Rejecting facts, theories, and evidence.

[Sethy94]

I understand that creationists have their own beliefs, and I do not have a problem with that at all. The only thing I don't understand is how can you be so confident in your own beliefs to the point that you're not even the slightest bit curious to understand factual evidence that explains how our universe works. Rather than understanding, or learning about the universe and how it came to be, creationists are so set on the idea that "GOD" is the reason for everything... Have you even thought about considering a different opinion or view point? To me it seems like a lot of creationist theory has to do with sheer ignorance, and closed mindedness to factual evidence. If it contradicts the Bible, than it cannot be true (according to Creationism)

 

[Extrinsic]

"If it contradicts the Bible, than it cannot be true"

I don't think that's what they believe. The Bible contradicts the Bible - by that reasoning the Bible would have to not be true. Surely even the most die hard theist couldn't believe that, well, that isn't irretrievably insane anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rather than understanding, or learning about the universe and how it came to be, creationists are so set on the idea that "GOD" is the reason for everything...

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Have you even thought about considering a different opinion or view point?

You mean atheism? no.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible contradicts the Bible - by that reasoning the Bible would have to not be true.

You mean the Bible contradicts the contradiction of the Bible, don't you?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Non sequitur]

You mean the Bible contradicts the contradiction of the Bible, don't you?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is that supposed to mean?

The Bible is true.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

 

[Non sequitur]

The Bible is true.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

It's contradictions are true?

What a cognitive dissonance.

 

[nuttypiglet]

contradictions? you mean not understanding the bible don't you? I've seen umpteen so called contradictions supposedly in the bible, but each has an explanation to say why it isn't a contradiction at all. You can get all this on the net.
What proof do you suppose creationists do not accept. You're not being specific here. Are you referring to evolution which isn't even a science, it's a belief system. If our creator says he did something, should I believe the creator or man with his very little knowledge? It has been estimated that we probably understand less than 1% of what there is to learn so how can I put faith in that? The opening statement in the bible is very clear "in the beginning, God created the universe and the Earth". This tells us that the universe had a beginning. It tells us God was already here before the universe, so he must live elsewhere. It tells us the universe has a purpose. It tells us how clever he is. So, where does this mean we are ignorant to science? which part contradicts science?
We say the universe was created, science says the universe COULD HAVE come from a huge bubble which can give rise to an infinite number of universes. A fantasy fairy tale of course but I suppose science feels obliged to come up with an alternative. It's interesting to see how the ego problem of Lucifer is inprinted in so many individuals, to believe we can be higher and more important than our creator. I prefer to be humble and one day learn from the Master himself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nuttypiglet,

I think you demonstrated exactly what the opening post was talking about. Nowhere do you reference actual evidence. In fact, you demonstrate that you have erected barriers between you and that evidence proclaiming that evolution is not science and that man is ignorant.

You also demonstrate the hubris spoken of in the opening post. You act as if your interpretation of man written books is none other than the voice of God himself. On one hand you claim man is so fallible and ignorant that we can't trust anything that man does. On the other, you take what man has written in Genesis and proclaim it to be infallible. Even worse, you, a fallible human being, have decided that anyone who disagrees with you is being influenced by Lucifer.

Your post is the prime example of what the author of the OP is talking about. Perhaps you should think on that.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Re: Project Reason poster

