NationStates Jolt Archive

http://ucomics.aol.com/nonsequitur/

This is why Creationism isn't science. You can't start with the conclusion and then just look for evidence to "prove" it and still claim to be a scientist.

http://ucomics.aol.com/nonsequitur/

This is why Creationism isn't science. You can't start with the conclusion and then just look for evidence to "prove" it and still claim to be a scientist.
Once I saw a show on the Christian network which not only claimed God created all the animals and plants exactly as they are now and only 6000 years ago no less but for some odd reason they claimed he would never let any creature go extinct. That is all kind of crazy right? But they diddn't stop there, oh no, they tried to prove their conclusions and would go to all these crazy backwater jungles in Africa talking to supersitious villagers who would describe dinosuar like creatures living in the jungles. The crazy christians would go looking around the jungle for a while looking for a brontosaurus and find some hippo crap, claim they had found conclusive "evidence" and then go back to the USA triumphant.

Once I saw a show on the Christian network which not only claimed God created all the animals and plants exactly as they are now and only 6000 years ago no less but for some odd reason they claimed he would never let any creature go extinct. That is all kind of crazy right? But they diddn't stop there, oh no, they tried to prove their conclusions and would go to all these crazy backwater jungles in Africa talking to supersitious villagers who would describe dinosuar like creatures living in the jungles. The crazy christians would go looking around the jungle for a while looking for a brontosaurus and find some hippo crap, claim they had found conclusive "evidence" and then go back to the USA triumphant.

:eek: I remeber seeing that too, its things like this that make me mad that people think I'm crazzy for believing in UFOs.

IMO Creationism= :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Once I saw a show on the Christian network which not only claimed God created all the animals and plants exactly as they are now and only 6000 years ago no less but for some odd reason they claimed he would never let any creature go extinct. That is all kind of crazy right? But they diddn't stop there, oh no, they tried to prove their conclusions and would go to all these crazy backwater jungles in Africa talking to supersitious villagers who would describe dinosuar like creatures living in the jungles. The crazy christians would go looking around the jungle for a while looking for a brontosaurus and find some hippo crap, claim they had found conclusive "evidence" and then go back to the USA triumphant.

they're the same folks (sp? maybe "-ucks") who insist that kangaroos must have once lived in the middle east, because they're still around, so they must have made it onto the ark, and to be on the ark they had to live in the middle east, and then would have travelled all the way across pangea (yes, pangea. their timeline is a little off, needless to say) to make it to australia.

the total lack of kangaroos in between mt. sinai and sidney doesn't seem to bother them.

they're the same folks (sp? maybe "-ucks") who insist that kangaroos must have once lived in the middle east, because they're still around, so they must have made it onto the ark, and to be on the ark they had to live in the middle east, and then would have travelled all the way across pangea (yes, pangea. their timeline is a little off, needless to say) to make it to australia.

the total lack of kangaroos in between mt. sinai and sidney doesn't seem to bother them.

LOL that is great. Don't you just love the "...universal neuroses of the human species."

they're the same folks (sp? maybe "-ucks") who insist that kangaroos must have once lived in the middle east, because they're still around, so they must have made it onto the ark, and to be on the ark they had to live in the middle east, and then would have travelled all the way across pangea (yes, pangea. their timeline is a little off, needless to say) to make it to australia.

the total lack of kangaroos in between mt. sinai and sidney doesn't seem to bother them.
Wow...I'd never heard that one before... Now that's trying to mesh science and religion just a little too closely. (bye the way, it's spelled Pangaea ;))

who thought that creationism was a science

most people understand its a joke

or they should

^^^ There are really some people who think creationism is a real and legitiment science. Just think about it this way, at one time people thought Hitler was a good role model for children.

who thought that creationism was a science

most people understand its a joke

or they should

Creationist "scientists" still speak in big words that those not educated in science can't understand. As far as they're concerned, it sounds just as good as real science. Plus, it meets their already preconceived notions. Then they try and get it taught in science classes as a "perfectly valid theory". Unfortunately, that just isn't true.

but there are people who achually consider religon science?

thats insulting

^^^You got that right.

That guy is my favorite cartoonist ;).

^^^ There are really some people who think creationism is a real and legitiment science. Just think about it this way, at one time people thought Hitler was a good role model for children.
Well, to be fair, Hitler did pull his country out of the impossibly severe economic depression brought about partially by the Treaty of Versailles. So he's a good role model...on a pragmatic level...kind of...

Creationism = something caused nothing to turn into something.

Atheism = nothing caused nothing to turn into something.

Creationism is far more scientifically plausible.

who thought that creationism was a science

most people understand its a joke

or they should
And yet, in place after place here in the US, it's being added to the public school curriculum as an alternative to evolutionary theory. It's enough to drive one to drink.

Then there was that little thing we like to call the Holocaust and the Second World War.

Then there was that little thing we like to call the Holocaust and the Second World War.
Yeah...that...that's the problem with Hitler. If it wasn't for that and the fact that the facist militial strategies that he used to stimulate the economy. But otherwise...

Creationism = something caused nothing to turn into something.

Atheism = nothing caused nothing to turn into something.

Creationism is far more scientifically plausible.

plausibility aint got shit to do with anything considering creationism has been proven to be absolutely and undeniably false.

plausibility aint got shit to do with anything considering creationism has been proven to be absolutely and undeniably false.
Do you actually believe that, or are you just sarcastically mocking creationists?

Creationism = something caused nothing to turn into something.

Atheism = nothing caused nothing to turn into something.

Creationism is far more scientifically plausible.
Actually Creationism = nothing caused something that was able to and then did cause nothing except itself to turn into something...which is no less unlikely than nothing causing nothing to turn into something...

All right, I think everyone here sees Creationism from the evangelical protestant perspective. Personally I believe in Creationism as well as Evolution. In fact the Catholic Church's view on this topic is that God created the universe, and whatever happened after that does not change the fact that he created it in the beginning, nowadays though there are these crazy people that believe the Earth was made 6,000 years ago, and that nothing ever changes. Creationism is not necessarily this viewpoint.

Do you actually believe that, or are you just sarcastically mocking creationists?

how would that be mocking creationists?

how would that be mocking creationists?
Oh...it just seemed like such a ridiculous statement that I thought you might be joking. But I've exhausted my will to argue on this topic for the moment, so I won't get into the fallacies of that statement quite yet.

All right, I think everyone here sees Creationism from the evangelical protestant perspective. Personally I believe in Creationism as well as Evolution. In fact the Catholic Church's view on this topic is that God created the universe, and whatever happened after that does not change the fact that he created it in the beginning, nowadays though there are these crazy people that believe the Earth was made 6,000 years ago, and that nothing ever changes. Creationism is not necessarily this viewpoint.

no. you don't believe in creationism. creationism =/= believing in christianity and the bbile. creationism = believing that the two creation stories in genesis are 'literally true'.

All right, I think everyone here sees Creationism from the evangelical protestant perspective. Personally I believe in Creationism as well as Evolution. In fact the Catholic Church's view on this topic is that God created the universe, and whatever happened after that does not change the fact that he created it in the beginning, nowadays though there are these crazy people that believe the Earth was made 6,000 years ago, and that nothing ever changes. Creationism is not necessarily this viewpoint.

Creationism (capitalized) refers to the viewpoint that Genesis is absolutely literally true and that science can prove it.

A belief in creation is not necessarily Creationism. I also believe in creation, but that scientific evidence points to exactly how things came to be after the original creation.

Yes, the Catholic doctrine has nothing to do with creationism. They believe in evolution, and basically that its the method god used. Nothing really wrong with that.
/ex-Catholic

^^^Recovering?

Oh...it just seemed like such a ridiculous statement that I thought you might be joking. But I've exhausted my will to argue on this topic for the moment, so I won't get into the fallacies of that statement quite yet.

its not fallacious. while we can never prove theories true, we can prove them false. all we have to do to do so is to see if its predictions and empircal claims are true. if they aren't then the theory needs to be modified or discarded. in so far as creationism makes predictions/empirical claims, they have all been shown to be false. which means the whole thing is false. to believe otherwise requires a person to be ignorant of the facts (willfully or otherwise), too stupid to understand the facts, or selling something (the last being the leaders of the creationist movement who don't seem stupid to me, but keep repeating claims even after they have been shown the demonstration of why those claims are incorrect).

