The evolution of creationism

Nov 05, 2012

Throughout history, people have sought to understand how the world came to be and how it has changed over time. This curiosity has produced a rich legacy of science and philosophy and impacted and influenced religion and theology. In the November 2012 issue of GSA Today, David Montgomery of the University of Washington examines both the history of geology and of biblical views regarding Earth's origins.

Montgomery's main premise is that throughout most of the past several hundred years, scientists and theologians engaged in extensive collaboration regarding issues like Earth's age and origin. The common bond that sustained this rich exchange of ideas was a respect for reason and a trust in the scientific process.

As evolved, so did many shared questions and struggles regarding how to best understand Earth's age as well as how new scientific findings harmonized with or conflicted with theological understanding as conveyed in works such as the Bible. These questions and struggles persist into the present, most notably in geology, where vast differences in the answers to such fundamental questions as "how old is this planet?" both correlate and contrast with some .

In terms of Christian theology, the main problems that Montgomery discusses are Earth's age and the role of a global flood ("Noah's flood") in . While these issues—that the Earth is not over four billion years old, but is actually only a few thousand years old, and that most of the geological history recorded by rocks was formed as a result of Noah's flood—are commonly raised by modern-day creationists, they have also been vigorously studied by both scientists and theologians over the past several hundred years.

Montgomery shows that have provided a vast array of evidence that refutes both a young age for Earth and a worldwide flood. These conclusions provoked significant debate among Christian writers during the early 1800s, but many acknowledged the validity of the scientific evidence. They subsequently adapted their view of creation as spelled out in the Bible, recognizing that it might be figurative instead of literal, and that Noah's flood was likely a regional event that involved the Caspian or Black Sea.

Modern-day , according to Montgomery, developed from several influential efforts, beginning in the 1920s. The movement would revive the global (Noah's) flood explanation for the geological record, resurrecting the older theory mainly in an effort to question scientific conclusions regarding the biological evolution of life on Earth.

The creationists of the twentieth century—and those of today—evolved in order to reject a scientific basis for understanding of the history of our planet. They instead rely on a literal interpretation of Biblical accounts of creation.

These arguments are effective. Montgomery points out more than 40% of Americans believe Earth is less than 10,000 years old, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. However, Montgomery hopes that by pointing to our longer-term history and mutual heritage of using scientific observations of the natural world to inform both secular and religious understanding, the relationship between science and religion can undergo further evolution, and faith in science can be restored.

Explore further: Fall in monsoon rains driven by rise in air pollution, study shows

More information: The evolution of creationism, David R. Montgomery, Quaternary Research Center and Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences, Box 351310, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1310, USA. Pages 4-9, doi: 10.1130/GSATG158A.1

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Founder of creationism dies

Feb 28, 2006

The man regarded as the founder of the creationist movement, Henry M. Morris, has died in California at age 87.

Topsoil's limited turnover: A crisis in time

Oct 02, 2008

Topsoil does not last forever. Records show that topsoil erosion, accelerated by human civilization and conventional agricultural practices, has outpaced long-term soil production. Earth's continents are losing prime agricultural ...

Science and religion do mix

Sep 21, 2011

Throughout history, science and religion have appeared as being in perpetual conflict, but a new study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science ...

Recommended for you

Sculpting tropical peaks

Oct 01, 2014

Tropical mountain ranges erode quickly, as heavy year-round rains feed raging rivers and trigger huge, fast-moving landslides. Rapid erosion produces rugged terrain, with steep rivers running through deep ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jalmy
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2012
"Montgomery points out more than 40% of Americans believe Earth is less than 10,000 years old"

I call bullshit.
Ophelia
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2012
"Montgomery points out more than 40% of Americans believe Earth is less than 10,000 years old"

I call bullshit.


Sorry, jalmy, but you are wrong. Check out the FULL article at http://www.huffin...127.html
kevinrtrs
1.1 / 5 (32) Nov 05, 2012
I just love the juxtaposition of the word "evolution" in the same sentence as "creationism" ;-)

Montgomery clearly does not differentiate between forensic or historical science and science done in the here and now.

Hence the so-called "a vast array of evidence that refutes both a young age for Earth and a worldwide flood".

