Political Crossfire Forums

[Charlie Man]

I have no specific bias against things being created either, ameriman... it's just that it seems pretty obvious that modern life was related and evolved apart, when you look at the evidence for that and the lack of evidence for it being created in anything like its current state.

[Ameriman]

Charlie Man wrote: I have no specific bias against things being created either, ameriman... it's just that it seems pretty obvious that modern life was related and evolved apart, when you look at the evidence for that and the lack of evidence for it being created in anything like its current state.

Evolution does not discount Creationism.

Many Creationist would argue that it is one more argument for it.

[Ameriman]

ontheyslay wrote: Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Quote: By the way...I'm not religious. :wink:

Then I don't know what's wrong with you.

Nothing wrong with me... I'm simply not encombered by any personal bias against the theory that the universe was created and didn't just magically appear.

I don't believe in creationism because there is no evidence for it, not because I don't believe in God. My abscence of belief in a God is a completely different issue.

Obviously evidence and facts aren't important to you.

Sure they are...but again...just because we don't have evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There wasn't evidence of black holes until a few decades ago and yet they exist.

Many Creationists would argue that there is evidence for it...

Regardless, we aren't going to agree on this which, is suprising. All I am advocating for is imparting knowledge...strange that you wouldn't want to inspire critical thinking in our youth.

By the way...you not believing in Creationism and you not believing in God is the same issue...per your logic.

[Vulcidian]

Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Quote: By the way...I'm not religious. :wink:

Then I don't know what's wrong with you.

Nothing wrong with me... I'm simply not encombered by any personal bias against the theory that the universe was created and didn't just magically appear.

I don't believe in creationism because there is no evidence for it, not because I don't believe in God. My abscence of belief in a God is a completely different issue.

Obviously evidence and facts aren't important to you.

Sure they are...but again...just because we don't have evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There wasn't evidence of black holes until a few decades ago and yet they exist.

Many Creationists would argue that there is evidence for it...

Regardless, we aren't going to agree on this which, is suprising. All I am advocating for is imparting knowledge...strange that you wouldn't want to inspire critical thinking in our youth.

By the way...you not believing in Creationism and you not believing in God is the same issue...per your logic.


I find you very interesting Ameriman, and your arguments, while I disagree with them, are fairly clever when compared to run of the mill creationists.

The point where we disagree is a humorous one. You say that matter cannot come from nowhere. I say that there's no such thing as nowhere without matter.

It's the classic case of Lucretius and Aristotle.

Aristotle says that we have noses so we can smell.

Lucretious says we small because we have noses.

Our argument:

That everything must have a beginning, so the universe must have come from nothing. How is this possible without god?

Everything doesn't have a beginning, so the universe doesn't have to come from nothing. There is no "nothing" and to speak of it is fallacious. Why would we need god for something that was always here?

I must admit I don't fully understand what you're getting at when we say there's no way to prove that matter has always been here.

What I do know is that we've never witnessed any new matter being created. Only the transfer of one kind of matter/energy into another. It seems logical to me that once can deduce that this has been and always will be the case. The beginning is simply the matter in its initial state, the end it's transformation into another. This end is also a new beginning in that sense.

But once again, why does the matter change?

Here I would refer once again to Quantum theory, this that is what we're talking about on the atomic level.

What a fun discussion.

[Zoot]

Yeah, I heard that in countries like Iran and the US, there are people who want to teach children, via the machinery of the state, that a big invisible being made everything by magic.

Man, those guys are wacky.

[ontheyslay]

Quote: Sure they are...but again...just because we don't have evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There wasn't evidence of black holes until a few decades ago and yet they exist.


You take the stance of many creationists, in that you disregard evidence that doesn't support you're view. They all do it, so you are not alone.(If you want to know what evidence they disregard, creationists claim that humans did not evolve and were made by God without any evidence, there is overwhelming evidence supprted by fossil records to show a gradual evolution of man). Black holes and creationist theory are not the same thing. Creationism is based on pre-determined scripture, black holes are not.

You concede creationism has no evidence, yet you advocate teaching it in a science class. Using that logic anything could be taught in a science class, as long as there is a book about it. You could use the Silmarillion for instance by J R R Tolkein. Do you advocate teaching this in a science class? (If you don't know it's about the beginning of Middle Earth, which Tolkein himself stated meant it to be the creation and history of Europe) I highly doubt it. But these are one in the same, in that they are stories about the beginning of the world, and that they have no evidence to support them.

Quote: Regardless, we aren't going to agree on this which, is suprising. All I am advocating for is imparting knowledge...strange that you wouldn't want to inspire critical thinking in our youth.

How does teaching creationism inspire critical thinking? It would be the opposite of critical thinking actually, because creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore it can not be tested or proven or disproven, it is simply fiction. Until there is evidence to support it, then teach it in a science class. I'm curious to know if you actually know what we are discussing, and if you know what the scientific method is.

Quote: Many Creationists would argue that there is evidence for it...

Most scientists say their evidence is junk, so what is your point?

Quote: By the way...you not believing in Creationism and you not believing in God is the same issue...per your logic.

I am not advocating creationism to be taught in a science class because it is not a scientific theory, I don't BELEIVE in God because there is no evidence to support the existence of God.

But I know you will say we agree to disagree.