Creationists and science

Post Reply New Topic

thats like the LogiShield3000 used in many a political debate!
its amazing, you can tell people that if ALL men in india set fire to their wives, as a routine, the indian population would become extinct, but it just bounces right off them!
"india isnt considered a muslim country, either." *KA-PIING!* off it goes!

Creationism is pretty dumb.

Some of my things about it:

Oh come on that makes no sense. This should clearly be a blue interrupt, not a white creature.

No idea, I never played that game but the concept works.

I think some evolutions seem to believe that if you take a few billion years, add some time, space, and chance, frogs somehow turn into princes. Before I started school, I was told that the frog-to-prince story was just a fairy tale; but when I started school, I was told that it was science.

Myself, I like to set up little pretend cities populated by strawmans, which I then rampage through pretending I'm Godzilla.

Personally, I believe evolution and creationism are two different things. Creationism describes how matter was created. How it first came to be. Evolution describes what happens with that matter/life after it was created. Thus, I believe in creationism and evolution.

well, the billions of years and space and the chances, etc take away the prettyness and the appeal of fairy tales, I mean, where the lady who gave the kiss to the frog billions of years ago came from and where she would be right now, and, how many kisses she will give him in order to become a real prince, if that was possible, or how many princes there will be? if I was the frog, pretty much I wouldn't like having to wait that much time, so boring.

Last edited by greenblue on 12 May 2009, 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If, at the age of 59, you have not the comprehension to understand the science behind evolution and how this is validated in very many historical and current evidences, you might as well give up.

MattShizzle - those are priceless! Especially loving the demands for equal time given to Flat Earth theory.

Bataar - Creationism describes by randomly postulating one of infinite ways how matter could have come into being using our limited imagination in the absence of solid physical evidence. "It could have been wished by fairies or garden gnomes, or it could have been my god or your god or Vishnu."

Science readily accepts that we do not know everything. But because we don't know the origin of X does not prove or even offer a scrap of evidence that X must therefore be caused by the will of a sentient being, much less that it must be this culture's version of a sentient being versus that culture's.

E.g.; we once did not know where fire came from. Or rainbows. Or tsunamis. Does that mean these things can only have been god-created? Or does it mean we at one time hadn't yet developed the scientific tools to understand and describe these phenomena?

- Jo; whose remnants of common cold could be caused by microscopic gremlins or an alien anal probe, or by simple viruses the medical community hasn't quite completely cracked the code of yet.

Well, maybe I am playing devil's advocate here, but the ideas of gradualism leave a lot to be desired. I think sometimes evolution gets it's pace up, just look at the Cambrian Evolution and a lot of other instances in prehistory.

Bringing up my age got me to thinking about age as it pertains to evolutionary thinking. During my early years of my student career in the public school system, with a little bit of college afterward, I remember being taught that science had placed the age of the earth at 3-billion years.

I believe a few years later science said the earth was about 5-billion-years old; then I think exact science later changed its mind and said that the true age of the earth, as well as the universe, was 8-billion years. I even remember reading that science had once believed the universe to be 20-billion-years old.

I think the last time I looked science had concluded the universe to be really 12-billion-years old. I think that the quirky way science determines the age of the universe, or just about anything else it determines, for example, the big bang theory, is confusing to the point of being scrambled.

i dont care about creationists, if you wanna believe man lived with dinosaurs and the entire universe was made in 7 days then fine. just dont make laws for the rest of us to follow based on your religion and i'll be cool

It took rather a few attempts to achieve an accurate measurement to the distance of the sun. I don't see as that would invalidate Newton's Laws however.

Last edited by twoshots on 13 May 2009, 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Personally, I don't have a problem saying that God created the big bang, but I'm not sure what to think of evolution.