Creationism.

[Recidiva]

Is it worthwhile to read this whole thread?

Curious in Calcutta,
Ellie

If you like heartbreak and horror. Sure.

 

[Tryharder62]

***Yes***

 

[Tryharder62]

Just to clarify my earlier statement about Creation and Science I thought this quote by Nobel Physics Laureate Charles Townes put it much better than I did.

Science wants to know the mechanism of the Universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be seperated. Many scientists feel there is no place for discussion of anything that sounds mystical. But it is unreasonable to think we already know enough about the natural world to be confident about the totality of forces.

Kath

 

[Oscuridad]

I did not say "these people said so." I was dismissed in an earlier post on faith for quoting Martin Luther King instead of a Scientist, so I quoted some Scientists. I don't need anybody in authority to tell me what I believe. I don't feel it is a cop-out to tell you what I believe and articulate why. At this point in time I feel archeological study has hit it closer than scientific study. Unlike you, I look forward to further scientific evidence that instead of squeezing God out, will bridge the gap between the two theories.

To address the first, faith that further study will reveal the entire picture is not the same as faith that the picture is a crayon drawing and has no more detail to offer.

It was still and is still not evidence to support the existence of deity, or mythological stories about how creation occurred.

You could go on saying god did it even after every last mechanic has been explored and understood. But that would still not make it true, supportable by evidence, or even likely.

 

[Oscuridad]

Just to clarify my earlier statement about Creation and Science I thought this quote by Nobel Physics Laureate Charles Townes put it much better than I did.

Science wants to know the mechanism of the Universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be seperated. Many scientists feel there is no place for discussion of anything that sounds mystical. But it is unreasonable to think we already know enough about the natural world to be confident about the totality of forces.

Kath

This is another tacit appeal to authority. If a physicist finds meaning in the belief of fantasy, does not prove the fantasy true.

If it did, you'd have a whole new argument about which precise fantasy is true and...

Oh wait, you do that already, don't you?

 

[Sean]

My bad! Didn't know I couldn't quote any one else but scientists. Here it goes -

The most beautiful system of the sun, planet, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful being. Sir Isaac Newton.

I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explaination for the miracle of existance, where there is something instead of nothing. Alan Sandage -winner of the Crawford price in astonomy.

You do know Izzy Newton died in 1727, right? He also believed in alchemy and all sorts of other occult nonsense.

 

[Oscuridad]

You do know Izzy Newton died in 1727, right? He also believed in alchemy and all sorts of other occult nonsense.

Indeed.

He might have meant Mithras, not God.

Then where would we be?

 

[box13]

I don't think that creationism and evolution should ever be in the same 'category'.

Evolution is a origin narrative: "A long time ago when no one was here, things happened and then we eventually turned on our computers and connected to the Internet to talk about how we got here." I was taught that science explained the observable (frogs don't come from mud, flies don't spontaneously arise from rotting meat, etc.) and offers a theory for things that cannot be observed or otherwise proven by duplicating them in the laboratory.

I don't know how someone would not objectively conclude that there's "fact" (DNA exists, as an example) and some "miracle" thrown in (DNA formed randomly eons ago when the environment was such that it could actually happen, began replicating and forming "simple" one celled organisms which grew into what we observe today) to form the basis of the evolutionary narrative. And now includes all of the zealous "priests and priestesses" and political alliances that would make a Pope from the dark ages envious. The books of the Bible (and other religious books) have historical fact and miracles to explain the unexplainable combined as well. Humans have done this all throughout history.

I think for the most part however, the good folks exploring the issue of "where did we come from?" are honest and doing what they think is right. Not all of them have been however, and there's some scandal here and there created by people who were willing to cut corners and "prove" what they believe to be true. While not remarkable in and of itself, it does leave one with the question as to why something that is fact must be advanced and supported from time to time by falsehood, in much the same manner as any TV preacher might do.

One uses science to explain a process and the other...well, it is an alternative to science.

How would one use the scientific method to explain the Big Bang, or the formation of galaxies? I'm willing to concede that theory (the best explanation I can come up with) and "G-d made that" sound different. It would still be incorrect to assert that one is plainly fact over the other when science offers no proof one way or another.

And biodiversity loss? I understand this area very well - I spent a lot of time studying this for a post graduate degree. Biodiversity loss is simply a result of our impact on the natural world, directly or indirectly. The rise of man has heralded the demise or countless species.

There are no dinosaurs now, and there are many fossilized sea creatures that don't exist today. I guess I'm not quite clear on what impact man has had there, and I am of the opinion that biodiversity has been in decline far longer than man being "on the scene". Is it generally understood then that the "fossil record" contains all forms of life that ever existed? Was it then that the dinosaurs and a few plants became extinct, and then when man started building factories and burning coal that things really picked up to where the rate of extinction is now? Which is like what...100 or 150 species per day?

Evolution seems to assert the opposite of what we actually observe. In the past there were a lot of different forms of life that we no longer see today. That decline is still ongoing, and may be increasing or may be steady (man-influenced or not). So my point is that at some time science gave up and religious evolution took over to explain things (an inclination for humans you attest to).

And I am baffled what you are referring to when you state that like region, evolution has " all the horrors and insatiable demands."

Every religion has its ideals, and then some people who paint themselves as "religious" and then go out and do atrocious things. Likewise, there are leaders who have borrowed concepts from evolution and gone out to do some really awful things too. The 20th century was arguably bloodiest in human history because of atheists, political theorists, you name it. It wasn't the Buddhist's or the Billy Grahams who started the WWs, or the political and genocidal purges.

Also, Al Gore is a proponent of AGW theories. He lives in a big house and flies around the world in big jets and drives big SUVs, but it is you and I who must change our living habits, our energy usage, what we eat and how we flush our toilets in order to save humankind from extinction from something that, well, has always occurred throughout the Earth's history (e.g. climate change). Al Gore is in one sense a "high priest" of AGW, with all the pomp and glory, the authority of his royal robes and his ring, the fine coaches and castles and mysterious organization of "true believers" who advance his arguably political cause.

At one point there was going to be some kind of wall between the state and organized religion, and dammit we just aren't making any progress. In fact, I think we're falling back into superstition and prejudice instead. Unfortunately it's a "Che Guevara" kind of prejudice, and not a [pick your favorite founding father] distrust of government and it's love of financial influence and power.

What I believe doesn't have any bells and whistles and good bits. There are no prizes for believing and no eternal damnation for not. Stephen Hawking once said "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." I like this.

The quote is clever, but it ignores the larger issue with evolutionary theory. Supposedly you and I aren't "monkey's" in as much as something of a rock formation floating in a vacuum; some atoms that have joined together momentarily for no reason because of some long chain of chemical reactions.with no purpose. Star dust. While it sounds poetic and all, it just isn't satisfying to me as an explanation. I see beauty, love, suffering, joy, and end to "life" that seems incongruent with how people are by nature. But Stephen Hawking knows that I am a monkey, and the rest of humanity and its philosophers all throughout history be damned.

It's good talking with you. I hope I don't come off as too much of a crank, or someone who isn't capable of listening or caring. The "marketplace of ideas" I find interesting. Sometimes even convincing. And I try to enjoy falling flat on my face from time to time with arguments that are stupid or ignorant. Keeps me feeling human I guess.

 

[Sean]

*bangs head against wall*

 

[eyer]

*bangs head against wall*

It's that totally intolerant ego of yours just masturbating again...

 

[Oscuridad]

*puts helmet on you*

Stop that. You're needed.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm not an evangelist, but I am sad.

 

[markstew]

I believe in it. I don't think something as beautiful as Richard Dawkins could've evolved by chance.

 

[Oscuridad]

It's that totally intolerant ego of yours just masturbating again...

Can you explain to me how his evidence is a function of ego but everyone else's faith is not?

I say again. Tolerance of lies serves nothing.

If biblical creation is not a lie, prove it to be true.

If you can't take your place with all the other book clubs, even though the bible can't even hold a candle to Harry Potter as literature, and even Hesiod was more interesting as mythology.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

I believe aliens created the human race.

cosigns.

 

[Oscuridad]

I believe in it. I don't think something as beautiful as Richard Dawkins could've evolved by chance.

Your opinion on what is or isn't possible is not evidence.

Also. He's not beautiful. He's a misogynistic sack of disappointment. Atheism deserves better.

 

[Oscuridad]

cosigns.

If you're talking bacteria, you may yet be in the running.

 

[Sean]

It's that totally intolerant ego of yours just masturbating again...

I have to admit, I do have a low tolerance for stupidity.

 

[eyer]

I have to admit, I do have a low tolerance for stupidity.

No ballz, no truth...

...if you had either, you'd have executed yourself years ago.

 

[Sean]

No ballz, no truth...

...if you had either, you'd have executed yourself years ago.

Didn't your god say "thou shalt not kill"?

 

[Oscuridad]

Didn't your god say "thou shalt not kill"?

To them, cognitive dissonance is something that happens to other people.

 

[eyer]

Didn't your god say "thou shalt not kill"?

Relevance = F

You really should get that suffering ego of yours to quit digging itself a deeper and deeper "stupidity" and "idiot" hole.

 

[Sean]

To them, cognitive dissonance is something that happens to other people.

Relevance = F

You really should get that suffering ego of yours to quit digging itself a deeper and deeper "stupidity" and "idiot" hole.

'nuff said.

 

[kbate]

I have to admit, I do have a low tolerance for stupidity.

I have always considered self-hating a pointless activity and do not engage in it.

 

[Sean]

I have always considered self-hating a pointless activity and do not engage in it.

Careful, or I'll have to start quoting Leviticus at you.