>"Creationists are just a tiny but vocal fringe group"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
46% of Americans hold creationist views. As Christians are 75-80% of Americans the subset of American Christians that hold creationist views is around 60~%. (The question was worded: “Do you believe that all life on Earth appeared in its present form some time within the last 10,000 years?”)
>”But that’s just Protestants and Baptists”
http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Differences-on-the-Question-of-Evolution.aspx
Catholicism: 35% creationists
What do we do about this? Now there's two states in which it is legally taught in public school science classrooms, Louisiana and Tennessee. These are the victories we were assured could never happen.
It seems to be getting steadily worse, in part because whenever you try to stop it all you get in response is fedora memes from Christians who "supposedly" aren't creationists. Not that they will admit, anyway.
Go read the comments on any Youtube video related to evolution and despair for the future of humanity
The number one enemy of civilization is secularism and it must always be the first target of destruction. Not creationism.
>>79517469
"Secularism" just means no one religion is in charge. It is the absence of theocracy. What you're really saying there is that you want one particular religion to control government.
>>79517558
Yes, there is one particular religion which should control the state.
Any religion that non whites partake in to such a huge degree is probably a shit religion
>>79517588
They all want to. They all think they're right, too.
>tfw you unironically believe scientific positivism is a cancer.
>>79517379
>that horrendous rictus grin
Americans, plz stop
>>79517678
We are right. I can assure you of that.
>>79517723
>>79517738
I see. Supposing there were a group of people traveling about the country today, led by a charismatic speaker who claims the world is ending soon, but he can save you if you sell your belongings, devote your life to him and cut off family members who try to stop you. He'd also like you to leave your home and job if necessary to follow him.
What sort of group is that?
>>79517721
I don't understand what that has to do with creationism.
>>79517379
>scientific community says universe is constant and eternal
>they make fun of those saying it is expanding from a single point- they call it religious dogma/bad science.
> Hubble discovers universe is indeed expanding from a single point.
>Scientific community absorbs this idea as their own with no apology or admission of error.
>Models suggest that universe should become more chaotic
>We are discovering that since the expansion event, matter has become more orderly (see crystal structure or DNA), matter accretes with similar matter into cosmic bodies to form systems.
>Over repetitive episodes of chaos, the universe seems to be ordering itself telescopically, the pinnacle being a process of biological evolution resulting in complex/sentient beings with language, markets, cultures, art, technology, etc.
Explain to me why creationism is not logically justified again. It would appear that after expanding from a single point, the universe is ordering itself.
>>79517588
>>79519106
>Scientific community absorbs this idea as their own with no apology or admission of error.
You mean like Christians have tried to do with evolution?
>Models suggest that universe should become more chaotic
You mean entropy.
>We are discovering that since the expansion event, matter has become more orderly (see crystal structure or DNA), matter accretes with similar matter into cosmic bodies to form systems.
This does not contradict entropy. You are positioning two things as contradictory which never were.
>Explain to me why creationism is not logically justified again.
Because:
1. Genesis asserts that the Earth existed before the sun, trees and other land vegetation before sea creatures and birds before land animals. The order itself is wrong, and it's never been explained what is metaphorically conveyed by getting the order wrong which could not have been conveyed while keeping the order accurate.
2. Life is not the product of deliberate engineering but instead gradual procedural accumulation of complexity (hence fractal patterns found in all living things). Genesis says nothing whatsoever about evolution, and both the order and timeline supplied therein preclude it.
3. Every natural phenomenon we know the cause of has turned out to have a natural cause. We agree the universe needs to have been caused, but it's never been explained why that cause must be intelligent.
>It would appear that after expanding from a single point, the universe is ordering itself.
Into what? Give that some extended thought.
>>79517379
Sure it should be taught as a possible alternative.
Also they should teach that the universe is possibly the matrix and maybe elves created everyone in a mag jar.
Oh oh oh they can teach that this is actually all a dream.
All things with as much proof behind them as creationism.
>>79517379
THEIR?
THERE. jesus christ
>>79520213
Christian Vernacular English is a legitimate dialect, shitlord
>>79517781
Holy shit i am fucking mad
>>79521348
Remember, you've been wrong about shit. I've been wrong too. The only thing that really rustles my jimmies about these people is that they become hostile if you try to set them straight.
>>79521519
You don't know that I've ever been wrong about anything DESU senpai
They are good for some laughs though
>>79519808
>Life is not the product of deliberate engineering but instead gradual procedural accumulation of complexity (hence fractal patterns found in all living things).
If, hypothetically, the original expansion was conducted by a creator, wouldn't that "gradual procedural accumulation" of complexity have Ben set in motion at the moment of creation?
Also you make the mistake of assuming I am referring to genesis creation specifically. Rather my point is based on the notion that the scientific community and its greatest minds staked their claim that the universe was NOT expanding, because that idea lended itself to the idea of a creator, which was unacceptable in their minds.
We did in fact discover that the universe was expanding from a single point contrary to our understanding of physics at the time. I find it telling that you would answer my claim that they appropriated this idea with an accusation that the religious community appropriated some other idea. It's almost an admission that this appropriation did in fact occur in the case of the "Big Bang." I cannot think of any intellectual appropriation more grand than absorbing another group's theory about the nature of the universe itself.
The universe went from the turmoil of all energy and matter being structure-less to star systems, planetary systems, biological systems, cultural systems, etc. The matter of the universe has ordered itself, the "gradual accumulation of complexity" is the same force I would refer to when I used the word "God."
I am not suggesting that the phenomena explaining these things cannot be explained naturally, but simply that the possibility of those phenomena came into existence in an instant from a single point. There is a reason Einstein fought so hardly against the early notion of an expanding universe, he realized it would suggest that the universe and all its "natural phenomena" were not constant, but "engaged" by a single episode of creation.
The problem isn't creationists.
It's possible to be an intelligent human being and a creationist.
The problem is young earth creationists. Shit tier of intelligence.
>>79521622
Haha, ok bud. I just mean it's no crime to be wrong, but it is if you fight people trying to help you understand better.
>>79521683
>If, hypothetically, the original expansion was conducted by a creator, wouldn't that "gradual procedural accumulation" of complexity have Ben set in motion at the moment of creation?
The thing is, you don't have any evidence based reason to think this is true. This is just what would have to be true to salvage Christianity. You have designed this narrative around reaching that goal.
