Creationism = Pure Freaking Magic

[Minimalist]

I am say you will not look at creationism as anything besides pure magic

Until you demonstrate that it is anything more your bible remains a poorly written version of Harry Potter.

You fail to comprehend that once the "holiness" is subtracted by application of rationality there is nothing left to sustain it.

I'm sure you consider the Iroquois creation myth to be primitive superstition,

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6375/

The tradition of the Nottowegui or Five Nations says, "that in the beginning before the formation of the earth; the country above the sky was inhabited by Superior Beings, over whom the Great Spirit presided. His daughter having become pregnant by an illicit connection, he pulled up a great tree by the roots, and threw her through the Cavity thereby formed; but, to prevent her utter destruction, he previously ordered the Great Turtle, to get from the bottom of the waters, some slime on its back, and to wait on the surface of the water to receive her on it. When she had fallen on the back of the Turtle, with the mud she found there, she began to form the earth, and by the time of her delivery had encreased it to the extent of a little island. Her child was a daughter, and as she grew up the earth extended under their hands.........

But to us your genesis is the same old shit. Primitive men doing their best to explain the world around them in terms they could understand.

They had an excuse for believing such utter nonsense. You do not.

[Undeceived]

'Magic' is associated with demons. It has to do with harnessing power from or moving materials from elsewhere in nature. 'Miracles' are done with no natural power at all, but power from a higher being. I think the word you're looking for is 'Supernatural'.

mag·ic/ˈmajik/
Noun:
The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Nope, no demons mentioned anywhere. But supernatural is included in its definition. Therefore, demons are magic, miracles are magic and your god is magic.

I use the definition of the root and history of the word, not contemporary dictionary.com's. "Magic" came from "Magi", or followers of Zoroaster. Zoroaster led a short-lived religion of sorts. Since no God is involved, it has been the long-standing view of the church (and therefore society) that demons were involved. If demons were involved, that would indeed mean supernatural. Without the help of spirits, however, all forms of magic have, in thought, relied on shifting powers in the natural world. There are three options: supernatural from spiritual forces of good; supernatural from spiritual forces of evil; and natural manipulation. Magic has never been used to describe God because it has always been associated with demons by society. If you want to bend definitions for your own purposes, okay. But it is obvious you are using a word with bad stigma solely to defame God. That people like me are upset by the use only shows the true connotation of the word.

Anything before the universe is not natural and therefore supernatural. In nature, all things have a catalyst. Therefore either the Big Bang had a supernatural catalyst or had no cause at all... which has no empirical support. Pick your poison. Either you believe in the supernatural or you have faith in some principle you do not yet know about.

Your argument refutes itself. Your definition of nature assumes "all things have a catalyst". Therefore, it is not limited to Big-Bang and nature can extend prior to it.

If everything before the universe is not natural, then by definition it does not have a cause. If it is natural, then it has a natural cause and there is no need to invoke supernatural.

My definition of nature assumes "all things have a catalyst" because every observed action in nature has had a catalyst. If all evidence points to action-reaction, we would be fools to suppose there is just one thing that originated spontaneously. That is rejection of the scientific method.

The "Big Bang" theory is itself a response to scientific need. The theory of Evolution requires a beginning, we see that entropy is running down, and we see the universe expanding, so therefore we produce a "Big Bang" in our heads to fit this criteria. There is no other evidence for the Big Bang. You might notice that creation fits these same criteria. Therefore you cannot assume the Big Bang in order to say all is natural and always has been. "Natural", by the usual definition, means material. In our natural observed world, all material actions have material energy as the cause. Before material, what caused material if there was no material?

[Ace Otana]

In our natural observed world, all material actions have material energy as the cause. Before material, what caused material if there was no material?

Look into it so you can have a better understanding of it. Otherwise you'll never get it.

Go 25 minutes in if you can't be fucked to watch the lot, either way it's easy to grasp. 25 minutes in it explains where the universe comes from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1...re=related

[Whateverist]

'Magic' is associated with demons. It has to do with harnessing power from or moving materials from elsewhere in nature. 'Miracles' are done with no natural power at all, but power from a higher being. I think the word you're looking for is 'Supernatural'. Anything before the universe is not natural and therefore supernatural. In nature, all things have a catalyst. Therefore either the Big Bang had a supernatural catalyst or had no cause at all... which has no empirical support. Pick your poison. Either you believe in the supernatural or you have faith in some principle you do not yet know about.

