Why are people afraid of creationism?

[Shakeel]

You just showed yourself...of not knowing anything about God..
For God sat the boundaries for science not to step over..
But as it is science over steps it's boundaries...being set forth by God..

When you have science saying that humans came from monkeys..
When God's Word explicitly said God created man from the dust of the earth..
That's science over stepping it's boundaries..

I don't think that's the fault of science since it isn't a conscious being.

 

[Shakeel]

Hi,
do you suggest God created from a portion of Himself

Not at all, I'm suggesting that using his energy makes more sense than using nothing.
When a person uses energy to lift an object , he just uses a finite but regenerating feature of his anatomy, he doesn't have to forego a part of himself to fulfill this task.

This comparison is limited by the fact that God's energy is infinite.

So you're saying energy is God's attribute and we're collecting it and selling it? Do you think God needs energy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any other thinking, which is seen here more than not, is intellectually dishonest to religion.

No. Deliberatly ignoring evidence because it contradicts a priori beliefs, is intellectually dishonest.
This is true always, whether the beliefs concern a religion or something else.

And accepting the evolution theory without reservations is certainly also intellectual dishonest or just ignorant.

That completely depends on the justification / motivation for the acceptance.
If that justification is evidence, then no.

It isn't fair to call it anti-science thinking since the disagreement is over something that the disbelievers also debate about.

You literally stated that you will dismiss any science which contradicts your religious teaching.
That is about as anti-science as it gets, only one step behind claiming gigantic worldwide conspiracies among scientists and accusing them of deliberately lying. Which I have encountered to in discussions with creationists, btw.

They'll make claims like how scientists are satan worshippers who are "anti god" and how scientists who don't want to play along are dealt with and shut down and fired and.... Nonsense like that.
Fortunately, you're not one of those.

If it's because I won't change my mind or respond on the way you'd like to what you consider evidence

It's because you are dogmatic about your a prior beliefs and flat out admit that you don't care about evidence and science, since you will dismiss it at face value whenever it contradicts your a priori faith based beliefs.

The opinion on any science topic of someone who thinks like that, is indeed irrelevant.

then that would make all atheists completely irrelevant in religious discussions.

That's a poor analogy, but sure. If 2 muslims are debating if mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or on a winged zebra, then my stance of "flying horses don't exist" would be considered irrelevant by both of them.

But again, it's a poor analogy, because the topic is evidence. Not the topic of the discussion itself.
In science, evidence matters. So anyone who doesn't care about evidence, has nothing of value to contribute to topics relating to science.

I just can't see how something that is not a chicken can lay a chicken. Can you explain that?

When have I ever said that non-chickens lay chicken eggs?
Do you realize that chickens are not the only ones that lay eggs?

Language is not a great comparison because it doesn't lay eggs

//facepalm

The analogy with language is an analogy concern the gradual nature of evolution, to clarify the point that there is no "first chicken" or "first human" or "first member of <insert any species>".

and because I'm not asked to call French the egg of Latin and to acknowledge that they are two different languages altogether.

Both are Roman languages and french evolved from latin. So did portugese, italian and spanish.
So 2000 years ago, the ancestors of today's portugese, italian, spanish and frensh speakers, spoke latin.
Today, nobody speaks latin (natively).

Yet at no point in history, did a latin speaking mother raise a spanish speaking child.
All throughout those 2000 years, every new generation spoke the same language as its parents.
And yet, Latin turned into french, italian, spanish and portugese.

This is the equivalent of speciation.
The ancestral species of latin speciated into the sub species of french, italian,...
To the point that a french person and a spanish person can no longer have a conversation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Those boundaries so that science does not over step what God has written down in his word..
In other words...when science tells that we came from monkeys.and God's word tells exactly that God created us from the dust of the earth..
This is where science over steps it's boundaries..

Ha, so with the imagined "boundaries" you really just mean those things that you believe a priori on faith.

So when evidence comes up that contradicts your beliefs, then that is "overstepping the boundaries".




Sounds artbitrary at best.
Intellectual dishonesty to boot.


When the evidence of reality contradicts your beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[John1.12]

The problem is that its scientifically established that humans did evolve from ancestral apes. So that aspect of creationist belief is simply wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now you lie by posting lies that you were corrected about in the past.

 

[John1.12]

So now you lie by posting lies that you were corrected about in the past.

It still stands . I could go round every college campus and ask this same question and the responses would be the same . Are you calling all those people that responded on the video ,idiots ?

 

[Shakeel]

No. Deliberatly ignoring evidence because it contradicts a priori beliefs, is intellectually dishonest.
This is true always, whether the beliefs concern a religion or something else.

There you said what I said.

That completely depends on the justification / motivation for the acceptance.
If that justification is evidence, then no.

95% of people accept it for no other reason than that it's a popular belief Claiming to believe due to evidence is mostly hypocrisy because most of what we believe is not due to evidence at all.

You literally stated that you will dismiss any science which contradicts your religious teaching.
That is about as anti-science as it gets,

Then, since I also reject anything in any other religion if it contradicts Islam, I'm anti-religion, too.

