HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A Creationist Picks A Fig...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:27 PM

 

A Creationist Picks A Fight And Loses To A Priest

21 replies, 1910 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Creationist Picks A Fight And Loses To A Priest (Original post)
HarveyDarkey Feb 2013 OP
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #1
A HERETIC I AM Feb 2013 #2
Gorp Feb 2013 #3
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #4
Gorp Feb 2013 #5
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #6
Gorp Feb 2013 #7
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #9
Gorp Feb 2013 #10
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #12
Gorp Feb 2013 #14
Bradical79 Feb 2013 #8
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #16
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #19
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #11
Gorp Feb 2013 #13
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #17
Gorp Feb 2013 #21
SidDithers Feb 2013 #15
yellowcanine Feb 2013 #18
Gorp Feb 2013 #20

Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:43 PM

1. "tantamount to abuse of our children."

You said it, Mr. Man 'd Cloth. I only wish I could have heard more of the idiot creationist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:27 PM

2. Further proof that there are rational, reasonable theists.

Good onya, Father.

Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:08 PM

3. The irony is that the "seven day" thing can be completely true,...

 

... if you consider the word "day" to mean "era". In that context, it fits perfectly. There was nothing, the big bang happened (presumingly with no light before that), the planets formed, creatures on Earth came into being and eventually man arrived. Man initially used clothing for warmth, not modesty. Some cultures STILL don't see clothing as having any purpose other than perhaps protecting the tender bits.

The problem I have with the "creationists" is their strict interpretation of what is clearly meant as an allegory. What's even worse is their assertion that fossils were put here to test our faith and that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark. I can understand believing that when you're three or four, but adults?

No the earth isn't flat. No the Sun doesn't revolve around Earth. No we aren't the center of the universe, not even of our own galaxie for that matter. I'm just stunned that people are so ignorant to support theories that have long-ago been disproven.

Now while I'm on the rant, Leviticus is mostly a list of protocols for maintaining health. The prohibition on shell fish and cloven hoove animal meat was for health matters. And yet so-called "Christians" will quote the passage about a "man to lie with a man" while snarfing down clams and waiting for the whole pig on a spit to finish roasting.

He's right. Teaching such garbage to children actually is a form of child abuse. Religious texts are meant to be interpreted, as is our own constitution. The true test of any set of rules or teachings of any manner is the ability to evolve and adapt to the times and to knew knowledge. Can you imagine living in today's society with the original periodic table of elements? It wouldn't happen because we need those changes in order to even be where we are to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:57 AM

4. nice points.

Pity that by posting it to DU, your logic and rational thought will be ignored by the population most in need of reading and learning from you. Here, you preach to the choir (not that I complain or mind).

You try posting that stuff in a redder state 'd affairs, and you get your ass handed to you on a rusty platter. I think they actually have pride in their ignorance. Now, there's a sad thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:08 AM

5. I've been discussing the concept of co-existance of creationism and evolution since the 70's.

 

And it occurred to me years before I started smoking pot. I've had the discussion many times in many settings and all but the hook-line-and-sinker bible-thumpers at least grasp the concept. Again, the problem is the interpretation of the word "day". Even the books of the gospel describe a man who spoke in allegories!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:15 AM

6. Creationism and evolution really can't coexist. At least not if you mean "special creation" or ID.

If you mean that a creator made the building blocks of the universe - ok. But anything beyond that is not science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:37 AM

7. You can use the definition you provided or what's currently called "guided evolution".

 

Either concept works fine. If you don't believe in a god, it's pure science. If you do, perhaps said god imagined a universe and it sprung into existance, and if you believe in an interactive god, guided evolution works too.

That "imagined a universe" thing always reminds me of the scene from "Animal House" where Pinto gets high with Donald Sutherland and freaks out over the concept that an atom in your fingernail might be an entire miniature solar system (although if I recall they say "universe").

Personally, I believe when you die it's just lights out. Another theory I like is that the light at the end of the tunnel is what's outside the birth canal (somewhat eastern thinking). The Heaven and Hell thing has never appealed to me, but if there is a Hell, the GOP has provided a substantial uptick in the population with many more to come.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:42 AM

9. Nah, we live in a freckled face kid!s computer

Civ it is...