the only way to modify creationism to fit the facts is to make it identical to the explanations of modern science.

its not fallacious. while we can never prove theories true, we can prove them false. all we have to do to do so is to see if its predictions and empircal claims are true. if they aren't then the theory needs to be modified or discarded. in so far as creationism makes predictions/empirical claims, they have all been shown to be false. which means the whole thing is false. to believe otherwise requires a person to be ignorant of the facts (willfully or otherwise), too stupid to understand the facts, or selling something (the last being the leaders of the creationist movement who don't seem stupid to me, but keep repeating claims even after they have been shown the demonstration of why those claims are incorrect).

the only way to modify creationism to fit the facts is to make it identical to the explanations of modern science.
And the biggest problem with creationism--and with Intelligent Design Theory or whatever guide it hides under--is that it's not a theory. There is no actual body of hypotheses, no positive proof, no intellectually rigorous argument for creationism. There is only the argument that since evolution is "only a theory" (neglecting the huge amount of evidence backing it up), there must be some other theory of equal validity (even though creationism or ID doesn't come anywhere close).

^^^Recovering?
Recovered, well mostly.

IMO Creationism= :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Creationism is five people hitting five walls with their heads? :confused:

Creationism is five people hitting five walls with their heads? :confused:

i think those represent the people in the us who try to explain evolution to creationists

i think those represent the people in the us who try to explain evolution to creationists

The people in the "us"? I take it that the people in the "them" have given up bothering? ;)

would you prefer it with the periods?

they're the same folks (sp? maybe "-ucks") who insist that kangaroos must have once lived in the middle east, because they're still around, so they must have made it onto the ark, and to be on the ark they had to live in the middle east, and then would have travelled all the way across pangea (yes, pangea. their timeline is a little off, needless to say) to make it to australia.

the total lack of kangaroos in between mt. sinai and sidney doesn't seem to bother them.

Wow...I'd never heard that one before... Now that's trying to mesh science and religion just a little too closely. (bye the way, it's spelled Pangaea ;))

Yes and the other one is spelled "MT. ARARAT"! ;) Oh and is Sydney on the northwest coast? 'Cause otherwise I suspect there may be some 'roos northwest of Sidney.

would you prefer it with the periods?

That or CAPPED, if not both. ;) But in case you haven't noticed I am in a picayune mood, so feel free to ignore it. :D

caps are for sissies.

and academic papers.

but there are people who achually consider religon science?

thats insulting
If you were to take your initial comment above and invert it then you use the same closing statement you have their position.

To them, The Bible is the written Word of God. Anything that stands in contradiction to it must therefore be wrong. You carbon date a dinosaur bone and that is of no relevence. The carbon dating is a lie from Satan who (only The Creator knows how) created the bone in the first place. It's just another lying wonder.

Logic and facts matter not at all. If you point out that:
The Gospels were not written until all the apostles were dead
That they were written in Aramaic
That the words, thou, thy, thine, are not spiritual but merely King James lingua franca
That even the King James bible is a version of a translation of manuscripts that are not only not 'originals' but copies of copies that had been crafted after the Nicean Council of 325 AD/CE
That it is very likely that these copies were edited to allow for changes in dogma

NONE OF IT WILL MATTER!

Only one thing matters. If you screw with Jesusland they'll kick your godless ass.

caps are for sissies.

and academic papers.

I've always suspected that academic papers are for sissies. :)

Yeah...that...that's the problem with Hitler. If it wasn't for that and the fact that the facist militial strategies that he used to stimulate the economy. But otherwise...

I hear Charley Manson was a fairly descent musician. :D

Actually Creationism = nothing caused something that was able to and then did cause nothing except itself to turn into something...which is no less unlikely than nothing causing nothing to turn into something...

I am unaware of any Creationist dogma that asserts that G-d spontaniously generated out of any form of nothingness. In fact as I understand Christian Fundementalism and also Catholicism, G-d has always existed. Catholics call this "from eternity past". The idea of One from Nothingness is in fact a Hindu/Buddhist/Taoist idea.

All right, I think everyone here sees Creationism from the evangelical protestant perspective. Personally I believe in Creationism as well as Evolution. In fact the Catholic Church's view on this topic is that God created the universe, and whatever happened after that does not change the fact that he created it in the beginning, nowadays though there are these crazy people that believe the Earth was made 6,000 years ago, and that nothing ever changes. Creationism is not necessarily this viewpoint.

Well if you make it broad enough you could say that Deism is a form of Creationism. But in fact, at least here in the "us", it has a rather more specific meaning. Which is to say, everything in the Bible is literally true, and this is applied to science.

All right, I think everyone here sees Creationism from the evangelical protestant perspective. Personally I believe in Creationism as well as Evolution. In fact the Catholic Church's view on this topic is that God created the universe, and whatever happened after that does not change the fact that he created it in the beginning, nowadays though there are these crazy people that believe the Earth was made 6,000 years ago, and that nothing ever changes. Creationism is not necessarily this viewpoint.

Even this form of creationism isn't to be considered a science. By saying that god just created the universe, you add an unneeded and unproven element to the theory. There is absolutely no proof that god exists and you don't explain the 'creation of god', which is almost the same question as the original one. At the same time you add more questions like: 'where does god live?',' How did this place come into existance?', or perhaps more important 'how did we ever get the idea of a god existing outside the universe, considering that he cannot interact with us (as being stated that after creation only science is considered and that there is no evidence of a god)' .

For the record, I do believe in the big bang and creation. The big bang IS creation. God set the laws of physics and created existence. He created all animals and plants, then he created man. Genesis follows it to a T. Of course it is full of metaphors since early man would not be able to fully comprehend what was involved in creation (God knows what we can handle). The dinosaurs most likely existed between the creation of animals and man. The seven days of creation occupied billions of years. [edit: Forgot one thing, sure the new testament was written after the apostles were dead, but the old testament that creation is referring to is much, much older]

As for the kangaroo and the Ark, so what? Do you honestly think that he would have to flood the ENTIRE world back when people inhabited only a small area? Also, don't you think that he could have easily recreated animals? Regardless, it did happen. http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/noah.htm

Also, atomic technology may have existed before Noah, causing God to have him build his ark. http://www.s8int.com/atomic1.html I'm not saying I believe that part, but it is interesting. A solid sheet of green glass is created when an atomic/nuclear bomb is detonated on sand. It is interesting that similar sheets of glass were found so far in the past.

As for God not being able to interact with us, tell that to true believers who know better.

Everybody here is basing their statements on the premise that the universe started out as nothing and was then turned into something. What if the universe was always something. I'd rather admit that I cannot comprehend something as large as the creation of the universe than attributed such an accomplishment to an imaginary being.

Argument for creationism:

"I don't understand the big bang theory or the theory of evolution properly, and can't be bothered to find out, but my vague misunderstood versions don't make sense, therefore the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are false. And these two being false makes creationism true."

Everybody here is basing their statements on the premise that the universe started out as nothing and was then turned into something. What if the universe was always something. I'd rather admit that I cannot comprehend something as large as the creation of the universe than attributed such an accomplishment to an imaginary being.

I believe the most common answer to the something from nothing "argument" is that there was never a point in time when there was "nothing" because time started when the universe started.

Another theory is that the universe always existed, but got compressed and then expanded again (in the big bang), and that this may be a repeating process.

For the record, I do believe in the big bang and creation. The big bang IS creation. God set the laws of physics and created existence. He created all animals and plants, then he created man. Genesis follows it to a T.

so plants before the sun? fruit trees before any animals? birds before land animals? livestock before people? not even getting into the second, contradictory, creation story in the next chapter, we've got a bunch of stuff that just doesn't map onto the evidence at all.

I believe the most common answer to the something from nothing "argument" is that there was never a point in time when there was "nothing" because time started when the universe started.

Another theory is that the universe always existed, but got compressed and then expanded again (in the big bang), and that this may be a repeating process.

These are good arguments. I agree with your first argument completely, the second one is a little shaky to me. I don't understand why or how the universe would compress or expand. Perhaps the universe itself is a repeating process. The moment the universe ceases to exist is the same moment it starts anew. Maybe this is the big bang.?

The first post perfectly sums up the materialist mythology perpetrated by Richard Dawkins et al. They set out with the conclusion that there is no God, and then use the evidence to 'prove it'.

This is the difference between science (following the evidence despite prejudice) and their 'science' (allowing prejudice to shape our views of the evidence).

