So, quantum science is going to have to somehow intergrate with religion, it would seem. How could you possibly call ALL Shaman's charlatans? That's just lazy thinking. To me there is just no way our ancestors had it 100% wrong on God.//
How could 100% of our ancestors be wrong on the flat earth theory?
Or on the order of creation days where the god of genesis creates vegetation before the sun?...
I could go on... and your comment on " science is going to have to somehow intergrate with religion" is most absurd and one track minded.
Science has clearly debunked the Bible on so many levels, that it's historical accuracey is no more proof than many of our action movies today also based in real history.
How is creationism DISPROVED?
I'm totally arguing against the winds of wishful thinking here. I must move on to more intellegent debates.
Sab actually believes this:
" That's why I think our entire civilization is in a secret war. Look at what happened with the weather so close to election day. It could have been an attack, but from who?"
I rest my case.
Kudos to Etude's excellent presentation. He or she has much more patience than I. Very well argued...
Wow did this get off topic...
In reality creationism cannot be disproved because there isn't enought knowledge on how things came to be. However creation according to the bible can be disproved. It can be disproved because it conflicts directly with timelines that have been established by science regarding the existence of men in this planet. We can be sure about something : The first man was not created 6000 years ago. To believe in this would be to bury your head in the sand and ignore scores of archeological evidence.
What we also know is that the ADAM and EVE story is not true. The genetic makeup of mankind didn't bottleneck 6000 years ago down to 2 individuals. It's simply impossible.
I know that many now are saying that the universe may be eternal and there have been infinite Big Bangs, but I see that a bit as a cop out. It avoids the need for an initial cause. . . . CA
To call it a cop out is purely a dismissive bias CA . . . and a bit of a surprise coming from you. Perhaps the bias is created by the believer's need for an initial cause . . . which actually makes your dismissal of it the cop out. It's only a cop out if it is used to dismiss all other arguments . . . but is still a hypothesis with some merit that remains a possibility. It is certainly not exceeded by the claim for God being the initial cause. Nothing is being avoided or dismissed . . . or should be.
I agree with sizemik that to call eternal nature or Universe a cop out is indeed purely a dismissive bias. It's a possibility, and deserves at least consideration. I have more a problem with our human intellectual limitations that would assert that there is such a thing as an "initial cause" (while totally ignoring the need for an initial cause for the existance of a creator of the universe). It is also a possibility (and not a new idea).
Actually, even as a kid I could not understand why theists like my parents had no problem with a god that always existed, while mocking atheists because they couldn't explain a first cause. I was 12 years old when I concluded that this was an immense hypocrisy - or at the least, a double standard.
So to CA's phrase, " but I see that a bit as a cop out. It avoids the need for an initial cause..." so does the idea of God.