The Ignorance of Creationists

3. (The omniscience of Brahman follows) from its being the source of Scripture.

p. 20

Brahman is the source, i.e. the cause of the great body of Scripture....
www.bharatadesam.com...

4. But that (Brahman is to be known from Scripture), because it is connected (with the Vedânta-texts) as their purport.
The word 'but' is meant to rebut the pûrva-paksha (the primâ facie view as urged above). That all-knowing, all-powerful Brahman, which is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedânta-part of Scripture. How? Because in all the Vedânta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz. Brahman). Compare, for instance, 'Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'In the beginning all this was Self, one only' (Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1, 1); 'This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside; this Self is Brahman perceiving everything' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); 'That immortal Brahman is before' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11); and similar passages.

5. On account of seeing (i. e. thinking being attributed in the Upanishads to the cause of the world; the pradhâna) is not (to be identified with the cause indicated by the Upanishads; for) it is not founded on Scripture.
It is impossible to find room in the Vedânta-texts for the non-intelligent pradhâna, the fiction of the Sânkhyas; because it is not founded on Scripture. How so? Because the quality of seeing, i. e. thinking, is in Scripture ascribed to the cause. For the passage, Kh. Up. VI, 2, (which begins: 'Being only, my dear, this was in the beginning, one only, without a second,' and goes on, 'It thought (saw), p. 48 may I be many, may I grow forth.

1 pradhana n. (cf. %[dha4na]) spoil taken in battle , a prize gained by a victor , the battle or contest itself RV. &c. &c. ; the best of one's goods , valuables Na1r. ; tearing , bursting &c. (= %[dAraNa]) L. ; m. N. of a man ; pl. his descendants BrahmaP.
2 pradhAna n. a chief thing or person , the most important or essential part of anything Ka1tyS3r. Mn. MBh. &c. ; (ibc.) the principal or first , chief , head of ; [often also ifc. (f. %[A]) e.g. %[indra-pradhAna] , (a hymn) having Indra as the chief object or person addressed Nir. ; %[prayoga-p-] , (the art of dancing) having practice as its essential part , chiefly practical Ma1lav.] ; `" the Originator "' , primary germ , original source of the visible or material universe (in Sa1m2khya = %[prakRti] q.v.) IW. 53 , 1 &c. ; primary or unevolved matter or nature Sarvad. ; supreme or universal soul L. ; intellect , understanding L. ; the first companion or attendant of a king , a courtier , a noble (also m.) L. ; an elephant-driver (also m.) L. ; (in gram.) the principal member of a compound (opp. to %[upasarjana] q.v.) ; mf(%[A])n. chief , main , principal , most important ; pre-eminent in (instr.) ; better than or superior to (abl.) MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; m. N. of an ancient king MBh. ; (%[A]) f. N. of a S3akti , Tantr. (cf. IW. 522). webapps.uni-koeln.de...

Originally posted by randomname
how do you explain alligators and crocodiles. science says they have remained unchanged for over 250 million years.

They still evolved! The alligators and crocs of today could not mate with those from 250mil years ago.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I have to disagree here. If you are stating that the time it took the earth to travel around the sun in 2009 multplied by 6035, or if you state that the earth has traveled around the sun 6035 times. Because there is no evidence showing that the earth has traveled around the sun more than 6035 times....

Those are two completely different statements....

If you don't understand that, then I am not surprised.

Jaden

reply to post by MrXYZ


And you know that because????

Wow talk about not denying ignorance.

What possible evidence leads you to the conclusion that modern aligators and crocodiles could not mate with those from 250 million years ago???

Jaden

Originally posted by Advantage
I always thought the theory of evolution was just that : a theory. Parts of it are correct and proven,but not the whole theory. To me it takes belief or faith to believe in this theory not too much differnt than the creationist has faith that a God made everything spontaneously.

A "theory" in science is not the same thing we use to say in our daily lives. A theory can only be a theory if nothing wrong with it can be found. There's numerous peer reviews, everyone gets to poke holes into a hypothesis...and only if no one is able to refute it, is it accepted as a theory. Like gravity for example, or thermodynamics. We have as much evidence for evolution as we have for gravity and thermodynamics.

It's not "just" a theory

So when I'm trying to understand reality, I'm always going with science because it's flexible enough to accept facts and evidence. I refuse to be a blind sheep!

