|
|
COMMENTS:
no, we can masturbate without feeling guilty
by SeaN on Thu Apr 22, 04 3:32pm
[+]
No! They just believe that science can explain everything, and sice science didn't prove the existence of God, then Gos doesn't exist. This kind of atheist are the best. At least they try to understand.
But a large number of them are brainwashed. Sometimes I am too. When I don't wannt to spend my time trying to understnd something better, I just believe what the others believe.
But it is true. In all cases is about faith: faith in God, if you are a religiose person, faith in science, faith in the others or faith in your own mind (like me). Good night! I mean, good day! :-)
not while im still standing, Guest. Seeing as Christianity is one of the few PEACEFUL religions, I highly doubt that throwing it away will do anything.
I don't much care for any branch of organized religion. They tend to stifle scientific progress and, let's face it, get people killed. Christianity may be preferable to radical islam, but that doesn't mean that it's ideal.
um.. hello.. why would anyone call agnostics brain washed when their whole deal is admitting they don't know the truth?
by x__ on Thu Apr 22, 04 8:40pm
[+]
Maybe neither Biblical creation nor Darwinian evolution is the truth. Can't there be another alternative?
Even if "hey haven't bothered to find out" they're still not brainwashed. Believing that you know the truth is closer to being brainwashed than admitting you don't. You think men can really Know God? Really?
by x__ on Fri Apr 23, 04 8:38am
[+]
Sorry have to whole-heartedly disagree with you on this one. I see the world/universe as a logical and scientific entity. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It attempts to give reason to the way things work, and why they are. A true scientist does not base his/her beliefs on faith,which is purely brainwashing, it comes to conclusions and theories based on testable evidence. The bible(and basically every other religous text) has been debunked by scientific research time and time again. There is alot of stuff out there we don't understand, and may never understand. When it comes down to god or no god, sciences is closer to the truth than any religion. We have resently broken thru some large barriers in genetics and biology. What will you say about a traditional creation story and god when we eventually create a new species by gene manipulation. Or bring back an animal that has been extinct for thousands of years.
Very strong points, Guest_4c054. If you have some factual materials regarding your comments, please do share them; I would really like to read them.
send them to stranger7800 at yahoodotcom (since they're irrelevant to this ballot) Thanks!
I'm an agnostic, but I'm not sure if Darwin's evolution theory is correct. On the other hand, there's no conclusive evidence for any God-like higher power, either. If a higher power did create us, that's just all the more reason to hate it.
The negate belief in somthing can't be brainwashing (NOT believing in something).
Brainwashing always serve an agenda (ie controlling people) and it adds an extra programs in the brain (ie a religion's "teaching).
Atheism and agnosticism is freedom from these crap dogmas... You can believe in a divinity and not be brainwashed (like christians) though: Deism.
If there is a God does he have to be a Christian American one? Discuss.
What most theists seem to ignore is that most atheists would LOVE for there to be a god who would take care of us and ensure our consciousness carried on indefinitely, it's just that we feel that wishful thinking isn't a good enough reason to believe in something. Also, science is in the business of disproving things, not proving them (although by disproving a sufficiently large swathe of hypotheses we can satisfy ourselves that the truth must lie somewhere in the remaining region). And clearly a god whose existence (or otherwise) cannot be measured cannot be disproven. However, that is in itself not a good reason to believe that it is likely that a god exists. (See Bertrand Russell's classic 'teapot' argument.) And theists regularly delude themselves that by picking holes in the current best guesses of science, they are thereby providing a strong argument that it is most probable that the first thing to exist in the universe was an all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible magician.
'We are only justified in believing something to be true when it is backed up by real evidence, and according to billions of people the evidence for the existence of a supreme-being (God, Allah, Buddha, or whatever names that they use to identify the Creator-of-All) is backed up by personal experience and evidence all around them which is undeniable.'
This is fundamentally wrong-headed. If we were to accept anecdotal evidence of 'personal revelation', we should convict a suspect of murder because 'witness' X said, 'I just know it... I saw it in a vision, and a voice told me'. Would you treat as credible the testimony of somebody who was convinced they were Napoleon, because they just knew it deep inside? How can you distinguish between bona fide revelation and the ramblings of the insane, or liars?