Getting information about the Bible from Project Reason is like getting information about evolution from Answersingenesis. Just sayin'.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Well let's take a step at a time then. How about Richard Dawkins. He is exalted by many evolutionists and gives many talks to universities around the world. He continually states how evolution is plain fact and anyone who believes in a deity should give up their belief, free their mind and follow his beliefs. He continually states how DNA is proof of macro evolution, and our closeness to chimps is another prime example. What DNA is there in fossils? So what if we are closely matched to chimps with DNA, does that prove there is no creator and we evolved from a common ancestor? really?
If you have some building blocks which do everything you require in creating something, why wouldn't you use the same blocks for ALL your creations? You would therefore expect chimps/humans to be genetically close. However, the anatomy of our bodies are totally different in so many ways. We then keep hearing about this GULO gene, which means with chimps we have to ingest vitamin C. More proof of a common ancestor? OR could it be that the creator designed man and chimp to eat lots of fruit, meaning our GULO gene doesn't need to be switched on? Genes are amazing, and it has been shown they do actually respond to the environment, helping the offspring have a better chance of survival. However, they cause variety in the same kind. I've lost count how many times fossils have been proved as fake. Even national geographic was fooled by a chinese farmer who put two fossils together of a bird and lizard. Once the real experts get their hands on fossils, it's amazing how they don't stand up to their claims. Evolution is something which I believe, but not the macro variety. When varieties start to become too distant from the original kind, we see sterilisation coming into effect. This simple and effective law was given by God during the creation and we see it working today. I'm pretty sure he didn't command a group of fish to leave a river and spend millions of years making all the life we see on land. Now THAT is a stretch of the imagination. I have visited a few museums to see the transition of man from ape. Millions of genetic mutations which all miraculously occurred at the right moment for him to survive. Mostly diagrams but some exhibits were quite nice constructed models made from clay or wax. In front of each exhibit was a list of the fossils found to enable the construct of each exhibit. One only had a tiny part of the lower jaw. Others had a few more bones. Some have since been proved to have been remains of chimp like apes with no resemblance to humans at all. I was not impressed by the lack of truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well let's take a step at a time then. How about Richard Dawkins. He is exalted by many evolutionists and gives many talks to universities around the world. He continually states how evolution is plain fact and anyone who believes in a deity should give up their belief, free their mind and follow his beliefs. He continually states how DNA is proof of macro evolution, and our closeness to chimps is another prime example. What DNA is there in fossils?

What DNA is there in living species? It is the genetic markers shared by living species that evidences common ancestry. Whether you like Dawkins or not has no bearing on whether or not his statements are true. I personally don't like Newt Gingrich, but I have to agree with him when he says that the sky is blue because all of the evidence says that it is.

So what if we are closely matched to chimps with DNA, does that prove there is no creator and we evolved from a common ancestor? really?

Why do you and your siblings share DNA? Is it because you share a common ancestor, or is it because you were each magically poofed into existence by a supernatural deity? Are you saying that chimps and humans should NOT share DNA if evolution is true?

[quoteIf you have some building blocks which do everything you require in creating something, why wouldn't you use the same blocks for ALL your creations?[/quote]

Why would God need to use 98% of the same DNA sequence to create two difference species? Surely an omnipotent creator would not need to reuse anything. The only reason that humans reuse designs is because we are very limited for time and resources. An omnipotent and omniscient being who lived outside of time and space and who is not ruled by any physical laws would not need to reuse a single design. So why do humans and chimps share 98% of our DNA? Creationism can not answer that question. Evolution can.

You would therefore expect chimps/humans to be genetically close.

You absolutely wouldn't. This is a complete fabrication invented by creationists who need to explain away the evidence supporting evolution at all costs. It is a complete lie. There is absolutely no reason that chimps and humans should even share the same genetic molecule if we were created separately. NONE. You are creating a complete fabrication.

However, the anatomy of our bodies are totally different in so many ways.

Those differences are spanned by fossil intermediates just as we should see if evolution is true.

We then keep hearing about this GULO gene, which means with chimps we have to ingest vitamin C. More proof of a common ancestor? OR could it be that the creator designed man and chimp to eat lots of fruit, meaning our GULO gene doesn't need to be switched on?

Then why give us a broken gene that we will never use? Why would God give us a false evolutionary history in our genome? Is God a trickster?

Genes are amazing, and it has been shown they do actually respond to the environment, helping the offspring have a better chance of survival. However, they cause variety in the same kind. I've lost count how many times fossils have been proved as fake.

