An Evaluation of Creationism and Naturalism

1. 60

   AllanWritesposted 14 years ago

   I found this article to be really great for the subject and highly objective...
   
   http://www.gotquestions.org/creationism-scientific.html

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Dear me. And you do not think that lying and promoting garbage such as this is not damaging to your religion? I personally find this sort of nonsense offensive and it is another reminder that I made the right choice when I diiscarded a belief in an invisible super being.
      
      Thanks.

      replyreport
2. 80

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   Hardly objective. Your source is as usual for these types of ill informed and loaded posts, from a religious site! Gimme a break!

   replyreport
3. 70

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   Sorry, creationism isn't happening. Naturalism? The Earth is naturally evolving on it's own. And, no I didn't bother reading the story you provided, simply because creationism is the idea behind the "GOD" concept.

   replyreport
4. 0

   lyricsingrayposted 14 years ago

   :

   replyreport
5. 80

   skyfireposted 14 years ago

   
   
   click on these type of banners and you'll get pages full of s--t.
   
   
   
   
   Typical theist pattern of answering questions with verses. i mean why not in their wildest wet dreams they answer question without verses to make sense ?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well theists have a small problem. Having not one iota of proof on the whole planet and even off the planet, they have to "prove" it by self declaration. In other words the only "proof" they have is that they say they have proof.
      So they have one book, written by them to prove it.
      A bit like you writing a book that says you are god, then saying, "see, here's the proof in this book that I am god"
      It is amazing how gullible some are isn't it?

      replyreport
6. 92

   Susana Sposted 14 years ago

   I recently wrote a hub about this nonsense. Creationist science is a complete oxymoron. Tell me Allan, do you "believe in" the science that makes your computer work?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I have just finished reading it. FIrst class writing, you show the truth clearly. I became a follower immediately!

      replyreport
      1. 92

         Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Wow - thanks earnest! Good job on you for challenging this rubbish too. I always read and enjoy your forum posts

         replyreport
         1. 80

            earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Why thank you! I enjoy you common sense down to earth thinking.

            replyreport
7. 67

   Pearldiverposted 14 years ago

   Sheeeesh... C'mon.. Everyone Knows: The Computer Was Created on the 8th. Day!

   replyreport
   1. 92

      Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ha ha! And the Large Hadron Collider on the 9th?

      replyreport
8. 72

   thisisoliposted 14 years ago

   That website was the worst read f my life, 2000 pages of waffle that had no point, and claimed to give scientific creationism, but actually gave no proof or examples, it just kept saying, 'creationism is scientific'.
   
   While I am atheist towards religion, I am agnostic towards creationism, I think it is rather elitist to assume we are the only things to have evolved in a near infinate universe, but then again I still think it's highly unlikely that Aliens boosted our evolution, which is consistant with intelligent evolution design.
   
   I think there is no evidence that our race has been given any support from outer space, and the UFO concept in general is fairly recent.
   
   And again, I think it is rather elitist and insecure to have to have some greater power influencing us, it's this need for something more that spawned religion.
   
   While the odds are good for evolution on other planets, parallel or tangent, the odds of these being anywhere near enough to earth to make contact, or finding us in the near infinate universe, are rather slim.
   
   The evolution on this planet is well documented, even the missing link is 'not surprising' in the scientific community, since it is undoubted that the more advanced primates killed the others, as happens with modern day primates.

   replyreport
9. 80

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   Good call thisisoli Unlike Susana's hub which is concise and factual.

   replyreport
10. 60

    AllanWritesposted 14 years ago

    " but actually gave no proof or examples, it just kept saying, 'creationism is scientific'."
    
    Actually the article wasn't about how creationism is scientific - it actually points out that it isn't. It just goes to explain why naturalism is also equally unscientific as each view is not built on anything that can be tested by an experiment which results in predictive results or a quantifiable conclusion.
    
    Also the amount of belligerence in the responses to these kinds of posts used to surprise me, but I've come to expect them. They are essentially insults, and not arguments. Basically, way too much pathos, with little logos.
    
    Ask yourself, why am I really becoming so angry at this post? Why am I actively trying my best to dismiss it and denunciate it? If this had been a post praising your least favorite sports team or a brand of soda you didn't like, would you have spent the time to work your way around it and discredit it? Would your diction be as harsh? If it's really not credible and so obviously false, why passionately try to dissuade yourself of its value? Did you even give it a chance to prove itself for one moment? The problem here isn't the truly the article, its the preconceptions that shape your responses to it. There are moral implications that these kinds of things carry. And many people do not want to accept them.
    
    "So don't be surprised, dear brothers and sisters, if the world hates you."

    replyreport