Most people in the world believe lots of things that simply aren't true. Many people believe things because they are comforting, or because they have been brought up to believe them. If everyone was a blank slate and allowed to come to their own notion of god entirely independently I would be more impressed. But even then there is evidence that the human brain is wired to think most naturally in terms of human-like motivations as causal explanations, hence our natural tendency to berate and kick a car that won't start, or curse a roulette wheel that fails to give us any big wins. In the absence of a more enlightened alternative, it is very natural for people to guess that an unpredictable phenomenon such as thunder is a sign of some creature's anger, or a good harvest the sign of their favour. Do you believe in the Norse gods, or in the Roman gods? If not, why not? Why are they any less credible than the current monotheistic gods?
'If you?re a person who claims to be a rationalist, yet denies the existence of a supreme-being, well bad luck, you?re not only in the tiny minority, but also quite delusional and insane by the standards of the rest of the World?s population'
Then I hope you wouldn't endorse their opinion, as this would reveal you to be both arrogant and a poor thinker. Truth is not the outcome of a democratic process. If 75% of the world's population thought that the capital of the USA was Reno, Nevada, that wouldn't make it so.
Everyone is "brainwashed", I suppose.. It is very hard to think objectively and honestly.. People of a "religious" bent have been made to feel that they "have to" believe some particular religious point of view.. However, no one "has to" believe anything..!! We in this part of the world suffer from The Jesus Cult [christianity] and The Jew Cult [judyism] largely because the ancient Roman empire decreed The Jesus Cult to be the only "official" and "true" religion.. NO religious cult is "true". Pure science IS superior to Any religion. Religion is an annoying pain in the assteroids. The is NO "authority" or "truth" in Any religion. On the other hand, it might be acceptable to hypothesize some possible SuperIntelligence which devised and modified the various lifeforms..?? This is Not the "God" of any of the religions, though.. Reality is that which it is, not what Anyone believes or insists that it is..!! [TV "preachers" are especially revolting, pure upchuck )-:
Nope as I said in another ballot asking if Christains are brainwashed brainwashing is a thing cults do to gain new members, if you saw that episode of the Simpsons where Homer joins the cult that would be a perfect example of brainwashing. Just because you dont aggree with them doesnt mean there brainwashed.
by seon on Sat Jul 03, 04 3:44am
[+]
Typical. Always with the insults when you have nothing to support your POV.
The only ones ignoring the truth are those claiming that there is evidence the atheistic world view. There isn't.
The only people who are completely right are those who can admit that we dont know whether a God exists.... and probablly never will. Anything is possible and anything can be disproved.
It is arogant and naieve to believe that science or religion is the whole truth to our existance.
We simply dont know.
this guy is nuts
oh yeah and there's so much evidence for the existance of "God"
THIS IS FALLEN HOLY AGENT #777:
Yes, atheists & agnostics are all brainwashed. It was part of OPERATION: G-O-D-?,
God's campaign for the Second Coming Election. He thought that by causing controversy over his existence, he would gain attention, and therefore the popular vote. Unfortunately, his campaign was outdone by Vishnu, who knocked him cold with all those extra arms, and Satan who was handing out free Playboy magazines.
Now he's been demoted to the mail room and I'm out of a job. And instead of Jesus coming again you're getting Jessica Simpson's little sister. Don't thank me, thank the play girls.
And thank yourselves for exposing him. Way to serve the lord.
whoa! sorry for that last comment. every time i read the word "atheist", i zone out and something takes over my body...it's like i've been brainwashed or something........
Guest-64455:
(This is Magsdoll)
I think you looked a bit too deeply into my joke. I was merely trying to add the twist that God was the one brainwashing atheists and agnostics.
Also, I'd be so bold as to state that you're the one who missed the point of the ballot by Stranger7800 (let's ask him!).
I don't think his point was that there IS a God, or Higher Power. He states that he does believe that, however. He's just saying that while people of faith have been accused of being brainwashed by religions, people of science (and I personally think the two can be one & the same) may be brainwashed by scientific hypotheses.
I further declare it ignorant of you to claim that every atheist seems to assume that everyone who believes in God is Christian and blah blah blah. Just in stating that, you are a hypocrite.
On a nicer note, props for using the term "The Giant Space Hamster" in a serious argument. (:
Microevolution is the only form of evolution that has been proven? I guess that means my dog is really a vicious wolf. I'd better let him go before he kills me.
...and none of the above has been disproven. They are the best theories so far. I'd believe what a bunch of scientists tell me over what a bunch of dead people wrote in a book during prehistoric times.
