The Real Message of Creationism

The Real Message of Creationism

There are 538 comments on the TIME.com story from Nov 22, 2010, titled The Real Message of Creationism. In it, TIME.com reports that:

When the Kansas Board of Education voted recently to eliminate evolution from the state science curriculum, the sophisticates had quite a yuk.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TIME.com.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#498 May 7, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep DNA is here no doubt about it. You question how. However if the top scientist, w/ top funding, w/ the best equipment the world has ever seen can not create even a simple single cell organism, how can a mud hole billions of years ago?
Not all education is a waste. Great things continue to be discovered, enhanced and used. Some for good, some for not so good. All these things come to us from God in one form or another. It is up to us as how we use them. You make the same mistake as most churches have when confronting someone of a different view point. You call them names.Fact is we're all "stupid" at one thing or another. I'm guessing there are a few things that your not so good at. As for me I couldn't tell ya how to frame up a wall, or how read a blood test. I can however tell ya how to make a fine margarita, and how to change the breaks on your car.
The question could be applied to any discovery prior to its discovery. It always seems like a no brainer looking back.
beers

Somonauk, IL

#499 May 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>Just as abiogenesis does not equal evolution, and evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
Sorry, had to look this one up. Interesting theory, but once again how did these chemicals, and rocks come from nothing. I know its hard to believe in a big guy in the clouds. It's just as hard for myself and the millions of other Christians out here that a cosmic boom created the basic building blocks of everything on earth and the entire universe.
beers

Somonauk, IL

#500 May 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The question could be applied to any discovery prior to its discovery. It always seems like a no brainer looking back.
Yes it can. Assuming that, what if my proof came a little over 2000 years ago? If it works for us and science, as up to now can't dismiss it completely how is it wrong?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#501 May 7, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, had to look this one up. Interesting theory, but once again how did these chemicals, and rocks come from nothing. I know its hard to believe in a big guy in the clouds. It's just as hard for myself and the millions of other Christians out here that a cosmic boom created the basic building blocks of everything on earth and the entire universe.
The fact that right now our best answer is we don't all of the steps yet does not mean "god did it" is a valid answer. If you want to claim "god did it" you need to show some evidence that god actually exists. So far everything that has been explained in our world has been shown to be explained naturalistically. The need for a god keeps going down a time goes by.
beers

Somonauk, IL

#502 May 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that right now our best answer is we don't all of the steps yet does not mean "god did it" is a valid answer. If you want to claim "god did it" you need to show some evidence that god actually exists. So far everything that has been explained in our world has been shown to be explained naturalistically. The need for a god keeps going down a time goes by.
Other than my personal experience's, what can I offer? If you were not there, how can I show you? What would it take to make you believe? It boils down to Occams Razor at this point. The harder you try to disprove, the more you actually prove. I believe that a good bit of evolution theory is missing the forest for the tree. I'm not saying science is evil,wrong, or blasphemy. I'm saying there's a bit of info that is suspect. That mainly being nothing was, then the building blocks of everything did.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#503 May 7, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Other than my personal experience's, what can I offer? If you were not there, how can I show you? What would it take to make you believe? It boils down to Occams Razor at this point. The harder you try to disprove, the more you actually prove. I believe that a good bit of evolution theory is missing the forest for the tree. I'm not saying science is evil,wrong, or blasphemy. I'm saying there's a bit of info that is suspect. That mainly being nothing was, then the building blocks of everything did.
Then you have no objective evidence for your beliefs. Some of your beliefs can be shown to be wrong.

What part of evolution is "missing"? I am unaware of any missing parts. Abiogenesis is not a key part of evolution. It never has been. It may be in the future when we understand it better, but evolution itself has already been "proven".

Do you believe in Noah's Ark? You might as well believe in Santa Claus. Actually Santa Claus is more realistic than Noah's Ark since we know the root of the Santa Claus myth.

Your argument for god is at best an argument from ignorance. The problem with those is that once you begin to understand your argument falls apart in front of you.
beers

Somonauk, IL

#504 May 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Then you have no objective evidence for your beliefs. Some of your beliefs can be shown to be wrong.

What part of evolution is "missing"? I am unaware of any missing parts. Abiogenesis is not a key part of evolution. It never has been. It may be in the future when we understand it better, but evolution itself has already been "proven".

Do you believe in Noah's Ark? You might as well believe in Santa Claus. Actually Santa Claus is more realistic than Noah's Ark since we know the root of the Santa Claus myth.

