(March 13, 2013 at 8:14 pm)Nerd Wrote: Christians who believe in creationism and present it is fact to someone are sining due to the fact that there 9th commandment says not to lie.

The 9th commandment says no such thing,

Quote:You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Exodus 20:16 (ESV)

This is obvious this is a commandment against falsely testifying against your neighbor in a court of law. This does not outlaw any-other form of deception or lying.

The fourth commandment is somewhat related to the ninth, which forbids failing to undertake or lying if you swear an oath by the name of Yahweh.

If a person says the bible says "X" is it unreasonable to ask where exactly the bible says "X?" If we are reading between the lines then why my conclusion (Found at the other end of the link I provided) any less valid than the one provided?

(March 13, 2013 at 8:14 pm)Nerd Wrote: Christans who believe in creationism and present it is fact to someone are sining due to the fact that there 9th commandment says not to lie. So when a christian tries to make someone believe in creationism they are sinning.

I wouldn't feed their superstition. There is no such thing as "sin", There are simply people who do or say bad things, to greater or lesser degrees, either by mistake or intentionally.

You have both believers who honestly believe it, and others who know it is a lie but don't care.

In either case with crapinism they are simply flat out wrong.

---

(March 14, 2013 at 1:26 pm)Drich Wrote: If a person says the bible says "X" is it unreasonable to ask where exactly the bible says "X?" If we are reading between the lines then why my conclusion (Found at the other end of the link I provided) any less valid than the one provided?

No actually any claim you make favoring your pet diety IS as equally as valid as any other person with a different superstition with as much evidence, which is zero.

(March 13, 2013 at 8:57 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Creationism is known as a theory. Evolution is also a theory. I don't think we can use absolutes with these, definitely saying one is true and the other false. While I do believe creationism is false and evolution is true, technically, because of their statuses as "theories", we cannot say that they ARE true or that they ARE false. We can only believe them or not.

No No No NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO A THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES NO.

This is absolute fucking bullshit.

The theory of gravity is 'just a theory'. So is germ theory. So is the theory of general relativity. Are any of them less true because they are theories? No.

You want to dump creationism into the same playing field as the rest of these theories? Then it must be subject to the same testing and results that science demands in order for us to accept it as a factually accurate theory.

Guess what. Creationism fails at proving itself.

Evolution on the other hand, does not, and is a perfect explanation of how species have come to be on this earth, and YES whether people like it or not we've seen and proven that it fucking happens.


That we call any of these things a theory, has NO basis whatsoever on whether they be true or not.

(March 13, 2013 at 8:33 pm)Nerd Wrote:

(March 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm)festive1 Wrote: I personally know a man with a PhD in physics who is born again. I have heard him prattle on about how carbon dating is flawed, amongst other things. There are very gifted people who are very gullible.

But physics proves that creationism is impossible. Time did not exist before the big bang so therefore "god" could not have created the universe as "god" did not have time to. Maybe he is just trolling or parodying those people.

I don't recall the technical term, but it has to do with compartmentalizing. Work is one thing and his faith another. When I say, "I personally know," I mean I actually know this person in my real life (though I haven't seen him in almost 10 years), he is my step-mother's brother. He's a physicist who doesn't believe in dinosaurs... It's weird, I don't get it, but that's what he believes.

(March 15, 2013 at 5:04 am)Aractus Wrote: Creationists - by definition I might add - are not scientists. Thus it is unfair and incorrect to compare the two.

Which definition?

I think creationism has to be in the scientific realm. That's what I think is fatally flawed about it.

Creationist claims are scientific claims because they have effect on the natural world. They can be proven and disproven.
It's a theory in the sense that it's an idea. It is not a theory in the sense of 'the theory of gravity'
I'm sure you know (I really hope you do) that there are two different meanings - when laymen use the word - and when scientists use it to describe a scientific theory - which is very different.

Creationism isn't - and can't currently be - a scientific theory, because it has no supporting evidence.