Why it's easier to be a creationist than an atheist

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Precisely! Neither do you know that this happenedView attachment 21671

There is no evidence that chimps evolve into human beings

False. Here -- links to 14 separate articles demonstrating much of the evidence we have so far:

1) 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence
5) How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? - Astrobiology Magazine
6) TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
7) Evolution
8) 101 Reasons Why Evolution is True | ideonexus.com
9) Human Evolution Evidence
10) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/…/topicbrowse2.php…
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
14) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

if that were the case, we would see chimps that are far closer to being human

Actually? We *are* quite close-- looking at the DNA between the two species, there vastly more in common with humans and the other apes, that is different and distinct.

In all seriousness, it would not take much genetic engineering to create a chimp/human hybrid--- scientists have combined species that are much more separated than that.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The same place god came from!!

To be serious, "We do not know", but that is fine because 100-years ago we didn't know about the Big Bang; 300-years ago we knew nothing about evolution; 50-years ago we didn't know about the internet.

.... and one year ago, the USA did not know how deeply racial prejudice ran within it's populus.

Ain't that a peach?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I can't speak for everyone.
If you are unable to be a theist, that's fine, I'm not able to be an atheist... it's virtually impossible for me to do that, because it goes against my ability to reason and use logic.

Why does gold, silver, and diamonds exist? How does a big bang create these treasures? That big bang was creative? Silver, gold, diamonds, and treasures came into existence out of nothing for no reason, at random? Or, it was created?

The big bang created these pretty birds out of nothing, gave them wings and hollow bones so they can fly
View attachment 21664View attachment 21665 View attachment 21666
Who's a pretty bird?

The Big Bang gave us a round world. How did it get round?

And put the sun in the right place, so that we could all survive.

The Big Bang gave us plants, herbs, fruits, and vegetables out of nothing.

The Big Bang gave us water and eventually oil.

Imagine a world without oil.

The big bang gave us these lovely ladies,
View attachment 21667 View attachment 21668 View attachment 21669

and their beauty came forth from nothing.... well from:

View attachment 21670


chimp-like creatures that evolved from single cell organisms, that came into existence on a round planet, that came into existence out of.... not a damn thing.

None of this is possible without the Big Bang giving us the Sun... and in the right place of course...

The Big Bang has been good to us!

Thoughts?
( okay, the thread was supposed to reek of ignorance and be silly.. it was to get you educated folks excited and load your guns .... I'm just saying it's easier to believe that a creator, some higher power working with the mechanisms of science, created it.... it's a lot more difficult to discover a scientific explanation.)

Plenty of theists out here who aren't creationists, sorry.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I believe that the Universe was created out of some super-natural process and that a close scientific study of the Universe will reveal some of the signs of that birth like the Universe's belly button which we now call the Big Bang.

Am I the first person to see a sexual connotation to the term Big Bang?

The funny thing is...by super-natural, I mean, completely natural process of complex, adaptive system creatively forming an emergent order out of the behavior of interacting parts that are partially not part of (therefore "super") the natural activity contained within this Universe.

Go watch the Universe Song, by Monty Python, first appearing in the movie The Meaning Of Life.

I think you'll get a ... bang out of some of the graphics.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

As I see it, the popularity of the bible has much to do with how it proves to
say what ever one wants to read into it. Very adaptable, almost like evolution, ya might say!

It no longer works to have it say that slavery is ok. For people of even
normal intelligence and education, it no longer says "real world wide flood".
BB, ToE are in.

Soon all will see that it quotes Jesus saying that smokin' that marijuana
is quite alright.

It's almost as if .... religion evolves it's "morality" as humans evolve superior systems of ethics.

Who knew?

 

[Cacotopia]

When you state your belief that god is the creator a moment it wasn't there then it just was? that's called something from nothing. I really can't reiterate it enough that we don't think something comes from nothing. That's what magic is IE god stuff.