When it comes to the question of our origins, scientists cannot make any definitive statements - whatever happened in the long forgotten past is not subject to the rigours of scientific method simply because there is no way to observe and repeat what has occurred.
We cannot observe other "earths" coming into being and then compare how life arises on them to what we know now.
So to say that the geolocial evidence refutes the biblical understanding is simply to say that the atheistic geologist, using the same tools and evidence available, in combination with a whole set of different starting assumptions, reaches the conclusion that currently prevails - Giga years.
lonewolfmtnz
4.8 / 5 (17) Nov 05, 2012
Never argue with stupidity (or willful ignorance) for no observer can ever potentially determine which of the protagonists is the stupider.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2012
We cannot observe other "earths" coming into being and then compare how life arises on them to what we know now.
You obviously never watched Dr. Who
Baseline
4.8 / 5 (20) Nov 05, 2012
When it comes to the question of our origins, scientists cannot make any definitive statements - whatever happened in the long forgotten past is not subject to the rigours of scientific method simply because there is no way to observe and repeat what has occurred.


By your argument we also should not be able to convict most criminals for their crimes as well. However we can follow the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions from what we learn from it. Well at least some of us can.

jsdarkdestruction
3.8 / 5 (17) Nov 05, 2012
no matter what you say kevin you have NO proof of a great worldwide flood. NONE. its ridiculious to even claim such an event happened because of some goatherders that had a big local flood and wrote it in their story book.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2012
Today the idea of creation is stronger than lets say before twenty/fifty years. Even the rigorous physicists are starting to think about universe like about simulation - which is apparently creationist approach. IMO this trend is of emergent nature and it follows from the fact, with increasing distance scale the Universe appears more and more similar to the world at the short distance scale in similar way, like the scattering of ripples at the water surface: their scattering at long distance mimics their scattering at short distance scale. In this sense the contemporary science is returning PARTIALLY to its roots in the process of cyclical evolution.

I don't consider the creation hypothesis seriously, but we should always remain prepared to find a fundamental holes inside of evolutionary theory, particularly in the possibility, that the evolution of terrestrial life was influenced/seeded from some older parts of Universe, maybe even repetitively.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2012
Montgomery is a legit scientist. Unfortunately he is also a deluded accommodationist.

Which our house creationist trolls tests well:

@ kevintrs:

"Montgomery clearly does not differentiate between forensic or historical science and science done in the here and now."

Creationists shouldn't comment on science. It is hilarious to see.

Natural scientists doesn't differentiate between natural sciences as long as it is natural sciences.

- All observations are done in the past light cone far away from the interaction (say, our vision).

- All observations are constrained by processes, so can be observations arbitrarily far back depending on process. Say, radioactive observations of the planetary systems' birth or, despite what you claim, observing other planets as they are created. These observations are done now, and scientists believe they will study other inhabited planets in 1-2 decades depending on progress.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2012
[cont]

- Forensic science and historical science are sciences respectively used in forensics and history. They are both part natural science, but contains social science as well.

As for creationism, it is rejected by observation.

@ ValeriaT:

Creationism of all kinds are rapidly drowning in accumulated rejection by observation, as far as science goes. It is easy to verify in the literature by the progress in cosmology, biology and neuroscience.

Once more: the transition between chemical and biological evolution does not test the theory of evolution. The latter predicts how biological populations change into biological populations. It is astrobiology that looks at the transition process, where some but not all mechanisms of evolution participates. This is Biology 101.

