(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.

(March 13, 2013 at 8:18 pm)Nerd Wrote:

(March 13, 2013 at 8:16 pm)festive1 Wrote: Is it lying if they actually believe it? Creationists earnestly argue they are correct.

If find it impossible to belive that someone is realy dumb enough to belive that the earth is ~6000 years old and that we started with 2 people and have been inbreeding since.
Also since Adam and Eve only had 2 brothers that means they had sex with there mom ewwww.

Do you have book chapter and verse where the genesis account says any of this?

-or- Are you just speculating because you want to invalidate scripture?

Here is what I think happened: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

(March 13, 2013 at 9:46 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 13, 2013 at 8:18 pm)Nerd Wrote: If find it impossible to belive that someone is realy dumb enough to belive that the earth is ~6000 years old and that we started with 2 people and have been inbreeding since.
Also since Adam and Eve only had 2 brothers that means they had sex with there mom ewwww.

Do you have book chapter and verse where the genesis account says any of this?

-or- Are you just speculating because you want to invalidate scripture?

Here is what I think happened: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

What? Wait are you asking for quotes which support the thesis that creationists are stupid -or- that the first humans practiced incest?

Is any inference allowed within scripture at all, any reading between the lines? Or are you restricted to finding a direct answer to every question? What an odd game.

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.

Not another F*?!ING thread on creationism! And you spell it: Christians. You don't see me misspelling atheist on here…

(March 13, 2013 at 8:18 pm)Nerd Wrote: If find it impossible to belive that someone is realy dumb enough to belive that the earth is ~6000 years old and that we started with 2 people and have been inbreeding since.
Also since Adam and Eve only had 2 brothers that means they had sex with there mom ewwww.

1. You mean "sons", 2. Most "generations" listed in Genesis list only the sons and not the daughters - this isn't unusual.

(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.

To be fair, carbon dating IS flawed and has obvious limitations. It can also be forged. If you burn paper and mix the ashes with the ink, write on paper and then have the ink carbon dated guess what? You can make the ink date to 1540, 1320, 90 BC, in fact just about any date in history you want your forgery to date to. You can also do the same with the paper - though it's harder. The biggest limitation, IMHO, is that radiocarbon dating is focused on a single material from a presumed known starting condition. This isn't to say that it's "bad" it's a limit - it works much better and more reliably for materials that are naturally rich in carbon, and really badly for materials that don't contain a lot of carbon.

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

Wrong. We don't know whether time is a property contained in, or outside of our universe, and there are plenty of physicists who will argue their case either way.

Now I don't care who you think you are, but ridiculing people with different beliefs to you for their beliefs is not the right way to go about it. The universe doesn't perform calculations you know - yet the only scientific way we know how to describe it (using physics) is with calculations, so think again.

---

Oh, and FYI Nerd - I have an astrophysicist who lives 50m from my house, we are regularly attending members of the same Church, he teaches at the ANU and at least 15 of his students have gone on to become science advisers to world leaders. A few months ago he received the Prime Minister's Science Prize for his work with dark matter, he's the very best in Australia in his field. What do you have? Let me guess, you have the "I know better because I'm an atheist" card. No decent scientist lets their faith interfere with their work.

Creationists - by definition I might add - are not scientists. Thus it is unfair and incorrect to compare the two.

(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.