Dear Creationists Here is something you should watch (Evolutionists too)

For all the "Hardcore Creationists" out there. Let me show you to my good resource, Potholer54.

He has many videos on why some creationist theories are not only wrong, but for the most part scientifically inept dribble.

I am not saying your way of thinking on "How everything came to be" isn't true, and I am not saying anything about your religious beliefs. I would just like to point out some of the facts that are out there and this video series is a great place to start.


What I am wanting to say is that a person who is seeking truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth. Should have a good look at all the facts before making any decisions on how everything came to be.

This video series comes from a semi-friend of mine who wrote for scientific journals, and really knows his stuff.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true, and vice versa.
I hope creationist and evolutionist can come to some sort of understanding with each other and not just spout out untrue facts about each others way of thinking and what each ones way of teaching says.

While either theory is not 100% proven, Evolution does have the objectionable advantage over religion in that it bases it's findings on repeatable, testable experiments and not just a couple of pages in a book.

And the same goes for creationists I would love to see some videos on why evolution is wrong and what other facts I should consider on my views towards a creator.

I hope this thread does not become a "Creationist v.s. Evolutionist" debate. I simply wanted to post some videos for everyone to see and get a good feel on at least one sides view on things, and get maybe some feed back on the creationist argument.

Here is the link to the video series...

reply to post by GR1ill3d


You are personal friends with potholer??????

EDIT: Ahhhhh friend = You are subscribed to his channel on youtube

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by GR1ill3d

 

You are personal friends with potholer??????

EDIT: Ahhhhh friend = You are subscribed to his channel on youtube

edit on 6-12-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)

I never said I was a personal friend of his. Please show where I said such words? I correspond with him on at least a weekly basis. I should have expanded on "My good friend" I am subscribed to his channel yes, but that does not mean his claims are any less true.

reply to post by GR1ill3d

Let me show you to my good friend Potholer54.

Sorry, i assumed from that you knew the guy....or were claiming to know the guy personally.

Im already subscribed to his channel, have been for quite some time now. I think i found him through Thunderf00t.

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


I Should have expanded on that point. My mistake. I should have explained it more clearly as to what the relationship actually is, rather then giving a blanket statement. It has been noted and will be corrected.

I am not in either camp, but am not convinced by a video that creationism does not exist.

Just something to ponder, who is to say that God is not a physicist and created the big bang?

Who is to say that the whole story of genesis was not based on 7 billion years, we would be talking in universal days rather than earth days, it may take 1 billion earth years to to equal 1 universal day.

Something to ask your freind may be how long is a universal day

reply to post by GR1ill3d

There are actually two creation stories in Genesis and they were not written to provide technical details of how it was done but were simply a preamble to the history of the Children of Israel after leaving Egyptian slavery.

I still don't get how serious fundies get about all this and I am a Christian.

Great Vid taught me a few things thanks fella

reply to post by munkey66

who is to say that God is not a physicist and created the big bang?

Who is to say that God is not a purple polkadotted Unicorn with twelve-legs named Santa Claus?

The strength of a position, or a positive claim, is based not in its hypothetical possibility but in the actual evidence supporting it. Furthermore the Big Bang is entirely unrelated to evolution, they're in too totally different fields of science.

Evolution has evidence supporting the claim. Genetics, fossils, morphology, animal behavior, all of which support evolution as the source of bio-diversity.

Creation has no evidence supporting its claims.

That's why when creationists talk about "teaching the controversy" they don't actually mean they want creation stories taught in science class, they just mean they want "challenges to evolution" to be taught. They have to tear down evolution because beneath their own ideas are ancient stories about magical events for which no evidence has been found.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


do you mean magical events like nothing suddenly colliding creating a big bang?

What is wrong with teaching both in school? are children so stupid today that they are unable to work through 2 different train of thought?
education should be about teaching many different facets and not just rely on 1 idea, maybe getting children to think outside the box a little may help with their overall brain functions.
I think science discovered that.

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

do you mean magical events like nothing suddenly colliding creating a big bang?

What is wrong with teaching both in school? are children so stupid today that they are unable to work through 2 different train of thought?
education should be about teaching many different facets and not just rely on 1 idea, maybe getting children to think outside the box a little may help with their overall brain functions.
I think science discovered that.

edit on 6-12-2011 by munkey66 because: added content

Here's why we don't teach both. Because creationism isn't a valid scientific theory--it can't be tested and those results can't be reproduced.

That's why.

If you're going to teach it, put it where it belongs: World Mythology.

I hope this thread does not become a "Creationist v.s. Evolutionist" debate

This sentence struck me as a bit naive. What did you expect to happen? Did you want those with evidence to pander to the delusions of those without?

They are both not valid theories. I have no reason to encourage people to believe fairy tales simply so we can all "get along".

reply to post by munkey66

do you mean magical events like nothing suddenly colliding creating a big bang?

Im sorry, show me where it says nothing collided and then suddenly the Big Bang happened?

What is wrong with teaching both in school? are children so stupid today that they are unable to work through 2 different train of thought?

Children believe in Santa Claus. So i do imagine that they do have some problems with critical thinking. No need to confuse them with fairy tales from antiquity passed off as true.

education should be about teaching many different facets and not just rely on 1 idea, maybe getting children to think outside the box a little may help with their overall brain functions.

There is a difference between thinking "outside the box" and thinking outside of reality.

reply to post by munkey66

do you mean magical events like nothing suddenly colliding creating a big bang?

Please explain to me any astrophysicist that describes the big bang like that. haha Wait.... that is just your terrible speculation based on the little knowledge you have on the matter.

