Creationism Checkmate: 40M Year-old Walking Whale Fossil

[oooooh snap]

...is a faith-based worldview written by Iron Age peasants that didn't know the earth went around the sun.

It pretends to explain everything when in fact it explains nothing.

It's not the least bit falsifiable or subject to physical experiment.

It has no place in the science classroom or the laboratory.

.

Not true. You're mistaking creationism for a religion of your badgering. There is a "rational" thought of creationism. Although personally I believe any idea is equally as absurd as the next. Scientifically backed or not.

Serious question for you. What do you think of the Sumerians and their scriptures of 10 planets orbiting a sun, a model of a genome, and the fact that they were "told this information by the people of the sky"?

 

[65fastback2+2]

one more i like

SPICEBUSH SWALLOWTAIL CATERPILLAR

 

[1hot281]

Serious question for you. What do you think of the Sumerians and their scriptures of 10 planets orbiting a sun, a model of a genome, and the fact that they were "told this information by the people of the sky"?

What do you think of this? Would you say this is evidence for creationism? For God?

Which is more likely? That the Sumerian people were visited by God, who created the entirety of the Universe and everything in it, including the Earth, and humanity... or that the Sumerian people were in contact with simply a more advanced race. Possibly an extraterrestrial species with thousands or even millions of years of additional evolution and technological discovery beyond our own. A species that the Sumerians assume are gods, or god-like.

Occam's Razor. Among competing hypotheses, the one which is less complex and requires the least extreme or least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one.

 

[germeezy1]

These threads are about as useless as the idea that we who can't even cure cancer can unequivocally determine the basis for our creation.

 

[oooooh snap]

What do you think of this? Would you say this is evidence for creationism? For God?

Which is more likely? That the Sumerian people were visited by God, who created the entirety of the Universe and everything in it, including the Earth, and humanity... or that the Sumerian people were in contact with simply a more advanced race. Possibly an extraterrestrial species with thousands or even millions of years of additional evolution and technological discovery beyond our own. A species that the Sumerians assume are gods, or god-like.

Occam's Razor. Among competing hypotheses, the one which is less complex and requires the least extreme or least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one.

No sir, I don't think it proves God/7 days/holy crackers, but I do find it interesting food for thought, especially to the skeptics. Nobody really talks about the possibility of us being created, or at least life here being set in motion by an alien species. Maybe too sic-fi

And if we're going that route, I think somebody creating us is a whole lot less complex than most other ideas.

we who can't even cure cancer can unequivocally determine the basis for our creation.

That always makes me chuckle to myself when I think of it.

 

[wurd2]

Question; assume for a moment that there is God and this being is immortal. How long would a day be for such a being? Would it be by our time line a billion years, more or less? Certainly it would be far more than our human, 24 hours.

Once you start stretching out the time lines to meet the described conditions, the conflicts between the two, creation or evolution become much less. If what we describe as a day, is in fact, far longer to God, why is this a conflict?

I would agree that the time factor can be fiddled with to reduce conflict between creationism and evolution. However, the time dimension is not a critical factor in this very real, very measurable, very costly war between science and religion.

Creationism, in the classic sense, holds that all species were intelligently designed as is. And our species, specifically, was created in His image. Lucky us.

When we look at life, we see extraordinary design and complexity. But we do not see optimal design. Life is riddled with redundancies, regressions, and bizarre inefficiencies. Within our own bodies we can see numerous examples of evolution's poor patchwork:

• our prefrontal lobes are too small whereas our adrenal glands are too big
• our mouths are too small for our number of teeth
• several thousand die every year because we eat and breathe through the same orifice
• between our legs is an entertainment package coupled with a sewage system
• we have a blind spot in our vision so blatant a child with a piece of paper and pencil can demonstrate it
• our knees, eyes, and ears tend to have a lifespan shorter than our own
• our recurrent laryngeal nerves take absurd routes only to end near where they begin (applies to all mammals, especially true in giraffes)
• with respect to the full light spectrum we're essentially blind
• we inhabit a planet mostly covered by water and we have no gills
• the earth spews odorless and colorless gases that are lethal and undetectable by our senses
• we exhale most of the oxygen we inhale
• in our gut is 3 to 4 pounds of several species of bacteria, all of which we cannot live without and some of which can kill us
• our genome is partially comprised of dead retroviruses
• two pairs of our chromosomes are fused together
• as embryos we produce tails, gill slits, and a full coat of apelike hair, only to lose these charming accessories before birth
• men have a urinary tract that runs straight through the prostate gland, a gland that tends to swell throughout life, causing serious health issues
• women have a pelvis that is not designed as well as it could have been to assist birth, and as a result, hundreds of thousands of women each year suffer prolonged and obstructed labors that result in a rupture known as obstetric fistula.

Examples of poor design such as these alone can fill an entire volume. Because evolution is a blind, unguided process, it both predicts and explains these shortcomings; the account of Genesis does not.

The version of creationism we're at war with is starkly incompatible with evolution, plain and simple. If we water down creationism to a point where it meshes with evolution, it will no longer be recognizable to Christianity at large.