>Rather my point is based on the notion that the scientific community and its greatest minds staked their claim that the universe was NOT expanding, because that idea lended itself to the idea of a creator, which was unacceptable in their minds.
Not all of them, and you're lying when you say it was never acknowledged that steady state was mistaken.
>We did in fact discover that the universe was expanding from a single point contrary to our understanding of physics at the time. I find it telling that you would answer my claim that they appropriated this idea with an accusation that the religious community appropriated some other idea. It's almost an admission that this appropriation did in fact occur in the case of the "Big Bang." I cannot think of any intellectual appropriation more grand than absorbing another group's theory about the nature of the universe itself.
Boy, you're really trying to get as much mileage as possible out of this one single thing, aren't you? How could "appropriation" have taken place when the scientist responsible for discovering the big bang was a priest?
>The universe went from the turmoil of all energy and matter being structure-less to star systems, planetary systems, biological systems, cultural systems, etc. The matter of the universe has ordered itself, the "gradual accumulation of complexity" is the same force I would refer to when I used the word "God."
That process you describe is found nowhere in Genesis, though. Genesis describes an initial, rapid ordering of the universe, then gradual deterioration.
http://pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW
We're actually growing in number. You might as well join us.
>>79521982
>"We're actually growing in number. You might as well join us."
>>79521683
I don't think the nature of the universe is a topic which runs out of mileage very quickly. In fact I would argue Hubble's discovery is one of the most meaningful of all time, and our small exchange so far hasn't even come close to exhuasting it's importance.
The funny thing about hypotheticals is that they don't require any evidence, however I would suggest that my "evidence" is the fact that the universe is expanding contrary to most* of the secular scientific community at the time.
And I would surely apologize to those scientists who I am lumping into a category, and if I could I would explain to them that I am making a generalization, and that they have unfortunately been thrown into a category because the majority of their colleagues laughed at the idea of an expanding universe and ridiculed it.
I'm not referring to genesis, I'm referring to the theoretical idea that the universe was created by some force or being, whomever or whatever it may be. The importance of the universe's nature is the entire argument in this case. Your inordinate focus on one subset of creationism is evidence that your disagreement is most likely more motivated by a personal vendetta against one particular worldview and not the larger idea of "creationism." Think about that word, and tell me where in "creationism" you find a necessary discussion of the book of genesis?
>>79521969
Sorry I responded to the wrong post,
See
>>79522653
>>79522653
>I'm not referring to genesis
I am forcing you to.
>I'm referring to the theoretical idea that the universe was created by some force or being, whomever or whatever it may be.
You are a Christian. You mean Yahweh, god of the Bible.
>The importance of the universe's nature is the entire argument in this case. Your inordinate focus on one subset of creationism is evidence that your disagreement is most likely more motivated by a personal vendetta against one particular worldview and not the larger idea of "creationism."
Almost all creationism in the US is specifically Christian.
>Think about that word, and tell me where in "creationism" you find a necessary discussion of the book of genesis?
See above. Also, please address this:
>3. Every natural phenomenon we know the cause of has turned out to have a natural cause. We agree the universe needs to have been caused, but it's never been explained why that cause must be intelligent.
>>79517892
A cult. "Cult" being negative is a modern thing.
>>79522902
So you are only prepared to argue on the topic as long as it develops in the way you want it to? This is a common characteristic of children.
I never brought up Genesis, you did. I know you want to talk about it badly, but the topic was creationism not biblical creationism. You criticize me for lumping all scientists in as steady staters, and then continue to collapse all creationism into that of evangical Christianity? And then you suggest that you won't continue to discuss the topic otherwise simply becuase a lot of other people believe in that specific type of creation?
You aren't talking to someone who believes in that subset of creationism- so accept that reality- and continue the conversation on that basis if you are capable.
>>79517379
I don't care as long as they're not blowing themselves up in crowded areas and shooting people. You atheist faggots are disingenuous with your religious hatred. You don't hate religions, you hate daddy. That's why you only attack benign white religions.
>>79517469
fuck off pope francis go finger blast some choir boys
>>79523464
Supposing I tell you that if you worship me, you'll receive an unverifiable future reward, but if you don't, you will suffer an unverifiable future punishment.
I also tell you time is short, so it's urgent that you go out and convince as many other people as possible to also worship me, so they can be spared the punishment and share in the reward.
Further, I tell you not to believe anything you see or hear that causes you to doubt what I have said, because it's all fabricated by an invisible trickster character who wants to lead you astray.
This is plainly just designed to spread itself and resist removal, isn't it? The intended outcome being that all of humanity, or as much as possible, worships me in perpetuity.
>>79519808
>You mean like Christians have tried to do with evolution?
Not an argument.
No seriously, how is this an argument?
>>79517379
I think the best argument I've seen for creationism is asking why we don't have more useless and unsightly body parts but I've yet to see a better argument from creationists to... wow really make me think.
>>79523874
sounds like you're describing Islam.
>>79523615
>So you are only prepared to argue on the topic as long as it develops in the way you want it to? This is a common characteristic of children.
No, I am simply not allowing you to obfuscate your position and motivations.
>I never brought up Genesis, you did
Genesis is the basis for the concept that the universe had an intelligent creator in the west. I guarantee it's where you got the idea from.
>but the topic was creationism not biblical creationism.
Yes it was, scroll to the top of the thread.
>and then continue to collapse all creationism into that of evangical Christianity?
There is no creationism outside of Abrahamic religion that has any significant presence anywhere. "Intelligent design", what you seem to be advocating, is a way to argue for creationism without having to defend Genesis.
>You aren't talking to someone who believes in that subset of creationism- so accept that reality- and continue the conversation on that basis if you are capable.
Address the question you have so far ignored, if you are capable:
>3. Every natural phenomenon we know the cause of has turned out to have a natural cause. We agree the universe needs to have been caused, but it's never been explained why that cause must be intelligent.
>>79524117
Indeed I am, but also Mormonism and Christianity. All Abrahamic religions use that same formula, hence why they dominate the globe. It is extremely effective at what it's designed to do.
>>79522165
beyond punchable face
>>79522165
>Circular logic
What an embarrassment to my side.
>>79524456
At least you are not a Muslim, that's something. Here in the US there's a tiny joke group that defends flat earthism. But in the Middle East it is still a serious position many believe in.
>>79517379
Appeared as in just poofed there? Or appeared as in evolved to its current state? Strictly speaking since nearly nothing alive on earth is over 10,000 years old all life must have appeared in its 'present state' within the last 10,000 years.