Transpermia doesn't solve astrobiology, it just moves the transition between chemical and biological evolution around. But the speed with which life occurred on Earth shows it is an easy process on habitable planets.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2012
But the speed with which life occurred on Earth shows it is an easy process on habitable planets.
Well, this speed may instead serve as "an evidence", that the panspermia infection is more widespread in the cosmic space, than we assume by now. So that this argument doesn't impress me very much. Of course I'm aware, that this mechanism doesn't solve the causality of accidental life formation - it just provides more time for it. I'm not enemy of evolution, as I'm myself engaged in proposals of various mechanisms of spontaneous life formation - I'm just smelling a potential problem in blind application of the evolutionary mechanism everywhere. In AWT every concept, which appears seemingly robust from deterministic perspective is surrounded with sparse atmosphere of "dark matter", i.e. with the mechanism of the exactly the dual nature. So I'm just waiting for the finding, which would reveal, even the creationists have their bit of truth.
cyberCMDR
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2012
If you look at some of the creation based textbooks being used in Louisiana, the sun used to be much bigger because it burns fuel instead of running on fusion (one of their arguments for a young Earth). The stuff being actively taught to our children will ensure creationism will be with us for a long time.
ValeriaT
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2012
For example, before some time the Lamarckian evolution (supported widely with Russian Lysenko and various other crackpots) was considered as a solely fringe model of evolution. But now the horizontal gene transfer model becomes more and more accepted for evolution of so-called "genetic dark matter", i.e. the waste amount of "junk DNA", which may evolve independently to biological species being exchanged through various viruses and preon-like proteins. So I'm just waiting for the moment, when even the controversial Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's ideas of "cosmic viruses" will get some merit. http://www.virolo...the-seas
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 05, 2012
If you look at some of the creation based textbooks being used in Louisiana, the Sun used to be much bigger because it burns fuel instead of running on fusion
Yeah, I know - but even this apparent nonsense could still have its rational core. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water just because its reasoning sounds nonsensical for us in this moment. We should always remain critical, but opened to all ideas and judge them independently. I'm rather missing this critical approach in contemporary science: it indeed remains critical, but mostly only toward the ideas outside of it. Too many paradigms are currently accepted as a bullet-proof facts, which is unhealthy situation.
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (21) Nov 05, 2012
Baseline takes exception with the idea that events long ago cannot be analyzed today because that would mean many criminals, convicted by evidence, would have to be released. But, then, many are released bec ause lab methodologies were called into question. If those can be questioned for methodology, then it should be questionable in the case of large university labs and such, as well. In the end, what is the proof "science" devotees provide that claims about "evolution", "relativity" and the like are true? No one really answers that. Some insist things like GPS couldn't work if "relativity" didn't correct for Doppler shift, but they never prove that the Doppler shift of radio waves is "relativistic" or "traditional". Much if not most of the remainder just say it doesn't make sense not to trust "scientists". But the fact remains, there is absolutely no independent, irrefutable evidence placed literally in the "rank and file's" hands that what "scientists" say is true.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2012
I don't care very much about ignorance of mainstream science, because it's just a matter of time, when these mistakes will be recognized and corrected into account of the credibility of scientists involved. My only real problem with mainstream science is with its boycott of cold fusion - this is the point, where we all are paying really very badly for every day of ignorance of scientists. This is just the point, which would be difficult to swallow for me.
malapropism
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2012
Even ... physicists are starting to think about universe like about simulation - which is apparently creationist approach...

I do understand that you are positing that as rational thinkers we should keep an open mind on the possibility that some fundamental flaw in logic of various theories, or some discovery of a fundamental nature that profoundly changes our conception of some sciences, could occur. This is the most basic mechanism of scientific thought. However, while thinking about, and investigating if feasible, the idea that we are inside a simulation can lead to helpful and interesting insights, there seems to me little purpose in discussing any possible historicity due to it because by definition the simulation may have commenced a picosecond ago complete with all history and evidence in place. We likely cannot know this unless it is somehow possible to step outside the simulation to see its "runtime" externally; this seems difficult to determine, even philosophically.
malapropism
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 06, 2012
I just love the juxtaposition of the word "evolution" in the same sentence as "creationism"

However, as I have noted before in these fora, many things evolve, including ideas and religions.

Montgomery clearly does not differentiate between forensic or historical science and science done in the here and now

And why should he? The basis of the scientific method doesn't change due to the period being studied and neither, within a discipline and at any given time, do the tools that are used.

... scientists cannot make any definitive statements - whatever happened in the long forgotten past is not subject to the rigours of scientific method simply because there is no way to observe and repeat what has occurred

Unfortunately for your argument, this is also exactly true of your religious commentary on the matter.
ekim
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 06, 2012
There is an old joke - Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?
When I look to the stars, I'm looking into the past. Peering out, I can see back billions of years into galactic history. Billions of galaxies each filled with billions of stars. It would be inconceivable to fit such a sight into a tiny 10,000 light year bubble. I suppose tiny minds require tiny universes to exist.
Mayor__Dooley
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 06, 2012
Creationism is the pinnacle of ignorance, so self-assured that it cannot be reached by any logic or reason. Kevin's drive-by asininity being an example of what may become the US majority.

That this fundamentalist drivel is supported in the US education is unnerving and insulting. It is that which needs addressing, not some limp regurgitation of the history of imbeciles.
vlaaing peerd
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2012
which backcorner of this planet would teach creationism in school? I don't think with any reason you can convince the US educational system to teach religious fundementalism above proven reality.

