Religious poppycock aka creationism

It’s time people called time on the poppycock that is creationism.

We mock our ancestors who believed the world was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe, that sinners would be sent to eternal damnation. And yet, in a world where science has opened many doors and explained many things, there are millions who defy logic and take in every word of the bible as if it was the contemporary report of the previous day in parliament rather than something based on folklore and tales passed down – and embellished – through generations.

Science proves things. Religion is based on quite the opposite. If people chose to believe in it, good for them. But when they chose to force others to listen to outright twaddle and then have teachers, individuals with great responsibility and influence, to present the twaddle as possible fact, then we have a problem.

The earth is 4.5 billion years or so old. Not a few thousand. Dinosaurs roamed for 300 million of those years and not for a few hundred alongside our ancestors. What creationists believe is as real as Humpty Dumpty or Aesops Fables. In their place all are fine but not when people start pretending they are real.


Filed under religion

5 responses to “Religious poppycock aka creationism

  1. joshinprogress

    Good point. It is true that our ancestors were wrong about a great many things, including the earth’s shape and its location in the universe. These things, and many more, have been proven false by scientific observation, theory, experimentation, and finally a logical conclusion based on the findings from this process. I notice you lumped the belief in eternal Hell in with these false ideas. Has anyone been to or observed Hell? Not anyone we could talk to. So how can you say this belief is as fallible as the others mentioned? This is just some food for thought.
    About religion, creationsim, ect… You say science proves things. That is an accurate statement. Through the method I described above, we can prove or disprove theories. So, let’s set the Bible aside, for a moment, (yes, I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible) and let’s just look at true science for now.
    You claim the earth’s age to be about 4.5 billion years old. Let’s just think about that for a moment. How have scientists come up with these ages? Various dating methods are used.

    Radioisotope dating is used to measure the age of rocks by the time it takes elements (like uranium) to decay radioactively into daughter elements (lead, in this case). The problem is that the original conditions of the rock are no accurately known, nor that other processes besides radioactivity caused decay, or that the decay rate remained constant. Many assumptions need be made in this method.

    Carbon-14 dating is used to measure ages of once-living things. All living organisms take in C14 while they are alive. When they die, they stop taking in C14, and the C14 in the body begions to decay. While the organism was alive, it also took in C12. This element is stable, however, and remains constant. So, scientists age the organism by measuring the amount of C14 vs. C12. They use a certain ratio (1 C14 atom to 1 trillion C12 atoms) to determine the age. The problem with this is that the amount of C14 in the organism when it died is unknown. Noone was there to measure it. Also, it is assumed that this critical ratio (1 to 1 trillion) has always been the same as it is today. If this is true, then C14 dating is only valid for up to 80,000 years. After that, it would give false ages.

    If you would like more information on these and many more topics, I would encourage you to vist the website:

    You say that when creation is taught as science, we have a problem. I submit to you that the problem begins when faulty science is taught as truth. Is evolution true science? It takes just as much faith (maybe more) to believe that we are here due to the random chance processes that evolution suggests, as it does to believe that we have a Creator God that amazingly designed our universe, from the smallest atom to the stars and planets.

    Think about it.

  2. Tony

    Point taken, but what we are arguing about here is the exact age. I am happy to give a billion years here and there!!

    What is not disputed by anyone who is not blinkered by religion is that the biblical theory of how the earth/universe was created is simply not credible. It was written to explain what was at the time the inexplicable. If you couldn’t understand then it had to be some unknown force at work.

    Given what we know now, it is so obviously not right. I am not questioning people’s right to believe, but I am questioning their right to have what amounts to superstition passed off as something far more based on fact.

  3. I understand your point, but what do we know now? The issue is that evolution cannot be proven through scientific means, therefore it is a faith-based religion. Yes, we know more facts, like the speed of light and nuclear physics, but do even these move us closer to proving a life-from-non-life theory true? When has any lab been able to produce life from non-life? It is an impossiblity, scientificaly speaking. So a logical conclusion is that the universe began supernaturally.
    Another way to look at this issue is the fossil record. According to the millions of years theory, there should be thousands, even millions of transitional form fossils. (what I mean is fossils showing one kind of animal evolving to another kind) But there aren’t any. A logical summary is that living things were created ‘after their own kind”, as stated in Genesis 1 & 2.
    I know you are not intrested in a sermon, but I believe there is overwhelming evidence that science and the Bible dovetail together nicely. True science will never contradict the Bible, but religion will.
    It just doesn’t make sense.

  4. It is a shame when Creatioism is pushed forward forcefully denying rational thinking people the chance to understand True Faith.
    My favourite quote comes from Job (the oldest book in the bible, older than Genesis in fact) when God says:
    “Where were you when I laid the Earths Foundations ?”
    The Bible is not a science book & should not be seen or taught as such.

  5. P.G. Tips,
    I respectfully counter that I have not once denied anyone a chance to understand true faith. I have, on the contrary, given evidence that we need true faith to believe either origin belief: Creation or Evolution. Both are believed by individuals and groups throughout the world as fact. But, seeing that no one was there to observe it, we must rely mainly on faith as to which one we accept as truth.
    The verse you referred to in Job clearly points to the fact that we were not there, yes, that is fact.
    But you use this verse to say that because we were not there, we must, without question, accept man’s theories over the Genesis account. But what about the second part of the verse? “…when I laid the foundations thereof.”? God is clearly stating His creative act that you are denying. How can we only accept part of God’s Word? It is either all correct or all false because the same person (God) wrote the entire 66 books.
    People have somehow seperated science and the Creator of Science.
    How could the unchanging laws that our universe exists by have come about through random chance process? This and my other questions have not been answered as of yet. I choose to believe the Genesis, literal 6 day, creation account. It is for all of us to choose what he/she will believe. The question is,
    “Why do I believe it?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s