>>79522165
This is why teachers in school need to explain that a scientific theory is different from the type of theory we all think of.
>>79517379
she is not wrong
>>79517379
We should focus heavily on the evolution of humans and the differences between races.
>>79524133
You will be excused from this conversation on the basis that you are actually suggesting there is no basis for creationism except a literal interpretation of Genesis.
And to answer your question for the 5th time, I believe the fact that the universe expanded from a single point in time and space is a good enough indicator to justify a belief in a creator, especially considering the fact that the greatest minds in science and physics laughed at the idea before it was proven. Whether this creator can be described as "intelligent" is an interesting question, but altogether irrelevant to my point that, the universe is not constant and eternal, but rather, in a state of expansion after a single moment of creation.
>>79517379
Catholics IN THE USA maybe.
Creationists don't exist in Europe.
Believing in creationism is stupid, but it's not really inherently "destructive" like people such as Bill Nye have said. They should just continue stay out of the fields where their views go against what everyone else studies, and their children should be properly taught.
>>79522201
You got nothing to bring to the table I guess.
>>79523640
>not allowed to attack christians because shitskins exist
Damn it dad.
>>79523874
You forget the part where he says everyone around you will hate you and will eventually come to kill you for your belief. And the part where you admit that we will lose the earthly battle. Or the part where you live in humility and be humble. Or the part where we "spread the word" not through direct preaching but by living out the virtues that others may see the improvement in your being that christ offers.
Christianity promises alot more negatives in your current life than positives.
>unverifiable
The holy spirit is your verification. Those who have received him know it. Those who dont (like you) think its foolishness. That is my favorite part.
And that guy your arguing with sucks at arguing. Cant stick around though to refute. Both of you need to read "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis
>>79519106
>Explain to me why creationism is not logically justified again.
Science corrects itself with new information
Dogma contradicts itself despite new information
>>79524886
not wrong no, because she didn't make any claims. The question is just really dumb
>>79517469
Rare?
>>79517738
>I can assure you of that.
go on then. Assure me.
>>79528702
So the notion that the universe was created is necessarily dogma? You seem to reject the idea altogether despite the fact that the origin of the universe as we currently understand it is more in line with "creationism." Aka the entire universe expanded from a single time and place.
Be careful that your reaction against the notion of creation does not become dogma itself.
>>79531238
>Aka the entire universe expanded from a single time and place.
What has that got to do with creationism?
>>79531899
Before Hubble, Einstein believed the idea that the universe expanded from a single place and time was absurd- because he perceived it as religious dogma. He understood that if the universe expanded from a single place and time, it would be a great reinforcement of the notion that it was created.
It is not "proof," that much is true, but instead of the physics community exposing the dogma of religion, quite the opposite happened- they had to admit that the dogma of religion was in fact correct on the topic of the universe's nature.
I'm not saying it is proof, I'm just curious where exactly the illusion of certainty (that creationism is absurd) comes from? It would seem that so far, the creationists and their dogma have been correct. The universe is not constant and eternal- we know that much. So I'm simply asking where the certainty comes from? It almost sounds like... Dogma.
>>79533920
>they had to admit that the dogma of religion was in fact correct on the topic of the universe's nature.
in what way?
>I'm just curious where exactly the illusion of certainty (that creationism is absurd) comes from?
There is no supporting evidence for the claims that the earth was created 4 thousand years ago and all the current species were created then as well.
>So I'm simply asking where the certainty comes from?
Certainty regarding what?
>>79519106
>science uses logic and data to reach their conclusions
>religion uses a book full of miracles and fairy tales that was written by some Jews in a desert 3000 years ago
>>79534806
>The universe is not eternal and constant as physics originally predicted.
>the universe sprang from a singular point in time and space.
I have made an argument for it being created without having referenced a single religious text. You have been arguing against evangelical Christians to the point where you cannot imagine it any other way.
>>79517379
You are too bluepilled to see your mistake. Evolution is a hoax and you're fighting with people who tried to stop it spreading.
Evolution is just a theory anyways deal with it atheists. You all need to check your white male privileges.
>how do you explain a sunset if there is no apollo?
>>79535805
>The universe is not eternal and constant as physics originally predicted.
Physics never predicted this. Einstein simply presumed it was true. He famously even had to adjust general relativity to make it make sense for a static universe, it would have predicted an expanding one otherwise. It was only after we learned the universe is expanding that he realised he made a mistake.
>the universe sprang from a singular point in time and space.
The universe was once much much much more compressed than it is now. But what happened before that is not at all clear. We know it expanded, but there's much debate on where the stuff came from in the first place. The big bang theory does not make predictions for this.
>>79534498
Religious people suggest the universe was expanding because it correlated with the notion that it was created. Then the best scientist excused that idea as religious dogma- they ridiculed it. Then they discovered the "dogma" was true- the universe was indeed expanding from a single point.
This has nothing to do with the four thousand year date or any religious text.
How can you be so certain the idea that the universe was created is total nonsense when our experiences so far, have only reinforced the fact that the universe is ordered in a way that agrees with the creationists, and the creationists predicted its nature before it was readily observable.
>>79517469
>>79517588
>>79517738
go back to molseting little boys you suck disgusting pedo. Your "civilation" is literally just institionalized pedophelia and your church was started so older men could get away with fucking little boys.
>>79525273
>Creationists don't exist in Europe.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/contesting-evolution-european-creationists-take-on-darwin-a-609712.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/23/creationists-infect-europe/#.U746q_ldUZw
>>79536274
>Einstein was the greatest scientists ever
>his predictions about Quantum Mechanics were all completely wrong
nice meme
>>79524992
>And to answer your question for the 5th time, I believe the fact that the universe expanded from a single point in time and space is a good enough indicator to justify a belief in a creator, especially considering the fact that the greatest minds in science and physics laughed at the idea before it was proven.
This does not explain why the cause of the big bang is necessarily an intelligent being rather than a natural phenomenon, like the cause of everything else in nature we have so far observed
>>79536274
>Religious people suggest the universe was expanding because it correlated with the notion that it was created.
When did religious people ever suggest an expanding universe? I've never heard of this. I've only ever heard that it was created, which doesn't suggest that it would be expanding. No more does it imply the earth must be expanding by extension of the idea that it was created.
>This has nothing to do with the four thousand year date or any religious text.