Why feel the need to choose? Why not use both to your advantage and form an opinion that fit's you,
A comparitive example is:
when researching on the net it is best to watch what you accept from wikipedia but that would not mean you dismiss everything it say.
The thing about most religions is their history is very complex and most people switch off as soon as they see contradictions etc but just because they are there does not mean we should dismiss it and it may not be a contradiction at all but because we do not understand the history or it does not match our science we dismiss it all entirely

reply to post by MrXYZ


There is very little evidence showing that the theory of gravity is related to Mass. It is completely open to debate. The theory of gravity existing as an experiencable outcome however, is less debatable.

The theory of evolution, meaning change over time, cannot be shown to be false and I don't believe anyone is debating that. The theory that there is a common ancestor between all living things on the other hand is COMPLETELY open to debate.

Jaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I have to disagree here. If you are stating that the time it took the earth to travel around the sun in 2009 multplied by 6035, or if you state that the earth has traveled around the sun 6035 times. Because there is no evidence showing that the earth has traveled around the sun more than 6035 times....

Those are two completely different statements....

If you don't understand that, then I am not surprised.

Jaden

Of course there's evidence that we've travelled around the sun more than 6035 times...you just didn't know about it

1) The oldest homo sapiens remains we found are 250,0000 years old.

2) We have Byzantine calendars that are almost 8000 years old. The used sun rise and sun set as well as the stars to create the calendar. If the earth would take longer around the sun, their calendar would be screwed up...it isn't though.

3) The only way the earth would not have spun around the sun more than 6035 times would be if the radius would be far larger. And I'm talking FAR! Further than Neptune. That would mean the earth was outside the habitable zone for pretty much most of the time....given that we found dinosaur remains that are 450mil years old, that hypothesis is complete hogwash.

Stop getting your "science" information from idiots like Hovind

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

And you know that because????

Wow talk about not denying ignorance.

What possible evidence leads you to the conclusion that modern aligators and crocodiles could not mate with those from 250 million years ago???

Jaden

edit on 24-11-2010 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

I know this for the same reason I know zebras and hoses can't mate. Well, they can, but all the offspring is sterile and the siblings can't ever reproduce. Their DNA is too different. You see, it's not just fossils, by now we have unsurmountable evidence in the form of DNA.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

There is very little evidence showing that the theory of gravity is related to Mass. It is completely open to debate. The theory of gravity existing as an experiencable outcome however, is less debatable.

The theory of evolution, meaning change over time, cannot be shown to be false and I don't believe anyone is debating that. The theory that there is a common ancestor between all living things on the other hand is COMPLETELY open to debate.

Jaden

No it's not because not only does the fossil record 100% supports that claim, we also have even better evidence in the form of DNA.





What's more, if evolution were wrong, we wouldn't have most antibiotics we have today. Gene technology wouldn't work either. The fact that we actively use the theory of evolution in those fields should make it abundantly clear that saying the theory is wrong is laughable

By the way, I'm still eagerly awaiting your evidence for a growing earth...you said there's plenty of evidence, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find at least one piece of evidence

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

What's even more concerning than that is that the willful ignorance seems to extend to direct explanations of the scientific concepts, particularly the refusal to accept that evolution and abiogenesis are entirely different theories and that evolution deals solely with biodiversity.

I have to say that there's a built in 'arrogance of knowledge' in the above statement, at least insofar as it is fallaciously based on the premise that science is armed with knowledge of creation.

We are building billion dollar colliders, launching satellites into space, neutrino detectors, we have theoretical and observational physicist, astrochemists, astro-biologists, quantum mathematicians/theorists, and every kind of scientist possible converging and working on this question, and no one to date has been able to detect our universe's origin.

The only true answer is: We don't know!

Sure we have many competing theories but if one is to be true to our established common ignorance and what should be a resulting agnosticism, we have to consider the possibility that an intelligence, called God or not, may have a hand in it .. or not, we simply don't know!

Keep in mind I am only speaking of the moment of 'creation' (and btw we also don't know if there was one of those either) ... outside that, the mechanics of what we perceive as 'life' are indeed outlined in our science and anyone who chooses to ignore them does so to validate their dogmatic preconception of spirituality and/or religion. Fact is evolution has actually been reproduced and proven beyond a doubt.

The problem with all this of course is always the same ... people who try to use science to legitimize belief and people who use science to delegitimize belief. The two are on a practical level completely unrelated.

Ultimately if one pursues life solely through science, spirituality, philosophy, creativity, one is likely to miss the fact that in the end they all lead to the same place ... but that's for another thread title 'explain a quark.'

I wonder how we can remedy this.

In full honesty the 'remedy' lies within the person for whom disagreement with others is problematic, so much so that a remedy is required to resolve this personal affront.