Which of these hominid fossil intermediates are fakes?

The answer is none. Creationists are so afraid of the evidence that they have to lie about it. What does that say about you? Why do you have to run away from the fossil evidence? What does that say about creationism when they have to deny facts?

Once the real experts get their hands on fossils, it's amazing how they don't stand up to their claims.

Why do you have to tell lies like this one? This is completely untrue. See that picture up above? Every one of those is real. None are fake. Those fossils are intermediate between us and a common ancestor with chimps. Those are the facts. Why do you need to deny the facts?

I'm pretty sure he didn't command a group of fish to leave a river and spend millions of years making all the life we see on land. Now THAT is a stretch of the imagination.

You are right. The idea that God told you this is a stretch of the imagination. Now you are telling us that you get to deny the evidence because a deity talks to you. Sorry, but we are not buying it. Talk about a fairy tale.

I have visited a few museums to see the transition of man from ape. Millions of genetic mutations which all miraculously occurred at the right moment for him to survive.

Incredulity is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy. You actually want us to believe that a theory backed by mountains of evidence is less likely than a made up story about deities talking to people? Really? Have you thought this one through?

I am assuming that you actually believe that a supernatural deity magically poofed humans into being from dirt, right? This is what you believe with no evidence. You believe it simply because someone wrote the story down. You want us to think that you, who believes something simply because somebody wrote it down, are somehow the greatest judge of what is accurate and not accurate. Really? Seriously. You believe in magical poofing, and yet you reject the very natural mechanisms that we observe every day. Do you really want us to believe that you are the sane one?

Mostly diagrams but some exhibits were quite nice constructed models made from clay or wax. In front of each exhibit was a list of the fossils found to enable the construct of each exhibit. One only had a tiny part of the lower jaw. Others had a few more bones. Some have since been proved to have been remains of chimp like apes with no resemblance to humans at all. I was not impressed by the lack of truth.

And more lies from the one who claims to speak for a god. Sorry, but I am not impressed.

 

[Greg1234]

What DNA is there in living species? It is the genetic markers shared by living species that evidences common ancestry. Whether you like Dawkins or not has no bearing on whether or not his statements are true. I personally don't like Newt Gingrich, but I have to agree with him when he says that the sky is blue because all of the evidence says that it is.

Why do you and your siblings share DNA? Is it because you share a common ancestor, or is it because you were each magically poofed into existence by a supernatural deity? Are you saying that chimps and humans should NOT share DNA if evolution is true?

If you have some building blocks which do everything you require in creating something, why wouldn't you use the same blocks for ALL your creations?

Why would God need to use 98% of the same DNA sequence to create two difference species? Surely an omnipotent creator would not need to reuse anything. The only reason that humans reuse designs is because we are very limited for time and resources. An omnipotent and omniscient being who lived outside of time and space and who is not ruled by any physical laws would not need to reuse a single design. So why do humans and chimps share 98% of our DNA? Creationism can not answer that question. Evolution can.

You absolutely wouldn't. This is a complete fabrication invented by creationists who need to explain away the evidence supporting evolution at all costs. It is a complete lie. There is absolutely no reason that chimps and humans should even share the same genetic molecule if we were created separately. NONE. You are creating a complete fabrication.

Those differences are spanned by fossil intermediates just as we should see if evolution is true.

Then why give us a broken gene that we will never use? Why would God give us a false evolutionary history in our genome? Is God a trickster?

Which of these hominid fossil intermediates are fakes?

The answer is none. Creationists are so afraid of the evidence that they have to lie about it. What does that say about you? Why do you have to run away from the fossil evidence? What does that say about creationism when they have to deny facts?
Why do you have to tell lies like this one? This is completely untrue. See that picture up above? Every one of those is real. None are fake. Those fossils are intermediate between us and a common ancestor with chimps. Those are the facts. Why do you need to deny the facts?