This is what most people think of when they think of creationists, and a lot of creationists believe this. That's the stuff they find to be so silly.
>>79536124
I think we are more in agreement than we think, perhaps my presentation of the steady state position took some liberties, but can we agree that the scientific community, at the time, rejected the expanding universe in favor of a presumption that it was static, because they deemed expanding universe theories as religious attempts to form science to their belief system?
Whether that is true or not, it doesn't change the fact that they were actually right- the universe is expanding from a single point. Maybe it was just a lucky guess, who knows.
>>79536622
>it doesn't change the fact that they were actually right- the universe is expanding from a single point.
What holy book says this, and where?
>>79536622
>but can we agree that the scientific community, at the time, rejected the expanding universe
When was expanding universe ever a concept put forward by religious people before it was observed? I've never even heard a religious person claim that their scriptures predicted this today.
>>79536622
>the scientific community, at the time, rejected the expanding universe in favor of a presumption that it was static, because they deemed expanding universe theories as religious attempts to form science to their belief system
You're literally just making shit up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric
>>79536593
Georges Lemaître was the first known person to pen the theory of the expanding universe. He was a priest.
And you shouldn't put an idea as large as creationism in such a small box. It undermines any intellectual superiority you think* you have.
>>79536622
>the universe is expanding from a single point.
That's literally not true though. If you think that you don't understand how expansion works. There is no centre of the universe to expand from.
>>79536895
>Georges Lemaître was the first known person to pen the theory of the expanding universe. He was a priest.
Muslims invented Algebra. Therefore Islam is true?
>>79536915
This just means the point in question is 4 dimensional.
>>79536895
>Georges Lemaître was the first known person to pen the theory of the expanding universe.
When? Was it a physics theory or a theological one? Did he make the theory based on religious scripts?
>And you shouldn't put an idea as large as creationism in such a small box.
I didn't. You asked me why so many people think creationism is silly, and I told you why i think it is.
>>79537007
>Muslims invented Algebra
When will that meme end?
>>79537007
The good anon suggested no religious people had anything to do with the theory of the expanding universe. I corrected him.
Where you assumed I was trying to validate a faith based belief system escapes me.
>>79537044
That's not clear either. Observations so far suggest the universe is flat and is in fact infinite. We may find observations that suggest otherwise in the future however.
>>79537158
Al-gebra
Al-chemy
Al-
etc.
The prefix Al- is an Islamic one, just meaning "the". http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/06/arabic-prefix-al-mean/
>>79537203
>Where you assumed I was trying to validate a faith based belief system escapes me.
Where'd I say that you were?
>>79537203
>The good anon suggested no religious people had anything to do with the theory of the expanding universe.
I didn't though. I suggested religious scriptures didn't predict it as far as I know. Lots of religious people of physicists. Even some priests are.
>>79537122
I don't know what motivated his theories, but there was a widespread negative reaction by the general scientific community for some reason; to the point they postulated incredible theories to avoid coming to the conclusion that the universe was expanding.
There are fools of all stripe. I know secular people who would amaze you with their stupidity. Many of them.
>>79537158
>>79537319
invention is a bit off, but they did improved it surely
I'm an atheist and one should give the devil his due, but to say muslims invented algebra is as absurd as saying greeks invented mathematics, since manthano is greek.
as if babylonians,egyptians etc were totally ignorant about it.
>>79537374
>Lots of religious people of physicists
A minority though.
>>79537319
You know that etymology does not prove your claim, right?
>>79537496
>there was a widespread negative reaction by the general scientific community for some reason
No, a handful of people disagreed with it and were ultimately wrong. You keep pushing this falsity.
>>79537608
http://www.und.edu/instruct/lgeller/algebra.html
>"The word algebra is a Latin variant of the Arabic word al-jabr. This came from the title of a book, Hidab al-jabr wal-muqubala, written in Baghdad about 825 A.D. by the Arab mathematician Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi."
>>79537496
>but there was a widespread negative reaction by the general scientific community for some reason
Lack of evidence? Theories without evidence are not looked upon fondly by physics. String theory for expand stipulated that all particles are vibrating strings, and the frequency they vibrate at determines the properties of the particle. This theory predicts almost everything we observe in the universe including everything predicted by quantum field theory and general relativity. A large proportion of physicists do not like this theory however because so far it cannot make any new predictions that we can test it with. If it can;t make testable predictions, how do we know it's true and what's the point of it?
Claiming the universe is expanding is a neat theory. But how do we test it? Before redshift measurements was possible there was no way, so why assume it's true?
There's certainly nothing at all foolish about being critical of such a theory. The big bang was criticized hugely, and there's still many parts of it that are fought over.
>>79537374
And I never said the scriptures* described it. The scriptures didn't predict it per se, but they did say that the universe sprang into being, which religious physicists equated to expansion from a single point a few decades before the steady state theory was disproven.
The logical connection between the Big Bang and religious-creation is obvious.
>>79537830
What part about this post >>79537608 did you not understand?
>>79537954
So are we arguing over what degree the scientific community disfavored the Big Bang theory originally?
>>79538164
What is there to understand? You just contradicted me and posted a photo of a tablet. If you think I'm wrong, actually explain why.
>>79538150
>which religious physicists equated to expansion from a single point a few decades
That does not predict that it is expanding though. That claims that it expanded when it was first created. And when it was completed it was no longer expanding. Much like building a building. It grows in height until all the floors are done, and then it's complete.
>>79517469
oy vey you antisemite pope
>creationists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJagd_vxuA4&t=34m18s
>>79538322
You are right that expansion is not explicitly foretold,
But if the universe is constant and eternal, it could not have sprang into being in one moment.
Expansion is one possible way to accomodate the idea of creation however.
>>79538271
Your claim was that muslims invented Algebra.
My picture is a Babylonian tablet containing Algebra.
Babylonians existed before muslims.
Your entire argument is based on etymology.
Etymology does not prove an inventor.
>>79538250
I don't know, are we? The big bang theory only became a thing once we observed the universe was expanding. It's pretty easy to assume that if everything is expanding now, it must have been closer together in the past. I don't know much about how the theory was formed, but I'd imagine it was incredibly contentious to claim the observable universe was once the size of a grapefruit when everyone before that time had never though of the universe being any smaller than it is now in any serious way.
Never change Murrica
>>79538550
>But if the universe is constant and eternal, it could not have sprang into being in one moment.