Alternatively ... let it be.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


People who believe in any supernatural being without actual proof have a delusional disorder.

Plain and simple.

Trying to remedy people who harbor these delusions is like trying to convince a Schizophrenic they are not
Schizophrenic with words alone.

In almost all cases it will not work.

I don't have an answer to the problem as the disorder affects a large percentage of the worlds population.

In time maybe reason will prevail, however maybe it will not.

Bottom line is you cannot reason with madness.

reply to post by MrXYZ



Im a science major... or was at a point in my life. I got a whopping masters. Big whoop, Im the most overeducated housewife in the neighborhood.

Im aware of the process, but that has nothing to do with the fact that a theory is still a theory. I also am aware that in peer review this particular theory was stacked as Im sure you are if you have investigated the origins of it at all. No religious "evidence" allowed in higher education. The theory was refuted scientifically even by other scientists who disagreed with the currently accepted theory of evolution. You should know there are a multitude of different theories of evolution with significant differences, but only one stand out now. Anyway, in peer review evidence was disregarded as it was incomplete. Just as the evidence used in the currently accepted theory of evolution was incomplete. Thats the nature of the theory beast.

Im not discussing if evolution is a valid belief or not... just as I wont discuss the validity of creationism. My point was exactly what I said... pretty clearly.

reply to post by MrXYZ


"We know the big bang happened, but we have no clue about what caused it."

Prove it.

Using science prove this statement.

Prove that the big bang happened.



p.s. Some of the response in this thread are the best I've ever seen. Talk about putting the op in his place...lol. WOW. These responses are classic.

p.s.s. - I know you're going to attack me for cheerleading or some other b.s. but I don't give a crud - their repsonses were so truthful they made me laugh out loud - multiple times.

reply to post by Advantage


The theory is the highest category you can achieve apart from mathematical laws (as I'm sure you're aware). It has to stack up to empirical evidence in order to be classified as a theory...and evolution does.

But leaving semantics aside...

If evolution were wrong, we wouldn't be able to have gene technology...and we wouldn't be able to use the findings in modern science when developing antibiotics for example.

This is not some "well, they're not really sure..." thing. We are actively applying the findings, and especially over the last 30 years we made great progress in that field. DNA fully supports the claims evolution makes.

So the only possible way evolution could be wrong were if some super being did it, and then spread around a ton of evidence to "cover his tracks". The mere thought is laughable imo...

reply to post by SincerelySarcastic


In the future, please paragraph.

Originally posted by SincerelySarcastic
Now we need an Ancient Astronaut thread called The Ignorance of Creationists and Evolutionists the Polarization of Creation and the Ignorance Thereof.

...no, there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. It is a scientific theory, not an unscientific worldview.

Ancient astronauts fix this problem quite easily, they're the only thing that does.

No, they don't solve a single problem, they simply beg the questions: "Where did the 'ancient astronauts' come from? How did life on their planet form and diversify?"

You're just adding a level of regress. Modern cosmology, chemistry, geology, abiogenesis, and evolution all explain things just fine.

The problem with this or that is that it's usually a bit of both.

...no, it really isn't. In science it's usually one theory, not the other. This is a case of science.

If you people would stop trying to figure out what theory is right and which one is wrong and just tried to combine the two, you'd have a much easier time of it.

No, you really wouldn't. Creationism adds absolutely nothing to the scientific discourse except a ridiculously random stopping point for all science that relates to the origin and formation of natural phenomenon.

It's like nature vs nurture, it's obvious that the answer is both, but that's too easy.

No, there is still debate raging in the psychological community over that. Simply saying 'it's obvious' isn't going to settle a debate. You need hard research and hard data. If "the answer is both" is the conclusion based upon actual data, it gets accepted.

It's like with people being gay, it's a bit of both,

You mean we should hang some of them and let the others live their lives?
No, the solution for that issue is: they are human beings, treat them like any others and let them love who they want to

or with abortion issue, it should be a bit of both (pro-choice fits that description), or any other polarized issue, the answer usually lies between.

Again, you're generalizing over a very broad range of issues.

The Ancient Astronaut Truth,

The Ancient Astronaut Unsubstantiated, Evidenceless, Conjectural Hypothesis
I'm sorry, but I had to fix that for you.

mixed with the fact that the Creator is the Creation,

mixed with the Unsubstantiated, Evidenceless, Conjectural Hypothesis that the Creator is the Creation
Fixed that for you too.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of 'truth' or 'fact' here.

and the fact that we live in a very conscious universe helped by a myriad of non-physical beings and it's easy to understand how this all works.