Of course, there are some creationist scientists who do this too. However, there are plenty more on both sides who are actually willing to admit that the evidence is not conclusive either way.

These are good arguments. I agree with your first argument completely, the second one is a little shaky to me. I don't understand why or how the universe would compress or expand. Perhaps the universe itself is a repeating process. The moment the universe ceases to exist is the same moment it starts anew. Maybe this is the big bang.?

Compression would be due to gravity. I'm not sure what the process causing the expansion would be called, but it would be the result of having lots of energy (i.e. all energy in the universe compressed into one space). This theory is a bit flawed though, because the universe currently seems to be accelerating its speed of expansion.

A third theory is that before the universe was just the universe, only running in reverse (mirrored in both time and space and other stuff - I can't remember entirely).

The first post perfectly sums up the materialist mythology perpetrated by Richard Dawkins et al. They set out with the conclusion that there is no God, and then use the evidence to 'prove it'.

The first post says absolutely nothing about disproving God. In fact, the person who wrote the first post believes in God. Try reading next time.

Of course, there are some creationist scientists who do this too. However, there are plenty more on both sides who are actually willing to admit that the evidence is not conclusive either way.

Wrong. *All* creationist scientists do this. They start out with a conclusion, and only look for evidence that supports it. This is not science. Period.

Do remember that creationist scientists are not trying to prove God, nor are true scientists trying to disprove God. We are talking about creationist "scientists" who try and "prove" parts of Genesis to be literally true, despite overwhelming evidence against.

The first post says absolutely nothing about disproving God. In fact, the person who wrote the first post believes in God. Try reading next time.

Wrong. *All* creationist scientists do this. They start out with a conclusion, and only look for evidence that supports it. This is not science. Period.

Do remember that creationist scientists are not trying to prove God, nor are true scientists trying to disprove God. We are talking about creationist "scientists" who try and "prove" parts of Genesis to be literally true, despite overwhelming evidence against.

First off, well done for your patronising tone - took you a long time to hone, I expect.

I was merely comparing your summary of creationist scientists with the philosophy behind the scientists at the forefront of aggressive atheism - Dawkins, Sagan etc. You say 'they start out with a conclusion, and only look for evidence that supports it'. I would say that that is exactly what Dawkins does, for example in The Blind Watchmaker, where he admits freely that he turned away from the idea of a God because he did not want to believe.

The comic you posted is equally true of scientists who blindly accept evolution. It's still called a theory because it's unproven, you know.

I was merely comparing your summary of creationist scientists with the philosophy behind the scientists at the forefront of aggressive atheism - Dawkins, Sagan etc. You say 'they start out with a conclusion, and only look for evidence that supports it'. I would say that that is exactly what Dawkins does, for example in The Blind Watchmaker, where he admits freely that he turned away from the idea of a God because he did not want to believe.

Ah. I have made that comparison myself, especially when you consider that the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent God can neither be proven nor disproven by science.

The comic you posted is equally true of scientists who blindly accept evolution. It's still called a theory because it's unproven, you know.

If a scientist "blindly accepts evolution", they are no more a scientist than a creationist "scientist" is. Evolution is the theory with the most evidence behind it. Like other theories, it changes to match any new evidence that comes up.

However, it *is* a theory put together from the evidence, rather than a conclusion someone came to and then started searching for evidence.

So we would agree that both religion and atheism are based on faith, given that science cannot prove or disprove God.

The statement that evolution is the theory with most evidence behind it is debatable. I'm not sure I agree. This may be due to the fact that the most vocal proponents of said theory are the atheistic materialists such as Dawkins, the BBC's darling.

The evidence is twisted in both directions.

Compression would be due to gravity. I'm not sure what the process causing the expansion would be called, but it would be the result of having lots of energy (i.e. all energy in the universe compressed into one space). This theory is a bit flawed though, because the universe currently seems to be accelerating its speed of expansion.

A third theory is that before the universe was just the universe, only running in reverse (mirrored in both time and space and other stuff - I can't remember entirely).
I was fairly sure not accelerating … just a lack of consistent deceleration … actually I believe it is at the point where it is de accelerating but they cant prove why it is de accelerating as much as it is (black matter)

All opposing theories with their own support (though not enough evidence yet to differentiate)

So we would agree that both religion and atheism are based on faith, given that science cannot prove or disprove God.

