Creationist -> Retard

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
They argue that dinosaurs werent violent. Argue rapid speciation. And argue that gopherwood which is apparently now extinct was used to build the ark.

Unlike Santa you cant prove this wrong.

Yes, they can.

And really? You can't prove Santa is wrong either. Maybe he has magic which just makes parents think THEY left presents there for the kids and has his invisible elves break into every bank in the world and magically transfer funds to represent these so-called "purchased" presents. Science doesn't work on what you can't disprove, it works on what you can reasonably prove and what is more likely. Science doesn't have to entertain every crackpot "theory" that comes along.

Do you understand how science works? Do you know what the scientific method is? You're basically arguing since we can't transcend time and space and disprove there is a magical being pulling everything's strings that therefor we have to take this idea seriously.

Do you take the greek gods seriously? Do you take Hindu myth seriously? What about the flying spaghetti monster? They have exactly the same amount of proof as your religion (that is, no proof at all). I'm sorry, your religion does NOT belong in a science class room. If people want to believe it, fine, but Creationism and ID are not scientific theories, are not credible, and are nothing more then the wishful thinking of people who have been deluded by a book written thousands of years ago.

Oh, as a side note, the creation of glue by Neanderthals predates the existence of the Biblical universe by about 74,000 years or so.

Originally Posted by Necrosis
The punishment doesn't fit the crime. And why do all the other species on the planet have to endure suffering for what man did? I just don't buy it. Any being capable of creating all this would not be that cruel and unfair. Christianity is a very ugly and hateful religion and it amazes me that so many people buy into it.

Actually i think i am wrong in the idea that God made child birth that way. Rather it is that lack of God that made it that way as a result of sin becoming more evident in the world.

Still i can see how many people view Christianity that way. I think it is all a matter of how Christianity and hence God is explained to you. For example God in the old testament was explained to me as passive unless called upon like the Jews did.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
They argue that dinosaurs werent violent. Argue rapid speciation. And argue that gopherwood which is apparently now extinct was used to build the ark.

Unlike Santa you cant prove this wrong.

Here's a link to a wonderful explanation of why the Noah's ark legend can't be true:
http://www.atheists.org/The_Kiwi_Question

If you don't seriously question the veracity of the ark myth after reading this, the term "retard" may actually be apropos.

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
Yes, they can.

Oh, as a side note, the creation of glue by Neanderthals predates the existence of the Biblical universe by about 74,000 years or so.

Well by proof, you have to rely on Radiometric dating methods. And creationists have their own issues with radiometric dating. Carbondating is pretty much proven to be calibrated wrong(since tree ring data has been shown to give more than one ring a year for example).
http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
varves
http://creation.com/green-river-blues-raises-red-flag

1.

We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.
2.

The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.
3.

The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.






I really dont understand why there is no effort put into proving these guys wrong if people are seriously interested in stamping out creationism.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
Well by proof, you have to rely on Radiometric dating methods. And creationists have their own issues with radiometric dating. Carbondating is pretty much proven to be calibrated wrong(since tree ring data has been shown to give more than one ring a year for example).
http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
varves
http://creation.com/green-river-blues-raises-red-flag

1.

We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.
2.

The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.
3.

The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.






I really dont understand why there is no effort put into proving these guys wrong if people are seriously interested in stamping out creationism.

There's no point because most of these people will never change their belief. If science proves something they believe wrong, which it constantly does, they ignore it or say science is wrong or come up with bogus studies that show Darwin was an idiot or something similar. Radiometric and carbon dating isn't the only way science has for noting how old the universe and things are. Even if they can be inaccurate, they are far closer to the mark then 6,000 years ago Jesus created the universe with magic, sin causes cancer and killed the dinosaurs, etc.

And there are efforts by some - Richard Dawkins, etc. But really, why should scientists have to go back and waste time disproving something that has no proof? It's a waste of valuable time and resources to dignify these loons with a response.

You can't explain the ark with anything but magic. You can't explain most of what literal bible interpreters believe without magic. Therefor you reject science.

Originally Posted by Necrosis
Here's a link to a wonderful explanation of why the Noah's ark legend can't be true:
http://www.atheists.org/The_Kiwi_Question

If you don't seriously question the veracity of the ark myth after reading this, the term "retard" may actually be apropos.

There are a lot of false assumptions in that article.

Creationists argue that the noah only had to get "kinds" of animals, not every single species.
http://aufiles.creation.com/images/p…/chapter13.pdf

Most arguments aganst the ark are answered here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
And there are efforts by some - Richard Dawkins, etc. But really, why should scientists have to go back and waste time disproving something that has no proof? It's a waste of valuable time and resources to dignify these loons with a response.

But there is evidence that they may be right like soft issue surviving in dinosaur and diamonds proven to be young for example. There are a number of anomalies that indicate that the earth is young, Dr. Russel Humphreys made a booklet on it "evidence for a young world".

I apologise for getting relatively deep in thw creation vs evolution debate. As i have previously said, I cant give my own arguments since i cant read long stretches of text. So i can only give replies based on my very little understanding on creationism.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
I apologise for getting relatively deep in thw creation vs evolution debate. As i have previously said, I cant give my own arguments since i cant read long stretches of text. So i can only give replies based on my very little understanding on creationism.