 

[osgart]

In the Beginning Was the Beginning

Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

This article i thought provided an overview of the current scientific stance on the beginning of the universe. Of course it may have changed since the time of the article.

Im in doubt of either side of it. But am compelled to think an intelligent yet primitive savage force exists.

The cosmological argument is very very reasonable as to the existence of an uncaused first cause.

Something from quantum nothing probably means that we dont have the tools of reasoning to adequately address the issue.

 

[Cacotopia]

It's also easier to be a vegetable on a slab where machines keep you alive, no one said it was a preferable existence, albeit an easy one.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, that is not how I meant it, and I am certainly not a Christian.

The oldtimers made up stories for things they did not know. (some do that
today!)

People of today, fundies, think the old timers were told by god, so
what they said was right.

Oh, many do. Frankly, fundamentalist evangelical Christians drive me nuts...but that's a personal problem.

The larger problem, I think, is that fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, though very loud, also represents a fairly small minority Christian position.

 

[Audie]

Oh, many do. Frankly, fundamentalist evangelical Christians drive me nuts...but that's a personal problem.

The larger problem, I think, is that fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, though very loud, also represents a fairly small minority Christian position.

Not in the US of A it doesnt.

 

[Audie]

In the Beginning Was the Beginning

This article i thought provided an overview of the current scientific stance on the beginning of the universe. Of course it may have changed since the time of the article.

Im in doubt of either side of it. But am compelled to think an intelligent yet primitive savage force exists.

The cosmological argument is very very reasonable as to the existence of an uncaused first cause.

Something from quantum nothing probably means that we dont have the tools of reasoning to adequately address the issue.

Really. Have you read counter-arguments?
Those philosophers can make any side of any argument sound credible.

 

[dianaiad]

What is your point about fruit flies?

Sheer time and perception.

No fruitfly, which lives a whole day or so, can possibly encompass the thoughts or goals of the scientist who uses it to test genetic theories. It doesn't have the TIME to imagine goals beyond its lifetime, nor the intellectual ability to think even remotely like that scientist.

Yet we, who, compared to a Being Who is supposed to have created the Universe AND existed before, during and after its existence, figure that we can force him/her/it into our own frame of reference in time and thought...and define for that deity what goals, and what plan, that deity might have?

Oh, and insist that S/He/it make that understandable to US? RIGHT NOW?

I believe that just might be the epitome of hubris, myself.

On the other hand, I do believe that we should absolutely use the brains we have to discover the processes we can. We just might be able to understand more than some think we can. We just have to remember that if there is a God, He is Who He is, not Who we want to make Him to be. If we can learn more about Him by examining and learning about His creations and the 'laws' that make them work, then hallelujah. We should absolutely do that.

What we should NOT do is figure that, while learning about the processes that created the universe and us might make our religious beliefs a bit more complicated, and screw some of 'em up greatly, learning about those processes does NOT prove that nobody (or Nobody) invented them in the first place. We just have to figure out whether there is a God in a different way.

 

[dianaiad]

Not in the US of A it doesnt.

Oh, Audie, trust me. I've been dealing with this particular fundamentalist evangelical attitude for more than a few decades. They ARE loud. They ARE a minority.

Remember, there are still a bunch more Catholics and sedate mainstream Christians than there are bible thumpers.

 

[Audie]

It's almost as if .... religion evolves it's "morality" as humans evolve superior systems of ethics.

Who knew?

Well, I dunno. Some of them religions have hardly
evolved past the Jurassic ( see "de jure" for etymology)
wherein the dinosaurs behaved rather like Norman Knights
and their sole legal principle was "trial by eating."

Actually, that seems withal more enlightened than stoning,
a moral religious practice also much lately in the news.

 

[Audie]

Sheer time and perception.

No fruitfly, which lives a whole day or so, can possibly encompass the thoughts or goals of the scientist who uses it to test genetic theories. It doesn't have the TIME to imagine goals beyond its lifetime, nor the intellectual ability to think even remotely like that scientist.

