Why do so many creationists and intelligent design apologists lie so much to support their cause?

I’m not going listen or read all that stuff, I have better things to do.

But the underlying answer is that they don’t believe they are lying. They believe in it, even though it is against rational thought and provable science. To them, these are beliefs which they take on faith (oooh, that word!) and a true believer accepts these things without need for proof.

So it’s a misnomer to call them liars and charlatans. They may be fools, but being foolish is not malicious. Lying is.

When your entire religion is based on lies and falsehoods, lying to support it is only natural.

@elbanditoroso I’m sure you are right for many of their foot soldiers, but the well educated among them, people like Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Hugh Norman Ross, Kent Hovind, Dr. John Baumgardner, Dr. Donald Chittick, Dr. David Crandall, Dr. David DeWitt, Dr. Donald DeYoung all present straw man arguments they clearly know are false statements of evolution, radiometric dating, evidence of Noah’s flood and the like. That’s lying, not just being misinformed.

@flip86 There’s a great deal of truth in that.

Because most people are terrified to contemplate that their organism is just a random manifestation of evolution, not any more or less “special” than a pine cone or preying mantis.
The human ego needs to believe in self importance, seek “meaning”, magic, because the very idea that ones organism is just that, an insignificant roll of the cosmic dice brings up a lot of fear for most. Ego is very clever when it comes to defending itself, its belief systems, creating rational ideology from irrational concepts, precepts.

Very few people want to compare their “specialness” with that of a Duck or Cucumber. lol

Great question! I have no good answer for this.

Perhaps it’s for the same reason that politicians on both sides liberal and conservative lie when supporting their position. Or why people on both sides of the Global climate change debate stoop to such lows.

The answer could possibly lie deep within the human genome in which the untruthfulness trate evolved over the centuries as a good survival mechanism.

They don’t know they’re lying. As a former Christian who believed in God (albeit shaping him in my mind to suit me….) I certainly didn’t consider it a lie. I figured much of it was gibberish, and choose to discount those aspects, but some believed so…..live and let live.

I try not to assume anyone is lying when they defend a belief. I think these people you think are so smart, simply aren’t as well educated as you would like them to be. Somehow their opportunity to “get” what you get in these subjects was stunted.

If they knew a better explanation that satisfied their deepest concerns, they would admit to it. Unless, perhaps they like the attention and perhaps they’ve decided that the lies are worth the status they get for them. Perhaps they have assumed those lofty, false roles to ensure that no one who might seriously (and even more dangerously) believe them would take their place.

But these don’t seem like easy explanations to me. I think the simplest solution is simply that they believe what they are saying at this moment.

The fuck. Again? Hasn’t this been beaten to death on Fluther about twenty times over?

What lies are we talking about, exactly?

I’m sure creationists can say the same thing about evolutionists and come up with information to back it. We live in an information age where everything is at our fingertips.

Guys, if I wanted to, I could pull a cornucopia of articles and videos about aliens and conspiracies or whatever that would “prove” whatever I want.

Some guy on youtube disrespecting the beliefs of others only proves he’s a jerk. His opponents probably do the same to him. That makes them the same.

Creationists and ID proponents are engaged in a fundamentally different enterprise than scientists (ideally, at least). Creationists are on a mission of persuasion, whereas scientists are (or should be) on a mission of discovery.

The mission of persuasion is like what a lawyer does: it’s an effort to build a case for a certain conclusion. “Confirmation bias” isn’t considered a flaw in legal argument, it’s taken for granted. Likewise in creationism.

And here’s another thing: Non-evidentiary factors carry an unspoken weight in creationist argument. Factuality is only one consideration, and not necessarily the most important. Also in the balance is social concern: the conviction that society will be better off if it comes to their conclusion.

I think it’s important to recognize the difference in these missions. If you assume that creationists are trying to do the same thing as scientists, then you have to conclude that they’re either awful at science or liars. But that’s not what they’re doing. Theirs is more a social mission that has taken on scientific trappings in an attempt to remain relevant in a world that increasingly values science.

Cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber have theorized that humans developed reasoning skills not so much as a means for arriving at truth, but as a tool for persuasion. In this, I guess you could say that creationists are simply being true to that function.

God is a total prankster.