LOL! Really funny but I liked Stimbo's bar joke just a little better.

[Zen Badger]

There is no other evidence for the Big Bang.

You've never heard of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) then.

The BBT not only predicted its existence but its temperature to an astounding degree of accuracy.

You lose....again.

[genkaus]

I use the definition of the root and history of the word, not contemporary dictionary.com's. "Magic" came from "Magi", or followers of Zoroaster. Zoroaster led a short-lived religion of sorts. Since no God is involved, it has been the long-standing view of the church (and therefore society) that demons were involved. If demons were involved, that would indeed mean supernatural. Without the help of spirits, however, all forms of magic have, in thought, relied on shifting powers in the natural world. There are three options: supernatural from spiritual forces of good; supernatural from spiritual forces of evil; and natural manipulation. Magic has never been used to describe God because it has always been associated with demons by society. If you want to bend definitions for your own purposes, okay. But it is obvious you are using a word with bad stigma solely to defame God. That people like me are upset by the use only shows the true connotation of the word.

So, first you admit to using outdated and not contemporary knowledge. Second, even in case of Zoroastrianism, god is involved. They had a god, his name was Ahura Mazda - who was considered the spiritual force of good. Therefore, by that standard, option number 1 is correct. Magic is supernatural from spiritual forces of good as well. None of this involves either my subjective interpretation or any personal agenda. It is your church that uses propoganda to attach negative connotation to magic and, according to contemporary dictionary, failed miserably.

My definition of nature assumes "all things have a catalyst" because every observed action in nature has had a catalyst. If all evidence points to action-reaction, we would be fools to suppose there is just one thing that originated spontaneously. That is rejection of the scientific method.

The "Big Bang" theory is itself a response to scientific need. The theory of Evolution requires a beginning, we see that entropy is running down, and we see the universe expanding, so therefore we produce a "Big Bang" in our heads to fit this criteria. There is no other evidence for the Big Bang. You might notice that creation fits these same criteria. Therefore you cannot assume the Big Bang in order to say all is natural and always has been. "Natural", by the usual definition, means material. In our natural observed world, all material actions have material energy as the cause. Before material, what caused material if there was no material?

Is there an argument somewhere in all this blather. Wait, I think I see it. Your question about "before material". Can you in fact show that there was something "before material". And I'm not even going to comment on the abysmal stupidity you are spouting here.

[Undeceived]

Can you in fact show that there was something "before material".

That's the question you should ask yourself. In the beginning of our universe there was a spike of energy. If you think material existed before that spike, where did it get its energy? And where did the energy come from before that? We move into infinite regress. Every energy output requires an energy input. Where did the chain start? Or has it been going on for eternity just like the Christian God?

---

There is no other evidence for the Big Bang.

You've never heard of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) then.

Thank you, I'll add that to my list. But again, nothing about CMB screams "Big Bang" over God. All we know is there was a burst of energy from a central point.

[Minimalist]

nothing about CMB screams "Big Bang" over God

Nothing screams "god" at all....except ignorant theists.

[libalchris]

Thank you, I'll add that to my list. But again, nothing about CMB screams "Big Bang" over God. All we know is there was a burst of energy from a central point.

Do you know anything about cosmology at all? Because you talk like you have no idea what you're talking about. CMB radiation fills all of space uniformly. That combined with the fact that the speed at which ALL objects are moving away from us (taking into account things like gravity) increases with distance (an object 2x light years away moves 2 times as fast away from us as an object only x light years away) is extreme evidence for the big bang theory. Even many apologists accept the big bang theory.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I think Science beats Voodoo any day. When was the last time a god turned skin cells into heart cells? because scientists have. And my atheist arguments never stopped working.

You misunderstand. I am say you will not look at creationism as anything besides pure magic superstitious fantasy fairytale nonsense.

fify.

why it is easier to dismiss if you pair science against magic, rather than looking at science as being the explaination of How god did what he did.

That statement is so chock-full of fail. Suffice it to say that claiming that science is "the explanation of how giddidit" is a preposterous and arrogant piece of nonsensical question-begging drivel.


Oh, and congratulations on your banishment from AF.COM. It was only a matter of time.