I also really don't believe 40% of Americans believe this bullcrap, I know they're very Christian over there but that doesn't mean they all believe in creationism. Being religious and accepting all fundementalist ideas that spring forth from it are 2 completely different things.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2012
When it comes to the question of our origins, scientists cannot make any definitive statements

Which is true - but then again: the question of origins has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. (and for someone with your frequency of posting on the subject you should have at least learned this basic, basic fact)

whatever happened in the long forgotten past is not subject to the rigours of scientific method simply because there is no way to observe and repeat what has occurred.
Have you ever looked at the night syk?
We see nothing BUT the past there.
triplehelix
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2012
A running theme here is "you don't know exactly what happened". No, we dont know that geoff had a slight protein mutation at exactly 4 36 pm, which led to his son having a particular trait, named bob, who then, etc etc for 2000 years. What we can do, is use inference logic. That is, experiment on this protein, and see how it changes. If it changes in the presence of a particular toxin, we can deduce this toxin caused a population to have some form of evolutionary defensive stage. We don't know the exact specifics, but we know more than enough to come to a concrete conclusion. No science is definitive by pure philosophical argument. What we do have are confidences so high, and evidence so strong, that to ignore it would be ASANINE. We only figured out 99.999% of the picture and you smarmily then say we have 0.001% missing and wave a Bible around, as if this gives a 100% picture, when in fact it gives 0%, possibly less if I had time to argue. Grow up
triplehelix
3 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2012
which backcorner of this planet would teach creationism in school? I don't think with any reason you can convince the US educational system to teach religious fundementalism above proven reality.

I also really don't believe 40% of Americans believe this bullcrap, I know they're very Christian over there but that doesn't mean they all believe in creationism. Being religious and accepting all fundementalist ideas that spring forth from it are 2 completely different things.


Last laugh is on you mate, Louisiana won the right to teach Intelligent design in schools this year. In fact, I would say 40% is actually being quite nice, I actually thought it was higher! They have taken very rigorous surveys on this subject, this subject has a very high popularity and a lot of data exists. A lot of Americans are young earth creationists. Fact.
VendicarD
3.1 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2012
It is almost impossible to estimate the stupidity of Conservative Americans, who make up the vast bulk of that 40%.

"I also really don't believe 40% of Americans believe this bullcrap" - vlaainq.

jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2012
vlaaing peerd. i wish you were correct.
"Lawmakers in several states drew inspiration from a petition published in February by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group promoting intelligent design. The petition argued that teachers should not be penalized for "objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory" and students should be allowed to express their views on those same strengths and weaknesses.

Creationists chalked up a notable win with this approach in Louisiana, where Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal in June signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act. Similar bills were introduced this year in Florida, Missouri, Michigan, South Carolina and Alabama.

In Texas, the state school board is one vote short of approving new educational standards in March that allow a curriculum that highlights the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. It's all part of a gradual rhetorical shift away from talking about creationism and intelligent...
jsdarkdestruction
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2012
...design toward casting doubt on evolution, says Joshua Rosenau, spokesperson for the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.

"They have this idea," he says, "that it's a zero-sum game, so anything you can do to knock evolution down actually promotes creationism without having to say the word."
knowphiself
1 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2012
Postulate: The axis of magnetism is the building of potential about itself (stresses coded)

Religion as: An Ordering Principle

Religion as: Axiomatic Dogmatism

As any currencies value is that of perceived worth = shared
so to is the word for church = community

Memory and Morals as such the bearings on a compass
to navigate by Will and Hope the geography of life
Grace and Belief enable us
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
A lot of Americans are young earth creationists. Fact.
A lot of Chinese are young communists. Fact.
evolution3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2012
See creationists there you got your evidence.You creationists evolved too^^
baudrunner
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2012
"The Lost Book of Enki", a translation of 14 ancient Sumerian clay tablets by the late and most venerable Zecheriah Sitchin, provides explanation in much greater detail, and elaborates what is actually no more than a synopsis of events in the bible. Those events gave those scribes reason to record them, so they must have a basis in fact, no? About 450,000 years of mankind's history is covered in those pages of Sitchin's book. He did not waste the 60 years he spent in the study of all those ancient writings of Sumer, Greece, Babylonia, Egypt, Judea, etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2012
"Montgomery points out more than 40% of Americans believe Earth is less than 10,000 years old"