Sure. But there was no evidence to suggest the universe was constant and eternal either. That would have been more of a philosophical debate. Not something that physicists could test.
>last 10,000 years
even real creationists don't believe that bullshit.
>>79536118
>implying there is no apollo
>>79538631
Right, and I believe that Georges Lemaître suggested the Big Bang theory a few years before Hubble's empirical discoveries became evident.
Someone who believed a creator brought the universe into being would naturally feel accomodated by the idea that the entire thing sprang from a tiny space. The Steady State theory leaves very little room for creationism however.
It takes a great deal personal strength to face uncertainty, where objective truth is comforting and requires little else but a one-time conscious acceptance.
>>79517379
>46% of Americans hold creationist views
Is this true burgers? HALF of the country believes in this shit?
I am all for dem nice american things, guns, freedums, MAGA etc. but whatwhot how can this be, what about education 'n sheeit
I grew up in the bible belt and had to go to a souther Baptist school where I was taught this. Private school can get away with it. I "learned" this stuff but realized it was horseshit about senior year when I did my own research. Once kids get to public universities or the military like I did they'll grow out of it real damn quick.
/blog
>>79539146
>things I pulled out of my ass
Any creationist could believe that God snapped his fingers and a steady state universe was born. Your posts are all nonsensical. Lemaître's model was developed from his solution to Einstein's field equations.
>>79517379
>Catholicism: 35% creationists
Dogshit. Creationists are heretics.
t. catholic who went to catholic school for 12 years
Creationism is not science, and should not be presented as science. It's the opposite of science, starting with a conclusion than working backwards all the while eschewing alternative explanations to its dilemmas that result in reaching another conclusion. Rather than asking ''how did the eye evolve,'' creationists ask ''how could such a thing evolve randomly'' thus implying that in all likelihood it did not, here comes to the designer to the rescue.
They are not even including old earth creationists by asking that question. Old earth creationists line up with modern science but still believe in creation. The only thing they dont believe in is human evolution from a primate ancestor, which there is no clear proof of anyway.
>>79539146
I just read a little about him, cool guy.
>Someone who believed a creator brought the universe into being would naturally feel accommodated by the idea that the entire thing sprang from a tiny space. The Steady State theory leaves very little room for creationism however.
I agree. But there's every reason for him to be doubted until his theory was validated. Just like there's lots of theories that try explain todays unknowns, like the origins of fundamental particles and forces and what caused the big bang. There's many theories, and a lot of them receive a lot of harsh criticism.
Looks like his work was published in Nature and he was well respected by Einstein. So it's not like he was a laughing stock, he was taken seriously. But scientists apply skepticism to all theories. Einstein got plenty in his time too.
>>79539496
That's not science, that's the problem. It's being presented as a ''''''''''''''''''''secular''''''''''''''' answer to the question of genesis and diversity.
>>79517379
>Do you believe that all life on Earth appeared in its present form some time within the last 10,000 years?
But that's not creationism
That's stupid fucking Christians, and Jews interpreting their religious texts literally.
>>79539655
>The only thing they dont believe in is human evolution from a primate ancestor, which there is no clear proof of anyway.
wew lad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
>>79539655
Oh dear
>>79539655
Just because you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution
>>79536280
t. fedora tipper
>>79539925
>he thinks homosexual erection exists
Indoctrination at its finest.
>>79539496
If you don't see the obvious logical connection between creationism and the Big Bang, especially in the face of steady state theories, you'd have to be purposefully obtuse.
What I'm saying is- the Big Bang was theorized *before* the evidence existed to back it up.
My argument is not that this stands as proof for creationism, but that the case for creationism has not adequately been disproven to the point where you have the luxury of dismissing it as absurdity. The people who believe it don't suggest it is empirically the case, they believe it on a faith basis, which in my mind is reasonable considering the available evidence leaves adequate room for this interpretation. Can we safely say from an empirical point of view that the universe is more than a few thousand years old? Yes absolutely. Can we say that some mover did not initiate the original expansion from a point? No, not yet.
>>79540137
>You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not you own facts
Hello, reddit.
Reminder that Ken Ham built a wooden ship and is literally charging 40 dollars to visit it.
>>79517379
Whats the creationist explanation for fossils?
>evolution provides the perfect arguments as to why it's an objective fact that women should defer to men, LGBT's are defective and the races will always be different
>supposedly conservative christians throw all this out the window
please note how only americans do this and christians living anywhere else just interpret evolution as God's work
>>79540244
>If you don't see the obvious logical connection between creationism and the Big Bang
There is none whatsoever. You are just making things up to fit a narrative.
>What I'm saying is- the Big Bang was theorized *before* the evidence existed to back it up.
False. Scientific theories are not just made up stuff. They are developed based on existing theory and observations. Lemaître's conclusions were based on the available data and theory at the time. It was not 100% conclusive, but it was not made in the absence of evidence.
>the case for creationism has not adequately been disproven to the point where you have the luxury of dismissing it as absurdity
That's not how burden of proof works.
>>79540574
>evolution provides the perfect arguments as to why it's an objective fact that women should defer to men, LGBT's are defective and the races will always be different
>scientists know this, are liberals anyway
fixed it for you
>>79540244
>If you don't see the obvious logical connection between creationism and the Big Bang, especially in the face of steady state theories, you'd have to be purposefully obtuse.
From Wikipedia:
>By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20]
This coming from the Catholic priest who created the theory.
>>79540700
It's because they live in ivory towers and are dependent on government $$$.
>>79517469
Allahu Akbar
>>79540601
Your belief systems do not operate on a burden of proof. That is precisely why they are "belief" systems. Also, not everything in life is provable with sensory information. How we interpret the empirical discoveries in front of us does not require a burden of proof.
I think the clear correlation between creationism and the expansion of the universe from a single point is evident, and if you don't feel that way we have simply reached a cross roads.
Burdens of proof are for the court room, and empirical study. No one is on trial, and no one is publishing an academic paper. What we are talking about is how information should be analyzed and applied by the individual and whether a particular view is reasonable or not. When "reasonableness" becomes an empirical matter, you will have a valid point. The Big Bang was penned in 1927, we did not discover the empirical expansion of the universe until two years later- that is simply my point, I'm not suggesting there wasn't some theoretical basis for the original hypothesis.
>>79536622
>but can we agree that the scientific community, at the time, rejected the expanding universe in favor of a presumption that it was static, because they deemed expanding universe theories as religious attempts to form science to their belief system?