Now thinking of god as the great programer really makes me chuckle.

Oh and I forgot, no creationism cannot coexist...at all...

But you should read some Cosmology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:10 AM

10. I don't do cosmology - I'm not into makeup.

 



That freckled face kid's computer is the pre-pube-matrix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:31 AM

12. I don't have a problem with a God "imagining a universe."

But it is religion, not science. And the Genesis account does not describe it, even if the days are eras. Starting with the appearance of man on day 6, Genesis may have some factual basis in oral history. For example, the Garden of Eden/Fall of man story is a fairly good description of the transition from hunter gatherer to agriculture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:57 AM

14. It's also a good description of the awareness of modesty (with regards to naughty bits).

 

We're the only ape that clothes themselves to hide our parts. Perhaps that's what distinguishes humans from the other apes, except that we're also the only ape that intentionally destroys its own environment, along with all of the other creatures we take along with us.

The other thing to consider is that all religious texts evolve on their own. The words "and the glory" in "The Lord's Prayer" are thought to have been copied into a manuscript because some monk had written it in the margin. The King James version is the most widely used of any version in the US, yet it was revised to its current form for political reasons.

Most people I've encountered get a deer in the headlights look when discussing multiple versions of the bible. They just can't wrap their heads around the idea that there could be more than one. There are a shitload of different versions and we've got at least a dozen. I've seen several, well, I guess you could call them family trees of the versions, but the lineage is amazing. With all of the versions, inclusions, exclusions, modifications, translations, translations OF translations, how can we really know what the definitive word really is?

The answer simply is, we can't.

It isn't just the bible. Any writing left to time will evolve through language translation and the dialect of the current time. George Washington cut down a cherry tree in older history books. The reality is that it was an anectdote to support his integrity. In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. He didn't discover America. The Nordic sailors were here long before that.

Davy Crocket never killed a bear by grinning it to death either. So much of what is taught as "history" is based on legend and stories passed down and modified with time. In the relatively short time that Europeans have been on this continent, even our own history of the time has evolved, been updated, and much of it disputed. Superimpose that problem on the entire history of the universe and you've got a distortion of, well, biblical proportions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:41 AM

8. There's nothing in creationism that is science

even simply claiming that a creator made the building blocks of the universe. That's not science, it's a personal hunch with no evidence. So while it can co-exist on a personal level depending on what role you give to this arbitrary creator and where your gaps in scientific knowledge are, creationism and science are completely incompatible at this point if we're talking about education or any real scientific theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:58 AM

16. Right - any creator is not science. I misspoke.

And no it should not be taught along side, in front of, or behind science in public schools because it is not science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:07 PM

19. a whole new meaning to the big bang?

Mrs. God must have been one hot universal mama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:22 AM

11. "Eras" doesn't quite work either because the earth exists before the sun does.

And plants were created on Day/Era 3 but the sun wasn't created until Day/Era 4. Exactly how is that supposed to work? Besides, the whole notion of a creation account being dictated to people by God is completely unscientific and philosophically problematic, to say the least. The Genesis authors were uneducated in science so they wrote stuff based on oral history. Before humans existed there was no oral history. So anything up to the existence of humans is creation myth. Unless the authors were way ahead of their time they would have had no notion of man being related to/derived from animals. As much as I would like to encourage the "moderate" creationists, it just doesn't work scientifically or philosophically. The mistake Creationists make is linking their religious faith to the science of the origins of life in the first place. The whole notion that it is necessary to accept a set of propositional truths in order to be a good person or to find favor with God is flawed. If God is so great, what does he/she (another goofy idea, that God would have gender) care what individual humans believe about the origins of life? Isn't it more important how humans behave - for example if they are good stewards of the earth and refrain from exploiting or killing each other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:39 AM

13. The day/era 4 thing with the sun has always baffled me. Where did "light" come from on day one?

 

But you hit the key point - "before humans existed there was no oral history". That's exactly the reason Genesis has to be allegory, or at least fable. It's not as bad as telling children that storks bring babies or babies are found in a cabbage patch, but it's the same sort of thing. "Daddy, where did the moon come from?" Kids seek answers.