You are right. The idea that God told you this is a stretch of the imagination. Now you are telling us that you get to deny the evidence because a deity talks to you. Sorry, but we are not buying it. Talk about a fairy tale.

Incredulity is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy. You actually want us to believe that a theory backed by mountains of evidence is less likely than a made up story about deities talking to people? Really? Have you thought this one through?

I am assuming that you actually believe that a supernatural deity magically poofed humans into being from dirt, right? This is what you believe with no evidence. You believe it simply because someone wrote the story down. You want us to think that you, who believes something simply because somebody wrote it down, are somehow the greatest judge of what is accurate and not accurate. Really? Seriously. You believe in magical poofing, and yet you reject the very natural mechanisms that we observe every day. Do you really want us to believe that you are the sane one?

And more lies from the one who claims to speak for a god. Sorry, but I am not impressed.

People don't believe that the mechanism is capable of creating man from microbe in the first place (See Gen and Cor for textual references). So I don't know why you would present your "evidence" that the mechanism created somewhat similar as opposed to vastly different organisms and say that people deny that the mechanism can create organisms that look somewhat alike or vastly different.

 

[Loudmouth]

People don't believe that the mechanism is capable of creating man from microbe in the first place (See Gen and Cor for textual references). So I don't know why you would present your "evidence" that the mechanism created somewhat similar as opposed to vastly different organisms and say that people deny that the mechanism can create organisms that look somewhat alike or vastly different.

The opening post already has it pegged:

"The only thing I don't understand is how can you be so confident in your own beliefs to the point that you're not even the slightest bit curious to understand factual evidence that explains how our universe works."

Belief gets in the way of knowledge. Belief gets in the way of understanding. What creationists believe or don't believe has little to do with the facts, and it is the facts that are important in determining how the universe works.

 

[Gracchus]

Science observes the world, tries to explain the observations, draws tentative conclusions from those explanations, and then tests those conclusions against the real world.

From the five postulates of Euclid, and assuming some fairly simple rules of inference we deduce that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. We can now trust, to some extent, our assumptions and our rules of logical inference. If we change any of the first four postulates we come up with inconsistent nonsense, and contradictions that do not correspond to the world we see. If we change the fifth postulate, we get no contradictions and geometrical conclusions that are valid for spherical and hyperbolic surfaces. We have learned something valuable about the first four postulates, about the three alternative fifth postulates, and we can place even more confidence in our rules of inference.

Just so, the theory of evolution has been tested and challenged by some very smart people for over a hundred and fifty years, and it is still the best explanation we have for the diversity of life. No other testable theory remains in contention. Moreover, the theory has proved sufficient to explain the observed phenomena. Of course when new phenomena were observed the theory has been adjusted, but such adjustments have been surprisingly minor. In fact, the discovery of Mendelian genetics plugged a big hole in Darwin's original theory, and the discovery of DNA strengthened the genetic theory.

Religion starts with assumptions that are untestable. There is an omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous, magic man, indectable by any means, who writes egnigmatic books and performs miracles. (But always a long time ago, or a long way away!) He is omniscient remember, and he never changes, but he messes things up so bad he has to destroy all life except for eight people and two of each kind of animals (Except those that are safe to eat! He preserves seven of those.) He doesn't move them to a habitat dome on the moon, or Mars, he has the eight people build a boat.

And then this omniscient being, who knew all this was going to happen, kills everything not on that boat, men women, children, dogs, cats and goats.

We had a phrase for this kind of performance in the army: 4-P. ("Pretty" poor prior planning). If he knows everything, he must not be very smart!

But religious people are prepared to believe any asurdity if such "faith" wins them the good will of friends and family, or at least, financial success. So, religious people are not prepared to change their beliefs or reasoning for mere facts, or logical reasoning. They are going to wait until they think their friends, family, or business interests will permit it.

The emperor sets the style, and just to be safe, the prudent use the same tailor.