So?
>Big news!!!!!! Big News!!! Scientific community was wrong!!
>>79540741
And you have coincidentally proven that the religious community, did in fact believe that the Big Bang validated creationism. Didn't you suggest earlier that the religious community never endorses that theory? The Pope apparently thought there was enough of a logical connection there to endorse the Big Bang.
But would you agree that the Big Bang theory, our currently accepted understanding of the universe's nature, is neutral to creation as Lemaître suggested?
>>79541891
>Your belief systems do not operate on a burden of proof.
They do though. You mind needs justifications for every branch of your tree of knowledge. For religious people they often justify their belief in God by the fact that the bible must be correct among various other justifications.
>>79542252
>Didn't you suggest earlier that the religious community never endorses that theory?
uh... no?
>But would you agree that the Big Bang theory, our currently accepted understanding of the universe's nature, is neutral to creation as Lemaître suggested?
yes. but you just claimed the opposite of that:
>>79540244
>If you don't see the obvious logical connection between creationism and the Big
Bang, especially in the face of steady state theories, you'd have to be purposefully obtuse.
>>79542216
My point is that the current scientific understanding of how the universe operates is entirely compatible with, and in fact accomodates, the belief some people hold that it was created by some force or being.
>>79540569
>>79519106
> Hubble discovers universe is indeed expanding from a single point.
>Scientific community absorbs this idea as their own with no apology or admission of error.
You know, in sience everything is a theory. There is no absolute truth. If a new theory shows that the old theory is wrong it gets replaced with the new one. That's how it works. Nothing is final and that's how science makes progress. Also a scientific theory is not your everyday theory. If you say I got a theory you really mean you got a thesis. A thesis is the Idea how something could be and a theory tries to proof or disproof your thesis. If your thesis can't be disproofed by anything it gets the status of a theory until it's getting disproofed by the new theory. Creationsists claim that there is an intelligent design but ignores evolution. We have proof that evolution happens. The evolution theory is the best theory we have right now until a better theory will replace it. That's it.
>>79542320
They do not.
>I believe living in the country is better than the city.
What source shall I produce? Perhaps someone has published a scientific journal on what I individually prefer that I could cite to you.
>>79517379
Does believing in a "prime mover" count as creationism?
Only 4% of Republicucks understand evolution
Republicucks are an enemy of the right
>>79542691
>I believe living in the country is better than the city.
To believe this you mind requires justification. This is simply how cognition works. If you believe this it's probably because some trusted friends told you, or it is your own experience or some logic reasoning you came up with based on things you also hold justification for.
>>79521519
>Remember, you've been wrong about shit.
THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE
Shit is proven wrong all the fucking time, we're always changing unlike chirstcucks.
>>79542696
Aristotle believed in a prime mover and that the Earth was eternal (never created). So no, by itself it shouldn't count.
>>79542453
>>Religious people suggest the universe was expanding because it correlated with the notion that it was created.
>When did religious people ever suggest an expanding universe? I've never heard of this. I've only ever heard that it was created, which doesn't suggest that it would be expanding. No more does it imply the earth must be expanding by extension of the idea that it was created.
This is what I am referencing.
And me seeing a correlation between the two is not an empirical matter, apprently the Pope, leader of the church, felt the same way.
>>79542845
>we're always changing unlike chirstcucks.
Ironically christcocks change what their beleive all the time, despite claiming their beliefs are dogmatic.
Watch how interpretations of the bible change from literal truths, to metaphors to "the thing it says is not what it says. It's difficult to to explain why, it's a very theological subject".
>>79542646
>You know, in sience everything is a theory
>Also a scientific theory is not your everyday theory
youre just confusing these retards even more
I don't understand how Creationists are considered a subgroup of Christianity.
They believe that god created the earth and the universe and life. If you're a Christian and you don't believe that, then are you not denying one of the most basic tenets of your faith?
>>79542823
In the case of living in the country over the city, the only justification my mind requires, is that I believe it to be true. That is the source.
>>79521666
When I lived in Texas I heard that argument so many fucking times.
>>79543079
It's a metaphor.
>>79542457
> is entirely compatible with, and in fact accomodates, the belief some people hold that it was created by some force or being.
Well, i will tell you my secret. It was me who triggered the big bang. I ate a whole grape fruit, and when i shitted it, Big Bang happened. Since i got scared shitless, i ran (my shit exploded). Now that this universe has internet, i came back.
>PROVE ME WRONG !!!!!!
>>79525273
Catholics in the US are usually fine, at least the white ones. Many are chicanos though now
Anyways, is this an American Christianity thread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNMC19X9EXo
>>79542963
>Religious people suggest the universe was expanding because it correlated with the notion that it was created.
You mean person right? That mathematician? He holds firmly his theory has nothing to do with with religious beliefs and was much more to do with that math of it.
>apparently the Pope, leader of the church, felt the same way.
true. But was it any more widespread than that? Lots of religious people don't believe in the theory now and feel like it contradicts what's in the bible. The Pope also stopped mentioning it after that one time. I'm not convinced it was a theory popular among religious people but not atheists.
>>79543108
your mind literally will be unable to convince itself it is true without underlying justifications like those listed. Brains do not work that way. The justifications do not need to be correct, but you need to believe they are credible.
>>79517469
Rare
>>79525311
>Bill Nye
>But nothing got people as riled as when he brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”
>The lesser light, he pointed out, is not a light at all, but only a reflector.
>At this point, several people in the audience stormed out in fury. One woman yelled “We believe in God!” and left with three children, thus ensuring that people across America would read about the incident and conclude that Waco is as nutty as they’d always suspected.
>>79517379
These polls are conducted through landline phone calls.
Which means they're mostly reaching the less intellectually gifted - stupid old conservatives who don't know how to use the internet or a cellphone.
I can guarantee that far less than 46% of Americans believe the world was created 10000 years ago.
Even so, the amount of people who DO believe it (probably around 30%) speaks to the extreme stupidity and ignorance of the American people, unsurprisingly since you descend mostly from "undesirables".
If you ask Norwegians, I guarantee over 95% believe in the scientific explanations, even if many of them believe God had a hand in it.
>>79523640
>white religions.
>A brown semite religion from the brown middle east with over a billion Latino, Asian and Black adherents now
>>79543465 many things of the mind require no justification. Preferences for example.
>>79543322
I do not attempt to. That is your belief my friend. I do not find it appealing but it is yours.