Everyone is wrong:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Because they have been so thoroughly brainwashed. If they could really think it through, they’d see the light. But in their current condition, they are no more than mindless theist robots spouting their unyielding program.

I can’t be too hard on them. It would be mind boggling to go from believing you’ll see your mom, dad, wife, children again to having to accept the alternative…..

They have a special dispensation which exempts them from the 9th Commandment

Because they’re just as fucked up, twisted sick minded and deviant as the rest of us.

Well, almost.

@Coloma I’d guess that’s a major part of the cause. We have to remember that well educated Muslims and other faiths are often guilty of the same transgression, and also claim that it’s sinful to lie. I know it’s not considered lying when you don’t know you’re wrong. How about when you do know you are wrong, but your ego demands that you ignore the truth known and embrace the falsehood. Is that lying or simply being human?

@gondwanalon That answer sounds suspiciously like a false equivalence fallacy. Do you seriously believe that global warming deniers and climatologists are equally disingenuous?

@Dutchess_III A good number of the PhD apologists that I listed here absolutely do know they are lying. They are well educated enough to know, and they have had the errors they proclaim pointed out to them over and over again. I think they lie for the same reasons politicians lie. Money and power.

@ninjacolin Listen to Dr. William Lane Craig for just a few minutes, and tell me if you think he’s just poorly educated, or running a scam designed to snare those who are.

@WillWorkForChocolate This particular issue has not been debated, to my knowledge. It seems to me you want no discussion save that which reinforces your belief system. That’s not going to happen. Like Harry Truman said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Don’t enter into such threads.

@Dutchess_III I addressed that in the second paragraph of the question details. Do you really need me to make a list?

@DWW25921 Another moral relativist, hey? See my response to @gondwanalon about the false equivalence fallacy. I am strongly of the opinion that the Plank Constant is a particular number, and any number you care to believe in for it would not actually work. The Earth has an exact mass, and any number you decide to believe in for it wouldn’t affect the truth of it one iota.

@thorninmud I absolutely know that Creationists have taken on, “more a social mission that has taken on scientific trappings in an attempt to remain relevant in a world that increasingly values science.” I also know that 30% of Americans now believe that our constitution was meant to establish a theocracy, and they want that done. And so I use my voice to oppose the lies creationists rely on and the lies the American Taliban puts forward. I think it needs to be done.

@SecondHandStoke Ha! That’s at least as sensible as young earth creationism.

@Dutchess_III Again, I’m sure you are absolutely right for the rank and file. It’s those holding advanced degrees and able to cite the scientific findings before dismissing them with cleverly disguised fallacious arguments designed to sound like common sense that I call out as deliberate liars.

@basstrom188 God just forgot to tell us. Add that to all the other stuff he forgot to communicate, like the Earth not being flat, or the center of the solar system.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies One more vote for @gondwanalon and the false equivalence fallacy crowd.

Every devout religious person I’ve ever talked to has deeply believed what they are saying. The belief is so important to their worldview that it has become an ingrained part of who they are. If you try to argue/debate them, you’re fucking with their entire worldview, and therefore, the foundations of their entire world. People don’t like that.

Then again, I had a devoutly religious upbringing, questioned it, and became an atheist at age 13. We’re talking about adults who have never examined their beliefs. Seriously, people???

@Haleth Good point. But I am persuaded that PhD Christian apologists have questioned their views. They could not come up with all the fallacious arguments, circular reasoning and tautologies and begging the question they resort to by accident, or without malice of forethought.

@ETpro I actually believe in a Biblical 7 literal day creation and a 6,000 year earth. I don’t think I’ve been lied to nor do I think I’ve lied to anyone else. I don’t bring it up much because being cursed at every time I do by ignorant slugs is no fun. I think it takes a lot of faith to believe in Evolution as it makes no sense to me. That just to say, you’re not going to sway me. People that ask questions like this are usually just looking for trouble. I doubt that’s your intent but that’s my take on it.

@DWW25921:

If God exists.

If God is responsible for creating our particular universe.

The creation story as told in Genesis is metaphor.

The word “day” is used loosely for early man’s primitive mind.

Adam and Eve were the first humans with the brain capacity for self awareness as we (sometimes) enjoy today.

It reads “In the beginning” for example.

Not a difficult to fathom 13.798 billion years ago.

We could suggest that the Bible isn’t wrong.

Just greatly simplified.

@DWW25921 The mountain of evidence proving that the earth is billions of years old and not 6,000 years old is as big as any scientific evidence gets. It’s as solidly proven as the idea of gravity, or a heliocentric solar system. And by the way, Genesis gets that wrong, too. It clearly says that the Earth is the center of not just our Solar System but the Universe.

The only faith required to believe in evolution is faith that evidence in front of your eyes is superior to ancient myths written down by bronze-age desert goat-herders who had no idea what made the sun rise and set, or what caused thunder and lightning, or what caused disease; and explained it with God myths.

@SecondHandStoke To believe in an Adam and Eve, you have to think in terms most Christian Fundamentalists have been trained to accept, believing that the theory of evolution states that new kinds suddenly poof into existence in a single birth event. That’s wildly unlike what the theory of evolution actually states. We know that dogs were selectively bred from wolves by humans. An Alaskan Husky is very close to being a wolf. They can breed with wolves and produce fertile offspring. A Husky and a Mexican chihuahua look very different. But they are both dogs. They can breed and produce fertile offspring. But a chihuahua can’t produce fertile offspring with a wolf. Just where, in the slow progression of genetic changes between wolf and chihuahua does the “new kind” suddenly appear? There are no sudden appearances of a wolfihuahua any more than there are crockaducks.

In the same way, there was no sudden, quantum leap in hominid intelligence. If we could watch, we’d see a relatively smooth progression of intelligence and human-like features over some 5 to 8 million years since what would become modern humans split from the last common ancestor with the chimpanzees and bonobos. In this chart, many of the hominid species would have been able to interbred. We know this is so, because we find remnants of mitochondrial DNA from now-extinct hominids in our current human gene pool.

On another note, I saw this article in Slate Magazine looking at how creationists and climate science deniers are uniting to try to get science out of American Schools and replace it with religious dogma. It’s efforts like that which make this a matter of concern for me.

@ETpro wolfihuahua is my new favorite word.

I’m with @WillWorkForChocolate, it’s been talked to death already.

Just to clarify, I’m a Christian and I’m not a liar. That is really twisting things in a negative manner.

When it comes to issues where Christian doctrine or the Bible contrasts with science, it’s an individual choice on how to reconcile that with your faith, and that is my personal decision.

Good point, @KNOWITALL. The premise that all Christians are liars, is as good as the premise that all atheists are low-life, or self centered, or whatever derogatory comment you can think of. It’s simply not true. But there are an awful lot of folks here, and everywhere else who love to pigeonhole other people into little boxes to make their world view more “comfortable”.

@snowberry Agreed, it really does a disservice to everyone involved.

@ETpro I hope you don’t truly feel this way? I haven’t lied to you and we’ve discussed religion many many times. ;)

Good point @KNOWITALL. I don’t think the OP is even referring to the “lower levels” of Christianity, such as us. His complaint I think are with supposed scientists and educated men who know better, but still persist on spreading the impossibility of the Bible stories as though they actually happened. Although I’m not sure what they get out of it.

I don’t think the Bible stories happened literally, but I’ve always felt that way, since I was old enough to think. For those lessers among us who DO pass it on, they don’t feel they’re lying. They believe what they’re saying. When you say “I believe this and this,” you can’t be accused of lying.

@Dutchess_III How anyone can get through the first ten minutes of that first video without seeing how the speaker is inferring stupidity and inciting ridicule of people of faith is beyond me. I can’t even listen to someone so disrespectful of others, @etpro.

Many theologians, philosophers and scientists in history have found no conflict between their faith and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Scientists Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins see no necessary conflict between religion and science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

Everyone has a “mountain of evidence” according to their own particular way of thinking. I’m not impressed by yours and I have no doubt you’re not interested in mine. So, it’s an impasse. I have no problem with that.

I admire you for getting through any of the video @KNOWITALL! I just watched the first few seconds. It was obviously just a way for one who deems himself to be of superior intelligence to insult those he deems to be of lesser intelligence. I have no interest in that. I probably agree with his logic, but not his way of presenting it. Why even present it at all? Live and let live.

I didn’t see any conflict, really, between religion and science either. I figured when it came to things like our “creation,” I accepted evolution with no guilt. I can accept the fact that Jesus didn’t literally rise from the dead with no guilt.
It really annoyed me when people said, “But you HAVE to believe these things to be a Christian!” They got upset when I just said, “Why?” I guess I figured being a Christian hinged more on my attitudes towards others and my actions than what I“believed” in.

@Dutchess_III Just goes to show you that Jesus teachings of love are important for all of us, even if you are not a theist. :)

@ETpro:

I Feel a sense of satisfaction (largely from the absinthe) but also because I gave you the opportunity to type much as a result of something I posted.

Adam and Eve are also metaphor.

“Adam and Eve” in evolutionary tradition, did not happen overnight.

Creationism is perhaps well meaning yet still the worst possible attempt at explaining evolution to those not yet ready for scientific theory possible.

Could you expound @SecondHandStoke, on “Creationism is perhaps well meaning yet still the worst possible attempt at explaining evolution to those not yet ready for scientific theory possible.” ?

It’s funny about that, isn’t it, @KNOWITALL? Either you’re a liar but loving and kind, or you’re an atheist and a self centered egotist. Somehow I think that’s not the way it is, but that’s how it can look at first glance.

@snowberry I’ll just be stubborn and incorrigible.

@KNOWITALL & @snowberry, I never said all Christians are liars. I refereed specifically to “many creationists and intelligent design apologists”. Not all, mind you. Many.

I have to ask though, isn’t putting your words in someone else’s mouth then claiming they said them lying? I mean, you should be able to discern when you are doing that.

@snowberry That last was a personal attack and I never launched such to warrant it. I’m not going to flag it, but cut it out or I will.

@Dutchess_III Talking about putting your words in my mouth, where did I speak of “lower levels” of Christianity?

—@ETpro Actually, I said “Somehow I think that’s not the way it is, but that’s how it can look at first glance.” (This means I do not believe it.) The reality is, people are very fond of labeling other people, theist and atheist alike. I’m sorry you think my comments were an attack. But welcome to the club, for we theists are quite familiar with that feeling on Fluther. Many such comments to theists are left to lie because the mods don’t deem them an attack.

I’m sorry I offended you. Peace to you!—

Thanks, and peace to you too. It’s not a personal attack to disagree with someone’s statement or belief. It is to call them names. And you can accurately call me touchy for reading “you’re an atheist and a self centered egotist” and stopping right there. My bad.

Neither creationism nor evolution can be proven. No one was there to see what happened, so we can only go on the evidence. Different people interpret evidence different ways. Different people have different areas of expertise, and no one knows it all. Therefore, in order to develop a big picture or world view, at least some of what we accept as truth is based on the research or observations of others. You may say that peer review ensures that false evidence is weeded out, but often certain journals etc only ask people to review who have the same ideas as the editorial team. That is hardly impartial.
As a regularly published author in books and professional journals, I know the process. Often, the reviewers completely miss the point of what I have written. That may be because I haven’t written it well enough, or it may be that they are biased. Either way, peer review is not a faultless process.
My point? You can’t say that evolution is fact just because it is widely published. Nor can you say that creation is fact, just because you choose to believe the slant of the journal that spouts it. Ultimately, we’ll never know, and I really don’t think that matters. As long as children are taught to critically examine evidence, the world will be a better place.

^Mankind will eventually know everything.

@ETpro I assumed your plethora of concerns are with the more influential “Christian” citizens in society who have the power to influence government and society. Rush Limbaugh, The Pope, etc.
I can’t imagine you attacking Little Old Aunt Biddy, who just goes to church on Sunday, visits the sick, makes pies for the church socials, says her prayers every night, takes comfort in her belief that one day she will get to see her loved ones again, and they will be whole and safe and happy, and otherwise quietly minds her own business.

@Harold Why do you think somebody has to physically witness something to know whether it’s true or not?

^You mention Rush Limbaugh.

His status as a Christian is debatable.

One thing is for certain:

He doesn’t care if you aren’t one, technically making him not one.

@Dutchess_III:

That comment I made above really was a mess. apologies.

Humans naturally want an explanation for things.

Before the development of science religion was the best we could come up with.

“God” is real, but not as He is seen by religion.

We have seen God and He is us.

We are the young God, on our way to eventual complete knowledge and power.

Nobody’s perfect, as they say.

Yet.

I know why religions developed, and I know the theories, but thanks.

I totally agree with you about Rush Limbaugh. In the 80’s I was a practicing Christian and many of my Christian friends just loved Rush Limbaugh. They felt he was so right on and not afraid to speak his mind. He disgusted me then, and he REALLY disgusts me now.

@SecondHandStoke That’s a good point. I know a LOT of Christians who are die hard Democrats. Mostly because they feel that their needs as workers would be better met by the Democrats. They are nicer to the unions. Conversely, I know personally several Republicans who have no religion who are so because they like the Republicans historical stance on smaller government and fiscal conservatism.

I really don’t think it’s even fair to generalize that Christians are automatically Republican. I’m a Christian and I can’t stand the Republicans! As for Rush, he’s a blowhard. He comes up with a decent point from time to time but for the most part I find him annoying.

I wonder if I can tie this into @ETpro ‘s initial question by asking another one. Is religion a factor in how humans develop psychically? I mean, if they’re all living in their little “faith bubble” with no outside intervention it stands to reason they would acquire similar traits. The Jewish people, for example, are both a religion and an ethnic group. Crap… I think I just tied that in to a different question he recently asked… LOL (I really did.)

Ok than, on to this one. The speaker is clearly anti God and I think his hostility only puts people off. I mean, if you make someone angry will they bother to listen to what you have to say? His smug attitude and self righteous banter makes it hard to take him seriously. These lectures are a good example of how NOT to sway people for your cause.

Never underestimate the power of diplomacy. Personally, I don’t believe anything that guy had to say at all. His attitude only makes me feel stronger about my beliefs. If you want to give someone a pill they’re not going to like the least you can do is coat it in sugar.

Thanks for bearing with me. My brain bounced around a little but I think you get the idea.

@DWW25921 said it! Lurve to you!

@ETpro You know, I never clicked on your many links because just looking at them gave me ample reason to peg your question as yet another excuse to bash Christians. I’ve been hit with an unusually high number of personal attacks in the last few days, and I didn’t have the emotional energy to deal with more of that idiocy.

Seriously, I do not have anything against you personally, but this sort of thing gets wearisome. DW really helped me out. Thanks again!

@snowberry People generally are a product of their environments. Our friend here is inundated with aggressive propaganda and he, not unlike others, gets caught up in that fervor. I understand the mentality so I can take it with a grain of salt. Incidentally this is one of the reasons a lot of folks compare a fervent “science only” mentality with a hard core religious belief system. Although he is clearly antagonistic towards Christians the behavior exhibited is similar to that which his complaints are directed.

I can even go so far as comparing the field of Science to their “god” and scientist their “priests” of sorts. It’s a system that humans have embraced for thousands of years and to think that someone can reject human nature because they reject the creator isn’t realistic.

To be fair to @ETpro, I have behaved the same way at times just of course on a different end of the stick. If you boil it down to the basics of behavioral analysis though, it’s really the same stick. Unbelievers are usually horrified when their actions are compared to those of whom they are attacking.

I mentioned to @KNOWITALL recently that knowing your adversary is crucial before any altercation with them can be won. Understanding human nature and certain behavior traits that everyone has, is an obvious place to start.

Have a wonderful day all.

@DWW25921 I like @ETpro, I think he’s very smart and asks difficult questions, too. He reminds me a lot of my auntie the missionary turned white witch.

I have to admit that this question got me a tad defensive because I just don’t think it’s very nice to say thing’s like that and the speaker disgusted me with his attitude frankly, but it also made me think, which is why I come here.

I think he’s great! He comes up with all kinds of interesting questions and topics!

@Dutchess_III – Because we will never have or understand all the evidence, so the only way to be sure is to see it for ourselves.

@Harold Science doesn’t seek to prove things, it seeks to figure out probabilities. Even though someone was actually there to hear what Mohammad said as his last words, and witness whether he actually ride his horse into Heaven or not, that does noting to prove he did or did not today. Whether someone was there at creation or not is irrelevant. Science goes where the preponderance of evidence takes it. I think you’re falling into the “False Equivalency Fallacy”;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence in that answer.

The idea that peer review is inferior to anything goes is ridiculous. Nobel Laureates don’t win for going with the herd, but for proving the herd wrong in some important assumption. Peer review may not catch every flaw instantly, but it grinds exceedingly fine. It’s the best tool we have to date at getting at the truth. Why do you disparage it? Have an agenda that doesn’t pass muster there?

@Dutchess_III You assumed correctly. My concern is not with believers who just go about their own business but with those who seek to use the law, or education, or control of information to influence what all of us do and think. Did I say something that seemed to indicate otherwise?

@SecondHandStoke Have any evidence to support we are on our way to becoming perfect, and knowing all? That’s something I would love to believe, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where’s the evidence?

@DWW25921 That kind of rambles, but it has the makings of a terrifically interesting question to stand on its own. I encourage you to give it some thought, then ask it. I’d love to dive into the debate it would produce.

@snowberry I really wasn’t all that thrilled with the tone of those links myself. But they do cover the points where well-educated Christian apologists continue to lie even after their error is clearly pointed out to them. It simply was impractical to write up all of the lies myself, and explain why they are false. But the Crockaduck is still rambling around creationists sites decades after evolutionary biologists made it abundantly clear to those floating that lie that the Theory of Evolution says nothing remotely close to that.

@KNOWITALL To quote Christine O’Donnell, “I am not a witch.” Unlike her, I haven’t ever believed I was one.

@Harold If that were true, then everything every major religion claims would be true, even though they all are mutually exclusive and contradict one another; because someone is around who claims to have personally had the truth of that religion revealed to them. There are also people who claim to have been personal witness to the Earth being flat, the Sun orbiting the Earth, lizard people living on the dark side of the Moon and taking on human form to run the various governments of the Earth, the Illuminati (who are humans, not lizards) running all the governments of Earth and so much more. If I saw something that was wildly out of keeping with my understanding of reality, I’d need LOTS of external evidence to convince me it wasn’t a brain fart. We humans are wired up to have them, and they can be incredibly compelling. But they are lousy indicators of truth.

@ETpro:

If I were to travel back in time I would observe mankind with less understanding of our world than today.

I’d see that the earlier the time, the more ignorant our species.

I predict that if I were somehow able to observe our future directly I’d see humanity displaying less ignorance than I do now.

I predict that given enough time we will develop the will and ability to know everything there is to know including that which we can never hope to observe directly.

If you believe as I do that this future already exists and we essentially become God the faith in God that people experience today is actually coming from our distant future selves.

I once heard this: Fear of losing their dear friends, because traitors (supporting real science after all) are ostracized.

@mattbrowne To a degree I can see how that is true for some people. Being a Christian, to some people, is almost like being in a club and you want to keep to the stated rules or you are subject to the other members judgement (odd since Christians aren’t supposed to judge anyone ever, but ah well.)

You should hear some of the arguments I get into with fellow Christians about the SSM/ LGBT issue’s, they can be pretty harsh if you don’t support what they support as far as the Bible.

@Harold Was George Washington ever a baby?

^^The Bible as interpreted by whom?

Are you talking to me @SecondHandStoke?

No. @KNOWITALL

@SecondHandStoke The unknown in that equation is how long it would take to learn everything. And I would submit that that is one hell of a big unknown. Given that we may wipe ourselves out in a thermonuclear Apocalypse any day now, or get wiped out by any of a long list of natural catastrophes, do you really think we have the time it would take?

@mattbrowne I’ve heard that too, and I am sure it exerts a strong force on them.

@Dutchess_III – Who is George Washington??
@ETpro – I have no argument that evidence is the strongest way of making assertions about what we don’t really know. I also don’t argue that peer review is the best we have at the moment. I DO argue that it is not infallible. I am not disparaging it- I am just saying that to assert certainty based on it is dangerous. You may be able to assert probability, but not certainty. There are many cases where peer reviewed papers have been found out later to be the result of academic dishonesty. Again, I am not saying that the majority of reviewers are dishonest (I am a reviewer myself, by the way). I have no agenda. I am a recent ex-Christian, and really don’t know what I believe at the moment. My personal viewpoint is irrelevant. All I am saying is that while evidence may be the best we have, it must always be open to correction if new evidence replaces it. We have evidence of some research in front of our noses- drugs and medical treatments for example. However, research that purports to dogmatically say that something which supposedly happened millions of years ago is undeniable fact, is setting up the researcher to be embarrassed one day. If he/she takes the viewpoint that based on the evidence this is what is likely, then I have no problem with it.

@ETpro:

Time has already told us.

We just can’t hear it yet.

George Washington=the first president of the United States. Was he ever an infant @Harold?

@Harold Science is not about certainty. Only those who base all their beliefs on blind faith and ancient myths written down by bronze age desert tribesmen who were totally scientifically illiterate claim to have absolute certainty their particular version of their religious belief is the one true story. As far as scientists resisting changes to their theories, the British paper, The Register, ran a story today titled World’s OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that’s not the only boning going on… and, in the way if the press, breathlessly proclaiming “400,000-yr-old ancestral fling throws evolution into doubt”. As you read the story, you realize that the lead in of evolution being thrown in doubt is a massive overstatement, and that in truth, the findings just rule out a couple of previously held notions about when modern humans and Neanderthals split into separate evolutionary paths. But the important thing to note is that scientists did not react to the findings by circling the wagons, plugging their ears, and chanting “nah, nah, nah; I can’t hear you.” The Register may have resorted to typical media hype to make their story sound more important than it is, but they did accurately report that new findings are changing scientific understanding.

@ETpro Of all that’s going on here this may be a strange point to disagree upon but… I wouldn’t call ancient people Scientifically illiterate by any means. The pyramids are a great (and most obvious) example. There has been all sorts of evidence to suggest that ancients possessed knowledge of things we’re currently figuring out.

I recently watched a video that delved into ancient technologies among other things. Bear with the school of thought as it is a Creationist video and I know you’ll disagree with some of it but it does have a lot of information that I found to be fascinating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_mLCe_yCM

I think the concepts of engineering, the pyramids for example, is much easier to grasp and to test than the “unknowable.” Either an engineering concept works or it doesn’t. It’s something that you can touch and feel and see and rearrange.

@SecondHandStoke The Bible as interpreted by a majority of Christians that I know, saying that homosexuality is a sin.

@Dutchess_III Perhaps… but apparently ancient cultures of South America had functioning hot air balloons?!?!?! How on earth did they manage to carve all that granite for their cities so perfectly? The Assyrians had ancient analog computer devices with gears and things to predict astrological events! I mean, look up “ancient technology” on Google. It’s fascinating stuff! Unfortunately you’ll be inundated with alien crap but if you can sift through the muck and be patient there’s a lot of good information out there!

@KNOWITALL Leaving chewing gum under the desk is a sin too but if you accept Jesus you’ll go to heaven anyway. I don’t know why some people find being called a sinner to be so controversial. I mean, it’s just how we as humans are.

Never heard that any ancients had functioning hot air balloons.

What do you mean “How on earth did they manage to care all the granite so perfectly”? They were experienced engineers, perfectionists. The skills and trade secrets were passed down through the generations. It certainly wasn’t magic.

@Dutchess_III Of course it wasn’t magic. I was pointing out the wisdom of ancient times seems to be underestimated. It seems there is a waning and explosion of technology throughout history. We tend to get creative, get lazy, start wallowing, get fed up, than get clever again. That’s a personal historic observation, I wonder if there’s any hard data on that?

What makes you think it’s underestimated?

Well sure there are “explosions.” As our brains and cognitive powers increased, so did our ability to think spatially.
And if a particular tribe lost some ability, then it was probably because the knowledge wasn’t passed on because the person died, or the whole tribe got wiped out or something.

@Dutchess_III I don’t want to delve to much into this as it’s off topic from the original question but it is fascinating nonetheless. Maybe instead of underestimated I should have said not as highly regarded as it should be or something that way. Semantics.

Not hard to research, anyway. Here is a starting point.

@Dutchess_III Interesting. Can you find a site without the evolutionist propaganda? I like my data pure like freshly fallen snow. Wow, that was poetic! This subject may just be worthy of a new question! I have no idea how I would word such a thing though.

Well, then I suggest you look in the Bible. Archeology doesn’t support a young earth or creationist theory.

@Dutchess_III It absolutely does! I could give you the same sources that you already mentioned you don’t accept to prove it… http://www.creationdefense.org/53.htm

No, that didn’t prove anything. Sure, archeology includes the last 6,000 years, but it doesn’t exclude the millions of years prior to that. Nobody is doubting that we’ve excavated buildings in the middle east that were erected in the times of Jesus, or disregarding any findings dating back to that time.

@DWW25921 The “proof” that ancient peoples had technology we don’t comes on junk science sources like the History Channel, which is spewing many things, but not much that’s historical fact. I say they were scientifically illiterate because they believed the Earth was flat, the Sun and all the planets and stars revolved around it, the Gods moved the Sun and stars, the Gods made lightning and thunder, illness was the result of curses, etc. I’m not minimizing their ability to build, but there is nothing miraculous about a building built in the shape of a pyramid and constructed from solid stone with only tiny interior spaces surviving the test of time.

I’m sorry, but that video starts right off with such a ridiculous claim I could not bring myself to devote three quarters of an hour to listening to such nonsense.

@KNOWITALL – The best you can do is ask these confused American Christians whether snakes can talk. They are reluctant to say yes.

@mattbrowne Nah, the entire point of Jesus teachings was loving each other without judgement, it’s easy enough to understand. It’s not my job to school other Christians on how to treat people, but I often am very vocal about Christians doing the opposite (imo) of what Jesus told us to do in His name.

In the end though, we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ, even non-theists, in my heart. It’s difficult to get angry, but easy enough for your heart to hurt for the LGBT’s who are just searching for God and find angry, confused Christians trying to change them into something more palatable that fits in with their idea of a ‘good Christian’. Those ‘good Christians’ have turned a LOT of us accepting Christians off of church and off of fellowship, but never off of Jesus. :)

Why do I care? Here’s a great clip where Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris that same question. The answer is brief and highly enlightening.

Okay.

Time to settle this once and for all.

The Earth was intelligently designed by a hypercomputer called Deep Thought.

The Earth was then built by a Magrathean planet building firm on commission.

@KNOWITALL – I think it’s important that people realize how stupid it is to take the entire Bible literally, Christians or not.

@mattbrowne I think a lot of thing’s are stupid (ie child brides in FLDS, false prophets being made kings), the least of which is taking the Bible literally, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

It can be important @KNOWITALL. Too many people base their lives on literal interpretations of the Bible, and sometimes it can be disastrous for those around them.

@Dutchess_III Yes, it’s important, you’re right. I’m just so fed up with organized religions right this second in my life, all of them frankly.

Do you realize that almost every religion sublimates women, except maybe Wicca and a few other exceptions? I’ve also been watching that new show about FLDS and it reminds me a little of myself, in that they are taught not to question, and some of the thing’s THEY are taught are in some ways similar. I’m just thinking things through a little bit.

Yeah…religion is used extensively to subjugate people, and not just women.

When the Romans realized they couldn’t squelch Christianity, they took it over and expanded on it and put their rulers on equal footing with God. In effect, you better do as the government says or you’re going to hell. That’s some scary stuff.

I think the crusades weren’t done for religious reasons. They happened because Rome wanted to extend her territory and to do that they needed to convert all them there heathens to Christianity so they could control them, not to save their souls.

@Dutchess_III I just PM’d you, I am just so tired of humans twisting something beautiful and liberating into a stranglhold of Evil. It’s disgusting.

@Dutchess_III – The crusades were a reaction to Islamic expansion and imperialism.

OK, politics, anyway.

^^Crusades 2.0 plz.

When one has a problem whether it be a flooded basement or crushing debt you address the worst part first.

What?

Religion as a deadly movement is an obvious problem. Today at least, one religion is more directly and deliberately deadly than others.

If your basement is flooding you don’t try mopping up until the leak has been stopped.

Debt? you take on the biggest and costliest first.

Same with the problem of the religion that has the least respect for life, Islam.

OK.

Aronra has posted this video showing how routinely creationists deliberately lie to those they seek to lead. This is not any discussion of whether there is or isn’t a God or gods. It is exclusively dealing with the differentiation of the scientific method versus creationism. It’s over 2 hours long, so you may want to take it in chunks . It’s solid enough in the evidence it provides to be well worth the investment in time if you are intellectually honest and wonder which concept is correct.