http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

To learn the various forms of Creationism and what they are.

The common link between all of them is "G-d created the world, based on how we understand the book of Genesis."

Thats about the only link between them. There are various levels of acceptance of Evolution, and even evolution is broken down between Micro-evolution (changes within a species or creation) and Macro-evolution (changes crossing species line)




This is the statement I labeled as emotional. To break it down logically.

I think X is False.
X can't be similar to Y
I know X is not Y because I think Y is true and X is false, so they MUST be different.

Therefore, X is false because I don't agree with it, and Y is true because I do agree with it.

This isn't logical.

I was just going off of the hard cold definition of the word "creationism", which I defined above.

People can argue different aspects of it as much as they want to, and I'd gladly join in with them. I can understand how people could believe in different types of creationism, or combine creationism with evolution. I'm not anti-religion or anti-god, I was just basing my argument off of the official definition of the word "creationism", not any of it's subtypes or sibling types. People who deny evolution in every way are very wrong, it does happen. I do believe in natural selection, random evolution, the whole nine yards. I also believe the earth is very, very, very old. There are some parts of that you cannot reject, and doing so means you have "twisted logic", but some parts of evolution are up for debate, and that's fine, just as -some- parts of creationism are up for debate.

I wish I had started this conversation in the Creationism thread, but I saw these posts way before I saw that thread.

Really? Show me the public school books, or the legislation which instructs that people teach that the bible or any other book is more correct than the collective unanimously agreed upon findings of the scientific community.

I'm not discussing what people tell each other in their own homes, I'm talking about what is legally and socially agreed upon.

If you read the arguments by the Intelegent Design proponents, they make if very clear that they are not teaching from the bible, and are arguing over interpretation over scientific findings, not the findings themselves.




In other words. You believe in propaganda and demonization rather than open and honest debate?

Not that surprising really.

You are worse than the "You are either a republican or a terrorist" crowd.

Just to throw in my opinion, even though I'm an atheist I don't believe religion is a bad thing. I just think there are far, far too many people who do not understand their own religion.

Like 90% of the Christians in America. The ones who "hate" homosexuals, or just "hate" anyone in general who is doing something that is against the Christian doctrine. For one thing, there is practically nothing in the New Testament against these things. The New Testament preaches love, not hate. Turn the other cheek, and all that. I don't understand how so many American Christians can be so violently against something, when they themselves are opposing their religion by choosing to hate rather to love.

I think that's what made me an atheist, was the people who followed the religion rather than the religion itself.

Open and honest debate does not change deep rooted emotional biases. You don't rationally sway people to religion, and you don't rationally sway people out of it. It's a waste of effort and implies that I care to change individuals. I don't. I really don't care what religion you do or do not belong to. However, for as long as religion is used as an excuse for prejudice and reactionary tendencies in society, may the offending proselytizers be mocked by their friends and disowned by their families.

EDIT: And to your edit:

It's one state to the south of me. Kansas. It is against the law to teach evolution. If the origins of species is taught in the classroom (from what I understand, most teachers just won't), it has to be done from the ID perspective. Colorado, one state to the west, requires bright yellow warning labels on their biology textbooks. This stuff is rather close to home.

Did you miss the whole enlightenment movement? The writings of John Lock or Thomas Jefferson, Bejamin Franklin?

What you are proposing is the exact same methods used by the soviet union and other totalitarian regimes that were common in the 1930s and 40s.

Fear the flamer on the intersnets!


edit:





These thing happen through rational open debate... not mockery and propaganda.

This is one of those can of worms you just don't touch. It's an issue that people feel so passionately about and never change their mind about. Things always devolve into "haha look at the monkey, he believes in god. Hahaha what an idiot" when creationists get rather insulted about something that you just don't understand.

Maybe there is a greater power out there. I like to think there is. I'm also a rational, leveled headed person (most of the time :/) that isn't going to discredit evolution because the Bible didn't explain it. When you quote the bible or use the bible as an argument you have to remember...IT WAS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE. It's an interpretation of what Man thinks God said/did. It's also been chopped up, edited, and general screwed around with my the Catholic church for centuries. What the bible originally said? Who knows.

But to discredit people because they believe in a God? It's rude and condescending. Perhaps something has happened in their lives to change the way they look at things. Perhaps they've survived cancer. Perhaps they've had something the doctors said would never be like it should be, and it healed itself. People feel things that can't be explained by evolution and all the google searches in the world. Just because YOU don't feel it, you don't understand it...doesn't mean it's not true. Are you really so egotistical to think that you really know everything? That human beings have managed to figure out everything and there is no chance that they've missed something, that there is something out their that can be explained with carbon dating?

Woa, getting passionate.

I'm not sure what I am on the evolution-creationism spectrum.

Let's talk about the enlightenment.

You have a monolithic ecclesial organization that functions as tax collector, legislative body, house of international diplomacy, judge, and jury. The writings of Locke don't deal extensively with religion. Yes, it's in there, but it's all in the context of the social contract, which is a subversive idea in that era. These aren't people who're giving point by point rebuttals to Christianity. These are people who're openly calling the church evil and against the ill-defined natural order. That's an emotional argument.

So because it's no longer the case, you are going to argue it was never the case?

