Common sense VS creationism

You forget the small-print on the doors:

1st Door:

Life is a meaningless chain of random coincidences, you are a tiny speck of soulless dust.

2nd Door:

Life is an awesome mystery, deeply meaningful and full of purpose and realms unseen

Forced to choose, Id choose the second. But if Im smart, I wont choose any of the two but check out some of the thousands of other doors.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Thus common snese dictates all non-creationist scientists are whacko fringe psuedoscientists.

Now that's some real common sense.

Sure, if you like having your beliefs dictated by social norms, which is ultimately what common sense is based on.

The implications, man, think of the implications.

Originally posted by XyZeR
nope, sorry Critique, needs backing up, a reasoning behind it, you didn't give me that, you just posted my analogy was biased.... never why you thought it was biased...see my problem?

You’re problem is the inability to recognize the understated points I made.

No it is not, every fundamentalist i try to debate about this, uses this as his SOLE reasoning, "It's in the bible" is an argument for everything. they have no other legs (let alone facts) to stand on.

Every one? Really? Because my neighbor is a fundamentalist and he has never used that as his sole reasoning. Your lack of exposure to diversities of people is certainly a point of weakness in your stance.

Oh but it surley does, see, replacing "evolution" in my posted sentence, makes no sense whatsoever. It's not satire, it's nonsense....

That’s the point.

I'm truly Sorry i didn't get your "joke"...

Its ok, most people don’t find me funny; especially when the joke is at their expense.

You see the fact that the theory has been adjusted to reflect new found EVIDENCE should tell you a lot about the validity of the scientific theory. .
To bad the bible doesn't do that eh ? It has been static for ages.

It doesn’t give any validity to science, it demonstrates its dynamic nature. Fickleness has never been appealing to me. So from what you say . . . the bible must be pretty darned sexy! Even if it’s wrong! (that was another joke by the way.)

first of , where did you get that pie chart ? How was it determined ?
To me that pie chart is a load of bs. Why didn't you use this one or this one and yet another
Because it contradicts yours ? Which one is the scientific one ?

All of these charts seem like kin to me . . . The correct question is not “which one is scientific?” but “which one is accurate?”.

IMHO Believing in a "god" whichever it may be, is not common sense. It's the opposite!

Common sense has nothing to do with your opinion.

It's tradition, education and the choice of your parents/guardians, not your own. If you were born in a different country you might have believed in a different god(s), see my point?
Believing in God is not a situation you reasoned yourself in, it was done by others. I'll give you that spirituality is inherent to humans, but spirituality and religion are 2 separate things, at least to me.

Well you can spiritually believe in a supreme being without someone ever imparting the idea to you. Based on this fact alone, most of what you just said is speculation.

I'll post the definition of "common sense" cause we seem to have a different perspective on it
Here's what the dictionary says:

common sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts

See that last word ? FACTS, not faith... .

First, that’s a one dimensional and very poor definition, which hardly reflects the versatility or sense of the phrase.
Second, Fact is not an antonym for Faith; so using an inverted demonstration in this situation is not applicable.

Btw, just to make sure, i'm not an athiest like the majority of you think

How is this relevant?

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Thus common snese dictates all non-creationist scientists are whacko fringe psuedoscientists.

Now that's some real common sense.

Sure, if you like having your beliefs dictated by social norms, which is ultimately what common sense is based on.

The implications, man, think of the implications.

Well said Anti-Tyrant.

What is socially acceptable can be truly disturbing.

reply to post by JPhish


The path to enlightenment is paved with realisations.

Every step is a new lesson.

At least, that would be my entirely crude and simplistic view of that sort of thing.

reply to post by Evil Genius


Hey EG. Well, I have to admit I was being somewhat facetious with the comment about statistics concerning atheism (minority view) and creationism (minority view) to show they both lack 'common sense' (the theme of this thread).

If my intention was to seriously use such statistics to back up my views about atheism or the O.P.'s view about creationism, then I would have been terribly guilty of the logical fallacy known as Argumentum Ad Populum.

But thank you for your thoughts.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Thus common snese dictates all non-creationist scientists are whacko fringe psuedoscientists.

Now that's some real common sense.

Sure, if you like having your beliefs dictated by social norms, which is ultimately what common sense is based on.

The implications, man, think of the implications.

Sure but the OP is a troll thread to begin with. So it's an appropriate tongue in cheek response. I never took it seriously anyway.

You know if you really think about it, both theories are equally stupid. Both have pretty much the same amount of evidence.

Seriously why is it that everyone thinks that these two theories are the only two possible beginnings?

