"Proof" for creationism

Well, I'm going to have to give up for now.  I found many references to Babylonian creation similarities, and Enuma Elish, but nothing specifically linking creation using the specific names of Adam and Eve.  Found your references to floods, serpents (Gilgamesh), virgin birth in caves/stables, and even greek reference to an apple.  There are many statements about how Judaism took many different parables from 'pagan' religions and molded them into the old testament, and somewhere there was reference to more than one religion using 'Christmas' as the birth of their savior.

Too many different and vague references to list, but had pretty good luck on yahoo with "creation myths similar". 

Ah, the wonderful mysteries of religious history.
 
Gilgamesh is a specially interesting one. As for apple references... *sigh* It was an artist's interpretation, the biblical text simply says "fruit", nothing more.

@ No. 5: Quite right.
 
Onhell said:
*sigh* It was an artist's interpretation, the biblical text simply says "fruit", nothing more.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, thats correct.  I usualy joke with my kids that it was the tomato that was the fruit of knowledge of good and evil... good reason to keep them off my tacos!
Oh, and was Gilgamesh the one where the individual found a plant that provided eternal life on the ocean floor, and when he sat it down by a spring a snake stole it and shed its skin?  Something about the serpent with eternal life and thats why the snake sheds its skin?

I've been reading some diff stories all afternoon, and have some of them mixed up.
 
wasted155 said:
Oh, and was Gilgamesh the one where the individual found a plant that provided eternal life on the ocean floor, and when he sat it down by a spring a snake stole it and shed its skin?  Something about the serpent with eternal life and thats why the snake sheds its skin?

I've been reading some diff stories all afternoon, and have some of them mixed up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a flower. I forget what happens next, I think he first wants to give it to Enkidu, then himself and he finally decides to give it to the old people in his city. This of course shows the once prepotent, selfish king has become compassionate and selfless. However, the snake steals it....

Note: Gilgamesh kills a lion in a rage after Enkidu dies.... Hercules kills a lion as well with a sword (a solar symbol)... as does Samson from which carcass he later gets honey. It is believed they are all derivative of the same myth, like the thousands of Flood myths.
 
That video is a piece of crap!  I knew Kirk Cameron was religious and now I know how much of a nut he truly is.  I'm glad I never cared for any of his work.

Back on track...

I could not watch past the bit where the hummingbird and the giraffe are shown, which is the first three minutes.  I wanted to retort to my monitor screen.  Basically they're equivocating evolution with Intelligent Design by claiming that it is built on faith.  There is absolutely no attempt to try and take apart the principals of evolution.  Low-life scum that made this video do not deserve to have their mental mess deconstructed.
 
LooseCannon said:
I think the scary thing about this is that it's just another example of how Creationists are plastering the United States with propaganda to attempt to get their particular worldview into schools to supplant one they disagree with.  And these are the same people that fly thirty US flags and say how much they love the country, without understanding or accepting one of its most basic principles.
Click to expand...
Thank you Invader!
I do agree at 100% with you guys and you LooseCannon. Unfortunately the plague is seriously extending its arms across the oceans and  gets everywhere, including my country, France, where we are supposed to have an very old scientific tradition.
They managed to have a full show in a national tv progamme circa one year ago. We made a lot of noise (I'm a professional biologist) and wrote tons of email to the tv channel such that finally they decided to have a televison debate. The bastards didn't even show up the day of the show and their 30 min propaganda movie got simply destroyed by the 2 distingushed scientists who were there to discuss it.
Finally the creationists lost that peculiar battle but I'm wondering what's gonna happen next time. Sounds like a bloody retreat.
Great topic anyway Invader  :)
 
JackKnife said:
We made a lot of noise (I'm a professional biologist) and wrote tons of email to the tv channel such that finally they decided to have a televison debate. The bastards didn't even show up the day of the show and their 30 min propaganda movie got simply destroyed by the 2 distingushed scientists who were there to discuss it.
Click to expand...

During my university days, my bio profs were stating on few occasions that everytime there is a showdown between science and pseudo-science or religion the cowardly bastards always no-show. 

I'm glad people like you JK are fighting the good fight.
 
Creationists are truly scary people. Scary in the sense that they actually might have a say in what gets taught in schools, with their pseudo-sciency nonsense. I recommend the works of Richard Dawkins to anyone interested in combating this, even though some might disagree with his "militant atheism". Check out some of his talks @ TED.com, they're quite enlightening.

As for Onhell and Wasted's discussion of similarities in religious tales, Zeitgeist presents a lot of them, again in a matter not quite flattering to religion, and not quite as in-depth as you might like. Brilliant film btw, if you're not too skeptic on the whole conspiracy thing.
 
Hey, thanks for all the leads!!  I'm always up for good info and good 'ammo'.