They'll make claims like how scientists are satan worshippers who are "anti god"

They say that about me too.

scientists who don't want to play along are dealt with and shut down and fired and....

Well, for a scientist to openly object the theory of evolution could get them fired from many places - why not?

It's because you are dogmatic about your a prior beliefs and flat out admit that you don't care about evidence and science, since you will dismiss it at face value whenever it contradicts your a priori faith based beliefs.

The opinion on any science topic of someone who thinks like that, is indeed irrelevant.

Like I said, that would make any atheists opinion about religion irrelevant as well. I don't need my opinions to be thought of as relevant, but I doubt you would consider that logic to work the other way around.

But again, it's a poor analogy, because the topic is evidence

The topic is evidence in religion as well.

When have I ever said that non-chickens lay chicken eggs?

You said the egg was first, did you not?

 

[sayak83]

This is nonsense. Speciation has been observed. Large scale changes that make diverging groups distinct from each other takes millions of years and cannot be observed in real time. The fact that they have changed through evolution can be indirectly inferred from fossils and genetic comparison. 90% of science is about indirect inference of phenomena that cannot be directly observed.... in all disciplines. Atoms, electrons, force fields, energy, radio waves, molecular bonds... almost everything important in science cannot be directly observed but are inferred to exist based on trace evidence they leave behind on things we can directly observe. You don't need scientists for things that can be observed directly, you just need a videographer.
As I said. You have to reject all of science (atomic theory, quantum mechanics, germ theory etc. etc.) if you reject the methods that are used to infer evolutionary change through time.
For example. According to you. It's wrong to say light has a wavelength because the wavelength has to indirectly inferred from the observed diffracted distances.
A simple method to measure the wavelength of light

 

[SalixIncendium]

This guy is hung up on "change of kind" and is drawing a distinction between "kind" and "species." At what point did "kind" become a taxonomical classification?

As mentioned in the video, speciation has been observed with Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos.

Can you explain what the difference is between speciation and "change of kind?"

 

[tas8831]

How is it that science has to be 100% correct about everything?

Right?

It's not really arbitrary limits, it's limits because of religious beliefs.

Well, that seems arbitrary to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It still stands . I could go round every college campus and ask this same question and the responses would be the same . Are you calling all those people that responded on the video ,idiots ?

And since you do not listen to the answers you will still be totally ignorant about this topic.

Let's see if you have learned anything:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution?

Is there scientific evidence for creationism?

 

[ecco]

Those boundaries so that science does not over step what God has written down in his word..
In other words...when science tells that we came from monkeys.and God's word tells exactly that God created us from the dust of the earth..
This is where science over steps it's boundaries..

If your god set boundaries, how can mortal man overstep them? Either your god did not set boundaries or your god is too impotent to actually set boundaries. The boundaries that you think your god set as porous as the Wall with Mexico.

Do you think your god intended man to be ignorant? If so, why did your god put brains into Adam and Eve? Or was that just another screwup on His part?

What you think your god wrote down is no better than what is written in any holy scripture, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or those of African, American, or Australian indigenous people.

 

[ecco]

I don't think that's the fault of science since it isn't a conscious being.

You are right, science isn't a conscious being. Neither is math or geography or literature. What is your point?

 

[John1.12]

And since you do not listen to the answers you will still be totally ignorant about this topic.

Let's see if you have learned anything:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution?

Is there scientific evidence for creationism?

Heres what I don't believe. I don't see any evidence that life came from non life . No evidence that Finches ever become anything other than finches .
What I do believe is all the events in the bible really did happen . That is a world wide flood . A six day creation , miracles, and such . Its my understanding that using the scientific method ,ultimately we can't prove the age of the universe either way . What would i expect from a world wide flood ? Billions of dead things,
Buried in rock layers,Laid down by water,All over the earth.

 

[metis]

Scientific analysis has refuted the key tenets of flood geology.[5][6][7][8][9] Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archaeology.[10][11][12] Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method. In contrast, flood geology does not adhere to the scientific method, making it a pseudoscience.[13] -- Flood geology - Wikipedia

Instead, it makes much more sense, imo, to deal with the creation accounts as being allegorical, quite possible a response to the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian narratives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heres what I don't believe. I don't see any evidence that life came from non life . No evidence that Finches ever become anything other than finches .
What I do believe is all the events in the bible really did happen . That is a world wide flood . A six day creation , miracles, and such . Its my understanding that using the scientific method ,ultimately we can't prove the age of the universe either way . What would i expect from a world wide flood ? Billions of dead things,
Buried in rock layers,Laid down by water,All over the earth.

Do you know that your finches "never become anything other than finches" is an incredibly foolish one? Evolution says the same thing. Like it or not you are still an ape. You need to learn that 'change of kinds' is a creationist strawman that only shows they do not understand what they are arguing against at best and may be outright lying about.

You need to learn the concept of evidence. There is evidence for abiogenesis. When you say "I don't see any evidence" you are only disqualifying yourself from the debate.

