I think the biggest problem with creationism is it implies that the universe was created solely for man, but let's look at the universe that we have so far observed. Let me use this example: say the universe is a desert. About a single atom on a single grain of sand could support life. So yeah, something tells me the universe wasn't created just for man. Heck, humans can only survive without help in less than half of the planet, seeing as we can only live in certain environmental conditions, which only a few parts of the whole planet have.
Well, yeah. But they have that bias because science is incompatible with what they believe. Look at it this way: They believe that their god created the earth about 6000 years ago. We know that this is impossible because the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and because we know how it actually formed. They believe that their god created man in his own image and all the animals as they are now. We know that this is impossible because all species on this planet evolved over billions of years to result in their current forms. They believe the universe was created specifically for them. We know that this is very likely impossible, because our solar system is less than a single atom on a small grain of sand on a gigantic beach, in relation to the universe. We're basically insignificantly small.
If they want to desperately cling to their beliefs, they will do anything to try and discredit science.
1) Humans have not always had the ability to write nor have they been around to witness all events. Much of history because of this has been lost or misinterpreted so one can argue that this was just a rough estimate. Alternativly the whole Earth created in six days thing could have been from God's point of view. An omnipotent spirit wouldn't view time the same way we do so six days to such an entity could be billions of years to us.
2) I feel this is one aspect that has been horribly misinterpreted due to humanities superiority complex. To be omnipotent you have to be everywhere. Everything. God is a spirit and spirits don't technically have a physical form of their own so therefor God wouldn't look like us in the general sense (besides what would a creator like that need legs for). I interpret it more as a mental thing and from that aspect it actually makes perfect sense. Look at our world. Its vibrant. Everywhere you go you find completely different environments with many different colours, formations, animals, reactions etc. The world is an insanely creative living, breathing work of art and that is actually reflected on us. Everything we do, everything we create often has an artistic touch. From the buildings and foods we make to the way in which we speak, move, dance and even our freakin' weapons often have interesting and detailed artistic touches to them.
3) This is true. Back then however they also believed that the universe was only as big as the solar system and they believed that everything in it revolved around Earth. The bias towards science started when they first debunked this claim and stated that everything revolved around the sun. Nowadays even the most ridiculous zealots usually accept this as fact. We are small, insignificant and pathetic which I accept and embrace. Humans have always been terrified of being inferior and this inferiority complex is what lead to us creating this ideal of superiority that stains our species. It is a bias within itself. People need to get out of their delusions and embrace their inferiority.
In truth the only true reason people have for hating science is fear. To be precise a fear of inferiority which in turn means they are pretty much afraid of themselves.
Two years ago I was a Christian. Then I accepted the likelihood that, because I did not believe in Jesus Christ, Christian dogma, or any other religious "teachings", I was most likely a deist. After than realization I asked myself "Well what kind of deist am I?" and after a few months of research and contemplation I finally found the philosophy of "Pandeism", which I still value today. The only issue was that I still didn't 100% agree with all of the principles of Pandeism and I came to the ultimate realization. God wasn't a necessary part of my beliefs. And so I started thinking of myself as a "Pandeistic Atheist", as I still accepted many of the principles of Pandeism and yet I don't need a deity to fill in the gap before the Big Bang. That was about a year ago and since then I've come to another realization. Pandeism, once you remove deism from the question, looks a lot like Atheism. I've come to understand Atheism and embrace it. It is much more spiritual and transcendent than the religious, or even the deistic, give it credit for. Your form of deism reminds me a lot of my own Pandeism and how I felt about the universe. This is not a suggestion, only a comment. When I transitioned from deism to Atheism, I did not feel like I had lost something without "God" in my life. On the contrary, the space left open by his absence was more welcoming than any misguided faith or dogma. Everything just started to make sense. "God" still has a place in my beliefs, but ultimately his name has become synonymous with "nothingness".
First time being blocked, but here it is "Pristichampsus":
And at a casual glance at your gallery, I see where your anger stems from. But I don't know you, and I have no reason to dislike you, I'm not cussing at you or questioning you about Creationism. But your attitude is rude, and dissing a guy that just recently died is not cool, so you can't expect me to just take you lightly, or seriously, especially seeing how you already made up your mind to react this way. And plus, we're on DeviantArt, not exactly a place for debates, it's here for artistic expression and to help other fellow Deviants. Of course, if you had bad experiences upon meeting a Creationist, that's understandable, but if the way your acting right now is how you start discussions, I see why Creationist'd be bitching back at you. No one's praching to you, man, so don't act like everytime you talk to someone they're trying to convert you or whatever. Your the hostile one and everyone sees that.