I believe science has advanced alot in the last 200 hundred years, so why don't we start from complete scratch, and leave both ideas at the doorstep. Than we can possibly come up with something more logical than evolution and creationism.

I don't believe either, and i really don't see the point in debating it because we all know that we will not see any absolute proof of where we came from in our lifetimes.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Common Sense Dictates:

Einsteins general relativity demands a beginning to the universe. A beginning is a creation event. Relativity is a widely accepted theory i.e. "common". That is not in dispute. In addition most scientists accept the Big Bang cosmology as a creation event i.e "common". If you believe in a creation event you are indeed a creationist.

Einstein's theories also break down at the Singularity, meaning we don't know what banged or why it banged. I'll make your day though, I agree that an event happened which created the universe and I think it is common sense to believe that the event happened.

This is how science works. These two videos encompass all the arguments presented in this thread, including but not limited to, common sense, creationism, evolution, Big Bang, Albert Einstein, scientists and psuedoscientists. After viewing both videos, you are free to side which ever party and make your own case. It is your given right, especially in ATS where tolerance, respect, pro choices and pro views are encouraged.

Science doesn't care what you decide. Science is about looking at both evidence no matter how painful and reporting on the observed law and truth. Who is the handsome movie star in the video? Who has the least hair? Who has common sense? Who is pretending to be a scientist? Who is misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and manipulating mainstream science and the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance their agenda?

How each of us decides only reflects directly on us, it tells us who we are, it does not change science. Science changes and self corrects as and when needed. For example, the doofy guy grows more hair than Kirk Cameron, Science will observe and document Mr Doofus as no longer the guy with the least hair. But who is still pretending to be a scientist? Who is misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and manipulating mainstream science and the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance their agenda? You decide. It tells me who you are.



[edit on 10-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]

reply to post by Gigantopithecus


Thank you for sharing this.

I found the critique of the original video fairly tongue in cheek, falling back on evolution at the end just to make the point clear.

It's difficult to see how finality over the issue can be brought about when both sides of the argument are stoking the flames, though.

How much longer is this going to go on for?

50 years?

100 years?

No one likes talking to a wall, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Gigantopithecus
Science doesn't care what you decide.

Then stop regurgitating these extraneously self-indulgent videos.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
...An Angle (snicker) with a 10ft wing span would need 300lb of back muscle to make them work along with a tail ruder where none are shown in mythical drawings. ...

Very few angels have wings.

It's a good thing birds don't have tail rudders, otherwise they'd be flying all over the sky, and pooping on things.

(So much for "common sense" )

reply to post by XyZeR


Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Why not both at once?

reply to post by Silenceisall


You are correct the evolution and creationism could exist at once but and there is always a but, religion refuses to believe that the earth is older than 6000 years and facts are clear its billions. It could be argued that god used evolution but that is not expectable to religion, they have their fairy tale.

Science is not against religion and could care less about it, good scientists works to find truth whatever that is. Religion is against science because true facts contradicts its myths and undermines its power.
Religion has so called scientists (snicker who make argument that the earth is no old less than 6000 but science and pure scientists make discoveries based on empirical data while so called religious scientists have the religious answer they want and twist facts to support religion scripture to keep followers in ignorance. Sad part is its “Lies” an“ False Witness “

reply to post by Antigonish


Well, sod what religion says.

Maybe they got it wrong.

Maybe someone misinterpreted god's ultimate understanding of reality or something.


[edit on 11-7-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

reply to post by Antigonish


Hey there. I am not trying to nitpick but I have some issues with this statement:

...religion refuses to believe that the earth is older than 6000 years and facts are clear its billions...

Actually most 'religions' believe the earth is much, much older. The only 'religions' I know of that teaches a 6,000 year old earth would be Judaism and Christianity... but... even then that timeline is not believed by all and OEC's believe it to be a jumped to conclusion. YEC's believe the earth to be approximately 6,000 years old but that in itself is not a religion and it surely isn't 'religion' in general. Hope that helps. I wasn't trying to nitpick.

reply to post by Antigonish


I don't think that it is important what any one religion says, since creationism does not depend on any one religion as a concept. The problem is that cause and effect strings are an illusion and the universe is actaually synchrnous (time is an illusion of the human mind). Two (and probably far more) apparently exclusive causes can and do exist simutanously for the same effect. We just can't always see how they connect.