I call bullshit.
I would say the same percentage of people think soap operas are real. But the lies of eternal life and wish granting are too compelling for many to resist.
Today the idea of creation is stronger than lets say before twenty/fifty years.
There's a sucker born every minute. And unfortunately more are born into religionist families.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2012
I also really don't believe 40% of Americans believe this bullcrap, I know they're very Christian over there but that doesn't mean they all believe in creationism. Being religious and accepting all fundementalist ideas that spring forth from it are 2 completely different things.
You're writing about a group of voters where 48% advocated a fraudster who disembowels corporations for a short price spike then leaves the carcass in search of new prey, while using the proceeds to launch a cloned enterprise in China. Such imbeciles deserve nothing better than slavery which is their innate predilection.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Nov 11, 2012
I also really don't believe 40% of Americans believe this bullcrap, I know they're very Christian over there but that doesn't mean they all believe in creationism. Being religious and accepting all fundementalist ideas that spring forth from it are 2 completely different things.
Such imbeciles deserve nothing better than slavery which is their innate predilection.
koch the Russkie

Romney offered a return to traditional America and traditional values, and it was rejected by imbeciles who are, unfortunately, calling themselves American while having divorced themselves from those American values. The Libtards have won, and they will find out gradually what their stupidity and lack of common sense and concern for a good future has wrought as their rejection of prosperity will become self-evident as time goes by. The next 4, 8, 12 years will bring slavery, a stagnant economy (far worse), a breakdown of American infrastructure, and rampant irresponsibility in Obama's admin.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
There is no longer a good old fashioned belief in a good work ethic for Libtard Americans, but that is a topic for another thread.
The Libtards' preoccupation while full of indignation with the creationist beliefs of Americans continues to remove them from the reality of the old adage, "live and let live". Instead, Libtard atheists have taken on the creationists, particularly Christians, and seem to have declared a war of sorts with untoward invective against the very things that make Christian men, women and children very happy and content with a feeling of security in such beliefs. The First Amendment of the U.S.Constitution provides from Freedom of Religion. And yet, atheists cannot abide anything that disagrees with their own beliefs.
Creationists have a RIGHT to believe what they want, even if it's something that sounds silly, like the Earth being only 6,000 yo. They are not hurting anybody by such beliefs and neither are they angry that atheists don't believe in God.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
Perhaps Creationists are "playing it safe" in their beliefs. After all, once a Christian dies, if there really IS an after life, then he or she will go to their just reward, depending on the life they lived. But, by the same token, if there is NO afterlife, they still win anyway and have lost nothing.
IMO, when an atheist dies, even if there is an afterlife and good rewards for the Christians who have led a good, honest life, etc. etc.. the soul of an atheist will remain in the coffin and never be called forth. He will be aware of where he is and will wait there for what may seem like eternity while his body corrupts and returns to the soil. His soul will remain that way until Judgment Day, if there is one. And he will burn when the Universe is destroyed by "heat-death".
I have no belief in a special "hell" that has a specific location where evil souls wind up in. I believe that the Universe will have an end, and the time it will take to get there will be short for those who have died
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
already. Whether a person believes in Intelligent Design or not is irrelevant. The truth will set us free, irregardless of what you believe…or not. But those Christians who are willing to accommodate evolution as a viable theory, in addition to their religion, are better equipped to understand that both creationism and evolution are not far removed from each other. God created Adam out of clay and breathed life into Adam's nostrils. To me, that is beautiful to contemplate.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
I think that atheists have a problem with the fact that Christians believe that one must be "good" and place his faith and belief fully in God's existence and that one must also believe that belief and faith in Jesus Christ (whose biblical name was Joshua, pronounced as Yeshuah or Yayshua) is the only way to be rewarded with one's Soul being taken to the Heaven where God dwells with the Saints and Angels…even as one's physical body corrupts and returns from whence it came.
That Angels cannot be seen doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. They show their presence in other ways than the physical and they do influence people and events, but only rarely. They don't show an inclination to perform tricks for unbelievers to prove their existence. If they did, then even atheists would scramble madly to prove their belief and faith even if it's still a false belief and they are only pretending.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Romney offered a return to traditional America and traditional values, and it was rejected by imbeciles who are, unfortunately, calling themselves American while having divorced themselves from those American values.
That war was fought in 1861 and your side, the confederates, lost. "Family values" was a phrase coined by Adolph Hitler, and his 2nd book titled "New World Order" was frequently mentioned in admiration by Bush Sr.
That Angels cannot be seen doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist.
I agree the weeping angels feed off fear and temporal distortion. They become quantum locked when you look at them, akin to Schrodinger's cat. The only way to stop them is to make them stare at each-other http://en.wikiped...ng_Angel
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2012
Creationism and evolution are not incompatible. Some thing has to be created first for it to exist. After it has been created, then it is free to evolve. What is evolution but a process of IMPROVING what came before, using whatever available materials there are…such as clay, water, and essential elements. An electromagnetic storm could provide the energy to "breathe life" into the mixture.
Some evolutionary processes did not result in an improvement, and its results probably didn't live very long.
Consider a human zygote. It was CREATED by combining the male sperm with a female egg and after the combining, the zygote EVOLVED into a living fetus after having gone through many changes. But even if life evolved from a single celled animal, that single cell also had to be created out of available materials.
IMO, God IS the ultimate Scientist who created life from the Earth and caused that life to evolve and improve. Creation came first, while evolution was secondary.
FrankHerbert
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
Way to spend an hour posting about something that was discredited centuries ago. Pascal's Wager is crap and anyone with half a brain knows so. At least have some conviction in your faith, Christ.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Nov 11, 2012
Romney offered a return to traditional America and traditional values, and it was rejected by imbeciles
-Takes one to know one.
hose American values.
This is what youre pretty good at isn't it?
and rampant irresponsibility in Obama's admin.
Yeah they might even let you keep your job as NASA concession engineer. THAT would be irresponsible.
Some evolutionary processes did not result in an improvement, and its results probably didn't live very long.
-But you're still alive and you're an obvious throwback. How does science explain this?
IMO, God IS the ultimate Scientist who created life from the Earth and caused that life to evolve and improve. Creation came first, while evolution was secondary.
But what is the opinion of a lying flooding suckpuppeteer worth? Can science quantify this for us? Besides weighing the monumental scat pile you left above that is?