...and we believe what we think is right because of what makes sense to us. Not from cult-like institutions that we were forced to go to as we were growing up.
No, Atheists are not brainwashed, people who belive in god are the brainwashed ones. Athiests can see the truth.
Jason, and what exactly is the truth are you talking about? Please do tell, we're listening.
Jigsaw said: "Microevolution is the only form of evolution that has been proven? I guess that means my dog is really a vicious wolf. I'd better let him go before he kills me."
Prove to me that the wolf 'macroevolved' to a dog or vice-versa. I CHALLENGE YOU!
If you can't, then we should both conclude that the wolf and the dog are 2 different species that were created. To believe otherwise is to be a fool.
The truth that there is no god, the truth that the meaning of life is to merely exist. If you take a look at nature what do animals do besides exist? Nothing. That's the purpose of all life.
Fossil evidence points to wolves and dogs living with or near humans. And the dingo, a partially domesticated wolf, has been in Australia for thousands of years. Sure I don't have concrete evidence and its likely that we never will. But it's pretty bloody obvious.
"don't try and drag us down to your level. faith is immoral. i beleive nothing. i merely form opinions based on logic"
That should be on a t-shirt.
You know what, I ca prove to some extent that dogs have evolved or changed very recently. Breeders select traits that they want in a dog and breed only the dogs that possess those traits, much in the same way that nature selects certain traits to be passed on. After several generations these traits are present in every dog born and they are considered purebred.
Jigsaw said: "Fossil evidence points to wolves and dogs living with or near humans. And the dingo, a partially domesticated wolf, has been in Australia for thousands of years. Sure I don't have concrete evidence and its likely that we never will. But it's pretty bloody obvious."
And just what exactly did you prove?!? So, for you, a tamed wolf is like a dog. Such brilliant evidence of speciation you got there, pal!
You said, "Sure I don't have concrete evidence and its likely that we never will"
Who's blindly following a theory of some sort now, huh?
Then you said, "But it's pretty bloody obvious"
So for you, physical similarities are proofs of macroevolution. Are you really this ill-equipped on supporting evolution? Tsk tsk tsk!
Jigsaw said, "Breeders select traits that they want in a dog and breed only the dogs that possess those traits, much in the same way that nature selects certain traits to be passed on."
I'm afraid you have no idea what speciation/macroevolution really is. (shakes my head)
neothe1 said:
"big bang: just a guess as to where all the swirling debris came from
big crunch: never heard of it
eternal universe: i'm not even going to touch this one, because at this time, we cannot know anything about the boundaries of reality.
macroevolution: as in evolution, rather thabn simple adaptation (microevolution)? how can you accept one and not the other? they're the same thing. evolution is just adaptation over a longer time.
infinite occurence of positive mutations: i don't follow"
It's good that you didn't make any comments on scientific subjects that you're not familiar with. NOW, THAT'S AN HONEST OPINION!
"Jigsaw said, "Breeders select traits that they want in a dog and breed only the dogs that possess those traits, much in the same way that nature selects certain traits to be passed on."
I'm afraid you have no idea what speciation/macroevolution really is. (shakes my head)"
That was just 'short' example. You can't really explain macroevolution over millions of years without small examples. But evidence points towards that direction - for example humans and chimpanzees share 95% of the same DNA structure. Zebras, horses, ponies and donkeys can all be bred together, yet they occupy different parts of the world. No, we don't have direct evidence and we probably never will. Unfortunately our life spans are much shorter than the hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years it takes for a species to ever so slowly change. All it takes is an open mind and some level of intelligence to realize that any form of evolution makes a lot more sense than creation by a 'man in the sky.' Believe what you want, I follow common sense and theories supported by some evidence. It's not concrete evidence by any means but it's logical evidence.
Religious logic:
Hmm. My basement window is broken for some reason. My television is missing. God must have borrowed it.
Scientific logic:
Hmm. My basement window is broken for some reason. My television is missing. There is no other evidence supporting this, but I think it's most likely that someone broke in and stole my television.
Guest, where exactly did you get the idea that I'm not familiar with Immanuel Kant? That's the big problem with the critics of the creationist...you presuppose that the 'believer' is a lot more uninformed than yourselves. Sure, God can never be proven, if you play by your rules, by the rules of the physical world. But there's another huge problem there...God is non-physical. So what do we do now? I suggest you visit my personal page and click on the link. Our org has these documented studies that strongly supports the existence of God. (but of course, you will always reject them)
Jigsaw, let me ask you these simple questions: approximately when did man start gathering fossils? How many transitional species were found?
