Is Creationism Dead?

originally posted by: DrMescalito
Just to be clear while we are taking sides,
I'm on the side of the Magic apes rather than the unprovable magic invisible man above the sky story.

Why do fish have fins rather than arms? Why do camels have humps?
They weren't just created, they EVOLVED form other species to survive.

Science is that good now that I bet a 12yr old who has studied Evolution could debate a creationist
as long as there was a mediator to cease and desist any unprovable sunjecture coming from the creationist side.

We should be getting rid of the magic.

Your views of science are misguided. Science is in one of its worst states in history. Ever heard of retraction watch? Google it.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: DrMescalito
Just to be clear while we are taking sides,
I'm on the side of the Magic apes rather than the unprovable magic invisible man above the sky story.

Why do fish have fins rather than arms? Why do camels have humps?
They weren't just created, they EVOLVED form other species to survive.

Science is that good now that I bet a 12yr old who has studied Evolution could debate a creationist
as long as there was a mediator to cease and desist any unprovable sunjecture coming from the creationist side.

We should be getting rid of the magic.

Your views of science are misguided. Science is in one of its worst states in history. Ever heard of retraction watch? Google it.

I don't actually believe in magic apes but I was saying if I had to a pick a side

No matter how ones view of science is percepted by others unless you can prove to me The Theory of Evolution
is hokem debunking the mountains of evidence on the way then maybe i'll consider my scientific views.

Nice site, seems more about malpractice than bad science.

originally posted by: Astyanax
It certainly seems to be on ATS.


etc etc etc

I think we're, as in "creationists", are just tired of arguing with brick walls that choose to believe enough time will transform a species i.e. evolution, all the while turning the other cheek when asked why the dinosaurs didn't evolve into intelligent beings when they had supposedly countless millions of more years to do it than we supposedly had to turn from apes to humans. Not be be unfair I'm well aware we're brick walls too but humor me. The theory of evolution has been around for over 150 years and has yet to prevail into fact. I'm not even going to go any further with this, you guys win the argument for us when what it all boils down to, in the end, is that you have faith in evolution. You just aren't much different from us when it comes to faith.

So, yeah, I think we're just tired of defending ourselves for no particular reason whether it be here or elsewhere. It used to be somewhat a joy but after awhile it just gets old when so called pro science folk so easily treat a theory as pure fact. This is why I call it faith. You cannot dispel creation with the theory of evolution yet it's your go to ammo. It's your only ammo. Lol. If, however, it gets to the point that science starts calling it fact someday, then and only then will creationists start making a stand once more.

originally posted by: Voldster
all the while turning the other cheek when asked why the dinosaurs didn't evolve into intelligent beings when they had supposedly countless millions of more years to do it than we supposedly had to turn from apes to humans.

This excerpt here highlights one of the critical flaws in your understanding of evolution. You seem to believe that evolution has a "goal", probably some misinformed idea of reaching some sort of evolutionary "peak", and that we humans have reached that "goal" or "peak" because we've evolved intelligence. This is complete nonsense so I urge you to actually read up on a evolution before dismissing it due to your own misunderstanding.

a reply to: Voldster

it just gets old when so called pro science folk so easily treat a theory as pure fact. This is why I call it faith.

Creationist 'scientists' prey upon the misunderstanding of science that the average layman might have, as above.....

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Voldster

it just gets old when so called pro science folk so easily treat a theory as pure fact. This is why I call it faith.

Creationist 'scientists' prey upon the misunderstanding of science that the average layman might have, as above.....

Yeah, but why read a dozen complicated books when you can read one simple one!

Oh great, it's the latest militant angry atheist topic on ATS. Wholly ignorant of the fact that the greatest scientific advancements of all time, including the theory of the big bang itself were made by religious men. For some reason everyone has an obsession with the loud minority of Christianity that still espouses dated concepts were never even originally conceived by the Bible, just ridiculous interpretations of it.

I think the Christian minority serves as a strawman punching bag for self-proclaimed intellectuals to beat up on to make themselves feel smart.

originally posted by: LiberLegit
Oh great, it's the latest militant angry atheist topic on ATS.

Ad hominem

Wholly ignorant of the fact that the greatest scientific advancements of all time, including the theory of the big bang itself were made by religious men.

Appeal to Authority

For some reason everyone has an obsession with the loud minority of Christianity that still espouses dated concepts were never even originally conceived by the Bible, just ridiculous interpretations of it.

No True Scotsman

I think the Christian minority serves as a strawman punching bag for self-proclaimed intellectuals to beat up on to make themselves feel smart.

Ad hominem/Strawman/Argument ad Butthurtium

You're doing well, champ!

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yes, except for bone material and mineralized skeletons/hard parts in general. Those things can last for quite some time. (Consider sea shells) But catastrophic burial is often the geological "condition" that allows for more detailed preservation, and although it is an uncommon thing, it is found throughout geologic time. (Think stormbeds and turbidite flows) Places of great fossil detail, preservation, and concentration are often called Lagerstatten, and there are several. Yet, there are not soft tissue samples (not true "meaty tissue", not to my knowledge) found in any of these lagerstatten which preserve beautifully the detail of the organisms. To argue any further than this would involve physics and chemistry, which I sadly am lacking in.

