education talk might work with kids and those who have no idea about biology or anthropology, but with anyone who wants to invest little time and read about findings, evidence and how we share over 98% of DNA with chimps... your religion talk is just waste of time and wishful thinking that there might be something greater, that cared about 'humans' who were created in its image, but also to contradict itself, we have very different humans with different skin color, blue color of eyes that we know is about 15K years old, many of our relatives such as Denisovan and Neanderthal did not even survive, and for that mater, human ancestors were more then once on brink of extinction. Interesting, speaking of DNA, now we know that our ancestor mixed with both, Denisovan as well Neanderthals.

Interesting, for you is easier to accept poorly made book over work of thousands scientist from field... and thing about your 'creator' - who created him?

we share 50% with a banana too. what do you make of that?
you are what you eat?

a reply to: ChaosComplex

I want a damn cheeseburger. Same applies to evidence. Why would someone "demand" evidence if they didn't really want it?

I don't know, I don't want a cheesebuger. And I see the evidence everyday.

a reply to: tsingtao

Howdy,

I "make" that humans thus share more DNA with chimpanzees than bananas, and thus have more recent divergence from chimpanzees than bananas. In other words, in terms of relatedness, we are closer related to chimpanzees than we are to bananas.

See, we're also more closely related to other mammals than bananas. And other animals than bananas. See, we can piece together a history based on the shared genes using this same logic.

Perhaps a better question is what do you "make of that," if you do not believe in common ancestry? Why do we share more genes with things that look morphologically similar to us than life that is not morphologically similar?

Regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

And that common ancestor you mouth about?
Just might happen to be God. And you would never
have the first clue.

Regards

a reply to: randyvs

Thank you for the so very gracious apology... ;-j

As to demanding evidence?... I'm not doing any such thing, I'm just highlighting that as it stands there is no evidence for your viewpoint, though there are groups out there who are indeed searching whole-heartedly for that evidence... as of yet, zero evidence has been found.

I'd personally love them to find evidence of divinity, though I'm not going to commit my time in a potentially fruitless search... all power to them when/if they do find some evidence... it would actually give them a leg to stand on... instead of floating in the air with fairies.

Why do people of faith get so angry when their claims are countered with a request for evidence?

Is it because the longer we go without evidence, the more invalidated the whole "faith as fact" argument becomes?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Thank you for the so very gracious apology... ;-j

I admit I should more humbly apologise so, now that you're
amoung us I do.

But see you insult me constantly by referring to God as a fairy.
The Bible a book of fairytales when it obviously isn't. And shows
the weakest application of the scientific method anyone can
imagine. You people are only unscientific in this way and a disgrace
to intelligence at the same time. Cause nothing you can offer makes
any more sense in the end. That makes you all truly pathetic and
deserving of a few other ad hominems. IMO

a reply to: randyvs

Howdy,

I never made any religious claims. Merely that shared DNA is correlated with shared morphological similarities in organisms. And I know I'm usually the one shouting "correlation does not equate to causation," but in this case, it mostly does. Biologists can see the genes responsible for the feature and they can see which organisms share those genes and those features.

I'm an agnostic atheist when it comes down to it... (Show me evidence of a god, and I'd believe it.) And why not? The most logical position when someone doesn't know something is to say they don't know, not to assert an answer. I am entirely open to a deity guided evolution of species, if that's what the data will show. As it is though, the data pretty strongly supports common ancestry with all species of known life (well, at least most. Can't say all. I don't like absolute statements...)

That said, I am unsure how we can be "related" to god. That implies your god is flesh, or that he/she could somehow pass down genetic material. This seems like an... awkward position at best. It would be easier for me to believe that a deity created DNA and then passed that on via the process of evolution, but I'd go where the evidence took me if I had evidence that that deity was our ancestor...

Regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11


Good on you for putting your stance on the table and letting
be known. You at least realise what level playing field is. Bravo!

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

Sorry, but can I ask for clarification? Yes, all humans share ancestry, I understand that, but what do you mean to imply? It would seem to me that common ancestry of all humans would be evidence supporting both Creationism and the theory of evolution, so I fail to see why this information would at all be relevant... Perhaps that is why it is "ignored?" :/

Again, please clarify if I misunderstand something.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

you are trying avoid the obvious. That human share ancestry to a Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Recent Common Ancestor (Ancestor not Ancestors,Ancestor not Ancestors,Ancestor not Ancestors, Ancestor not Ancestors)
One man one man one man one man one man)
What's the odds/probability/likelihood/mathematical probably) that the ancient claim that humans all came from one man, and this new DNA evidence????

a reply to: tsingtao

originally posted by: tsingtao

no, it's the deniers that do that.

example; you said "sky man"

you cannot anthropomorphise God.
well, you can try to.

it's just ignorance, so don't worry about it.
christians don't.

You can anthropomorphise almost anything, and humans have been doing exactly that since the inception of god/s. The standard portrayal of the Christian god in art has been of an old man with a grey beard (or Morgan Freeman), which is an anthropomorphism of a deity, (other religions also do it; Greek mythology, Hinduism, even Islam states that Allah has hands, eyes and feet).