Hey suckpuppet. You said you'd be gone after the election was over but you're still here. What gives?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2012
Poor ObamaSox. He gets no respect.

Mostly because like Ronmey, he is a cockroach that is undeserving of respect.
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2012
"I would say the same percentage of people think soap operas are real" - Otto

According to the creator of the simpsons, Faux news is concerned that their audience may think the simpsons is real.

I'm serious.

Fox News Worried Its Viewers Can't Tell a Cartoon from News?

http://www.youtub...e=relmfu
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
It is always amazing that once a group of people want to believe something, they will, against all rational evidence, persist. Modern creationists are not the only example: Modern theoretical physicists, especially those using quantum field theory, are just as persistent to ignore experimental evidence that they are wrong: They will rather believe that what we do at present affects what happebned in the past; even though any person with common sense will know that they must be demented to believe this.

Another example is the AWT theorists, represented by ValeriaT on this forum.

This mentality is the seed within the human race that will lead to its self-destruction.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2012
"The truth will set us free, irregardless of what you believe…or not."

In a lab, a plasma physicist, a cellular/molecular biologist and a geologist get together and make an organic molecular soup with all of the ingredients that would have been present on earth 1 second before life began, they shock the soup with an electrical discharge and boom, the proteins begin to align themselves in a pattern that becomes self replicating. Life from no life in a lab...this truth would not set creationalists free. No more than Jesus resurrecting before the audience on national TV during the halftime show of the superbowl would set atheists free.

There is the truth, then there is what people believe. One is based on facts, the other is how the human mind percieves the facts and interperates their validity.

"It is always amazing that once a group of people want to believe something, they will, against all rational evidence, persist."

Remember when seeing used to be believing?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (14) Nov 12, 2012
"I would say the same percentage of people think soap operas are real" - Otto

According to the creator of the simpsons, Faux news is concerned that their audience may think the simpsons is real.

I'm serious.

Fox News Worried Its Viewers Can't Tell a Cartoon from News?

http://www.youtub...e=relmfu
TV is more effective than the pulpit and promises the same things. Lucille ball never gets old in reruns. This is why the church is obsolete and is being phased out.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
"It is always amazing that once a group of people want to believe something, they will, against all rational evidence, persist.
"Remember when seeing used to be believing?