There are so many things wrong with this statement I don't know where to start.
...oh wait, yes I do. Again this is all an Unsubstantiated, Evidenceless, Conjectural Hypothesis.

There is no evidence that the universe is conscious. There is no evidence of a single non-physical being.

You're arguing with conjecture against stuff that has actual facts to support it. There are mountains of evidence and research into evolution and other 'origins' related sciences....there's absolutely not science to back up anything you've said in this thread so far.

Threads like this should get people banned from creating a thread for a month,

No, they really shouldn't. I'm actually trying to highlight the oddity that creationists tend to be misinformed on basic scientific principles, not just the single topic of evolution. The majority of them have trouble defining evolution.

Why should I get banned for highlighting the truth?

it's been done to death and does nothing but cause fighting, nothing good will come from this thread, but the Change we can slowly believe in is asbolutely hilarious, thanks for that.

No, it's gradual change we can believe in. And it is change we can believe in because there is a mountain of evidence in favor of it.

These sorts of threads are why people don't join ATS and instead just shake their head in disgust on the sidelines.

No, those are the threads that spout of unsubstantiated nonsense. This is a thread highlighting a very real problem.

Hell, you don't seem to understand what 'truth' and 'fact' mean. Those are words that are grounded in reality, not conjecture.

There's nothing worse than a fight between two groups who are both wrong,

Please, go to this thread: Evolution: FALSIFY IT! and show me that I'm wrong.

I am not wrong. 99.999% of the scientific community isn't wrong. The creationists are wrong.

it's like watching Christians fight Muslims, nothing good comes from it and it hurts to watch.

Yes, because the scientists are really engaging in physical attacks...

Another ignorant post replied to. I should really have gone to sleep after the party.

reply to post by redoubt

Originally posted by redoubt
You could begin by allowing people to believe as they choose.

Well, they're allowed to believe it, but they're still wrong. I'd like to reasonably convince them otherwise, I don't want to force the truth down anyone's throat.

It is not within your purview to make these choices for others.

I'm not saying I should make anyone's choices, I'm just saying that people should have greater access to scientific data to realize that they are wrong on their own time and at their own rate. They cannot be forced into it.

Also, I thought something was off. I already addressed this and the following points, you're repeating yourself.

You may however, at your leisure, form your own opinions and share them as you please and for those interested, debate the subject.

You must have ignored me, I'll just be blunt:

This is a matter of facts, not opinions. The creationists are actually entirely misinformed on a whole host of scientific subjects ranging from cosmology to chemistry to atomic theory to biology to simple scientific definitions.

Just don't expect the human race to fall over itself beating a path to your pedestal.

Never did.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

reply to post by andy1033


Um...this is a bit off topic...I'm very doubtful of your claims...but again, not the topic at hand.

My only hope regarding religious ignorance is that it will become extinct in the future
Over time mankind will be more educated as a whole... scientific methods and concepts will spread, logic and intelligence will prevail.
Specific flaws in religion are so trivial that they cant persist simple common sense and observation.
e.g.: the Koran says salt- and freshwater dont mix cuz Allah says so ... easy to invalidate.

The problem is that most religious people feel insultet when we call them ignorant.
Its not an Insult, its simply a fact:
If my antagonist ignores factual foreknowledge or the rules of a resonable debate itself - he is ignorant.
Now most religous people dont even know what a fact is... aaaaarrrrforget it!

All we can do is prevent religous people from getting anywhere near the nuclear football, educational systems or other places where logic and rationality is important to survive for our species

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Well, we know that due to general relativity and findings of the last 20 years that the universe is expanding at a rapid rate. We are able to "see" background radiation that confirms that. In fact, there's 4 different models to calculate the age of the universe, and they all come up with the same result.

Anyway, given that background radiation you can "see" back in time where everything was compressed to a tiny amount of space that then expanded VERY rapidly. Science can't go all the way back right to the start or to the time before that happened, but we know something you could call a "big bang" happened. What caused it, we don't know. What happened in the few few seconds? We don't know. That's why scientists are currently testing a few hypotheses. They are not theories yet because they haven't been tested yet...and we can't even be sure we'll even be able to test some of them in the foreseeable future due to limitations in technology.

But at least we don't run around claiming a "god" did it without having any proof.

If you want the details, read any books by Hawking or Michio Kaku. Personally I prefer Kaku because he's a bit better at "dumbing it down"

For a basic overview with all the sources available at your fingertips: LINK

Actually, I'll just let Neil Degrasse Tyson speak for me. He's better at explaining complex stuff than anyone else: