Holy Roman Empire? You think that there were arenas in Germany during the middle ages? Remember the mnemonic: 'The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.'
The laptop does not 'create'. The user creates the situation. It's not as though the student comes into a classroom, sits down, and BAM! Out of nowhere a laptop appears, and the student is then reduced by having it there out of no personal initiative. No, the student brings the laptop. If that creates a negative situation for them, they must recognize it and stop bring it or suffer the consequences of their actions and choices.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise that the presence of a thing may intrinsically alter behavior, but I do disagree that in this scenario that applies, because that presence is as controlled by the student as the interaction with the thing (transferring that control away from the student to 'protect' those that 'need protecting' (from themselves) while harming those that don't is pure paternalism and encourages the abdication of personal responsibility to exterior control). Also, while presence may in the abstract increase the likelihood of use, that does not absolve a user of responsibility nor does it transfer the responsibility of use to the object making it moral in any way.
I also found that after the first year the problem dropped off significantly. I believe most of the people not paying attention didn't make it to second year or, in at least one case, wised up.
This is the key. Irresponsible adults punish themselves when the effects of their actions come home to roost, and then they either fix themselves or fail out. There is no need to impact others who for whatever reason specific to them are benefited.
You do, as you say, have a reasonable right not to be distracted. It is subjective what is an unreasonable distraction as each person's experience varies. I think we ultimately agree these decisions must be made on a case by case basis instead of being sledgehammered by bans.
This is not a strawman argument. It is the ethical core of what you are saying.
"Allowing me the option to fully tune out would have been a mistake" == "You want others to save you from yourself, at the cost of the freedom of your peers who may not share your deficiencies."
You are assuming everybody shares your deficiencies, shares them equally, and that they all need to be controlled because you feel you need to be controlled.
You're conflating systems of rule with freedom or lack thereof. This is false, and the real strawman in the room. If a democracy through tyranny of the majority decides x, y, z freedoms are denied, that doesn't make it less democratic, just less free. If an autocracy decides x, y, z freedoms are granted, that doesn't make it less autocratic, just more free. These systems don't decide freedom or lack inherently (except where suffrage and other inclusions are concerned), they only describe the structure from which authority to grant or deny freedoms proceeds.
I do not deny that a professor is an autocrat and can decide the terms under which his class is conducted (within rational limits and subject to review and redress through the established administrative hierarchy that is ultimately responsible to the students as paying consumers of a service). That does not mean that the reasoning cannot be questioned, and it certainly does not mean that the ethical analysis of other students or their anecdotal experiences are automatically correct and should be utilized as guiding principles!
Please take political science again, and a course in logic while you're at it.
You're comparing laptop use in class to texting while driving? Really? Either way, it does not negate the ethical foundation. You make a mistake and you pay for it. In class that means you fail, in a car that means damage, injury or death, and criminal liability. You are correct that texting is viable to be banned because the outcome of a failure affects others non-voluntarily. When somebody texts while driving and crashes, the person they crash into can't say 'no, don't crash into me' and have that crash not happen.
This is where your analogy fails when you try to say "you might get away with playing Facebook games indefinitely, but you're more likely to or cause someone else to miss an import point". That other person using Facebook or whatever does so voluntarily. Both people are voluntary actors, both have the same decision to make, and if one person's efficacy is diminished more than the other, that does not transfer responsibility/liability to the the first voluntary actor.
Your anecdote only demonstrates your own sensitivity. You also were able to adapt rather than force somebody to accommodate your sensitivity at the cost of their freedom and potential efficacy (some are improved, others are reduced, depending on their character and how they use the tool, not the amoral tool itself).
Your cute pithy conclusion is fraught with personal bias. You judge that because your experience and methodology allowed you to succeed, no other competing methodology is able to succeed. Because some others failed using a different methodology, you assume all others must necessarily fail based on your anecdotal experience. You need to be more wary of such conceited reasoning.
This is so absolutely true. Somebody who is eager to learn will do so even from the poorest teacher, but the best teacher in the world cannot force improvement in the unwilling.
You want others to save you from yourself, at the cost of the freedom of your peers who may not share your deficiencies. How noble. No doubt you love the trend government has taken over the last few decades.
Technology does not hinder education, people hinder themselves. Tools are amoral. The have no character, no conscience. Those people you observed were not the captives of their computers, forced to play games. They chose to do that, and they are adults, responsible for their decisions and their outcomes. It is not up to professors to save people from themselves. Laptops improved my efficacy in both high school and college, if their use diminished others' efficacy, it is up to those people to restrain themselves, rather than indirectly causing my own efficacy to be reduced. If they fail from a lazy and deficient character, they have punished themselves. There is no need to punish or restrain others without problems for the mistakes of those with problems.
Your falsification depends on the accuracy of your personal bias. You feel that because when you doodle your attention is less absorbed than when you play Facebook games or use IM, therefore all people must share this experience equally. This is a highly irrational conceit, and does not take into account the different degrees with which different people are able to multitask and/or focus.
They did verify the source. That doesn't mean the source is infallible (or if you're into conspiracy theories, maybe D&H was more important to NewEgg than IPEX, and so they're scapegoating the latter for the former, and the original source was right...).
If you have a news item about something that happened at company, and low level person there gives you some information, are you just going to ignore it? Please.
Yeah, I just imagined working in raised-floor, climate-controlled rooms. You don't know shit about me, nor could you from a four word drive-by. You just want to put people down because it does something for you. That behavior demonstrates that you are a pitiful excuse for a decent human being, congratulations! Piss off.
Yeah, seriously. I worked for a mid-size company that had a very modest server farm (it was a retail-related business), and even we had everything switch to diesel at the instant the grid might go down. Since our switches were POE, and our phone were VOIP, and our computers were laptops, it was like there was no power outage at all. We'd be on the phone with one of our stores and just say 'oh, the power went out, well, back to your issue...'
It's hard to believe that freakin' Google wouldn't be at that level...
It's bad enough when Christians won't even think about everything outside the Bible, but when you cherry pick the things from the Bible that you choose to believe or disbelieve, you're unreachable. You have crafted your own reality for your own comfort, and probably only years of work could bring you to sanity. I am not the one to do it.
It occurred to me a little later how fundamentally incompatible cultural relativism is with even the broadest strokes of the New Testament. Do you fail to realize the whole point of books like Romans, Ephesians, 1&2 Corinthians, etc.? It's Paul saying to each local society, 'I don't care what your society accepts, this is the way you will run your church, this is the way you must act in order to be good Christian.' And don't give me any crap about how the given doctrine is localized. It's like federal law and the Supreme Court, if a case regarding federal law from Chicago comes before the Supreme Court, their ruling doesn't apply to just Chicago, but how that federal law applies to the whole nation. Rule once, apply everywhere.
If the Bible is so anachronistic, misinterpreted, misinterpretable, and biased, why base your life on it? Why are the human authors of the Bible the ones who are given credence as divinely inspired, but not the author(s) of the Quran, the Vedas, the Eddur, the Avesta, etc. etc.?
Also, you haven't answered how a relative doctrine can be used as a foundation for moral law. Is sin relative or absolute? How is either just?
Since I'm having essentially the same debate with another person, and he got the link post last time, I will refer you here for the primary argument and make only a few minor additional statements tailored to your point.
It most certainly is not irrelevant. People are being killed every year because radicals claim they are following religious doctrine because their group's interpretation is that they should kill people. Nobody can say atheism tells them to do anything, because atheism is only a lack of belief, it contains no system for action. It doesn't tell anybody to do anything. You can say these religious radicals are getting it wrong, but that doesn't make the catalyst go away, that catalyst is ambiguous doctrine given authority by the concept of divine inspiration.
The religious nutjobs who carried out the 9/11 attacks did so because it was what they believed their religion directly indicated they should do. Mao didn't kill people because he was an atheist, but for completely different, politically-motivated reasons. I'm not judging people on historical acts, I'm judging people on their historical motivations, because without motivation there is no act. It's just not a valid comparison. One, religion, is a cause, the other, atheism, is not. The end.
If religion changes as the world changes, what is the point? That's a completely secular attitude, and antithetical to Christian doctrine that believers are supposed to be separated from the world (per 2 Corinthians 6:17).