There have been epochs in human development when seeing was believing, but it usually disappears under peer pressure, Remember the Emperor's clothes? The guy who chipped in that the Emporer is naked can be glad that he was a little boy: He probably just got a good hiding. If he was a grown-up he would have been charged with treason: After all he was giving away a "state secret"; was'nt he?.

kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2012
@rubberman There is the truth, then there is what people believe. One is based on facts, the other is how the human mind percieves the facts and interperates their validity.
While true laws of physics determine validity, not the whims of some electrochemical skull-soup. I think that's what you said.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 12, 2012
"It is always amazing that once a group of people want to believe something, they will, against all rational evidence, persist.
"Remember when seeing used to be believing?


There have been epochs in human development when seeing was believing, but it usually disappears under peer pressure, Remember the Emperor's clothes? The guy who chipped in that the Emporer is naked can be glad that he was a little boy: He probably just got a good hiding. If he was a grown-up he would have been charged with treason: After all he was giving away a "state secret"; was'nt he?.

God doesnt exist. The emperor is naked. Our senses tell us these things. Time for religionist peer pressure to end.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
God doesnt exist. The emperor is naked. Our senses tell us these things. Time for religionist peer pressure to end.
Unfortunately they DON'T see these things. Beliefs and biases and prejudices alter perception. Religious people indeed perceive a different world, and only facts or Darwinian scenarios can act as a crucible to distinguish the informed from the ignorant. Religious meander in an meme ecosystem of their own making and often display symptoms of psychosis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 12, 2012
God doesnt exist. The emperor is naked. Our senses tell us these things. Time for religionist peer pressure to end
Unfortunately...Religious people indeed perceive a different world, and only facts or Darwinian scenarios can act as a crucible to distinguish the informed from the ignorant. Religious meander in an meme ecosystem of their own making and often display symptoms of psychosis.
So did nazis. But fascism was deemed a danger to the world and so it has largely been suppressed. Nationalism, fascism, and religionism are only tribalism in different guises. They cannot be ALLOWED to endanger the world by promising adherents that the world belongs to them alone. They cannot be allowed to divide the people up and set them against one another.

Religionism is every bit as dangerous as fascism. To start, religions should remove fascist sentiment from their books. Expunge Joshua the genocidal butcher. Denounce the conquests of mecca and medina. End martyrdom.
jwilcos
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2012
>> scientists and theologians engaged in extensive collaboration regarding issues like Earth's age and origin. The common bond that sustained this rich exchange of ideas

This type of equivalence between science and religion is most troubling. There has been no "exchange of ideas" between science and religion. There is no "collaboration". None. Religion has no ideas based on evidence to contribute. There is nothing to exchange. Religious stories written in various holy books cannot possibly contribute anything to science. On the other side of the coin, the dogmatic religious people cannot possibly learn anything from science.

Science and religion are not equivalent. The do NOT address different aspects of the same questions, however comforting it may be to believe so.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2012
Incidentally, the Nibiruans also believe in a "creator of all things."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 12, 2012
Incidentally, the Nibiruans also believe in a "creator of all things."
Indeed

"Welcome to the official site of the Nibiruan Council, a multidimensional off-world council whose members are connected to the people of the planet Nibiru and the Nibiruans' ancient ancestors, the 9D Nibiruans. 

"The Nibiruans' mission is to prepare humanity to take their rightful place in the greater galactic community.  The Nibiruans are especially interested in assisting starseeds and walk-ins.  Multidimensional ascension tools along with an accelerated program for DNA recoding will prepare them to be the teachers and wayshowers needed today."

-I didn't see anything however about out-reproducing their enemies or conquering a promised land so we ought to be safe. Although DNA recoding concerns me. The lizard tried this in the last spiderman movie.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2012
There are two types of people who believe in a creator. Those who accept scientific evidence: Call them type I creationists. I have no issue with them since I cannot prove to them experimentally that there is not a creator.

I do take issue with those (type II creationsts) who believe the "holy books" rather than the scienitific evidence and then actively try and counter the scientific evidence with all types of illogical ideas which cannot be tested experimentally.

However, this attitude is not just to be found amongst the type II creationists, but also amongst people who claim that they adhere to the sientific norm. An excellent example is ValeriaT on this forum, who believes in his AWT model as if Moses brought it down from the mountain. In his case, he will even argue that Einstein's most famous equation E=m*c^2 must be wrong; whereas there can be no doubt that it is correct: Hiroshima! Nagasaki!

The same mentality has given us Quantum Field Theory, and the Higgs boson!