.

 

[wurd2]

These threads are...useless...

Great news! SVTP has plenty of others.

.

 

[wurd2]

Not true. You're mistaking creationism for a religion of your badgering. There is a "rational" thought of creationism.

10 Christians in a room is 10 versions of Christianity.

I speak of classic creationism, the worldview responsible for major and ultra-expensive court battles in the domain of public education: Epperson v. Arkansas, Segraves v. State of California, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards v. Aguillard, Webster v. New Lenox School District, Peloza v. Capistrano School District, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., and Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover.

These are concrete examples of a concrete war between religion and science.

They can't be watered down into not having occurred.

Although personally I believe any idea is equally as absurd as the next. Scientifically backed or not.

You're thoroughly confused.

I bet you take your doctor's scientific education and scientific instruments seriously when you're in pain or injured.

The scientific method took us to the moon.

It's the most powerful explanatory and investigative tool in our arsenal.

Serious question for you. What do you think of the Sumerians and their scriptures of 10 planets orbiting a sun, a model of a genome, and the fact that they were "told this information by the people of the sky"?

I don't know enough about this to give you a serious answer.

What I can say for sure is that evolution doesn't care.

.

 

[wurd2]

I see that 65fastback2+2 still can't comprehend that evolution isn't a chance process. He also seems to think Darwin should have understood evolution as well as we do today.

Darwin was completely unaware of the bio-machinery that drives evolution at the molecular level. Nevertheless, our discovery of these microscopic machines has sufficiently established his game-changing hypothesis that all life descended from a common ancestor.

.

 

[wurd2]

...we who can't even cure cancer can unequivocally determine the basis for our creation.

Did you know that the people who wrote your worldview weren't aware the earth went around the sun? Did you know they were unaware of microorganisms?

The school of thought responsible for discovering evolution recently landed an unmanned exploratory rover on Mars. The same school of thought recently discovered the Higgs-Boson particle by smacking space with enough force to produce particles never before observed or analyzed.

Has the creator of the universe revealed anything useful to you lately?



.

 

[wurd2]

I assume you mean carbon-14: half-life is approximately 5,730 years.

There's no way you're old enough to know that.

If you're bored, you can educate me as to why my question is in error without the 14 suffix. I'm assuming protons and neutrons are involved, in mismatching numbers.

.

 

[65fastback2+2]

10 Christians in a room is 10 versions of Christianity.

holy cow....he might have inadvertently admitted to understanding Christianity is "faith based"

 

[DaleM]

holy cow....he might have inadvertently admitted to understanding Christianity is "faith based"

Any moron can understand it as it was designed by tribal clerics, he just explained what is dubious about it.

 

[TheCPE]

Unscientific assertions? Medical science quietly relies heavily on this "unscientific assertion".

Could you provide an example of medical science relying heavily on the assertion that "nothing comes from nothing"?

So you've walked down the street and had matter violently and rapidly appear in front of you for no reason?

Your hyperbolic straw man while a humorous visualization isn't a useful argument I'm afraid. Doesn't it make more sense to say "I don't know" than to rely on unfalsifiable stories that are placeholders until science can explain the phenomenon?

 

[Digital]

I'd love to be inside the mind of a true believer when they are snapped out of their coma. I'm sure there are some people who are TRUE believers that have woken up. It must be like a small african tribe that meets someone with a iphone. Just blows their mind and everything they once held on to to dust.

 

[venom_inc]

I'd love to be inside the mind of a non believer when they are snapped out of their coma. I'm sure there are some people who are non believers that have woken up. It must be like a small african tribe that meets someone with a iphone. Just blows their mind and everything they once held on to to dust.

Fixed that for you. :thumbsup:

 

[czwalga00gt]

holy cow....he might have inadvertently admitted to understanding Christianity is "faith based"

Faith is just another word for not knowing. How you can dedicate your life to something you willingly admit you dont know for sure is beyond me.

 

[TheCPE]

If you're bored, you can educate me as to why my question is in error without the 14 suffix. I'm assuming protons and neutrons are involved, in mismatching numbers.

Yeah, the C-14 isotope has 8 neutrons whereas C-13 and C-12 have 7 and 6 respectively. The other two isotopes (C-13 and C-12) are stable and thus not useful in radiometric dating like C-14.

 

[SteveChris]

How do they know that thing wasn't pink?

 

[TheCPE]

Not true. You're mistaking creationism for a religion of your badgering. There is a "rational" thought of creationism. Although personally I believe any idea is equally as absurd as the next. Scientifically backed or not.

Creationism is not rationale thought; it is based upon theism instead of logic and empiricism. Further it speaks volumes that you believe ideas are equally absurd even when one has scientific evidence and support.

Serious question for you. What do you think of the Sumerians and their scriptures of 10 planets orbiting a sun, a model of a genome, and the fact that they were "told this information by the people of the sky"?

All you want to know regarding actual scholarly work involving the Sumerians (and their knowledge of FIVE planets visible to the naked eye):http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/VA243seal.pdf

BTW that analysis is done by a biblical scholar.