What is wrong with teaching both in school? are children so stupid today that they are unable to work through 2 different train of thought?

To be considered in the same category as evolution, it must be some sort of science. It must have a chance of being falsifiable as it does verifiable. Creationism is not. *broken record* You can not prove nor disprove Creationism. So now the question is, why can't aliens shooting various creatures with a ray gun to change them from their original state be taught instead of Evolution?

education should be about teaching many different facets and not just rely on 1 idea, maybe getting children to think outside the box a little may help with their overall brain functions.

That IS what education is about. Relying on a field of science that has well over 150 years of research and many, many fingers pointing in it's direction from many, many other fields of science is not being close minded. It is relying on man kind's intellect. Remember, science is what got us to where we are today. Not filling each other's heads full of mystical crap.

I think science discovered that.

I hope you patted yourself on the back for that one. Hilarious

wow, science people really are a strange lot, from looking on the outside you all seem as fundemental as religious people with your own beliefs.

to put a bit of humour in.
Scientists where sitting around around one day and decided that they would tell God that he was no longer needed as man was now capable of creating life.
God feeling a little rejected asked if it was at all possible for him to prove himself and have a freindly competition.

The scientists where interested and asked what the competition was, God replied
I want to have a competition to create life from scratch again.
The scientists agreed.

God picked up a handfull of dirt and started making a new Adam
The scientists picked up a handfull of dirt as well to make their new Adam to which God asked
"what are you doing?"
The scientists replied that they are also making a new adam from scratch
"But thats my dirt" said God, "you have to make your own"

There is room for religion and science and our children can benefit greatly from learning all about science and about all religions and not just 1,
Religion isn't always about religion, but sometimes more of a moral compass which occasionally science lacks.

Originally posted by munkey66
wow, science people really are a strange lot, from looking on the outside you all seem as fundamental as religious people with your own beliefs.

We are only that way because with science most of it is proven. With religion most of it is not proven and most of the theories presented by creationists cannot be backed up with anything other then the bible.

There is room for religion and science and our children can benefit greatly from learning all about science and about all religions and not just 1,
Religion isn't always about religion, but sometimes more of a moral compass which occasionally science lacks.

If you want to look for a moral compass look at science, looking at the bible should be out of the question.
Need I remind you of the crusades? (And many other horrid things the "holy book" has commended) Yea lets kill a certain breed of people because some holy book says it's ok to do so.

The irony in the bible is everywhere. But as I said in my first post. I do not think any less of you for you own beliefs. You want to believe in a creator fine. But here are some videos on why you might be wrong.

If you really want truth look at all the facts from both sides! Not just one and then decide for YOURSELF what you believe in.

reply to post by munkey66

do you mean magical events like nothing suddenly colliding creating a big bang?

There was something before the Big Bang. All the energy and matter that make up the Universe was condensed into a super-dense singularity. The Big Bang is a rapid expansion of space and time, not an explosion. It also isn't magical and is corroborated by scientific evidence.

What is wrong with teaching both in school?

1) Creationism is a religious stance, thus making teaching it as anything but myth a violation of the First Amendment

2) Creationism isn't science. It might be fine in some sort of elective course about religious myth but it doesn't belong in a science class.

You may as well be suggesting that we teach Earth, Fire, Air and Water alongside the periodic table.

maybe getting children to think outside the box a little may help with their overall brain functions.

Sure, but we should also keep the line between legitimate science and ancient mythology well defined. Exposing kids to all sorts of ideas is fine but not all ideas deserve equal time or equal treatment. The idea of a flat-earth, for instance, might be fun to mention in class, but it doesn't deserve to be taught alongside the idea of spherical Earth as if both ideas have equal validity.

Originally posted by GR1ill3d

If you want to look for a moral compass look at science, looking at the bible should be out of the question.
Need I remind you of the crusades? (And many other horrid things the "holy book" has commended) Yea lets kill a certain breed of people because some holy book says it's ok to do so.

You can look back as far as as the crusades if you like for a moral compass.
how about we look a little closer to current events and not even look at the experiments of WWII which where by no means religious, or does science have a problem with history also?
Guatemalans used for STD experiments
U.S. scientific researchers infected hundreds of Guatemalan mental patients with sexually transmitted diseases from 1946 to 1948
Tuskegee syphilis experiment
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment
clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.

Ethics and morals?

You see, you can look at both sides blindly and see everything in either black or white, yet when you look at both sides you see that there is room for both, not just grey but a prism of colors can be seen when the blinkers are removed.

I am not a creationist, I believe in evolution and I also believe in the big bang, but I also believe in a higher power or energy force, not a man on a throne but an energy which encompasses the univers that I call God.

reply to post by munkey66

wow, science people really are a strange lot, from looking on the outside you all seem as fundemental as religious people with your own beliefs.

I think you mean dogmatic rather than fundamentalist. And the only dogma of science is the scientific method which, interestingly, says that you should question and test your assumptions repeatedly. As opposed to religious dogmatism which usually tells believers not to question.

There is room for religion and science and our children can benefit greatly from learning all about science and about all religions and not just 1,
Religion isn't always about religion, but sometimes more of a moral compass which occasionally science lacks.

I don't think most scientists would take issue with children taking a comparative religions class or something similar. What we do take exception to is when people try to force an inherently religious and non-scientific subject, like "intelligent design" (aka creationism 2.0), into a science class.

Im personally a fan of punctuated smiting
God creates a species for His ineffable purpose.
The Species angers God for some sin it commits.
God is wrathful and destroys the species.
God repents of His wrath, creates another species that is slightly different.
God replaces the smoted species with it.