Why are you so concerned with policing the beliefs of others?
>>79543925
>Preferences for example.
preferences can sometimes be justified by things as simple as "i like spaghetti because most of the times i ate it i feel good while eating it".
>>79517892
Ancap Molyjews?
>>79517379
what defines "creationist views"?
If I said I believe in evolution and all that shit, but hold the opinion that the universe itself holds origins by creation, am I in that category?
Because if so you're catching a lot of fucking people who have nothing to do with the "Humanity is 4000 years old" crowd that creationism is known for.
>>79543851
I feel so sorry for black people. Nature's cruelest joke.
>>79544057
Right, which is entirely circular and not a justification at all.
>>79543851
what the fuck is happening here? why are those people eating grass?
>>79543925
But you can justify your choices and preferences, be the justifications traumas, peer pressure, education... People don't justify their preferences because it's a moot point(literally no one gives a fuck about why someone likes Heavy Metal) and most of the times one is not even conscient to what the reason actually his.
>>79542646
>In science everything is a theory
>There is no absolute truth
Are you serious Hans, gravity is just a theory bro!
>>79544206
What's circular about it? It refers to direct memories of direct positive physical stimulation for the act of eat spaghetti.
>>79517781
As a creationist myself I am angered by her ignorance of science.
>>79544009
>That is your belief my friend.
And creationism is your belief. We agree
>Why are you so concerned with policing the beliefs of others?
Getin a bit defensive are we mate?
This is a creationism thread, i'm just funposting bro. FYI i find you much less insuferable then the majority of creationists here.
>>79543248
The funny thing is- from my experiences- the folks who believe in something- anything- live and die much happier than the ones who don't.
Believing that your hopes, dreams, emotions, relationships, etc. are no more meaningful than a bug on your windshield is a hard thing to live with. One of the few logical responses to believing that reality, is suicide. Most atheists don't come to terms with what their beliefs entail, it's actually not an easy thing to do.
>>79544276
"I like something" being a justification for why I like something is circular.
>>79544275
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
>>79543784
>unsurprisingly since you descend mostly from "undesirables".
Your pop-nationalist explanation doesn't work as countries with the same historical patterns like Australia or Canada have moderately less religiosity. Most of the US's religiosity is a very political and complicated thing and a more modern problem. A bit like trying to explain away Sweden's modern tolerance by saying it's because they're descended from Vikings
>>79517469
fpbp
>>79544251
An African pastor told them to do it for Jesus
>>79544602
No, the boy like spaghetti because he felt good while eating it, be it because it tasted good and/or the experience of eating spaghetti.
Did you ever saw those kids who "don't like" those specific kids of food/fruit/vegetables while they are kids, and when they stop being whiny brats they start eating it?
They didn't "like" it because their experience in eating it was nasty, and may bring back memories, or the first time the brat ate it, his mother cooked it in a nasty way.
>>79533920
You mean Albert "God doesn't play dice" Einstein?, the guy who got btfo by Planck, Bohr and Heisenberg?
>>79544170
>what defines "creationist views"?
Rejection of science
>>79544635
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
>>79544946
>probably
>>79544275
Gravity is a fact but the theory behind is not. There are sightings in our universe where newtons theory of gravity can't be true because the sightings differ from the theory.
>>79544275
It is a theory. That doesn't mean it isn't proven to exist, but rather because the fundamentals of gravity are not fully understood, such as whether gravitons exist, and until recently proving whether gravitational waves exist and most importantly how quantum gravity works. The lack of a model of quantum gravity is the reason the big bang cannot be directly studied, only the universe after a tiny fraction of a second afterwards and onwards
>>79545124
So you're saying that liberals who say niggers don't have a lower IQ are creationists?
Please mate think concretely not in empty platitudes
>>79545444
universally true*
>>79545222
Gravity is a law. It's a law that mass creates a atraction force. But there is a theory of gravity, that tries to explain how this force interacts with itself and other forces. Correct me if i am wrong.
>>79545222
>Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.
Straight from your wikipage
>>79544251
Niggers take their desertification very seriously.
>>79545461
Gravity may be the biggest mystery of our time and was probably a bad example.
>>79545464
It`s a theological context, not general ideology. Don`t be a witty little cunt.
Friendly reminder that if you take the trendy pop-sci "universe is a simulation" theory seriously, then you have no intellectual high ground to mock and condemn young earth creationism.
>>79517379
>be catholic
>Protestants hate me because of my religion
>be a creationist
>Catholics hate me because I believe in the bible
Why do you guys do this to me
>>79548037
Nobody hates you for being creationist (well, maybe some edgy kids). We just laugh at you bro.
>>79517379
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but is a creationist just someone who believes God created everything? Doesn't sound like that big of a deal to me.
I mean there's "young earth creationists" and those folks are nuts, but they're different from people who just believe God created everything right?
>>79548254
Why? Because I believe in the bible
>>79549396
Because you are a grown man who believes in fairy tales.
>>79549489
>create the universe
>lol it's just a fairy tale bro
>>79549609
>create the universe
Your only proof is a book written 1800/1700 years ago who uses itself as a source. It's because of this that people laugh at you.
>>79549489
Hey nig just commit suicide already. If you believe you are cosmically worthless, why pain yourself with existence?
>>79549749
What's your proof? Some explosion happened and monkeys were born and transformed into humans one day?
That we're a computer simulation?
Atheists are such a joke, it's a good thing you guys don't breed because you're too enlightened
>>79517379
> evolution is the truth
Nope. It's only the mish mash answer humans managed to make with lots of plotholes and infactual data.
Call me later when you guys finally make a workable theory while disproving intelligent design.
>>79528702
But you yourself just have a dogmatic response. Do you not notice that?
>>79548254
Nobody hates you for being tripfag.
Oh wait, we do. Fuck off cancer.
>>79523947
>what are wisdom teeth
>what is the appendix
>>79550138
So god slapped his fingers and then we all were created?
How do you guys explain fossils? And vestigial organs? And DNA?
>>79550234
kek
>>79549749
I guess my problem with disparaging "creationism" is that the universe was definitely "created." That much is a meta physical certainty. Unless of course you believe it is eternal. Which I would argue requires a great deal of faith as well.
We can be left to argue over the method of creation. Natural or intelligent, a series or an original, that sort of thing.
>>79517738
what you are is an idiot
and if you're going to be a christian, at least be an orthodox. everything else is heresy
>>79550841
>is that the universe was definitely "created."