If you answer me again with "no concrete evidence, perhaps will never be found", then that just proves my statement on this ballot: "Sounds like we can agree on something, we both have strong 'faith'" Fair enough?
Now, stop quoting science as being on your side because the same science can be used against you.
Have you visited my otehr 'scientific' ballots?
"Jigsaw, let me ask you these simple questions: approximately when did man start gathering fossils? How many transitional species were found? "
I have no idea when man started gathering fossils but it has most likely happened for quite some time. And as man slowly began to shed religious blindness, scientific explanations and theories based on them came about to shed more light on our existance - another possible explanation. Scientific analysis has been recent. Religion has been around since before man started making scientific discoveries and significantly recording our history. The different between the two? Religion is based on 'belief' of something that there is 'no' evidence of. Scientific analysis of fossils is not concrete evidence, but when combined with biological science it offers a possible explanation based upon theory. Theories based on small pieces of evidence are much more accurate than a book that has 'no' evidence.
And if you want explanations for chromosomal differences in apes and humans (24 pairs in apes, 23 in humans), there are several sites I can reference. Most will tell you that a fusion of two different chromosomes in the human line fused together (to form chromosome 2). There are even pictures of human chromosome 2 shown beside two chromosomes of chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. The similarities are quite remarkable. The two chromosomes of the ape species resemble the one 'fused' chromosome present in humans. Please point me to a passage in the bible that explains this - or chromosomes for that matter.
Neevr has the big bang theory been 'denied' by the laws of physics. Nor has it been disprooven.
At least we athiests aren't clinging to a false hope in order to comfort ourselves because we can't deal with the fact that humans are nothing more then organic animal matter and we'll die someday. Never to return.
Can you point me to some sources? I've read quite the opposite.
an invisible man who lives in the sky who sends people into a burning pit for all eternity, even though he loves them? jeez, you'd have to be brainwashed NOT to believe that. it's a good thing we've come to our senses to worship a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago!
No matter how much science "got it wrong" (which is called experimentation, dumbass), it's the thing that let you publish your crap to the whole world.
Isn't it funny- science originally started out as a way to find out how God worked... now look where we are.
by Dot on Sun Sep 19, 04 5:07am
[+]
No, don't be foolish
"No matter how much science "got it wrong" (which is called experimentation, dumbass), it's the thing that let you publish your crap to the whole world.
by Religious_Krap on Sep 18, 2004
It's also that God that gave you a world in the first place."
by Guest_c45e2 on Sep 22, 2004
...Oh boy, you're missing the point: athiests don't believe God exists. Do you deny the existence of scientists?
by Dot on Wed Oct 20, 04 10:12am
[+]
Every possible phenomena can be explained with supernatural nonsense.
by Guest_27b84 on Oct 07, 2004
Does that explain the baffling popularity of Harry Potter?
If GOD made mankind then why are we turning into a disease on the Earth??? We're like some nasty bacteria rotting it away, think about it, if mankind is evidence of anything godlike then poor evil is in charge, this 'god' sold us out ages ago.
by x__ on Fri Oct 29, 04 8:56am
[+]
*PURE evil...
by x__ on Fri Oct 29, 04 8:59am
[+]
neothe1. Look up atheist in the dictionary.
I don need naw learnin, jut bibo, no biologee, hyukk snorrtt, gimme moonshine, go creation, snorrtt, yeee hawww, evolution fo sinners, yee haww.
You are all arguing over definitions of natural phenomena.
Let me clear that up for you, there is no supernatural phenomena, only very large gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. Have a nice day.
limits scientists or religionists from studying them??
Furthermore, what makes you think those gaps will continue to exist indefinately, or that it will not perhaps close up quite a bit.. this is the standard stance of religionists that "we can never know or truly understand nature" thus we must resort to dogma and fairy tales. At least scientists are actively pursuing answers to the fundamental questions of nature.
However, If I misunderstood you, if you meant to take to the issue of scientists being close minded, yes that is certainly possible, as scientific theories that are widely accepted tend to push out criticisms of such theories.. for instance if the theory of gravity was chalanged as to its fundamental nature, that iconoclastic individual would have an uphill battle, yet collection of scientists would still try to analyse and test the new theory.