And please, Wikipedia ain't the place to cite your research.
Wikipedia has actually developed into a very reliable general source of information over the years. It's also really useful for providing links with further reading on topics. So yes, it actually is the place to cite one's research if that research is merely casual in nature, and a great place to start one's research if it isn't.
Everyone's an idiot at some point.. And creationism is quite.. idiotic. It's clearly made up, it doesn't have any research behind it The bible was written a long time ago and people were... well, not so intelligent back then. And we still have a lot to learn about our universe...
If you believe in evolution, you probably don't believe in science.
What about the law of entropy? Or the law of conservation of energy? Or the staggering complexity of life? Or the mathematical odds of even a single protein forming by random chance being 1 out of 10 to the 123rd power? Or not a single credible "missing link" of the millions that must exist if the theory was correct never being found? Or the current population of the Earth? Or the lack of skeletons found in the Earth? (if it was millions of years old there would literally be trillions that must be buried in the Earth, and only a tiny fraction of that number actually being found.) Did you know that men have one less rib than females? Did you know the same minerals found in the dirt are also in our bodies? Did you know your eye can do more in 2 seconds than the most advanced super computer on the planet can in 2 hours? Did you know that despite millions upon billions of dollars and fifty years of advanced research, there are no computers that can equal your brain? Did you know that Darwin was a racist and a sexist? And I quote: “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than women can attain, whether required deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Descent, v 2, 327 According to Darwin men have attained a higher eminence on the evolutionary scale than women in anything and everything he chooses. Charles Darwin also wants people to believe that black people are less evolved than white people.
This is what is known as a "Gish gallop", spewing supposed counter-arguments so quickly and profusely, that people are discourage from making a counter-argument. Most Gish gallops are filled with fallacies and ridiculous excuses, this is no exception.
I don't care, honestly. Any vehement promoters of creationism have none of my pity. The fact of the matter stands, he was so notorious for fallacy filled rants directed at evolutionists, that what I pointed out literally has that nickname "Gish Gallop". A man who would have no qualms about condemning me to eternal damnation died? See if I care...
No one's asking for your pity or your so-caring attitude, and he certainly wasn't the biggest basher I ever saw. If there was at least one person like him out there, there's 20 others just like you. And just because Gish was a Christian doesn't mean he was an Evangelist, so I'll just assume you were generalizing like any other ignorant commenter, the only preaching he's done was to look for the truth, just pointing out facts that any other scientist should've considered in the first place.
By a casual glance at his wikipedia page, he seems a typical creation "scientist". I am not generalizing, the "gish gallop" is infamous among evolutionists as being a rapid-fire debating style that leaves the opponent unable to keep up with the constant stream of errors and fallacies.
You say he was looking for the "truth", when in fact he was bald-face denying the truth, and trying to shoehorn a creator into science, when it can perfectly explain life without one. I have no idea why so many biochemists like to become creationists, saying you know about evolution and its flaws, by being a biochemist, is like saying you are a movie star because you produce film for movie cameras.
I was not bashing either, creationism should be repelled and fought against at every turn, like the true threat that it is. People deserve proper science education and knowledge, not psudo-scientific religious dogma.
YOU were the one who barged into my comment, out of nowhere, so don't accuse me of being rude. Typical pushy creationist. Me ignorant? No, I have had enough bullshit from creationists to know a pile of shit when I smell one.
Sure! I've discovered even more since I began my studies in biology and I learned that even science itself is basically man's somewhat sketchy and (even a little) bias observations. And that science itself cannot establish truth based upon its limitations. It's fascinating!!
You gave yourself away as a parodist when you said "Did you know that men have one less rib than females?" No one is that stupid or ignorant of modern biology. Still, the rest is hilarious, though some creationists do actually think those things (like the Darwin quote mining, that could have come straight from some idiot like Ken Ham).
I have sat through more evolution classes than what most people do. I'm in college and was majoring in Biology. Absolutely none of it made sense. I respect other people's beliefs until it comes to the point where we are forced to know it and believe it. We never make you believe Christianity and don't make you take courses on it.
My first thought is one of the spin-off branches of Intelligent design. The main branch is just a front for YEC, but the spin off says that god used natural processes to bring about the universe, earth, and life.
It is this view that keeps me from going full atheist... Since there are still plenty of areas that a god or gods can still be in (Origin of universe, life, etc..) I do not see any reason to proclaim that he/she/they do not exist... so I remain agnostic.
technically neither one are theories. In a scientific sense it is "a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable". So in order for something to be a theory is must be both testable and potentially falsifiable.