Then there's the whole "god made us in his image", which is a literary anthropomorphism that tries to turn it around by placing the onus on god creating us rather than us creating it. Beyond that, we call god “Father”, or “Him”, which is a very chauvinistic anthropomorphism, yet further enforces the concept of “God” looking like us.

There's nothing wrong with that... it's what humans do... always relating our environment to ourselves, yet it does beg the question of; Were we god's creation?... or did we create god to justify our own form factor in a seemingly random universe?

The evidence points to the latter.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf

No, creationism began when people announced that they think that a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths is factually correct and that science is a lie.

It didn't happen that way, and that book you refer to wasn't put together by people like you or me. It was written by people who were thoughtful, honest, and honorable, and they weren't the type who lied or made things up because in those times they held themselves accountable for everything they said and did. Back then if you were a liar or a cheater you were unable to get hired and weren't trusted, so honesty and integrity were a lot more important to everyone then. There were exceptions to that rule, and all of what I am saying are verifiable simply by reading that book you refer to.

All those recorded events that really happened have the same theme of teaching the importance to people of virtue and self discipline based on living honorably and honestly.
Of course all of those things are alien to many people today who only think of themselves selfishly, and without the slightest care for their own, or anyone else's futures.
Your response is indicative of why the world is in turmoil the way it is. It's because of "ME, ME, ME" and "Mine Mine Mine" and everything else is discarded because that would require effort and patience and some generosity towards their fellow man.

That book you refer to has the most historical accuracy of any other history book ever written because those stories written in it were written 50 to 200 years after they happened instead of other books which were written a thousand years after they happened. This just means that every other book has a higher chance of being wrong than that book you refer to. But because that book says that a God created things and expects you to be a good little choo-choo causes the child inside you to act out and have these intellectual tantrums we see on ATS so often, where people make fun of that book and say it is lies or myths and such.

Isn't that just adorable? I think so too.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm sorry, but no. Genesis is not an accurate description of the creation of the Earth, it's a shaman's version of how he or she thought it happened. The female version of God has been removed. Joseph's time in Egypt might be a shadowy memory of the Hyskos occupation of Lower Egypt. The Exodus doesn't match with anything at all. The Hittites, a major regional power, are barely mentioned. Solomon's Kingdom is massively conflated - the archaeological evidence shows that it wasn't that large. The New Testament seems to have a number of holes and there are very few if any sources that match it. In fact the New Testament owes more to Paul than James, which is odd because James was the brother of Jesus and the leader of the early church - until the fall of Jerusalem that is, whereupon Paul becomes the leader and starts rewriting.
It's not accurate, it's a document that has been re-written by the various powers that be.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf

No, creationism began when people announced that they think that a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths is factually correct and that science is a lie.

i keep hearing that bronze age thing but the "science is a lie" is new to me.

those "bronze age" people were pretty smart, i'd say. didn't they build the great pyramids?
ya think they used magic?

even jk rowling falls way behind.

Oh come off it. Creationists deny the following sciences: Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology. And I know that it's not a science, but they also deny History.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

It depends upon how you read it, and by what context you hold it in, and by understanding symbolism and other concepts that the entire book is based around.
Your interpreting it the way you have shows you really don't understand the themes and what is being said in it.

This is by design that you don't get it, and you never will get it unless you can learn why you are getting it all wrong. It isn't something anyone can do for you. All I can say is that you are not looking at the words in that book with the correct frame of mind.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

It depends upon how you read it, and by what context you hold it in, and by understanding symbolism and other concepts that the entire book is based around.
Your interpreting it the way you have shows you really don't understand the themes and what is being said in it.

This is by design that you don't get it, and you never will get it unless you can learn why you are getting it all wrong. It isn't something anyone can do for you. All I can say is that you are not looking at the words in that book with the correct frame of mind.

But you said that the bible was historically accurate! How can you then say that you need to understand the context and symbolism? History is history. And what is the correct frame of mind? Unconditional acceptance?

a reply to: tsingtao

Do you deny paternity tests?

a reply to: randyvs

Are you here to discuss the topic, or just insult everybody who has an opinion other than yours?

You don't get to walk in to a thread and call people names and other insults for wanting evidence. If you are going to claim something as truth, you have to back it up. If you don't its nothing more than a story, fiction. I am pretty sure there was a recent post from the admin asking people to not act exactly how you are acting.

Please enlighten me on how your God is any more real than the thousands of other gods humanity has dreamed up over the course of history. If you can't, then i would strongly suggest staying out of these kinds of threads until you can learn to have an actual discussion. If you want to preach and stifle differing opinions, there are churches for that.

Here is a link to an image to remind you of what a discussion is, since this is a discussion board, and not a lecture, or preaching forum.


Discussion

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Oh come off it. Creationists deny the following sciences: Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology. And I know that it's not a science, but they also deny History.

You forgot geology.

a reply to: hydeman11

That said, I am unsure how we can be "related" to god.

That's why there' s a book.

He is our Father in Heaven.