"Atheism is still an oppinion"
i have already destroyed that rediculous conccept. you are an idiot
by neothe1 on Nov 15, 2004
How? Are you trying to deny reality? ATHEISM is a belief, therefore it is an oppinion.
OMG, what an idiot you are.
"Atheism is still an oppinion"
i have already destroyed that rediculous conccept. you are an idiot
by neothe1 on Nov 15, 2004
How? Are you trying to deny reality? ATHEISM is a belief, therefore it is an oppinion.
OMG, what an idiot you are. LOL
However, If I misunderstood you, if you meant to take to the issue of scientists being close minded, yes that is certainly possible, as scientific theories that are widely accepted tend to push out criticisms of such theories.. for instance if the theory of gravity was chalanged as to its fundamental nature, that iconoclastic individual would have an uphill battle, yet collection of scientists would still try to analyse and test the new theory.
by CouchGnome on Nov 15, 2004
Science does tend to be closeminded though. This varies from nation to nation. It is very far from being a monoculture. It can be quite surprising to somebody who thinks that a fact is a fact and a theory widely accepted to discover that in another region of the world, in a different language from your own, that those facts and theories might not be accepted as valid and long ago dismissed with evidence as well that has not crossed the language barrier or has been dogmatically resisted from acceptance. Some of the things classified as supernatural in one part of the world are considered regular science in another part of the world.
Is the expansion of the universe not a good enough reason to at least accept the big bang theory as the best that we have?
Is the expansion of the universe not a good enough reason to at least accept the big bang theory as the best that we have?
by straits_dylan on Nov 19, 2004
Um, NO. Here's why - the ONLY evidence for the expansion of the universe is the red-shifting of light which can be explained more due to distance, gravitional lensing from the objects passed along the way, and dust reducing the energy of the light and thus reducing it's frequency wave. Otherwise, light would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics. The other problem with the Big Bang Theory is assumption of the supernatural solid that has potential for infinite temperature and infinite mass. Pure logic declares such an idea to be ludicrous when it goes against every other element of the scientific paradigm - but so do Black Holes with the concept of "Physical Laws breaking down" - that's just another silly rabbit out of the hat argument that falls flat and shows that at the very heart of the scientific paradigm is a lot of irrational mumbo-jumbo
logic shows that all gods worshipped by religions CANNOT exist. if there is a real deity or deity-like being in existance, it, logically, does not want to be known of or worshipped, or else it would have made it'sself known.
by neothe1 on Nov 19, 2004
And what if it did make itself known, neothe1? But just not to you and people like you who close your mind with preconcieved notions of reality that ignore very real things, which to you are superstition, but which to others are an extremely solid, real, absolutely certain fact of life? Of course, you could continue your whole life in ignorance, that's upto you, and you can even try your hardest to come with rationalizations for all kinds of strange phenomena, and convince yourself and others like you quite well. Maybe none of those weird things will bother you and try to shake your sense of reality, and you can live out your life to your old age in your own version of the percieved world without finding any contradiction in it. That's what most people do, or try to do.
Why? You haven't yet - I've only seen comments from you that sound like those of a kid who just discovered truth in a dictionary and came to the odd conclusion that arguing semantics is going to change reality.
Oh, I can understand the terminology, no problem at all. I just doubt that you understand very much at all. So, are you agnostic or atheist? Make up your mind.
oh dear, what a lot of garbage some of you come out with
firstly, the big bang is not denied by the laws of physics at all. the first thing you have to do is get away from newtonian classical physics and into quantum. the same goes for black holes, the _classical_ laws of physics break down, quantum deals with it just fine (although we still, obviously, speculate) .
Macroevolution cannot possibly have been proven since by its very nature it takes thousands of years. macroevolution is, in simplest terms, the long term effect of repeated microevolutionary changes. We're lucky to have what fossils we do have, the gaps are significant or not depending on what you've already decided about evolutionism
Anyone can be brainwashed, and I would suggest the vast majority of people are so. anyone who hasn't kept an open mind but strongly believes in one stance or another is probably brainwashed
certainly, the "laws" we have, both in classical and quantum physics are due to observations; empiricism, not logic. us acknowledging what we've observed doesn't impose anything on the universe. of course, using laws and quantum physics might not work in the same sentence ;)
present quantum THEORY makes the big bang acceptable in terms of physics. the issue of WHY the big bang is yet to be resolved, and any position is hypothetical.