According to?
>>79551705
It exists.
It was either created or it is eternal.
>>79552228
>It was either created or it is eternal.
And what makes you certain it was created?
>>79552228
That explains nothing. Then the question of the ultimate origin shifts to whatever created that thing that created us.
It's the question where causality itself started and we will probably never find an answer to that
I'm not a creationist, but isn't it odd that darwinists are far more likely to have below replacement birthrates or even be childless?
Why does being a darwinist decrease your darwinian biological fitness?
pic unrelated
>>79552867
Wat?
>>79552228
Also, the term "created" is a loaded term and therefore just wrong.
Sure it's either some cause, or something from outside of causality, which would can't comprehend but "created" adds "intention" and if I throw stuff on the ground and it makes a pattern. There was no "intention" in my action that "created" the pattern
>>79552586
If we track our's and the other heavenly bodies' movement through the cosmos, it leads us back to one point.
So I have faith it was created, I understand if you have faith it was eternal and therefore defies all logic and causation however.
>>79552867
>nerds don't get laid lol
>>79553019
I'm just making sure the discussion is framed correctly. Can we agree that either some "externality" was involved, or it is eternal?
>>79517469
t. Pope Francis getting enriched by Syrian dindus
>>79553063
It could be cyclical. The Universe could have multiple stages of expansion/implosion
That creation is just a belief you have
>>79553204
Wouldn't cyclical be the same thing as being eternal?
>>79552867
>I don't believe God created the Earth
>It's funny how people who believe in evolution don't get laid
baka senpai
>>79553182
t(._.t)
>>79553164
Maybe. I don't know. For all we know, we all could live in a paradoxical timeloop, that causes our universe, by collapsing first.
That would definetly be one possible example of an "eternal" cause
>>79517379
Well creationism is a system of forced beliefs created by proestants.
But a Christian - orthodox, catholic he will also believe that God created the universe, so why is so wow that many Americans hold a "creationism" view.
They do not associate with Protestantism - some of them.
>>79553299
yes, possibly
>>79553536
And I suppose the God of the Bible could be the externality?
I suppose the philosopher's "mover" could also be a viable contender?
Perhaps Baal?
Or Chaos and Gaia, as Hesiod told us?
Or perhaps your paradoxical time loop?
>>79553676
Then you would deny causality? And linear time?
You are getting closer to "God" than you know.
>>79517379
I don't believe that for a minute.
>>79553936
It it's external, it shouldn't be able to interact with us. That's what it means "being external". So the God of the bible would be out, since he allegedly did.
A external cause would be like....A kid creating something with Legos. The kid can create stuff and manipulate it. He can make it move by itself given he implements certain mechanics...but he can't be literally be part of that. That's "external". the metaphor with a programmer and a programm gets really intresting, since we may sometime be able to translate consciousness into data. But that shit gets really confusing.
>>79554040
I'm not getting anywhere. That is simply beliefs. You can believe everything you want of what happened before Big bang.
I literally don't give a single fuck of what people think happened before big bang. It's a philosopher and drunk friends talk
>>79554727
fuck to clarify.
> it shouldn't be able to interact with us.
I meant it's shouldn't be able to be part of us. Like the game "The Sims. You as the player infront of your monitor can manipulate the Sims, but you can never BE a sim in the game. You are a "external mover"
>>79554727
If the externality created us, why shouldn't it be able to interact?
Isn't creation the ultimate interaction? It created our entire being- in a sense it initiated all that the universe would ever develop into right?
>>79554796
I agree
>>79517379
>Found out someone I work with is a creationist
Dawkins Akbar!
>>79524886
>she is not wrong
no she is
>>79555115
>>79555115
>>79555115
Are you suggesting the theoretical mover of the universe, whatever it is, would abide by the rules of Legos and computer games?
>>79545233
is an assertion of Agnosticism, as in you can't 100% prove anything when it comes to a creator
>>79555458
Actually fuck all my metaphors. They are stupid. Past me is a dumbfuck.
Even if it's through some double reacharound. If someone of something was the cause of us, it is inheritly "internal", since "external" means it would be comepletly cut off, unable to interact wiht us in ANY way.
The moment he or it does, it becomes "internal"
>>79517738
nothing is 100% certain, the problem with religion is absolutism, hence why science was developed, because absolution get us nowhere
>>79556531
Meaning the God of the Bible wouldn't be an external creator. He would be interal.....probably on some other plane of existence, we can't comprehend
>>79557143
An integral part of some religions is the belief that our consciousness is very limited, and there are many things we simply do not, and will not understand.
Some people who practice religion are absolutists about things concerning the nature of the soul and the nature of the universe.
Science only adresses the sensory information we can collect, and it's causal relations. This information only accounts for a fraction of the human experience.
>>79519106
>It would appear that after expanding from a single point, the universe is ordering itself
You've never looked at the Laws of Thermodynamics, have you?
>>79517379
>falling for the evolution meme
You don't have to spend very long studying genetics...or the fossil record for that matter...before you realize that life did not form or evolve by chance.
That doesn't necessarily mean "muh seven dayz." But life did not originate in this universe. It was seeded on this planet. It was upgraded (Cambrian explosion anyone?). And its "evolution" is driven by a preprogrammed genetic search algorithm. Not "muh mutations!"
And if that puts me in the creationist camp, well then...I'm a #CreationistMissile
>>79557262
Okay I guess we are arguing over sematics, I would say a creator is external, yet it interacts with us by creating us.
But I don't totally disagree with what you are saying, I think we have found middle ground.
>>79557613
I admittedly have only a basic understand of the hard sciences.
My argument is that the universe was either created or is eternal. The fact that it is expanding from a single point is what influences me to suspect that it was created.
>>79557788
Yeah, we simply draw the line to define the term differently, while meaning basically the same thing.
And would there be a (for me) more credible source than the bible for such a creator, I probably wouldn't rule it out. The concept of such a being.
>>79556523
Nigger, if you had any concept of the complexity behind a child recognizing and enjoying a sunset you would drop to your knees and beg forgiveness of whatever being or beings created us for daring to suggest "muh random chance!"
And given that you posted a picture of that bitch ass Bill Nye, you better confess soon. Because if there is any sin deserving of eternal hell fire and damnation, it is the sin of referencing that toothpick little faggot.
>inb4 a post with the nigger "scientist"
It's like you want to be eternally ass raped by demon dick.