[edit on 22-7-2008 by Silenceisall]

Originally posted by Antigonish
...The current science answer is at least logical but God is just a wild guess and wishful thinking. Who made God ? What is the answer please tell me an make it good, no he alwayd was because so was the universe always was as well. Who made God and why does he look like us? if so what need would he/she/it have with human body parts Did he/she/it have a mom, Is there a Ms. God. ...

Oh, look! How cute! My 11 year old was asking the same question some time back. "Who made God?". He got the standard answer: "Son, everything that is created must have a creator. But that does not mean that everything that exists has been created." Just because all ducks are waterfowl, does not mean that all waterfowl are ducks. SCIENCE EVEN ACKNOWLEDGES THIS! Let's play the finish the sentence game: "Matter and Energy can be...." Did you say "neither created nor destroyed"? Good, you get a cookie; unfortunately, you still get an "F" for logic.

We are told that humans were created in God's image. Whether this means physical image, or spiritual image, or both, we do not know. We do know this: there are other beings in existence that look NOTHING like humans. The guards around God's throne have 4 faces, eyes covering their entire body, and six wings (if I remember correctly). This isn't metaphor, they literally have 4 faces. (What *IS* metaphor is what those faces look like.)

Very, very, very few people have come to the conclusion that there isn't a God when they've actually pondered it. Most people scream "there is no God!" because of something that pissed them off, hurt them tremendously, or just from a desire to be able to do whatever they want, with no eternal consequences. It's sort of like a kid saying "I hate you!" when you ground them, or they don't get their way. It's understandable, but not very smart on their part. And a disbelief in God is almost always a prerequisite for believing in macro evolution. At the very least, you have to believe God is a liar to believe in Macro evolution.

Where are the transitional fossils? What, scientists can point to 5 or 6 that MAY be transitional, out of the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of known fossils. Where is the Macro evolution? Sure, you can bombard fruit flies with radiation, chemicals, etc, but in the end you get mutant FRUIT FLIES, not a worm, a dragon fly, or a beetle.

Why have no new animals been domesticated in the last 10,000 years? It seems to me that everywhere they find humans, they find cats, dogs, and some sort of beasts of burden (either for riding or plowing/pulling, or both). Oh, sure, you can breed wild animals that are less aggressive, but not truly domesticated. You take a lion or bear, raise it from a mere cub until it is an adult, and it is extremely likely to attack and kill you at some point. Raise a wolf cub as a dog, and guess how it behaves? As a very smart dog.

Speaking of dogs, let's say you gave a fossil of a Chihuahua and the fossil of a Great Dane to someone that had never seen dogs before. Do you think they would conclude those were the same species of animal, that one was a baby and the other an adult, or that they were entirely different species?

Lastly, if evolution was true, how can things have NOT evolved in hundreds of millions of years? The shark, the crocodile, and the coelecanth (sp?) appears to be the same as it was "hundreds of millions of years ago". (I'm sure there are lots more, if I would care to look!) Meanwhile, scientists tell us that the earth is vastly different that it was "hundreds of millions of years ago". Why did they NOT evolve along with other animals, if evolution were true?

So against evolution we have the fact that we know of no new TYPES of animals being evolved, ancient animals that SHOULD HAVE evolved but didn't, no new domesticated animals in 10,000 years, and no definitive proof that MACRO evolution is true.

If macro evolution is so true, show me ONE EXPERIMENT that will result in one animal resulting in another animal. Even that latest experiment that "proves" evolution, doesn't really. 40,000 generations of bacteria resulted in bacteria that could eat new things, but it was STILL BACTERIA. Did it grow new flagella? Did it develop into multi-cell organisms? Did it convert to photosynthesis? (On a sarcastic note: Congratulations Mr. Nobel Prize Winner! You rediscovered something that farmers have known for 10,000 years: i.e., if you selectively breed animals, you will get more of the desired traits.)

Doesn't anyone else find it odd that all vertebrate animals have 5 appendages? Doesn't anyone else find it odd that there are no 6 legged animals, or 4 armed primates? Why aren't there species of animals that have 2 or 3 tails? Why are there no animals that depend on photosynthesis for energy? Or, the same question with a twist, why are there no motile plants? It seems to me that if evolution were true, we'd have WAY MORE DIVERSITY than what we have now. If evolution is true, why are there no asymetrical animals?

One last thing: The universe can't have been around "forever". If it had been around forever, everything that could have happened would have already happened. In other words, we'd be at maximum entropy right now.

after just reading the op, i see you are one of " those " that just cant let it be, you have to constantly push and push that evolution is what the smart people believe in, and anyone that sees it differently is stupid, thats all i got out of this, this is a circular argument and wont be completed, EVER.....so give it all you got and try to let go mmmmmk