"giant ball of nothing blew up is illogical"
- some comment on the big bang
it wasnt a giant ball of nothing it was a tiny "ball" of a hell of a lot.
remember the big bang isn't a hypothesis awaiting evidence; it's the conclusion to what our scientific observations have shown us.
It still doesn't answer the question of "why something rather than nothing", so it's not a proof against God. The evidence that leads us to conclude the Big Bang Theory is the same evidence that tells us the Genesis account of creation is wrong, if taken literally.
correction: the big bang was hypothesised by a catholic priest (I think in the 1920's...) and then Hubble provided solid evidence to back it up. The big bang was taken as real hard evidence of God's existence: something from nothing. The production of anti-matter comes from a similar thing: massive amounts of energy creating substance. Suggestion that for matter to come into existance there just has to be a large amount of energy? say... God?
;)
If the big bang didn't occur then why are all bodies in the universe moving apart from an apparant central location as shown by 'red shift'
The results of a one sided poll mean nothing.
If the big bang didn't occur then why are all bodies in the universe moving apart from an apparant central location as shown by 'red shift'
by newskin on Dec 07, 2004
The redshift is caused not by the movement of stellar bodies away from each other but by energy-depletion reducing the wave. This is a matter of course. that so many fools have decided to carry on about redshifting of stellar objects millions of lightyears away without taking into account effects of gravitational distortions, cosmic dust, and anything else that could be between the here and there just shows how dumb *supposedly intelligent* people can be. Also that redshift is the ONLY real evidence of a Big Bang, as the background microwave radiation can also be explained in many other ways. The Big Bang theory is a load of nonsense, and so is using *redshift* to claim that EVERY star in the universe is moving away from every other star, and coming up with the absurd result that the further away they are, the faster that they are going, when simple entropy and energy-depetion over the vast distances involved explains the redshift so well.
OK, heres a better question-
If the big bang didnt occur then where did all this shit come from ?!
Isn't that the same question?
Denying God's existence would tend to suggest that you could formulate a meaningful sentence. neothe1 believes in nothing, and aspires to the "no it isn't" school of debate.
Agnostics have the strongest scientific position. If a think can't be observed or measured to be true; if it is not accessible to reason, it is meaningless for a rational person to have a position. He/she simply doesn't know.
Nonetheless, if a religious person has an experience of something (i.e. God, Allah, et al) as true, then he can take comfort from it. Still, the fact that his/her experience cannot be objectively shared, for the rest of us without the experience, it is meaningless and open to argument.
Agnostics are probably the only non-brainwashed people on this planet. Their whole take is that they will believe what the evidence tells them, and admit to knowing nothing more.
Atheists and Theists refuse to admit that there is something they don't know. We don't have concrete evidence that god exists and we don't have concrete evidece that god doesn't exist. The only position that doesn't require a leap of faith is agnosticism, because it alone is purely rational.
Confucius once said "To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know - that is true knowledge."
Maybe if people just admitted that there were things they don't know, people wouldn't be attacking each other all the time.
And creationists only drive me nuts when they claim Creationism is a SCIENCE.
The endeavor of science is not to prove one theory correct, it is to disprove as many incorrect theories as possible. Science makes a guess at how things work based on the available evidence (not on a 4000 year old tribal myth), then it says "what evidence could I find that would prove this theory wrong". And then the scientist makes hypotheses and tests them using evidence. What the evidence doesn't support is thrown out and the theory is refined. That is how science progresses. Read Karl Popper or Thomas Hume.
Science never claims to know the answer, just the best explanation to date.
So, a couple hundred years ago, most thinking people pretty much bought the biblical story of creation. Then some nosy scientist said "hey, let's test these biblical hypotheses with some evidence. Evidence from the fossil record, from the decay rates of elements, from ice cores at the polar caps, from genetics, from atomic physics, from astrophysics, etc. ALL build up in ways that don't support the Biblical explanation. Science says "we may not know exactly how it happened, but we can pretty safely say based on the evidence the the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, and the Universe is way older. So we can probably rule out a 10-day creation period 4000 years ago."
Creationism is the exact opposite of science. It says "here is a mountain of evidence that my theory is incorrect. I will ignore that evidence and keep trying to find my own."
That's fine if you want to do it that way, but it's not science, and real science never claims that it has the final answer. Real science always leaves room for the idea that a better explanation will come along.
|
|