We had a nun in my kids school that tried to ban books that spoke of evolution.  I've never seen anything like that in person-- I was ready to pull my kids at the first book missing off the shelf.  Luckily, cooler heads prevailed, and she was 're-assigned'. 
 
Thanks Hozz. I don't mind "anti-religious" material as long as it is well done. I do have a problem with "militant" whatever, whether religion or atheism.
 
I just want to point out that there are a lot of people out there who believe in the scientific rule of nature, rather than a divine one, and I may recommend www.the-brights.net for those people.  It's a community of likeminded individuals who seek to band together and reassign the negative views people generally associate with "atheism" and "agnostic" with the term "Bright".  I rather like it and have been self-identifying with that term for awhile now.
 
I've bookmarked the page.  Looks interesting especially the part about morality having a naturalistic worldview.  I'll look into the website soon enough.
 
Onhell said:
Thanks Hozz. I don't mind "anti-religious" material as long as it is well done. I do have a problem with "militant" whatever, whether religion or atheism.
Click to expand...
Watch this talk, it's not that "militant" really. It's just a name he's given it to show how serious he is.
 
I cannot remember the last time I watched anything this funny. Total bullshit, laughable attempts (the whole airplane thing) and the  fact they don't know shit. Really, everybody knows the Chimpanzee got developed at the same time as the Human species and that the Chimpanzee isn't a prehistoric ape. Everybody knows  (or at least knows that the theory of evolution says) that the Human didn't evolve from the Chimpanzee, but from a previous species of monkey. If they are supposed to be anti-evolution then they really should've done their homework before making a short movie on it. But I shouldnt be suprised.

Anyway, thanks for the good laugh, I haven't laughed that hard in ages.
 
I couldn't watch the video for more than 5 minutes.  The same way that I couldn't listen to St. Anger for more than 5 minutes.  Seriously, this is laughable.  The irony of using minority evidence, bad science and emotive language to discredit evolution is bad enough...trying to claim that a faith-based theory is somehow superior or more credible to evolution (when you've just claimed that evolution is faith-based, based on a minority of knowledge gaps) is ridiculous.  As much as I dislike Dawkins' aggressive Atheism, I think people like him are our best bet in tackling these idiots.  At least Dawkins won't burn my house down for not going to church.
 
Hozz said:
As for Onhell and Wasted's discussion of similarities in religious tales, Zeitgeist presents a lot of them, again in a matter not quite flattering to religion, and not quite as in-depth as you might like. Brilliant film btw, if you're not too skeptic on the whole conspiracy thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not a skeptic - however, I have seen that film, and it can be charitably described as "rife with inaccuracies". Or more accurately described as "full of shit". They get a few things right, but most of what it says is utterly ridiculous.
 
Yeah, the conspiracy nuts do go about as far as the creationists in their search for "evidence" that they're right, but at least this makes for an interesting watch. Doesn't beat David Icke by a long shot though.

It's not that I believe these theories, but I do enjoy watching it. The closing moments of Zeigeist, btw, are just about as far-fetched as I've seen, not counting David Icke calling the british royal family reptiles. That man's a legend.
 
LooseCannon said:
I just want to point out that there are a lot of people out there who believe in the scientific rule of nature, rather than a divine one, and I may recommend www.the-brights.net for those people.  It's a community of likeminded individuals who seek to band together and reassign the negative views people generally associate with "atheism" and "agnostic" with the term "Bright".  I rather like it and have been self-identifying with that term for awhile now.
Click to expand...

I just read their goals but it looks to me like they don't do much, at least not yet. I rather support a (political) group that not only talks, but also acts. I haven't really read on this website what they dislike about religion either.

The methods:

The Internet constituency (those who ask to be counted as Brights and provide contact information) is composed of diverse people, all of whom are adding the word to their linguistic repertoire. They will make use of the term if/when they regard it as relevant. We hope they will take advantage of occasions to employ it when conversing on related topics within the company of people they feel likely to have similar beliefs about nature, deity, mortality, etc.) so that others can become acquainted with the generic term and its meaning and consider whether or not they, too, might wish to be counted among the constellation of Brights.

Very religious!

The name is the worst part. By calling yourself "brights", the suggestion might rise that others are the "numbskulls" or something in that vein. I wrote that before checking wikipedia, but indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights#Cr ... _the_title -->

Criticism of the title
The movement has been criticised by some (both religious and non-religious) who have objected to the adoption of the title "bright" because they believe it suggests that the individuals with a naturalistic worldview are more intelligent ("brighter") than the religious. ... etc

Perhaps in the U.S.A. there's a need for something like this, and I can imagine that when people like Phelps and others are dominant factors in society, and when there's no other way to fight racism, inequality etc. The lack of political parties might also encourage sects/errr movements like these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top