Lastly we have known for over 200 years that there was no global flood.

And you should be thankful that we know that the Garden of Eden story and the Noah's Ark story are myths. If you understood those stories you would see that they say that God is evil and incompetent. Why do you believe that your God is evil and incompetent?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There should be no seperation between the church and the state of a country

Agreed. We depend on the authority of the secular state to keep religion in its place. The phrase should be exclusion of church from state (government), not separation. If the two were actually separate so that neither had authority over the other, the church would still be hanging alleged witches and conducting inquisitions. We need the state to protect us from people like this:

• "Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had

That implies religious people are less intelligent or are more inclined to illogical thinking.

Believing by faith is illogical. There is no place in logic for faith. If I am adding a column of numbers and expect to come up with the correct sum, every step in the addition must be logical. If one of the sub-additions is done by faith, the entire process becomes illogical.

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

This guy can't be my tax preparer.

when science tells that we came from monkeys.and God's word tells exactly that God created us from the dust of the earth..
This is where science over steps it's boundaries

Science isn't interested in any boundaries religion would like to impose on it. Why should it be? It is interested in the boundaries of knowledge and expanding them using the scientific method - not what the religions want.

I was taught in biology class that humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor rather than humans came from apes.

Correct, but you probably mean that man descended from non-human apes, not apes. Man is an ape.

Heres what I don't believe. I don't see any evidence that life came from non life . No evidence that Finches ever become anything other than finches . What I do believe is all the events in the bible really did happen . That is a world wide flood . A six day creation , miracles, and such . Its my understanding that using the scientific method ,ultimately we can't prove the age of the universe either way . What would i expect from a world wide flood ? Billions of dead things, Buried in rock layers,Laid down by water,All over the earth.

Your understanding is incomplete. There is plenty of evidence that life might have come from nonlife whether you see it or not. You simply need to seek it out.

The fossil record doesn't support a global flood. Look at the K-T boundary, where much of life was extinguished. It's a thin layer, and probably represents much of the terrestrial biomass of the earth just prior to impact.

Furthermore, skeptics and critical thinkers aren't very interested in what others believe, just what they know and can compellingly demonstrate. Listing what you believe isn't more helpful to others than listing what you like to eat or your favorite music.

 

[Windwalker]

Definition of creationism:

"creationism, the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo)."
creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

[kind of dubious that the article goes on to say, "It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory," since the idea of creationism was definitely there before the evolution theory.]

Creationism is a pseudoscientific religious response to modern science and the theory of evolution. It's not just believing God created everything. Many believing scientists accept that, as well as the theory of evolution. They see no conflict with faith.

But fundamentalists do. They are unwilling to bend in their beliefs to allow for light to come in from outside itself, and allow it to challenge them. It's an unwillingness to question beliefs, that led to Creationism as a response to science.

So we're not talking about biblical view to creationism alone.

Actually, yes we are. Creationism is very much using a literalistic, non-allegorical scientific way in response to modern science. If it were not for their interpretations of Genesis, there would be no need or basis with which to deny evolution, anymore than we no longer deny that the earth is not the center of the solar system, and that the earth orbits the sun. It would just be matter of fact, which it is. It's only the denial of that, based upon one's religious understandings, that stands in the way of that basic acceptance of facts.

The main thing about it that Muslims object to is the creation of man and that he supposedly evolved from the ancestors of monkeys. So there's plenty of room for science.

That of course, is not the actual science. That's a parody of it. Monkeys and humans are more cousins on the primate tree, not our ancestors. We did share a common ancestor with them at some point, yes. That is what the science shows us. There's no reason to dispute it, unless you find your religious beliefs can't move to allow room for that?

But there doesn't seem to be room for creationism anywhere according to some atheists and even some hypocritical believers.

Creationism is rejected by the skeptical community of atheists, the same as it is by rational believers. They accept the science because they are not wed to a narrow reading and interpretation of one's creation narrative they grew up believing from their parent religion.

If one allows room in their faith for understanding things in a different light, then there is no conflict. It's the faith that's got to move a little here, not the science. The science is just showing us what is. It's not a sin to rethink one's faith.

What is the harm in it being said that God created everything? The children are going to hear it anyway.

Nothing is wrong with that. It think it's great. Children, and adults need to be able to look at the big picture. God created all of this. I support that. But that means God created all of this, through evolution. It does not mean deny science to protect how we have understood the creation story through our inherited religions. Those don't have to be held in rigidity. They can bend a little to allow more light to shine through them.

The problem is when we tell others that one's creation beliefs from religion, has to be a denial of science. It is saying beliefs ahead of science. And that is not science. That is the opposite of science. The world needs science. It needs reason. It needs to bring us light. But so does faith. They need not conflict.

 

[Neuropteron]

So you're saying energy is God's attribute and we're collecting it and selling it? Do you think God needs energy?

We cannot buy or sell energy that comes from God.

Simon tried that and was told by Paul:
"May your silver perish with you, because you thought through money to get possession of the free gift of God..." (Acts 8:20)