Yup.

The statement that evolution is the theory with most evidence behind it is debatable. I'm not sure I agree. This may be due to the fact that the most vocal proponents of said theory are the atheistic materialists such as Dawkins, the BBC's darling.

What other theory do you think has the most evidence. Note that what said "atheistic materialists" call evolution is probably not much closer to the actual theory than what "creationist scientists" call evolution is.

The actual evolution theory has been put together based on the evidence we have found. It has changed and is changing to account for new evidence. This is how scientific theories work.

The evidence is twisted in both directions.

Not really by the scientists studying it, however. People with an agenda will twist things however they want to, but the scientists actually studying it won't get published if they twist data.

The Earth is round, a sphere. We know this; but when we look around at our immediate little piece of it, it looks flat. Its curvature is too gradule for us to comphend with our eyes because we are limited to looking at such a small segment of it.

The evidence of our eyes once led to the belief that the Earth was flat. It was based on a limited understanding of the nature of the whole.

Now, here we are stuck in a belief that everything has beginnings and endings. We base this belief on the evidence of our senses, too; on the temporal nature of things and events that we perceive. A life-form has a definative beginning and an end. Radioactive particles have beginnings and ends. The formation and deformation of matter has a beginning and an end. And the universe must have a beginning and an end: a "life-time".

Must all things have a beginning and an end? What if we are viewing just a small segment of space/time and its laws? What if our understanding of a "life-time" is based on a limited understanding of the nature of the whole?

It's still called a theory because it's unproven, you know.

nah, that's not what being a theory means. a theory is not something that will grow up to be a fact. a theory is a well supported and accepted scientific explanation for a set of facts that makes testable predictions about as yet unobserved or examined facts - and survives those tests. you can't ever prove a theory because inductive reasoning is not deductive reasoning. but this is not a problem with science, it is a 'problem' with the nature of the universe.

the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution, just like the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity. and of the two we are slightly more sure of the theory of evolution than we are of our theory of gravity, because we know that we don't have the full story on gravity yet.

So we would agree that both religion and atheism are based on faith, given that science cannot prove or disprove God.

Only hard atheism requires any kind of faith (The active denial of the existance of any gods). Soft atheism requires no leap of faith and is, in fact, the default positioning of our religious feelings (Either ignorance of the possibility of gods or the lack of care either way, the latter being what I fall under). Hard atheists are, in a way, our very own fundementalists.

The statement that evolution is the theory with most evidence behind it is debatable. I'm not sure I agree. This may be due to the fact that the most vocal proponents of said theory are the atheistic materialists such as Dawkins, the BBC's darling.

Evolution is currently the only working theory we have for the origin of our modern biodiversity. Yes, there are plenty of hypotheses, but none of them test out. Modern evolutionary theory tests well enough that it is generally accepted as true, though any true scientist would not hesitate to change it to fit new evidence. It has nothing to do with who is the most vocal proponent.

The evidence is twisted in both directions.

The difference is that evolution is a theory come upon by examining the evidence and testing hypotheses, almost everything is else hypothesizing and looking for evidence to support it.

Only hard atheism requires any kind of faith (The active denial of the existance of any gods). Soft atheism requires no leap of faith and is, in fact, the default positioning of our religious feelings (Either ignorance of the possibility of gods or the lack of care either way, the latter being what I fall under). Hard atheists are, in a way, our very own fundementalists.

You are describing agnosticism here, not atheism. An atheist actively believes that there are no gods.

You are describing agnosticism here, not atheism. An atheist actively believes that there are no gods.

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not a god or gods exist or the active belief that no current religion is right. Soft atheism is an inactive form of existance.

You are describing agnosticism here, not atheism. An atheist actively believes that there are no gods.

actually an agnostic holds the belief that either it is impossible in principle to know whether any gods exists or that currently there isn't enough evidence to know either way.

actually an agnostic holds the belief that either it is impossible in principle to know whether any gods exists or that currently there isn't enough evidence to know either way.

under which would fall "ignorance of the possibility of gods or lack of care either way."

under which would fall "ignorance of the possibility of gods or lack of care either way."