Abrahamic religion is not compatible with relativism. The whole point of the divine in Abrahamic religions is that it is an immutable, unchanging, rock-solid foundation to which everything else is relative, and by following it and not the capricious material world and society you can attain righteousness. It is completely irrational to think that X act is sin to an eternal immutable God in the year 100, but X act is A-OK to the same God in the year 2100. Either X act is a sin against God's moral law, or it isn't. Period. Forever.*
If you say that any given contemporary society decides morality, you are placing the authority of right and wrong with society instead of God. That makes you clearly a weaker Christian, if Christian you could still even be called. I myself was a Christian from age 3 to 17, during which I was required to study the Bible five days a week for NINE YEARS (and 3rd party Biblical criticisms, ugh). I'm not just some jackass pulling things I don't really understand from SAB (though it is a great resource).
It is unnatural and unreasonable to raise up a single book and say 'everything in here is right' and the human spirit bridles against it. Of course you want to look at it and say 'well X in the Bible is good and Y in the Bible is bad.' However, here you have just become secular. That's what I do with all books. I decide what's right and wrong in all of them, trying to synthesize the best and use them productively. I get to do that because I am secular. I decide. If you are a Christian, God decides. It is up to God to say what is right or wrong, sinful or righteous, not you, not your priest or pastor, and sure as hell not 'contemporary society.'
Where does interpretation and translation come into this? Sects. Catholics, Gnostics, Copts, Lutherans, Unitarians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc. etc. on and on. Each believes they know the 'real' meaning. Some are more tolerant than others of competing interpretations, but sectarianism by and large does not deny the primacy of scripture. Sects are affected by social change, but as I mentioned earlier, (the Judeo-Christian idea of) God is not. Which sect is closest to the ideal I don't care, but it is an absolute, because the moral law of God must be absolute. Otherwise judgement day would be pretty retarded:
'Alright, who's next. Bob Dingo, you committed X and are damned for it.' Bob says, 'Hey, wait a minute, you just judged Bill over there, he did that, but he was damned for something else!' God says, 'Oh, well, yes, but you see you did it the 1920 in the US, and he did it in the year 2020 in the UK. Didn't you know sin was relative to social conditions? Guess I forgot to tell the apostles that, terribly sorry, enjoy hell, next.'
If you want to make the primary decisions about right and wrong in your life, be secular. If you want to abdicate those primary decisions to God, be religious.
*The exception being Christ's fulfillment of Judaic Law, but that was something God said would happen from the beginning of sin (which is itself a violation of the concept, but religion isn't rational), and it is understood to be a one off. So until Christ comes back and says different, the New Testament is absolute and immutable as a moral code and defines sin vs. righteousness.
You're missing the point. Pudge was arguing that Christianity does not require that contradictory evidence be discounted. I am not saying that if creation is wrong (which I have not even actively asserted except by extension that if there is no god then there can be no creation) that makes evolution/abiogenesis/big-bang theory correct by default. That would be nonsense. What I say is that evolution/abiogenesis/big-bang theory are more rational because they are based on observations and verifiable, reproducible tests.
Also, trying to discredit the big-bang theory by saying aircraft are not assembled by hurricanes is as absurdly weak as the 9/11 truthers who light a fire between two cinder blocks vertically separated by metal and claim that is conclusive proof that it would have been impossible for the steel beams of the twin towers to melt within a solid firestorm accelerated by jet fuel. By your logic, creation is false because nobody has ever seen anything created from nothing.
If the universe as we know it effectively began through the destabilization of a unbelievably massive singularity, that's a condition that has never existed since. Obviously, all the material in the universe has expanded to its current state, so the conditions don't exist for a similarly sized singularity to destabilize again. The theory is simply based on our understanding of physical laws and the reverse extrapolation of the currently observed behavior of material.
My 'belief' in so far as I believe my own eyes when I look at the astronomical data is different from creationism in that it is based on observable phenomena. As I said before, nobody has ever seen a 'divine creation', but you would choose to believe this imaginative invention over the known fact that material in the universe is expanding in certain directions at certain rates, and if it were possible to run time backwards all that material would be at a common point. You want to believe a fabrication, I look at evidence and draw a rational conclusion. If new evidence arises that disproves the hypothesis (as there is an upstart theory that rather than a singularity the universe is a sort of emission from a zero entropy plane caused by quantum mechanical uncertainty) I will summarily discard it. The rational mind does not marry itself to ideas in the face of contradictory evidence.
All your other comments are puerile, and I expect I'm wasting my time detailing all this to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy Roman Empire? You think that there were arenas in Germany during the middle ages? Remember the mnemonic: 'The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.'
The laptop does not 'create'. The user creates the situation. It's not as though the student comes into a classroom, sits down, and BAM! Out of nowhere a laptop appears, and the student is then reduced by having it there out of no personal initiative. No, the student brings the laptop. If that creates a negative situation for them, they must recognize it and stop bring it or suffer the consequences of their actions and choices.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise that the presence of a thing may intrinsically alter behavior, but I do disagree that in this scenario that applies, because that presence is as controlled by the student as the interaction with the thing (transferring that control away from the student to 'protect' those that 'need protecting' (from themselves) while harming those that don't is pure paternalism and encourages the abdication of personal responsibility to exterior control). Also, while presence may in the abstract increase the likelihood of use, that does not absolve a user of responsibility nor does it transfer the responsibility of use to the object making it moral in any way.
I also found that after the first year the problem dropped off significantly. I believe most of the people not paying attention didn't make it to second year or, in at least one case, wised up.
This is the key. Irresponsible adults punish themselves when the effects of their actions come home to roost, and then they either fix themselves or fail out. There is no need to impact others who for whatever reason specific to them are benefited.
You do, as you say, have a reasonable right not to be distracted. It is subjective what is an unreasonable distraction as each person's experience varies. I think we ultimately agree these decisions must be made on a case by case basis instead of being sledgehammered by bans.
I wish there were more people like you in the world. Your grasp of interpersonal ethics is, in my estimation, faultless.
This is not a strawman argument. It is the ethical core of what you are saying.
"Allowing me the option to fully tune out would have been a mistake" == "You want others to save you from yourself, at the cost of the freedom of your peers who may not share your deficiencies."
You are assuming everybody shares your deficiencies, shares them equally, and that they all need to be controlled because you feel you need to be controlled.
You're conflating systems of rule with freedom or lack thereof. This is false, and the real strawman in the room. If a democracy through tyranny of the majority decides x, y, z freedoms are denied, that doesn't make it less democratic, just less free. If an autocracy decides x, y, z freedoms are granted, that doesn't make it less autocratic, just more free. These systems don't decide freedom or lack inherently (except where suffrage and other inclusions are concerned), they only describe the structure from which authority to grant or deny freedoms proceeds.
I do not deny that a professor is an autocrat and can decide the terms under which his class is conducted (within rational limits and subject to review and redress through the established administrative hierarchy that is ultimately responsible to the students as paying consumers of a service). That does not mean that the reasoning cannot be questioned, and it certainly does not mean that the ethical analysis of other students or their anecdotal experiences are automatically correct and should be utilized as guiding principles!
Please take political science again, and a course in logic while you're at it.
You're comparing laptop use in class to texting while driving? Really? Either way, it does not negate the ethical foundation. You make a mistake and you pay for it. In class that means you fail, in a car that means damage, injury or death, and criminal liability. You are correct that texting is viable to be banned because the outcome of a failure affects others non-voluntarily. When somebody texts while driving and crashes, the person they crash into can't say 'no, don't crash into me' and have that crash not happen.
This is where your analogy fails when you try to say "you might get away with playing Facebook games indefinitely, but you're more likely to or cause someone else to miss an import point". That other person using Facebook or whatever does so voluntarily. Both people are voluntary actors, both have the same decision to make, and if one person's efficacy is diminished more than the other, that does not transfer responsibility/liability to the the first voluntary actor.
Your anecdote only demonstrates your own sensitivity. You also were able to adapt rather than force somebody to accommodate your sensitivity at the cost of their freedom and potential efficacy (some are improved, others are reduced, depending on their character and how they use the tool, not the amoral tool itself).
Your cute pithy conclusion is fraught with personal bias. You judge that because your experience and methodology allowed you to succeed, no other competing methodology is able to succeed. Because some others failed using a different methodology, you assume all others must necessarily fail based on your anecdotal experience. You need to be more wary of such conceited reasoning.
This is so absolutely true. Somebody who is eager to learn will do so even from the poorest teacher, but the best teacher in the world cannot force improvement in the unwilling.
You want others to save you from yourself, at the cost of the freedom of your peers who may not share your deficiencies. How noble. No doubt you love the trend government has taken over the last few decades.
Technology does not hinder education, people hinder themselves. Tools are amoral. The have no character, no conscience. Those people you observed were not the captives of their computers, forced to play games. They chose to do that, and they are adults, responsible for their decisions and their outcomes. It is not up to professors to save people from themselves. Laptops improved my efficacy in both high school and college, if their use diminished others' efficacy, it is up to those people to restrain themselves, rather than indirectly causing my own efficacy to be reduced. If they fail from a lazy and deficient character, they have punished themselves. There is no need to punish or restrain others without problems for the mistakes of those with problems.
