Alternative Creations

The vast number of creation myths that exist is the single best argument against both Christian creationism and Christianity itself. The sheer, mindless arrogance of Christians when they claim that their story which has no supporting evidence is true while all the others aren't is stunning.Not one of them warrant study in a science classroom. None of them are science. They all warrant serious study in their own right, but none are science and none are of any greater value then any other.That is the simple fact that Christians, in their-self important assurance, always seem to miss. Exactly why is their belief any better then any other? Answer: It isn't. They are all equally factually false. They are also all equally true in the lessons they teach about what it is to be human and that is where their value lies. To actually believe any one and dismiss all the others is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.I am sure that some Christian creationist posters will take issue with my position. To them I say in advance, give me reasons why your beliefs about your creation myth are better (or more factual) that go beyond the fact that they happen to be yours. Don't waste everyone's time.

In the history of science, no perspective that says "This is what clearly happened, now let's get started proving it!" has ever been effective. The more sciectific prespectives, the better. Accepting myth as fact and then trying to prove it is of no benefit.Also, in my society it is a subset of Christians who are trying to force their beliefs on everyone, so it is them that I am concerned with.You also make the mistake of thinking that the scientific concepts of evolution are in some way an assumption. Each has been established by evidence over time, unlike any factual basis for any myth of creation. Also, the assumption that magical creation is in no way a priori. Over time, countless pieces of evidence have shown that these myths simply cannot be factual and the people who discovered these facts did not set out to disprove any creation myth. It was simply the inevitable occurence when the truth of how things work is pursued.Creationists, ID supporters, or any other kind of "creartion science" types are of course welcome to their veiws and can do everything they want to bolster them, but they have no right to expect anyone to support them or to be taken seriously as doing science.

So are you admitting Christianity has no lock on the truth? It seems you are.

Is it not also possible that the lessons common to Buddha and Christ are simply the best common sense way to live in groups with other people?

Or, if you remove personal bias, we know what works best for us as a species and we project that onto our imaginary deities.Why add the silly idea of an old man in the sky?

Very well. I will restate.Why add the silly idea of an infinite, eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful being?

Yes, it is the case. A lot of Christians don't like to admit it, but it is true.

You are admirably glib, however that is not really an answer. Given that there are myriad creation myths, none of which have any factual support, why believe in any of them?Those who have faith do so because it makes them feel good. It does that in many ways, but to think that a comforting story is real simply because it is comforting is not the act og a reasonable mind.Think deeply. Why do you believe in a divine creation when the facts as they have been discovered do not support it?

That's odd, because it seems plain to me. What lessons can we take from the flood...1. If you obedient to God's laws, you may be spared in what is otherwise a worldwide disaster.2. The big flood happened once, but God promised it will never happen again.There's two reasons. This is clear proof that you don't know what constitutes evidence. All the writings you refer to do not constitute evidence. They do corroborate each other in any real manner. The evidences for evolution are physical, studied in great detail by highly trained professionals. Simply, there is evidence for evolution. There is none for creation or a flood. Your lack of understanding of what evidence is, which I suspect will continue unabated, is what keeps you from seeing this very simple fact. The science of evolution is neither disturbing or comforting. It simply is. You should also beware of equating atheist with those who use reason rather then faith in their approach to this question, which you seem to be doing. The two are not the same. Also, atheists are hardly espousing their ideas as a way of rationalizing their sin. "Sin" is a religious concept and of no value, and atheists realize that.All this is interesting, but off topic. Again, Steve8, why do you believe in the fancies of Christianity instead of the fancies of the Norsemen, for instance?

A nice turn of phrase, but hardly accurate. The social behaviors that you for some reason choose to believe came from on high are the result of an adaptable species living in groups and doing what works best in that situation.Also, the idea that something written requires a writer is nothing more than a simple restatement of the long discredited watchmaker argument.

What is that difference? Evolution also affects behavior. How else would an evolved behavior feel? Again, adding a deity is unneeded. Why do so? Anyone who has read it and knows logic. There are several reasons.1. It implicitly requires design for complexity in it's premise and then asserts the opposite in it's conclusion.2. Another is the the metaphor is a very poor one. I have seen watches, I can go somewhere and see other watches very like the one I found being manufactured while this is not possible with life. Also, watches have no mechanism for reproducing themselves, as can be ascertained from a brief examination, while life forms do (and more importantly pass on traits to their progeny).Those are just the easy ones.