Learn English with English, baby!

Join for FREE!

Social_nav_masthead_logged_in

English Forums

Use our English forums to learn English. The message boards are great for English questions and English answers. The more you contribute, the more all members can practice English!

:  

Life Talk!

Creationism

WobblyJoe

WobblyJoe

United States

I just read an article in which Bill Nye, of the tv show Bill Nye the Science Guy fame, says only Americans still believe in Creationism. Is that so? Does anyone else believe that?


Before I am assaulted by the Evolutionist hordes let me remind you that in my lifetime, everything I was taught about evolution (not natural selection) has been revised. The origins of man fell apart after DNA analysis and the age of the Earth has been quadrupled. Apparently carbon dating isn’t quite as spot on as we were previously assured. Gravity is a theory because we don’t know how it works, gravity itself is a fact. That the world exists is a fact, how it got here is a theory, even if some scientist says otherwise. As long as “the theory of evolution” continues to evolve and find outright errors in what it previously considered “fact”, it’s pretty arrogant to assume Creation never happened, especially since the whole theory is based on a 19th century view of time.


So what do you think? Anyone?

05:05 PM Aug 28 2012 |

The iTEP® test

  • Schedule an iTEP® test and take the official English Practice Test.

    Take Now >

Saladeen

Saladeen

Pakistan

That’s really perplexing to considered evolution theory some kind of panacea. By altering genesis accounts of humanity is like changing the history in any given time. While historians can still track the authenticity of any scripture health. On the other hand, mainstream evolutionist wants to enjoy immunity against any kind of authentication (for how can historians track down records of evolutionary science that talk about era as old as 250000yrs), and at the same time, mainstream scientific societies will be backing it in the hodgepodge of jargons. Science will enjoy in that case not only material hegemony but as well spiritual, to dominate not only how things are but also why things are, and they will get a clean sheet for whatever they fill up. Gradually it will shake the foundations of all religions and moral philosophies. And by defeating all arch rivals, mainstream evolutionary scientists will introduce robots as a model of human perfection to rule human life and pathos. There will be an end to human emotions, there will be an end of any concept of afterlife, and there will be an end to all moral obligations, the world will be duller than what Orwell’s suggest in his novel. There will be an end to any second opinion, human will work and live like robots without any rebellion.  


There are many themes and symbols in Orwell’s novel that perfectly fit into today’s arena of those who are ruling our present; technology and telescreens are taken by credit cards and internet, psychological manipulations are taken by mainstream media, physical control is taken by secret intelligentsia around the world, language as a mind control is taken by baffling and fuzzy scientific jargons, doublethink is dominant in the circle of all intellectual debates – i.e., freedom of speech when they tell you and treason when Julian Assange tells you.   


In short mainstream evolution is part not the sum of this whole scheme of mind control: Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. (George Orwell) 


While yours saying why I am not taking Orwell’s interpretation to compare religion? Simply because religion don’t constitute how of things rater why of things, while mainstream evolution wants total control of why and how both.


Due to the advent of evolutionary concepts our world is more volatile and violent. In old era, there used to be wars but not as bloody and brutal as it is now. If you take history of killings in all religious wars on the one hand, and brutal killings of humanity under the hand of secular alliances in these last 100 yrs, you will come to know there is no comparison.   


Unfortunately, now religionist (extremists) are also taking inspiration from those who don’t have any value for life, that’s why their pattern is also changing more violent. That’s why I am not talking about them as well. 


World is more unsafe environmentally (for human and for other creatures), yes there are big buildings and industries but not any clean air anymore.


 

08:41 AM Sep 06 2012 |

WobblyJoe

WobblyJoe

United States

I agree with nearly all you’ve said here but you speak of the history of war from your history’s perspective. My nation was founded by those tired of century upon century of religious wars in Europe. The numbers may not have been large but it was century upon century of one religion killing any others. The dead in WWI and II were more technology increases than morality decreases I think. The Earths number of war dead rose every century from the dawn of recorded history until 1945, then fell to a fairly consistent 1-2 million a year (I think that’s what I read and I don’t feel like looking it up). You might well be right on the relationship but personally I think the connection is greed. With no moral compass, wealth becomes the only objective measure of success for the average person. The corporations who fund these things need a greedy customer base, not one that uses only what it needs. Science, as it was in the days when it earned it’s reputation for disinterested seeking of truth, is a bit scarce nowdays it seems. New theory of evolution rewrite, new textbook sales, more funding for the biologists and geologists etc. Yes, that’s jaded. But any who question the approved theory in a serious scientific environment are shouted down. The claim is that no real scientist would still believe anything but evolution, the reality seems more like no real scientist would dare view any new discovery through any other lens. Central pillars of Mans decent have changed, yet the scientists view that as nothing more than a rewrite of a theory so old it’s no longer questioned in any serious form. At what point have they become social scientists rewriting history in a nearly science fiction environment of preconceived notions? Yes, thats jaded too, but seriously, where was the backlash from all those who taught one thing, claimed one thing, displayed one thing in every “real science” museum, then found out they were wrong. Evolutionary science is as much science as Economics. Maybe it’s whatever the most prestigious scientists believe that we are all expected to believe without question, and yet for Bill, just teaching our children that might not be right is causing harm.