Yet we, who, compared to a Being Who is supposed to have created the Universe AND existed before, during and after its existence, figure that we can force him/her/it into our own frame of reference in time and thought...and define for that deity what goals, and what plan, that deity might have?

Oh, and insist that S/He/it make that understandable to US? RIGHT NOW?

I believe that just might be the epitome of hubris, myself.

On the other hand, I do believe that we should absolutely use the brains we have to discover the processes we can. We just might be able to understand more than some think we can. We just have to remember that if there is a God, He is Who He is, not Who we want to make Him to be. If we can learn more about Him by examining and learning about His creations and the 'laws' that make them work, then hallelujah. We should absolutely do that.

What we should NOT do is figure that, while learning about the processes that created the universe and us might make our religious beliefs a bit more complicated, and screw some of 'em up greatly, learning about those processes does NOT prove that nobody (or Nobody) invented them in the first place. We just have to figure out whether there is a God in a different way.

Sorry-ah, while all that more or less makes sense, I dont see why
you were talking about fruit flies.

But since you bring it up, there is a thing to understand about evolution that
some here do not. That being that the more specialized an organism is,
ie, the further it is from a basic body plan for the phylum / class / order,
the less one is going to be able to "do with it", as far as evolving descendents
that are significantly different.

For example: the common possum, or the house rat are generalists,
not highly specialized to a single way of life demanding a specialized body
plan.

The bat, say, is very specialized.

Take some bats, and some rats, and try to breed them over a million plus\
years, to something that would approach a tiger or a wolf in its ecological
role.

You take the bat. Lets see who wins!

I kind of doubt there is much that can be done with fruit flies.
I could give reasons, but this is long enough already.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well, I dunno. Some of them religions have hardly
evolved past the Jurassic ( see "de jure" for etymology)
wherein the dinosaurs behaved rather like Norman Knights
and their sole legal principle was "trial by eating."

Actually, that seems withal more enlightened than stoning,
a moral religious practice also much lately in the news.

Well, yes-- but if you've studied history of religions, you'll note a pattern begins to show, over time.

The more rigid a religion is, the less able to adapt it is, and eventually, it fades away.

Contrariwise, religions that show some flexibility, evolve (however slowly) and seem to just manage to survive over time.

For example, Methodism started out as a pretty severe cult, breaking away from it's parental religion. But it has evolved dramatically over time, and is now considered "mainstream" or "established".

My take is this: Religions must evolve, or they are either replaced by others, or they die out.

I do find it deliciously ironic that pretty much all modern day christian brands have little or nothing in common with the very earliest versions. An uncomfortable fact that isn't easy to explain away. (and one that helped me lose all my faith, too). Alas, I'm not nearly as familiar with other primitive or precursor versions of the other major religions, but the trend does seem to hold: Religions must Evolve Or Die Out.

How many Druids do we know, anyway..... (wait... isn't there a Respected Druid on this very forum? Kudos to that person, for refusing to follow the trends. <no sarcasm intended here> If ever we meet in meatspace, I'll cheerfully buy him a beer or other drink of choice)

 

[Audie]

On the contrary, they are a recent evolutionary phenomenon, arising at the end of the c.19th and early c.20th: Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia and finding a receptive environment mainly in the USA.

So it's all YOUR fault !

Where is the sad emoji?

 

[osgart]

Really. Have you read counter-arguments?
Those philosophers can make any side of any argument sound credible.

But at what point should intuition be abandoned when you consider cause and effect?

 

[Audie]

Oh, Audie, trust me. I've been dealing with this particular fundamentalist evangelical attitude for more than a few decades. They ARE loud. They ARE a minority.

Remember, there are still a bunch more Catholics and sedate mainstream Christians than there are bible thumpers.

I have seen the stats, the fundies are no small /insignificant minority.

 

[Audie]

But at what point should intuition be abandoned when you consider cause and effect?

When you are dealing with theoretical astrophysics, next to nothing is intuitive.

Why do you find the philosophical arguments for more convincing than those against?