Our approach has always been to be honest with the kids. My eldest asked me about something when she was about three and I gave her the full scientific explanation (something like "how does a lightbulb work?"). She sat there for a few moments digesting what I had just said and responded, "yeah", as if to confirm that I had gotten the correct answer. It took everything I had to avoid exploding in laughter.

We can no more prove that a god does not exist than we can prove that one does, although the lightening strike on the vatican an hour after the pope announced his resignation is pretty good evidence, just not conclusive. What makes you good or bad is how you are perceived by other creatures, mammal, insect, acquatic, or otherwise. A butterfly knows who is safe to land on and who is not. Critters have an instinct we can't hope to comprehend because we've abandoned such things. But even if you restrict it to humans, sometimes you can just tell something isn't right with someone.

Sartre's take on it was "hell is other people". I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps the worst outcome of death would to be stuck for all eternity watching home movies, reruns, of your own life. For those who are at peace with themselves, you could call that a heaven. For most of us, it would be a hell. But nobody can know until that time arrives, and by then there's nothing you can do about it. Arlo Guthrie's "Last Train to Glory" comes to mind.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:01 PM

17. "hell is other people" Alternatively, if we are honest, "hell is other people and myself."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:22 PM

21. I think "No Exit" at least implied that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:57 AM

15. No. It can't...

viewing the 2 completely differenent creation stories in Genesis as anything other than the uninformed ramblings of bronze age mystics is foolish.

Michael Shermer updates the Genesis story:

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/

In the beginning — specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon — out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang. The bang was followed by cosmological inflation. God saw that the Big Bang was very big, too big for creatures that could worship him, so He created the earth. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created out of Quarks and other subatomic goodies) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light. And the light maker he called the sun, and the process He called fusion. And He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers appear to be more than 4,004 light years from Earth. In fact, some of the fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light years from Earth, so He created “tired light” — light that slows down through space — so that the 4004 B.C. creation myth might be preserved. And created He many wondrous splendors, including Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Nova and Supernova, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. But since God cannot be constrained by nothing (can God make a planet so big that he could not lift it?), He created Hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.


See what happens in the rest of the week at the link.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:06 PM

18. "uninformed ramblings of bronze age mystics". "uniformed" by science, anyways.

One can be informed by happenstance and the superstition which others attach to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:21 PM

20. I disagree. There were three primary authors of Genesis (as far as we know).

 

The original version is attributed to Enuma Elish (roughly 12th century BC) and subsequently revised by an author commonly known as "P" (for what that stands, I don't know). The 2nd creation myth was added by an author I can't put a name on somewhere in about the 9th century. It starts around 2:4.

But all that does is support my case that religious texts are living documents. They evolve with time, language translation, political influences on translation, inclusions, exclusions, and random commentaries inserted at whatever point in time.

The point has been made (in this thread) that since nobody was there to witness the "In the beginning" part, how could we know? Face it, 96% of the matter in the universe can't be explained, so called "dark matter". It has only been in the last 100 years that we've come to terms with the concept of cellular, molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, and quark theories. Most people don't even know about quarks or string theory. None of them are sufficient to explain the universe.

At the time Genesis was first written, there was the earth, the moon, the sun, and the stars. Other planets didn't even exist for them at the time. The Greeks (primarily) tracked and named the planets. Sailors named the constellations for guidance purposes. Earth was the only planet and everything else, including the sun, revolved around it. The math behind the contortions they used to describe it were astonishing for the time.

Copernicus really threw a monkey wrench into THAT mess, eh?

The reality, as we know it today (subject to change, of course), is that we're a minor planet in a minor solar system with a minor star on the outer tip of a minor galaxie in a universe too large to even consider. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on our planet. And we just recently discovered a planet smaller than Earth (and hotter than Mercury) in another solar system.

The universe has to have other life somewhere, maybe nothing we would recognize as life, but life of some form. We keep thinking in terms of carbon-based life forms. The original Star Trek series touched on this issue with the mining episode where something was using a form of acid to kill people and drilled huge holes all over the place. It was a silicon-based life form. It was science fiction, but so were the communicators that the original Motorola flip phone mimmicked.

If there is a god who is omniscient, I hope he takes a vacation once in a while. That's a LOT of shit to keep track of! He/she/it needs a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread