Creationist Tours School

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by RTFQ, Oct 16, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. RTFQ


    What has Science Ever Done for Us?

    Personally, I'm all for kids being taught all sort of batsh1t nonsense because the sooner society falls apart in an orgy of religious fervour, the sooner I can ramraid the hot tub shop down the road, followed by Unwins, before sitting in my jacuzzi with a lot of scotch, watching the whole thing. It beats celebrity come dancing.
  2. RTFQ, have to agree.

    The logic behind creationism (if it can be describd as logic), is absolutely simplistic and to my eyes, symbolise weak-minded people (or groups) who either cannot (or choose not to) understand the information (scientifically validated!) put before them that proves evolution IS how we came about.

    Do you consider yourself a 'bright'?
  3. Of course anybody who is not weak-minded and simplistic would appreciate that there is nothing that can ever be considered proof of fact when it comes to science.

    Saying that, evolution and it's underlying genetics is possibly the best darn useful and influencial theory we will ever see.
  4. RTFQ


    By Mencken I will crawl through the phone line and gut you like a squirrel if you call me that again :D

    To be fair, Groucho Marx had it spot on when he called religion the opiate of the masses, and creationism is a sympton of it. It has nothing to do with logic, in fact it is the surrender of reason that causes the opiate's rush in the first place. That's why there is no point insulting or arguing with a Believer, they've eschewed reason and that's what makes them happy.

    When you're faced with a world where the perceived realities are all out to kill you, abuse you and generally make the Six O'Clock news a pretty heinous experience, some people find it better that something benign and invisible will save them from it all. i find it hard to really condemn them for that.

    But I'll raise the black flag and start slitting throats if they ever get into power though. Oops, too late :oops:
  5. It would be interesting for this chap to partake in a debate with Professor Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has been a champion of evolution theory for his whole academic career and will be the first to admit that many theories abound about the exact origin of the first replicating molecules that led to DNA and, ultimately, life.

    The idea of evolution, however, is irrefutable and whilst his books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker are not the easiest reading, they quickly eliminate any question of orthodox creationism. IMHO the only question remaining is what caused the Big Bang.
  6. I went to see Professor Dawkins once. I was very impressed.

    Re the bit in bold; Even Darwin continued his belief in God after he had come up with his theory. The two are not incompatible, just incompatible with creationism.
  7. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    The only response to these is to demand the right of reseponse from the Pastafarians:

    Their site has a link to an interesting interview with Prof Dawkins, as mentioned above.

    I'm a Christian, but not a creationist. The two aren't necessarily always compatible!
  8. ...beat me to it. Fewer Christians take the view the earth was created in six 24 hour periods. Most will believe there is a 'creator God' at work over extended periods.

    Evolution theory is just that, theory. For the sake of debate Christians can bring out as many scientific theories to challenge evolution as its protagonists can. It all ends up as a question of faith, on both sides.
  9. Do you mean a biblical literalist? If not then, how was existence created?
  10. Maybe "existence" always existed.

  11. Universe then, happy? :x
  12. Yes, that’s what I meant - Maybe the universe always existed (though obviously not always in its present form).

    I'm not trying to provoke you.

    Good article in the FT.
  13. Simple. A jellyfish evolved into its most efficient form very early on and did not need to evolve any more. As with the Shark, Crocodile and most other 'prehistoric' looking creatures. As you will agree, these creatures have been pretty much at the top of their food chain for a long time. The old addage of 'if it aint broken, don't fix it' seems to apply.

    Can he explain the carbon > diamond equation? If he could then his 6000-8000 year old Earth argument is blown out of the water.

    I have to agree with one of his points though. He believes the human race is 'devolving'. Visiting Birkenhead would prove this theory to be 100% true.

    Nice that people still believe in a work of fiction written over 2000 years ago.
  14. It was interesting in the Paxman interview for Professor Dawkins to posit that his goal was a search for 'truth'.

    This was an unusual term for someone so dedicated to 'scientific reason'. What is 'truth' in a biologically accidental universe? Whose truth? Yours? Mine? God's? Dawkins? How can such concepts exist to what is purely cell matter?

    He also used terms such as 'purpose'.

    These are metaphysical if not spiritual terms largely at odds with the evolutionary scientist who regards all life, love, spirit and soul, as purely biological functions and electrical brain impulses.

    It seems wholly hypocritical to present scientific theory aided by a religious lexicon to explain his gaps in knowledge.