Beliefs are nothing more than the environment a person has been exposed to. Whether a person is "taught" from their parents, through reading the writings of others, or even through peer pressure and such things... it all factors out the same. A person's beliefs are just that -- beliefs. That doesn't make them right.

That being said, I do very much enjoy the idea of a prankster god running around burying fossils.

He stated it in the present tense, not the past tense.

However my main point is that open, civil and rational debate get you much further than propaganda, name calling, and dehumanization, which is MUCH more dangerous, and leads to more violence.

This post is self-contradictory. You start out by making several statements based on absolutely no evidential or scientific support (see: the first paragraph). You then say that because Creationists rely on supernatural things without evidence, you reject them and they hinder world progress.

Let's apply the same thing - your statements have no evidence, so I am going to ignore them and deride them as the antithesis to progress. The entire world has now moved backwards because of your post, using your own logic.



I doubt it will blow my mind - I have done quite a bit of reading, actually. Let me propose a counter-claim for example: Monkeys and humans are very similar, which demonstrates that they must have come from the same designer. In the same way similar artworks are attributed to the same designer, it makes sense that similar creatures should be in the same way.

What do you say? Viable evidence, or circumstantial and useless?



I suppose I should clarify, when I talk about science, I mean specifically the scientific method. People who claim to support only science are making the claim that they believe nothing unless it can be reproduced and observed via the scientific method. Logical analysis and deduction are also means of acquiring truth, but they are outside of the scientific method.



This is assuming that evolution explains away the need for God. Do I really have to give a list of other questions that science can't answer? How about those people who accept evolution, but reject abiogenesis as a crackpot theory and recognize things like panspermia to be equally far-fetched?



Evolution is not truly testable. It is similar to religion in that it is an overarching theory of something that happened historically and cannot be repeated. However, it makes certain claims which are testable. Some of them come out in favor of natural selection, others do not. ID theory is a very broad theory, like you said, mainly comprised of people who (like me) believe that the scientific answers are horribly lacking.



I wasn't saying that I agree with them, but I recognize the criticism from their perspective. However, you are again showing some bias. The point is that evolution can not be proved, and is a hotly disputed field. I would expect similar reactions if the government ruled that global warming (caused by man) was required to be taught in schools, while banning the teaching of global cooling. The problem is that neither is really proven.




I agree with your first sentence. However, you seem to overlook the reality that atheism and agnosticism are also religions. You cannot truly say that we should treat every religious person as a maligned minority - everyone serves some sort of religion. The best you can say (and what you seem to be supporting) is that everyone who holds a religion directly contrary to mine should be turned into a maligned minority.

I've decided I'm going to be a Raelian.

The Raelians believe that life was created by scientists from another planet. The scientists continue to visit earth and were mistaken for gods. (from the link Daganev posted on the Norris thread : What is Creationism? )

Cause it explains UFOs too.

Really though, there are a few ideas listed on that site I could get behind - Theistic Evolution, Methodological Materialistic Evolution, Philosophical Materialistic Evolution, Raelians, Panspermia (I actually agree with this one the most), and Catastrophic Evolution.

Plus my own idea of God of the "Gee, what'll happen if I do this?" persuasion, which prolly isn't original to me, but meh.

There is a religion I heard about somewhere that the Galaxy is a giant ocean and planets are created by this giant cosmic turtle swimming through the galaxy and laying eggs.

I always found that interesting.

Random.

There is a kabbalistic theory that each person is different for precisely this reason. Each person is the living actuality of the near infinite combination of possiblities which allows for the contradiction of G-d being X and not being X at the same time. And this is what they refer to when they say that each person contains a spark of G-d within their soul. (i.e. each possible outcome of "what happens if" is important in and of itself.)

The fact that this thread is titled Religion vs Reality is incredibly bigoted in itself, and is really just an indication of where this discussion inevitably ends up.

Any intelligent scientist will tell you that they cannot disprove God. You can offer up all the evidence in the world to prove evolution exists, or that at least some aspects of it do, but ultimately there's no way to disprove God. To say that God doesn't exist and is only a device invented to help a person cope with life is a speculation, just as saying God DOES exist is a speculation (which your own faith backs up).

Personally I believe in intelligent design. There are so many seemingly haphazard things that take place, and the only reason they are called haphazard is because we have yet to find a pattern to them, like genetic mutations for example. Maybe they ARE truly random, but maybe they are part of something else. Ultimately I do believe in God, but I also acknowledge the science behind evolution and genetics and all of those things.

That sounds interesting! Wonder how that'd work with the super nifty idea of multiple parallel universes? You know, the one that says that for every decision every person makes reality splits and a parallel universe is created so all possible choices are made - just in different universes. I like that theory cause it means that somewhere in an alternate universe there's a version of me that has good credit.

We're obviously just a bunch hairy legged bra burning hippies that want an excuse to get stoned and sleep with horses/red neck bible thumping hillbillies that throw rocks and scream and the dirty little gay people

One random theory I have, which is design to bring modern science and ancient theories together is that neutrinos and other tiny particles that fly to earth from the various stars and gases push and mutate the various methods of evolution and that they are not random at all, and gives a glimpse into how such vaguely understood things like astrology could potentially work. (i.e. people born when the earth is in different places within the solar system, get hit by the various particles causing their brain development and behavior to be modified appropriately.)

Hot. You can always throw your stones at me, babe.