Thanks for answering my question re: decay. I've had plenty of experiences with, eh, decaying animals, but none of them have lasted for more than a few years!
You and I are in agreement about creationism not dying. Although, as I understand it, the "deceptive Deity out," as you call it, is to save the literalists (the literalists who believe it is meant to be accepted as a historical record instead of poetry/metaphor/etc.) -> "six day creation; God created the earth aged." Which makes some sense, if a Deity wants his creations to have access to instant oil reserves!!

Reply to: charles1952
I tried my best, Charles, but I couldn't make head or tail of your post. In fact, I found it impossible to read it to the end. Would you like to have another go, using fewer words this time, but more to the point?

*

Reply to: vasaga

Your deceit is abysmal, disgusting, disgraceful, cringe worthy, embarrassing, insulting, degenerative, pathetic, atrocious, arrogant and any other similar word that exists. And now I'll wait for the sh1tstorm.

Could you post some evidence to back up these claims, please?

Both the sources you did cite are old hat, by the way; you've posted them to these forums before, and had them sent packing. Zombies don't count as living entities, except in bad movies; if those are your counterarguments, creationism is as dead as dinosaur.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Howdy,

Always happy to discuss geology. The unique thing about geology (and by extension the fossil record) is that it allows the capturing of snapshots of a certain paleoenvironment. Sometimes these environments represent very unique conditions, such as an anoxic ocean. Anoxia is not something humans typically deal with in an environment, so you may be unfamiliar with its effects on decomposition. Certainly there are anaerobic bacteria that decay, but rapid burial with anoxic conditions leads to some amazing preservation, with some minor concerns about what is where... (calcite won't last long below the CCD, even if it is an anoxic environment)

You might perhaps be interested in the very tough organic fossils known as acritarchs. They're often used as trace fossils because they are insoluble in acid, unlike most rock. Of course, they're not soft organic tissue, but they're relatively common enough to demonstrate that tougher organic tissues can avoid decaying.
en.wikipedia.org...

And quite so, I was referring to literalists. I'm an agnostic atheist (you can't disprove the existence of a higher power), but I am open to religious people who are open to modern science or who are intellectually honest with themselves acknowledging that the only out is a deceptive god. In this way, I would never force the death of creationism, but I think Christian (literalist) Creationism is intellectually dishonest and distasteful.

So really I don't mind a belief in creationism kicking around. If creationism lived the lifespan of mankind, I'd be all right with that. Yet, Creationism, well... I hope that does go away rather quickly, to be quite honest. I doubt it will, but one can hope of a more prosperous future...

Regards,
Hydeman

Reply to: vasaga

Your deceit is abysmal, disgusting, disgraceful, cringe worthy, embarrassing, insulting, degenerative, pathetic, atrocious, arrogant and any other similar word that exists. And now I'll wait for the sh1tstorm.

This is why no-one takes you seriously...

originally posted by: Astyanax
Both the sources you did cite are old hat, by the way; you've posted them to these forums before, and had them sent packing.

Could you post some evidence to back up these claims, please?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Zombies don't count as living entities, except in bad movies; if those are your counterarguments, creationism is as dead as dinosaur.

Could you post some evidence to back up these claims, please?

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Reply to: vasaga

Your deceit is abysmal, disgusting, disgraceful, cringe worthy, embarrassing, insulting, degenerative, pathetic, atrocious, arrogant and any other similar word that exists. And now I'll wait for the sh1tstorm.

This is why no-one takes you seriously...

Right. Because making a statement with hidden assumptions is so righteous, honest, forthcoming, delightful and generous. But telling people directly what you think is something that doesn't let people take you seriously.

originally posted by: Haxsaw
a reply to: Astyanax

I'd say creationism is only dead in the minds of some who believe that once upon a time magical apes existed that could turn into humans if you throw a few million years at them.

magical apes or GOD, both require faith at the end of the day, for me I think I'll take faith in GOD as I really cant see a magical ape getting me to heaven.

each to their own of course, but considering more than half the world believes in a 'hereafter', the magical ape theory that corrupt governments try to indoctrinate us with at state run schools is probably closer to death than a GOD theory

The Kool Aid is Strong in this one.
You have to laugh at the mentality that posted this.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: StalkerSolent


You might perhaps be interested in the very tough organic fossils known as acritarchs. They're often used as trace fossils because they are insoluble in acid, unlike most rock. Of course, they're not soft organic tissue, but they're relatively common enough to demonstrate that tougher organic tissues can avoid decaying.

en.wikipedia.org...

That is cool! I'm seriously hoping that the different soft fossils will lead to Jurassic Park. Improbable, but still...you never know.