Your falsification depends on the accuracy of your personal bias. You feel that because when you doodle your attention is less absorbed than when you play Facebook games or use IM, therefore all people must share this experience equally. This is a highly irrational conceit, and does not take into account the different degrees with which different people are able to multitask and/or focus.
They did verify the source. That doesn't mean the source is infallible (or if you're into conspiracy theories, maybe D&H was more important to NewEgg than IPEX, and so they're scapegoating the latter for the former, and the original source was right...).
If you have a news item about something that happened at company, and low level person there gives you some information, are you just going to ignore it? Please.
I do first and second line tech support you insensitive clod!
Apparently you think the Mariposa botnet is a... Linux distro? What are you smoking?
You would do better to see his reply to your reply. He's already putting you in your place so well that any similar effort by me would be redundant.
Yeah, I just imagined working in raised-floor, climate-controlled rooms. You don't know shit about me, nor could you from a four word drive-by. You just want to put people down because it does something for you. That behavior demonstrates that you are a pitiful excuse for a decent human being, congratulations! Piss off.
lol no UPS = fail
Yeah, seriously. I worked for a mid-size company that had a very modest server farm (it was a retail-related business), and even we had everything switch to diesel at the instant the grid might go down. Since our switches were POE, and our phone were VOIP, and our computers were laptops, it was like there was no power outage at all. We'd be on the phone with one of our stores and just say 'oh, the power went out, well, back to your issue...'
It's hard to believe that freakin' Google wouldn't be at that level...
You point was so insightful I sent the link to my wife. No doubt you will be moderated rightly into orbit, but due to lack of points not by me.
It's bad enough when Christians won't even think about everything outside the Bible, but when you cherry pick the things from the Bible that you choose to believe or disbelieve, you're unreachable. You have crafted your own reality for your own comfort, and probably only years of work could bring you to sanity. I am not the one to do it.
Also, this.
It occurred to me a little later how fundamentally incompatible cultural relativism is with even the broadest strokes of the New Testament. Do you fail to realize the whole point of books like Romans, Ephesians, 1&2 Corinthians, etc.? It's Paul saying to each local society, 'I don't care what your society accepts, this is the way you will run your church, this is the way you must act in order to be good Christian.' And don't give me any crap about how the given doctrine is localized. It's like federal law and the Supreme Court, if a case regarding federal law from Chicago comes before the Supreme Court, their ruling doesn't apply to just Chicago, but how that federal law applies to the whole nation. Rule once, apply everywhere.
If the Bible is so anachronistic, misinterpreted, misinterpretable, and biased, why base your life on it? Why are the human authors of the Bible the ones who are given credence as divinely inspired, but not the author(s) of the Quran, the Vedas, the Eddur, the Avesta, etc. etc.?
Also, you haven't answered how a relative doctrine can be used as a foundation for moral law. Is sin relative or absolute? How is either just?
Since I'm having essentially the same debate with another person, and he got the link post last time, I will refer you here for the primary argument and make only a few minor additional statements tailored to your point.
It most certainly is not irrelevant. People are being killed every year because radicals claim they are following religious doctrine because their group's interpretation is that they should kill people. Nobody can say atheism tells them to do anything, because atheism is only a lack of belief, it contains no system for action. It doesn't tell anybody to do anything. You can say these religious radicals are getting it wrong, but that doesn't make the catalyst go away, that catalyst is ambiguous doctrine given authority by the concept of divine inspiration.
The religious nutjobs who carried out the 9/11 attacks did so because it was what they believed their religion directly indicated they should do. Mao didn't kill people because he was an atheist, but for completely different, politically-motivated reasons. I'm not judging people on historical acts, I'm judging people on their historical motivations, because without motivation there is no act. It's just not a valid comparison. One, religion, is a cause, the other, atheism, is not. The end.
If religion changes as the world changes, what is the point? That's a completely secular attitude, and antithetical to Christian doctrine that believers are supposed to be separated from the world (per 2 Corinthians 6:17).