09:35 PM Sep 06 2012 |

ola33

ola33

Japan

Well, we all were watching the movie how the Earth was born. Big impact, some kind of rocks, lava, water, air… and then the next shot on the screen is the evolution taking place. It’s all understandable, but there’s one missing link here. Who created a DNA. Where did it come from? From the rock, from the air? from the lava? Impossible. That’s the question! Who created those living organisms-  the beginning of the evolution? Nobody proved yet and will never will… ;)

10:21 PM Sep 06 2012 |

Saladeen

Saladeen

Pakistan

 The dead inWWI and II were more technology increases than morality decreases I think.


Incline in greed/lust is decline in morals. And only those who preach more and more wealth (irrespective of any moral principles) are same who don’t believe in afterlife, because for them this is their only life and there will be nothing for the next, hence decline in morals.


Here you answer yourself:


> But personally I think the connection is greed. With no moral compass, wealth becomes the only objective measure of success for the average person. The corporations who fund these things need a greedy customer base, not one that uses only what it needs. Science, as it was in the days when it earned it’s reputation for disinterested seeking of truth, is a bit scarce nowdays it seems.


.............................


Just a little correction don’t restrict yourself to to ww1 and ww2 but as well to wars launched by imperialist, and onwards till now.


............................


The Earths number of war dead rose every century from the dawn of recorded history until 1945, then fell to a fairly consistent 1-2 million a year (I think that’s what I read and I don’t feel like looking it up).


But there is no such precedent to these last 100-200 years.


................................................


Yes, that’s jaded. But any who question the approved theory in a serious scientific environment are shouted down. The claim is that no real scientist would still believe anything but evolution, the reality seems more like no real scientist would dare view any new discovery through any other lens.


The same tone I experienced in Orwell’s, 1984, that the minds of members of the party were washed to the extent that most of them were not conscious regarding past declarations (principles), and to compare health of past declarations with polar opposite new alterations (altered principles). And those who were aware were silent because of fear of consequences.


Might be fear for them (the members of scientific society) is that they will be labeled as ignorant/creationists (if they raise objection to alterations and modifications). Hence, doors for them will be closed forever. 






08:13 AM Sep 07 2012 |

Saladeen

Saladeen

Pakistan

There is another interesting term ‘Newspeak’ in Orwell’s 1984, that is to introduce new vocabularies into the system to delude old ones for deception.


Here I found something very interesting (unexpectedly): ;)


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/the_newspeak_of_evolutionary_b045551.html

09:43 AM Sep 07 2012 |

WobblyJoe

WobblyJoe

United States

Yes, an increase in greed is a decrease in morals. You’re right. I was trying to mean that that corporations use wealth and position to encourage both the idea of accumulation of wealth as a measure of success in an immoral society and the idea that greed isn’t wrong because there is no god. If that didn’t come across, I must have phrased it badly.


Great link. It shows exactly what’s wrong. Purest Semantics. Not science, word games.


 

01:52 PM Sep 07 2012 |

Saladeen

Saladeen

Pakistan

I agree, science deals seperately in each category, I.e. physics, botany, chemistry, zoology etc, Darwanism (words games) on other hand constructs a fiction capitalizing on few facts from each while avoiding that fit into their novels. And time after time they alter and disappear embarassing documents, photographs, transcript or other record. This is exactly ‘Memory Hole’ (another term from, 1984).


Thanks for the post and nice talking to you!

08:37 AM Sep 08 2012 |

sofialover

sofialover

Rwanda

My Dear
how are you doing? I am Sofia,i saw your profile today and i love it. i have no options than letting you Know that I am interested in having a relationship with you contact me at my email () so that we can know each other well an i will send you my pic hope to hear from you again
Sofia,

04:45 AM Sep 13 2012 |

gibsea

gibsea

France

Response to ola33


Yes, it’s impossible to begin the life with DNA. DNA is a very complex molecule and for duplication, it needs lot of other molecules, tRNA, rRNA … The diference between RNA and DNA is an oxygen atom. This atom is very reactive and with it the RNA molecule works like an enzyme… With this atom the RNA molecule can duplicate itself alone. The first stage of the life is a RNA life, not a DNA life!! In meteorites fallen on Earth, we find the basic elements of those molecules, the nucleobases. The second stage is important because the RNA life is instable… The oxygene atom is too reactive! The DNA is better for transmitting genetic information and with all the RNA around it’s now easy to replicate…

03:50 PM Sep 13 2012 |

ola33

ola33

Japan

Gibsea, thank you very much! I see, now.

11:20 PM Sep 13 2012 |