No, not really.

under which would fall "ignorance of the possibility of gods or lack of care either way."

well, ignorance of the possibility wouldn't make somebody believe that we can't know whether gods exist or not, because the possibility of the existence of gods would never come up. they would utterly lack any belief in gods. which makes 'em atheist.

however, lack of caring either way is trickier. it would probably be functionally equivalent to atheism. but it could also just be filed under apathy in some cases.

And the biggest problem with creationism--and with Intelligent Design Theory or whatever guide it hides under--is that it's not a theory. There is no actual body of hypotheses,They don't exactly form a body, but there are a heck of a lot of hypotheses associated with creationism. There is no shortage of quackery.

Even this form of creationism isn't to be considered a science.And neither is the atheist version (the universe spontaneously existing). They're both superfluous to the models.

Everybody here is basing their statements on the premise that the universe started out as nothing and was then turned into something. What if the universe was always something.There are a number of cosmological theories along those lines. They're complicated by the fact that the universe is not state (We have very good evidence for that). IMO it really doesn't solve any problems. Instead of boundry conditions "at" t=0, you have boundry conditions at t = - infinity.

Argument for creationism:

"I don't understand the big bang theory or the theory of evolution properly, and can't be bothered to find out, but my vague misunderstood versions don't make sense, therefore the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are false. And these two being false makes creationism true."This is all too often true.

The comic you posted is equally true of scientists who blindly accept evolution. It's still called a theory because it's unproven, you know.No, it's called a theory because the language changed; accepted scientific theories used to be called laws, now they're called theories. (fairly empirical theories are still sometimes called laws, and many of the theories before the language shift are grandfathered in as laws). There are scientists that blindly accept evolution yes. But those "in the field" by and large don't. There is specialization in science, and not all scientists question all of scientific knowledge; that's just not possible.

What other theory do you think has the most evidence. Note that what said "atheistic materialists" call evolution is probably not much closer to the actual theory than what "creationist scientists" call evolution is.Actually, from what I've seen a greater proportion of "atheistic materialists" have a basic grasp of Dawin's theory than "creationist scientists". I've run across very few of the latter that understand the basics. But there are many in both groups that really do not have a clue.

Hard atheists are, in a way, our very own fundementalists.We can be, yes. I'll quite happily agree that my (hard) atheism is based in part on faith. But unfortunately that seems to be a rare admission.

I believe the most common answer to the something from nothing "argument" is that there was never a point in time when there was "nothing" because time started when the universe started.

Another theory is that the universe always existed, but got compressed and then expanded again (in the big bang), and that this may be a repeating process.

This is also found in Qabalism, in which this world is only the latest one that G-d has made.

The basis of Creationism is this: some people believe that the Bible is the untainted word of G-d, and thus they believe that everything in it is literally true. So they look for evidence to back up biblically literal creation, and discount evidence against it. However the Bible cannot be literally true. If it were, than Joseph, Jesus' father, had two different lineages back to David. Both lineages cannot be true, therefor the Bible cannot be literally true, and so Creationism is based upon a lie, the lie of biblical literalism.

The basis of Creationism is this: some people believe that the Bible is the untainted word of G-d, and thus they believe that everything in it is literally true. So they look for evidence to back up biblically literal creation, and discount evidence against it.

and upon finding out that there is no evidence to back up their views, they promptly make some up.

and upon finding out that there is no evidence to back up their views, they promptly make some up.

Of course there's evidence. You can find evidence for anything if you try hard enough and ignore anything that doesn't back up your claim.

Of course there's evidence. You can find evidence for anything if you try hard enough and ignore anything that doesn't back up your claim.

has any creationist ever shown you any of this evidence? even if they could find some in principle, do they ever actually follow through on it? the best they ever get are hoaxes, repeated misunderstandings, and digging up old quotes from scientists and taking them out of context.

has any creationist ever shown you any of this evidence?

Yup. I grew up in a Southern Baptist hellfire and damnation church.

even if they could find some in principle, do they ever actually follow through on it?

Of course not, that might end up disputing the evidence.

the best they ever get are hoaxes, repeated misunderstandings, and digging up old quotes from scientists and taking them out of context.

*shrug* If you ignore all else and only report these things as if they are truths, then you have evidence as far as the uneducated are concerned.