Abrahamic religion is not compatible with relativism. The whole point of the divine in Abrahamic religions is that it is an immutable, unchanging, rock-solid foundation to which everything else is relative, and by following it and not the capricious material world and society you can attain righteousness. It is completely irrational to think that X act is sin to an eternal immutable God in the year 100, but X act is A-OK to the same God in the year 2100. Either X act is a sin against God's moral law, or it isn't. Period. Forever.*
If you say that any given contemporary society decides morality, you are placing the authority of right and wrong with society instead of God. That makes you clearly a weaker Christian, if Christian you could still even be called. I myself was a Christian from age 3 to 17, during which I was required to study the Bible five days a week for NINE YEARS (and 3rd party Biblical criticisms, ugh). I'm not just some jackass pulling things I don't really understand from SAB (though it is a great resource).
It is unnatural and unreasonable to raise up a single book and say 'everything in here is right' and the human spirit bridles against it. Of course you want to look at it and say 'well X in the Bible is good and Y in the Bible is bad.' However, here you have just become secular. That's what I do with all books. I decide what's right and wrong in all of them, trying to synthesize the best and use them productively. I get to do that because I am secular. I decide. If you are a Christian, God decides. It is up to God to say what is right or wrong, sinful or righteous, not you, not your priest or pastor, and sure as hell not 'contemporary society.'
Where does interpretation and translation come into this? Sects. Catholics, Gnostics, Copts, Lutherans, Unitarians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc. etc. on and on. Each believes they know the 'real' meaning. Some are more tolerant than others of competing interpretations, but sectarianism by and large does not deny the primacy of scripture. Sects are affected by social change, but as I mentioned earlier, (the Judeo-Christian idea of) God is not. Which sect is closest to the ideal I don't care, but it is an absolute, because the moral law of God must be absolute. Otherwise judgement day would be pretty retarded:
'Alright, who's next. Bob Dingo, you committed X and are damned for it.' Bob says, 'Hey, wait a minute, you just judged Bill over there, he did that, but he was damned for something else!' God says, 'Oh, well, yes, but you see you did it the 1920 in the US, and he did it in the year 2020 in the UK. Didn't you know sin was relative to social conditions? Guess I forgot to tell the apostles that, terribly sorry, enjoy hell, next.'
If you want to make the primary decisions about right and wrong in your life, be secular. If you want to abdicate those primary decisions to God, be religious.
*The exception being Christ's fulfillment of Judaic Law, but that was something God said would happen from the beginning of sin (which is itself a violation of the concept, but religion isn't rational), and it is understood to be a one off. So until Christ comes back and says different, the New Testament is absolute and immutable as a moral code and defines sin vs. righteousness.
You're missing the point. Pudge was arguing that Christianity does not require that contradictory evidence be discounted. I am not saying that if creation is wrong (which I have not even actively asserted except by extension that if there is no god then there can be no creation) that makes evolution/abiogenesis/big-bang theory correct by default. That would be nonsense. What I say is that evolution/abiogenesis/big-bang theory are more rational because they are based on observations and verifiable, reproducible tests.
Also, trying to discredit the big-bang theory by saying aircraft are not assembled by hurricanes is as absurdly weak as the 9/11 truthers who light a fire between two cinder blocks vertically separated by metal and claim that is conclusive proof that it would have been impossible for the steel beams of the twin towers to melt within a solid firestorm accelerated by jet fuel. By your logic, creation is false because nobody has ever seen anything created from nothing.
If the universe as we know it effectively began through the destabilization of a unbelievably massive singularity, that's a condition that has never existed since. Obviously, all the material in the universe has expanded to its current state, so the conditions don't exist for a similarly sized singularity to destabilize again. The theory is simply based on our understanding of physical laws and the reverse extrapolation of the currently observed behavior of material.
My 'belief' in so far as I believe my own eyes when I look at the astronomical data is different from creationism in that it is based on observable phenomena. As I said before, nobody has ever seen a 'divine creation', but you would choose to believe this imaginative invention over the known fact that material in the universe is expanding in certain directions at certain rates, and if it were possible to run time backwards all that material would be at a common point. You want to believe a fabrication, I look at evidence and draw a rational conclusion. If new evidence arises that disproves the hypothesis (as there is an upstart theory that rather than a singularity the universe is a sort of emission from a zero entropy plane caused by quantum mechanical uncertainty) I will summarily discard it. The rational mind does not marry itself to ideas in the face of contradictory evidence.
All your other comments are puerile, and I expect I'm wasting my time detailing all this to you.