No need to apologize, as I see it. You have a right to express yourself, and you didn't do so in any mean or nasty way.

For me, the bottom line is this: even if there is a god and the christian bible describes that being accurately, I still could not be a christian. I could not bring myself to worship a being that I find evil, malign, self-absorbed, and, at its very best, a spoiled brat. And I'm not trying to flame here; this is simply how I feel and cannot describe those feelings any other way.

Originally Posted by Necrosis
No need to apologize, as I see it. You have a right to express yourself, and you didn't do so in any mean or nasty way.

For me, the bottom line is this: even if there is a god and the christian bible describes that being accurately, I still could not be a christian. I could not bring myself to worship a being that I find evil, malign, self-absorbed, and, at its very best, a spoiled brat. And I'm not trying to flame here; this is simply how I feel and cannot describe those feelings any other way.

I can understand how people fell that way. It is mostly the way he is represented to you that is the cause of how you feel. Especially when reading the old testament.

Creationism is a laughable matter. Creationism is a fairy tale for young children (2 to 5 years old) . We have to say the truth: only ignorant or mentally retarded people can believe in creationism….

Originally Posted by rejear
Creationism is a laughable matter. Creationism is a fairy tale for young children (2 to 5 years old) . We have to say the truth: only ignorant or mentally retarded people can believe in creationism….

It's perfectly reasonable to be a creationist if you are isolated from the developed world. Remember that our biology haven't changed. The same system that spawned the mythologies is in us today, only the information that was collected over time has grown. Keep a mind from accessing that information and you can make them believe in everything you can make a child believe.

Originally Posted by rejear
Creationism is a laughable matter. Creationism is a fairy tale for young children (2 to 5 years old) . We have to say the truth: only ignorant or mentally retarded people can believe in creationism….

With several university degrees, I am neither ignorant, nor mentally retarded!! I find your first post here offensive; moderate your words, or we'll moderate you!!!!

Heh - these kinds of arguments never get old, apparently!

The fact of the matter is that no one really cares for personal beliefs in science and most research does not revolve around questions tangent to creationist theories.

That said, creationism respectively intelligent design are not scientific theories and if the editors of science journals do their job properly, papers on this will not be accepted. If they do slip through the refereeing process, the journal looses some credibility, the readers will have a laugh and that's that, but most of the time it will not get published. Since publications are the most important means of academic success, it will be quite impossible to make a career from publishing papers about creationism, but that does not hinder a creationist from publishing real science.

Maybe this answers that part of your question. As far as my personal opinion goes, I am happy with the process in this regard. Regarding the other part of your question, I believe it is a rather complex sociological and psychological phenomenon that people decide to believe in something like creationism or any other fundamentalist religion for that matter. Boiling it down to a matter of intelligence is far too simple and I would not subscribe to that, either.

Originally Posted by coyote
Heh - these kinds of arguments never get old, apparently!

The fact of the matter is that no one really cares for personal beliefs in science and most research does not revolve around questions tangent to creationist theories.

That said, creationism respectively intelligent design are not scientific theories and if the editors of science journals do their job properly, papers on this will not be accepted. If they do slip through the refereeing process, the journal looses some credibility, the readers will have a laugh and that's that, but most of the time it will not get published. Since publications are the most important means of academic success, it will be quite impossible to make a career from publishing papers about creationism, but that does not hinder a creationist from publishing real science.

Maybe this answers that part of your question. As far as my personal opinion goes, I am happy with the process in this regard. Regarding the other part of your question, I believe it is a rather complex sociological and psychological phenomenon that people decide to believe in something like creationism or any other fundamentalist religion for that matter. Boiling it down to a matter of intelligence is far too simple.

I like your description of the issue. For me, when it comes to people not believing in evolution (or rather, being a creationist/ID/Young Earth believer) I would have to say it's willful ignorance and rejection of science. I don't think intelligence per se has anything to do with it. I think if you are a dumb person you'll be more likely to believe it, but only because you may be more likely to believe anything. I know a good number of Bible-literalists who are frighteningly intelligent, but for whatever reason they have chosen to reject science and evidence in order to believe in a book that was written decades or centuries after events it depicts and was largely assembled by committee.

I think saying Creationists are retarded is harsh, while saying they are ignorant (when it comes to science) is more or less fair. Making a "god of the gaps" argument is not science, neither is it proper theology - make that argument in any "serious" center of Theology and you'll be laughed out of the room.

To corwin::: And you, you give you the right to treaten people ?Is the inquisition back?

I don't 'treaten' or even threaten; I simply warn. Intellectual debate is welcomed; derogatory comments of any sort are not!!

The name of the thread is actually asking if creationists are "retards". If new people walks past and presented with that kind of language, it's kinda understandable if they copy it.

I would fill in that creationism is the rejection of scientific discoveries which is forced ignorance, but stupidness, retardation etc have nothing to do with it.

I think this thread has run its useful course. Probably time for a lockup.

If no-one objects in the next 24 hours, I will do so!!