And quite so, I was referring to literalists. I'm an agnostic atheist (you can't disprove the existence of a higher power), but I am open to religious people who are open to modern science or who are intellectually honest with themselves acknowledging that the only out is a deceptive god. In this way, I would never force the death of creationism, but I think Christian (literalist) Creationism is intellectually dishonest and distasteful.

So really I don't mind a belief in creationism kicking around. If creationism lived the lifespan of mankind, I'd be all right with that. Yet, Creationism, well... I hope that does go away rather quickly, to be quite honest. I doubt it will, but one can hope of a more prosperous future...

Regards,
Hydeman

I think the proper key to understanding a religious text as a believer (I'm Christian, but I'd probably say the same if I was a Muslim or a Jew) is to understand it properly. Sometimes the text may be meant literally; sometimes not, and it's quite within our power (as various sects demonstrate) to misunderstand it. So I'm not a subscriber to the deceptive deity hypothesis, and I'd say that there are logical alternatives between "God is deceptive" and "Ignore science." (Such as "humans can be stubborn even in the face of evidence," which can go equally for science and religion. I'm sure you'd agree that sometimes the honest thing to do is to admit we have no clue or to withhold judgment.)

Anyway, it was good chatting. I guess I've veered pretty far off topic, but feel free to message me if you want to continue the conversation. Again, thanks for taking time to share your geological tidbits with me. Always good to learn a little more!

originally posted by: DrMescalito
Just to be clear while we are taking sides,
I'm on the side of the Magic apes rather than the unprovable magic invisible man above the sky story.

Why do fish have fins rather than arms? Why do camels have humps?
They weren't just created, they EVOLVED form other species to survive.

Science is that good now that I bet a 12yr old who has studied Evolution could debate a creationist
as long as there was a mediator to cease and desist any unprovable sunjecture coming from the creationist side.

If that were the case, I don't think any evolution deniers would have any posts at all because none of them use actual facts and science to back their arguments.

originally posted by: vasaga
We should be getting rid of the magic.

Your views of science are misguided. Science is in one of its worst states in history. Ever heard of retraction watch? Google it.

Science is actually in one of it's best states in history. We're talking about science itself, not political uses of it and funding. We know more than we ever have since our time on planet earth and it's the reason that humans live twice as long as they used to, and our lives are so convenient with all the technology and vaccines.

a reply to: vasaga

Could you post some evidence to back up these claims, please?

Fair enough.

It was, it turns out, your fellow-creationist, Chr0naut, who tried to impress us with Bio-Complexity and got sent off with a flea in his ear. By the way, that journal has been around since 2010 and its current (annual) issue contains not a single piece of original research. Not much support for your position there.

Your other links are to Evolution News & Views, a Creationist propaganda mill that has been cited on ATS innumerable times, for example here, here (yes, that's you) and here, and thoroughly debunked. There's nothing new to see in it, just the usual exercises in creationist futility and bad science.

Instread of posting links to Creationist propaganda on the internet, why don't you make a serious attempt to describe, in your own words, any piece of Creationist 'research', published, say, in the last five years, that you consider to be a compelling new advance in the field? Don't just post links and quotes from the abstract: any fool can do that. Show us you truly understand what you're talking about. Bring something real to the discussion.

a reply to: Astyanax

Dear Astynax,

Forgive me, I assumed you could follow my writing. Let me try differently.

You don't explain what creationism means. You dodge arguments that way.

Calling Creationism a socio-political movement, is silly without a definition of it. Further, it has too few adherents to be a movement.

Science, and it's tools, has made major errors all over the place in the last hundred years. Relying on it, alone, is very risky.

Science can not, by definition, show Creationism to be false. Depending on what you mean by Creationism at that moment. Creationism is the only shop you can go to to get an explanation for existence. Your choice, go to the Spiritual for an answer you might not like, or go to Science which does not, and never will have any answer to it at all.

I can go shorter, but I think you can handle that.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: Astyanax

Seems like the debate about irreducibly complex is alive and well, maybe just not here...
www.evolutionnews.org...

Either way, there is no way to get around the possibility that even if evolution could happen ( I'm personally "blown out" that someone believes that chemicals can magically arrange themselves into a self replicating organism and then continue to advance its magical DNA into more and more complex organisms), there is no way to prove a creator didnt guide the process. Evolution is built on such improbabilities that idea certainly has to cross ones mind, even indirectly with such ideas as punctuated evolution, which the Gould came up with because he knew of evolutions short comings.


"It is, of course, always unwise to count the religiously-motivated out, even when they're down."

Of course, because religion cuts to the real problem...death. Perhaps you are content, quietly satisfying the chemical demands of your evolutionary mind as you plow slowly headlong into death, personally I dont find that possibility all to appealing. I love existing ! and hope to do so for a long time. If religion is false, oh well, worm food it is, but if it is true, eternal life is a rather righteous alternative.

Whether evolution is true or not (Does it even really matter? Im positive you wont care a lick once your 6 feet under), I would suggest checking religion out, when it boils right down to it, it is the only question that really matters.

www.amazon.com...

www.biblegateway.com...