Your argument for god is at best an argument from ignorance. The problem with those is that once you begin to understand your argument falls apart in front of you.
No I have plenty of both personal and historical evidence. Actually millions of people since the time of Christ have.It's that no matter what evidence I provide you will either call it ignorance, or baseless. If it can not be disproven. It can not be wrong. That's your theory. Why is it when I claim the same you cry foul?
The missing part of evolution is the very beging. Nothing begat everything. Saying we may find something one day doesn't make it real. Il
As far as Noah's Ark. I don't know. I wasn't there. Many tales come from some form of truth. The story's get passed down like telephone as we all played as kids. But that doesn't mean there's no base for the story.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#505 May 7, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
No I have plenty of both personal and historical evidence. Actually millions of people since the time of Christ have.It's that no matter what evidence I provide you will either call it ignorance, or baseless. If it can not be disproven. It can not be wrong. That's your theory. Why is it when I claim the same you cry foul?
The missing part of evolution is the very beging. Nothing begat everything. Saying we may find something one day doesn't make it real. Il
As far as Noah's Ark. I don't know. I wasn't there. Many tales come from some form of truth. The story's get passed down like telephone as we all played as kids. But that doesn't mean there's no base for the story.
Personal history is not objective evidence, much less scientific evidence.

Odds are that I will call the so called evidence that you provide "ignorance" because that is all that it is. Every religion has that sort of "evidence".

And once again, it does not matter how life started. The evidence points towards a natural start. We don't know how it happened yet, but that is besides the point. The start of life is not part of evolution.

It does not matter if your God, natural process, or even aliens started life on Earth. We know that once bacteria appeared on the Earth they evolved to the life that we see today.

And you don't have to be somewhere to know that a claimed event did not happen. Over 5 miles of water would have left evidence. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#506 May 8, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, had to look this one up. Interesting theory, but once again how did these chemicals, and rocks come from nothing. I know its hard to believe in a big guy in the clouds. It's just as hard for myself and the millions of other Christians out here that a cosmic boom created the basic building blocks of everything on earth and the entire universe.
Again you are missing the point. The theory of evolution is NOT about how life got started.

Its about how life changed and developed once it existed.

You are free to believed God poofed the first bacterium into existence and it makes no difference to the way the theory of evolution works. Your problem is the usual one where Christians assume that evolution is "the theory of atheism" but actually it makes NO claims about how life, or the universe, got started.

That is because the theory of evolution DOES contradict literal interpretation of Genesis (so does geology, astronomy, and physics for that matter) but that is NOT the same thing as saying God does not exist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#507 May 8, 2014
beers wrote:
Yep DNA is here no doubt about it. You question how. However if the top scientist, w/ top funding, w/ the best equipment the world has ever seen can not create even a simple single cell organism, how can a mud hole billions of years ago?
So you're saying that just because in only thirty years of research scientists haven't totally figured out an event that occurred over 3.5 billion years ago means chemical abiogenesis is impossible? Such absurd thinking you have.

By the same token, how does organic chemistry end up in comets? Especially in light of the fact that they don't originate from Earth. We also know that RNA can form naturally. So it's not really much of a stretch that DNA can develop from it. The trick is getting from RNA to DNA, and that's what researchers are looking into at the moment.
beers wrote:
Not all education is a waste. Great things continue to be discovered, enhanced and used. Some for good, some for not so good.
That's nice. But you worry far too much about abiogenesis. It's not really taught much in public schools as you generally need to be a fully qualified biochemist to understand the concepts involved. So kids in school will just learn basic chemistry, and work up from there.
beers wrote:
All these things come to us from God in one form or another.
That is your opinion, however your opinion is irrelevant. Not only does "God" not pass the scientific method (meaning no-one can really know if such an entity exists) it is also illegal to teach in public schools.
beers wrote:
It is up to us as how we use them. You make the same mistake as most churches have when confronting someone of a different view point. You call them names.
No, we call them misinformed. We present facts. They ignore facts. Then they lie. Then they ruin public school education. Then they call us names. Then we call them names back. Then we sue them for breaking the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
beers wrote:
Fact is we're all "stupid" at one thing or another. I'm guessing there are a few things that your not so good at. As for me I couldn't tell ya how to frame up a wall, or how read a blood test. I can however tell ya how to make a fine margarita, and how to change the breaks on your car.
Correct, we are all ignorant of something or another. For example if someone drops of their car for me to fix I can only guarantee it will go out in a worse condition than when it came in, because I'm ignorant about car mechanics.

And religious fundamentalists are ignorant of science. Which would be fine, except for the fact that they've spent the better part of the last century trying to ruin science education for EVERYONE. They simply aren't happy with keeping their own kids ignorant on the subject.

