You said you can just look up in Google how creationism is wrong, but you can do the said for evolution too - it's endless.
Problem is, if you look up how "evolution is wrong," you get a bunch of shitty propaganda from idiots with few if any academic credentials. They raise arguments that have been debunked a million times over, most of which (including your favorites) are a complete joke to anybody with an IQ over 100.
If you look up why evolution is right, you can find many well-written summaries backed up by scientific material of any depth and rigor you desire -- tens if not hundreds of thousands of interesting, insightful, peer-reviewed public papers. Of course, you would be lost in all the big words, but that doesn't make them incorrect.
Also, I still believe I am the ONLY person on this thread that has studied BOTH evolution and creationism.
No, you aren't. You haven't studied evolution, or if you have, everything went in one ear and out the other. Somebody intelligent could easily study it, starting from scratch, in about half a day, and understand it much better than you do. The straw-man arguments you throw against it show very conclusively that you don't really have a clue what evolution actually says. If you want to claim you've studied it, go back and actually study it.
Creationism doesn't need to be studied in detail to be understood as bullshit, any more than astrology or phone hotline psychics or faith healers... er, wait, the last ones
are creationists. Oops.
If someone came to me right now and claimed they knew the real truth, and if I guessed right i'd get 10 million dollars, my guess would be that there is no afterlife. Seriously, who the fuck really knows?
That "who the fuck really knows?" is a much more respectable position than the religious one, but it still has one problem. We do really know.
Lots of people only think about the question like this: "hey, you can't come back from the dead, so nobody knows," as though an eyewitness account from beyond the grave would be the only way to answer the question. But it's not.
We know where the mind comes from and what it requires to function: the physical brain. Everything about who you are and every thought you have is a chemical characteristic or signal in your brain. That
doesn't diminish of those thoughts or feelings or memories, which is why I don't say it's "
just a chemical characteristic." It just makes the brain that much more interesting to study.
Neuroscientists can prod your brain with electrical signals and give you thoughts. Drugs, by chemically interacting with your brain, can give you delusions. Injuries to the brain can radically alter a person's personality or erase their memories. So can diseases like Alzheimer's. High G-forces, by cutting off the flow of blood to your brain, can make you pass out. None of these things would make any sense if the mind/soul were some abstract thing independent of the body. If it could exist after the body is gone, then surely it could not be radically changed by minor chemical trifles in the brain.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism for an external soul to exist. A mind is necessarily an extremely complex thing containing a large amount of information -- what kind of particles could hold it and keep it organized and awake? Nothing can do that... except the actual brain. So the afterlife isn't just one independent idea you're buying into -- you would have to also believe there's this complicated framework for supernatural things to exist outside the rules of everything real we've
ever observed. Statistically the odds of that are nil.
Just because an idea is designed to not be technically disprovable (like God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the afterlife) doesn't mean it has any realistic chance of being true. If you look at it realistically, without awarding it undeserved credibility just because a bunch of religious people believe in it, then it seems like a
ridiculous idea, doesn't it?
Setec, there are webmasters here who would find degoratory references to God quite offensive. I know I do.
So?
At least I'm just insulting your imaginary friend. Major Christian leaders with significant political power spend a lot of time telling most of the nation that atheists are evil people. Which is worse?
So far, Creationism does not present itself as being supported by hard evidence.
This is probably just semantics, but the most annoying thing about is that it DOES "present itself" as being supported by hard evidence. Of course it's not supported by
any evidence whatsoever, hard or soft, but creationists are constantly claiming they've got evidence. Most of them don't just throw their arms up in the air and say, "fuck it, everything points to us being wrong, but we're going to believe it anyway." Instead, they look at the credibility science attained by way of hard evidence and say, "we want some of that," so they fake it and pretend the science supports them. It's an ugly, incredibly dishonest disinformation campaign designed to rob the general public of
any understanding of basic principles of science which contradict their book of fables.
