Why don't some people like being created?

[darkendless]

Creationism is just weak. It defies all the logic i've been programmed with during school.

 

[Man of Faith]

Creationism is just weak. It defies all the logic i've been programmed with during school.

That's part of the problem, the schools programming people into believing evolution, without showing the alternative theory of creation.

 

[Commoner]

That's part of the problem, the schools programming people into believing evolution, without showing the alternative theory of creation.

There is no alternative theory. "Goddunit" does not a theory make.

 

[Man of Faith]

There is no alternative theory. "Goddunit" does not a theory make.

It stale mates "Timedunit".

 

[Mr Cheese]

I like it, the idea of my family being a special creation thousands of years ago, and being related to every other living human on the planet.

Why don't some people like this concept?

+

Its a nice idea

but things change

according to this idea, nothign changes

essentially then, the idea as set forth by modern creationists

is utterly moronic....

but heck, that never stopped people before

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well it seems we are the only ones who have made it out in space trying to figure this whole universe thing out???We did send a monkey but it was under our manipulation.

 

[Man of Faith]

+

Its a nice idea

but things change

according to this idea, nothign changes

essentially then, the idea as set forth by modern creationists

is utterly moronic....

but heck, that never stopped people before

Usually what we see from the evolution crowd, is "here is why scientists accept common descent" or "here is how we show relatedness". Then they go about showing how their theory is correct, they don't show how they got to their theory in the first place. The evidence that is provided now days for evolution came after the theory.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Q: Why don't some people like being created?

I can't answer that question the way it's worded. But I can answer these two slightly re-worded questions:

Q: Why do I object to the claim we are created?
A: Because it is a false claim based on a fairy tale, and I believe in telling the truth

Q: Why would I not like being created?
A: For the same reason I wouldn't like living in North Korea... the thought of oppression, and constant surveillance and supervision is distasteful to me... it would interfere with my evil practices of eating babies and drowning kittens.

Seriously, I also know that what I want or need to be true, is irrelevant to what is actually true, and I do not want to live my life based on untruths.

"Wahrheit über alles" (truth above all)

 

[sonofskeptish]

This catholic does an excellent job at explaining why creationist propaganda is dangerous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[The_Evelyonian]

That's part of the problem, the schools programming people into believing evolution, without showing the alternative theory of creation.

And which creation story would you have them teach? Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Norse, Greek, Pastafarian, etc. In order to teach creation in schools you'd have to give time to every single creation myth that comes along.

 

[Man of Faith]

And which creation story would you have them teach? Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Norse, Greek, Pastafarian, etc. You can't pick and choose here. In order to teach creation in schools you'd have to give time to every single creation myth that comes along.

I have an idea about that. Put evolution via common descent along with all the creation stories in to the same class room where they belong, philosophy. Take common descent out of the science class, it doesn't belong there. Leave evolution in, the part we can observe, but take the imaginary common descent out.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I have an idea about that. Put evolution via common descent along with all the creation stories in to the same class room where they belong, philosophy. Take common descent out of the science class, it doesn't belong there. Leave evolution in, the part we can observe, but take the imaginary common descent out.

So, in other words, ignore all of the evidence of common descent and lump it together with Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Man of Faith]

So, in other words, ignore all of the evidence of common descent and lump it together with Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

No, don't ignore the evidence, put it into the perspective of philosophy where it belongs. The evidence of common descent came after the theory so the philosophy of common descent came first. There are many scientists that don't accept common descent so that shows the evidence does not lead to the theory, it's the other way around.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Here's why Christopher Hitchens doesn't like the idea of being created (kick's in at about the 1:00 mark)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f40TRJl5vvI

 

[The_Evelyonian]

No, don't ignore the evidence, put it into the perspective of philosophy where it belongs. The evidence of common descent came after the theory so the philosophy of common descent came first. There are many scientists that don't accept common descent so that shows the evidence does not lead to the theory, it's the other way around.

So what? Darwin first postulated on evolution via common descent and now we have evidence that proves he was right. Ex post facto evidence is nothing new to science. It's only natural that as we advance scientifically we will discover new evidence for existing theories.
We observe a phenomenon, we postulate a theory, we test our theory and see if the evidence lines up. When new evidence arises, we test our theory again to see if it matches the new evidence. That's how it's done and, thus far, evolution via common descent has held up.

 

[Man of Faith]

So what? Darwin first postulated on evolution via common descent and now we have evidence that proves he was right. Ex post facto evidence is nothing new to science.
We observe a phenomenon, we postulate a theory, we test our new theory and see if the evidence lines up. That's how it's done.
Gravity, General and Special Relativity, Quantum Physics, all of them arose through similar methods. Should we lump these into philosophy too?

Problem is, Darwin didn't observe common descent before he postulated it. It has never been observed, or tested.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Problem is, Darwin didn't observe common descent before he postulated it. It has never been observed, or tested.

No, he saw commonalties in existing species and postulated that they might have come from a common ancestor. The evidence we have today proves he was right.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Usually what we see from the evolution crowd, is "here is why scientists accept common descent" or "here is how we show relatedness". Then they go about showing how their theory is correct, they don't show how they got to their theory in the first place. The evidence that is provided now days for evolution came after the theory.

Actually I dont believe in evolution or creationism

Creationism, as propounded by modern conservative christians is however, full of more holes than a chocolate tea pot....as such it is moronic....

now if the creationist crowd actually got together, pulled their collective heads from their posteriors and thought out some coherant arguemtns beyond "Here's the bible, read it" or "Well evolution is stupid, this means creationism is correct...then, maybe, there'd be something

Creationism no matter how hard you try, is never goign to be science, thus it is NOT and never will be an ALTERNATIVE to evolution, one that can be taught in our classrooms...why? in its current state, the idea odf creationism as propounded by small of thought conservative christians...does NOT follow the scientific methodology, as such then, it is not an alternative to evolution theory...its something that could compliment it, or as alternative...but it has as much place in a science class as learning how to knit does in science class.

Evolution theory of course is alos fraught with problems. Firstly and foremost of course it only deals with the physical. Now for evolution lovers everywhere that is generally ok, for many of us, this is howver, rather foolish. Science of course, despite the cries of evolution lovers, does not deal with the truth. Science deals with models of the truth, constructs. As does religion, but there. As such then, evolution is a close approximation but is not the truth. We can compare it by imaginign a person who has a book of the streets of London, and their amazement when they see the streets of London face to face...the book is very different to the streets of london. Thus it is the same for evolution. Evolution is the book, reality is the streets....

SO what do we have? Evolution theory is one method of describing how things work, its close but no cigar. Creationism is so simplistic and ill prepared in construction and thought, it is frankly childish, puerile and pathatic.

Think for yourself, deny creationism AND evolution

the Map is NOT the territory

 

[Man of Faith]

No, he saw commonalties in existing species and postulated that they might have come from a common ancestor. The evidence we have today proves he was right.

You just proved my point and made my case. He imagined common ancestry, the philosophy of life came first, then the evidence followed. Now the evidence only leads to common descent if one is already predisposed to believe it.

 

[sonofskeptish]

I like it, the idea of my family being a special creation thousands of years ago, and being related to every other living human on the planet.

Why don't some people like this concept?

In the theme of the creationist "I'm not no stinkin' ape!" argument, I say "I'm not no psycho-sadists property!"

Creation implies ownership, and thankfully slavery was abolished long ago (some slaves just haven't realized it yet).