And what they are doing is both foolish, and illegal. So now you can understand the frustration felt by the science community and supporters of science and good education.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#508 May 8, 2014
beers wrote:
Sorry, had to look this one up. Interesting theory, but once again how did these chemicals, and rocks come from nothing. I know its hard to believe in a big guy in the clouds. It's just as hard for myself and the millions of other Christians out here that a cosmic boom created the basic building blocks of everything on earth and the entire universe.
Life never came from nothing. It came from the chemicals that were abundant on Earth at the time. Almost every planet in the entire universe has all sorts of chemistry going on. The same applies to our solar system. Most don't develop life, but with all of those reactions going on all over the universe, it's not surprising that at least one or two somewhere do develop life. After all, when examined scientifically, everything life is boils down to chemistry.

Also, not all Christians have a problem with the idea of life developing via chemical abiogenesis. They just think (in their opinion) that that is how God did it.

It is up to you whether you want to limit your god from being able to do that.
beers wrote:
Yes it can. Assuming that, what if my proof came a little over 2000 years ago? If it works for us and science, as up to now can't dismiss it completely how is it wrong?
Religious claims don't work in science because magic does not pass the scientific method. So the claims are either wrong, or at the very least cannot be verified scientifically.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#509 May 8, 2014
beers wrote:
Other than my personal experience's, what can I offer? If you were not there, how can I show you? What would it take to make you believe? It boils down to Occams Razor at this point. The harder you try to disprove, the more you actually prove.
No, that's not how Occam's Razor works at all. Some Biblical claims CAN be flatly disproven, such as global flood for example. That's why it never happened. What CAN'T be disproven would be something like global flood happened anyway because God used magic and left no evidence. Therefore Occam's Razor dismisses such a claim because special interference by God cannot be proven either way.
beers wrote:
I believe that a good bit of evolution theory is missing the forest for the tree.
And your beliefs do not matter. One, because beliefs aren't relevant to science. Two, because you're flat wrong. Evolution has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt. And is therefore rejected only by religious fundamentalists, and the occasional crank.
beers wrote:
I'm not saying science is evil,wrong, or blasphemy. I'm saying there's a bit of info that is suspect.
And you are incorrect.
beers wrote:
That mainly being nothing was, then the building blocks of everything did.
But if the building blocks WERE there, then science is NOT claiming life came from "nothing". If you want everything from nothing, that's what creationism is for.

Also, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care if life was started naturally, or by God, or by aliens, or by something else no-one has thought up yet. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise one would have to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#510 May 8, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
No I have plenty of both personal and historical evidence. Actually millions of people since the time of Christ have.It's that no matter what evidence I provide you will either call it ignorance, or baseless. If it can not be disproven. It can not be wrong. That's your theory. Why is it when I claim the same you cry foul?
That's not our theory. That's YOUR theory.

Therefore if the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be disproven (which it can't) then it cannot be wrong. Notice then that this claim is just as valid as yours.

But one thing you ARE missing is that evidence cannot support creationism because evidence doesn't matter to creationism. For instance, is the Earth old? Goddidit. Is the Earth young? Goddidit. Is the Earth young but just made to look old? Then God still didit. Notice that what the evidence shows does not matter.
beers wrote:
The missing part of evolution is the very beging. Nothing begat everything.
Wrong. Evolution never claims everything came from nothing. Creationism does that.

Evolution deals ONLY with the change of life over Earth's history. It does NOT have to explain abiogenesis. And it does NOT have to explain the origin of the universe either. All three are different subjects. The CLOSEST your objections are relevant to is the Big Bang theory, which at the moment has a number of hypotheses of how it all first started. Evolution doesn't have to worry about it since that didn't happen until nearly 9 billion years later, when there was lots of "somethings" around.
beers wrote:
Saying we may find something one day doesn't make it real.
No, but finding it now makes it real. And the evidence for evolution has accumulated a lot over the past 150 years. THAT'S what makes it real.
beers wrote:
As far as Noah's Ark. I don't know.
That's okay. We do.
beers wrote:
I wasn't there.
Doesn't matter. Earth was, and Earth left behind ZERO evidence of a global flood for Noah. If it DID happen there would be lots of evidence. There is none. The story simply defies evidence. There is no way life could have survived. Noah would have been fried.
beers wrote:
Many tales come from some form of truth. The story's get passed down like telephone as we all played as kids. But that doesn't mean there's no base for the story.
But that doesn't mean there WAS a basis for the story either. It MAY be possible that the whole thing was made up.

However it is also possible that it does have a grain of truth in it. For instance there's LOTS of evidence for great floods, especially at the end of the last ice age. They weren't global, but they were certainly impressive catastrophic events which would have led many ancient cultures to write about for centuries to come. So it may be that the various flood legends had their roots in these events.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#511 May 8, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Einstein, Big Bang is nothing was, then everything did. I'm sorry you wasted your parents money on an " education"
Actually, that is nothing at all like what the Big Bang theory says. In reality, the Big Bang theory is based on general relativity, which is the modern theory of gravity, and thermodynamics, with a bit of nuclear and particle physics added for the very early stages.

One of the basic aspects of general relativity is that time is part of the description of our universe. It enters into the dynamics in non-trivial ways and affects the overall curvature. And curvature is another name for gravity in this context. When general relativity is applied to the universe as a whole, it predicts (and observations support) an expansion of space. As space expands, the matter and energy in space cools (thermodynamics), so the universe was hotter and denser in the past. In particlar, we can predict the abundances of the light elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium) by looking at how fusions reactions happened in the very early universe and how they were cut off as the universe expanded and cooled. This also is verified by observation.

But the Big Bang scenario does NOT say that at some time there was 'nothing' and at some later time there was 'everything'. In fact, it says quite the opposite: it actually says that time itself had a beginning and that it co-exists with matter and energy. In other words, there was no *time* when there was 'nothing'. Any point where there was time, there was also matter and energy. So conservation of matter and energy is preserved.

I might also suggest that if you are going to criticize the education of others that you get your facts correct. Your understanding of what the Big Bang theory says is faulty.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#512 May 8, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting Wikipedia will get you no where🍭
You wantquotes from textbooks on the subject? I can provide them if you want.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#513 May 8, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
No I have plenty of both personal and historical evidence. Actually millions of people since the time of Christ have.It's that no matter what evidence I provide you will either call it ignorance, or baseless. If it can not be disproven. It can not be wrong. That's your theory. Why is it when I claim the same you cry foul?
It might come as a shock because its not well understood, but science only deals with questions that CAN be disproven. That is the criterion for an idea in science - is it testable?

All other questions such as "is there a God?" are simply outside of science, unless you can think of a way to test the idea. Doesn't mean its right or wrong. Just means we have no way of finding out!
The missing part of evolution is the very beging. Nothing begat everything. Saying we may find something one day doesn't make it real.
Nope. Evolution does not say something from nothing. Before it even starts, there has to be a simple reproducing organism, because these are the critters that evolution works on. How the critters get there in the first place has nothing to do with evolution. You are welcome to say God put them there, for all it matters to evolution.
As far as Noah's Ark. I don't know. I wasn't there. Many tales come from some form of truth. The story's get passed down like telephone as we all played as kids. But that doesn't mean there's no base for the story.
Sure. Maybe there was some local flood. You know how these stories grow over time. But at present there is no evidence for a worldwide flood and lots of evidence that nothing like that occurred 4500 years ago.

Genesis is parable. It tells some morality tales but its absurd to take it literally given what we have discovered over the last 500 years.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#514 May 9, 2014
Beers, LOL.

Conflating evolution with cosmology again.

Creationists are so silly, and so predictable.
beers

Chesapeake, OH

#515 May 12, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>It might come as a shock because its not well understood, but science only deals with questions that CAN be disproven. That is the criterion for an idea in science - is it testable?

All other questions such as "is there a God?" are simply outside of science, unless you can think of a way to test the idea. Doesn't mean its right or wrong. Just means we have no way of finding out!

[QUOTE]
The missing part of evolution is the very beging. Nothing begat everything. Saying we may find something one day doesn't make it real.
"

Nope. Evolution does not say something from nothing. Before it even starts, there has to be a simple reproducing organism, because these are the critters that evolution works on. How the critters get there in the first place has nothing to do with evolution. You are welcome to say God put them there, for all it matters to evolution.

[QUOTE]
As far as Noah's Ark. I don't know. I wasn't there. Many tales come from some form of truth. The story's get passed down like telephone as we all played as kids. But that doesn't mean there's no base for the story.
"

Sure. Maybe there was some local flood. You know how these stories grow over time. But at present there is no evidence for a worldwide flood and lots of evidence that nothing like that occurred 4500 years ago.

Genesis is parable. It tells some morality tales but its absurd to take it literally given what we have discovered over the last 500 years.
Want to know if there's a God. Ask him for help. Easy enough.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#516 May 12, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Want to know if there's a God. Ask him for help. Easy enough.
Oh sure. It worked out real well for those poor girls in the hot air balloon that burned and crashed this weekend, didn't it?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#517 May 12, 2014
beers wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep DNA is here no doubt about it. You question how. However if the top scientist, w/ top funding, w/ the best equipment the world has ever seen can not create even a simple single cell organism, how can a mud hole billions of years ago?
So nothing exists in nature unless we can recreate it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min marlboro man 162,552
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min Into The Night 77,103
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 min The FACTory 920
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 32,295
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr The FACTory 222,041
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 2 hr Rose_NoHo 445
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 3 hr The FACTory 4,329
More from around the web