Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

What you are trying to dismiss is empericism, and empiricists disagree with your assertions.

By "what you see is what you get" which I pressume you refer to emipricism, is the more accurate way to get knowledge from, or to say it in other words, the best aproximation to get to the facts or to aproximate to the truth in philosophy and science, within empiricists. Which that is a fundamental aspect of science.

You just have a different empistemological orientaion than of empiricists.

I for one, tend to be more inclined towards empirical evidence over rethorical devices (such as bullshitting which anyone with rethoric skills or without them could do) to justify anything. In order to be convinced on anything, I tend to rely more on empirical evidence than anything else.

I do know that what you call logic alone by itself is insufficient and can be innacurate without that something in question being physical demonstrated and repeately verified. I rather convict someone of murder based on empirical evidence rather than logic alone or your definition of logic (common sense) alone for example. No conviction without physical evidence.


Simple: Evolution is Science and Creationism is NOT.
Which "funny ideas"? The "funny ideas" that I see are actually the criteria for which a theory most comply in order to become a valid scientific theory, Creationism does not, thus it is not a valid scientific theory.


People would tend to agree more with the scientific community, biological experts on the subject than with a random internet forum user who seems to made poor justification of logic over empiricism as well as the error of confusing abiogenesis with evolution.


The existence of God or the nature of God does not have anything to do with Evolution, which those are separate things, so let makes this clear, Evolution does not deny God nor does justify his existence either.

The existence of God is related to metaphysics, in which people should leave it there, Science only cares about the physical world.

Last edited by greenblue on 17 May 2010, 9:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

There has, of course, been some consternation over the seeming error in Biblical mention of God's creation of the universe in that He created light before the creation of the Sun. But obviously there can be no denial of the total truth of everything described in the Bible so there must be a misunderstanding of what is meant by "light". Science has confirmed that originally, after the Godfart known as the BigBang, the only element was hydrogen and it took the operations of the furnaces we know as the stars to create the heavy elements. So it means that what God proclaimed was the creation of the light element hydrogen. If he would have proclaimed "Let there be heavy" the universe would be mostly uranium. Now that that is settled we can go on to reinterpret all of God's other proclamations.

I can hardly wait to get to the ten commandments. There are great possibilities there.

It does my heart good to see you finally starting to come around. We'll keep praying for you.

As long as you stick to prayer and stay away from self righteous violence I will retain peace of mind.

We know the Earth is very old and that the earliest living entities (one celled Archea) was very unlike what is living today. So we know changes (i.e. evolution) occurred. Evolution is a fact. The hypothesis that evolution is produced by mutation and natural selection is a hypothesis, but it is very heavily supported by physical evidence. There is not a whit of evidence for Special Creation (except, perhaps, for the first living thing on this planet) and there is overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection.

ruveyn

Ooo, so nobody ever gets a new idea or changes opinion? I learned something today! Wait.

I can't stand it when people are closed-minded. (Now let's just see who thinks I'm on which side. =P)

Lefty.

Why think when you can do the research?

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2787872 ... t=#2787872

Given that you dislike conservative politics and fundamentalists, you are definitely on the pro-evolution side. You probably are a "lefty" as Fuzzy suggested.

(Note: I recognize that you could conceivably be a conservative and a fundamentalist and hold the attitudes you have towards both sets of people, it just isn't likely though) (Additional note: I apologize for doing the research, some people might find that invasive, however, you practically begged for us to figure it out.)

Not what I had in mind when I mentioned a proof. I was thinking more of something like the square root of 2 being an irrational number. But I'll bite.

Redefining your terms? That would fail to prove your point.


You haven't told me what gravity looks like, painted me a picture, picked it from a tree or bought a bucket of gravity on ebay. Gravity fails all the existence proofs you demanded for logic. All you offer me is a regularity in your data. Is gravity nothing but a regularity in data?


No. I can ask the same question about force. Naming gravity a force is not explanation and is no proof of existence. Do you have any proof that gravity exists equivalent to the proof you demanded for logic?


Then it should be easy to give me a proof for the existence of gravity that is impossible for the existence of logic. You have offered me regularity in your data. That's the first part. But gravity is not the regularity. What is it?


And I ask again who says this? Can you show me that this is more than your straw man?


Wrong. I will not write an evolution text book for you. There are better books than I could ever write. Read one.

First item. Gravitation is an interaction between two masses. It is approximately described by Newton's law of gravitation and more exactly described by Einstein's field equations.

The second: You want evidence (not proof) jump off a tall building with no means of slowing your fall. The fact that the earth travels about the sun year after year and the moon revolves about the earth year after year.

Gravitation exists: Jump up from your floor from a standing position. You will come down. Gravitation causes that return.

The way you know causes is by their effects.

ruveyn

Sorry but the fact that there are some poor designs in nature, tends to contradict the idea of an intelligent designer.

Not true, if you consider that nature shares the burden of sin introduced by mankind.

Or, to put it plainly, it WAS perfect until MAN screwed it up.

Both are theories, and one is entitled to make ones own mind up about either, even combing Evolution and God. Yes, it is good to discuss and hear each person views though.
Here is my opinion-
Creationism arose from the old testament- nobody can verify who wrote the old testament and it should not be taken word for word ( sorry any Orthodox Jews).
The story of creation is simply a story explaining one of the greatest mysteries of all time- many other religions other than monotheistic ones have their own stories, and all slightly ludicrous. This story satisfied many people.
But now we have science to satisfy us, which suggests the Big Bang Theory.
But how did the big bang happen?
I believe this concept known as God made it happen, if this was to be the truth. As the Big Bang essentially then provides for the Theory of Evolution, God did create us. But just not how the Old Testament suggests.
I believe in God simply because I "feel" God in my "heart/soul". Savvy?
Religion and Science needs to work together.

So everything that fits, fits because God made it that way while everything that doesn't, doesn't because of original sin? The problem is that such a theory has absolutely no explanatory power whatsoever. For example, why aren't there any true naturally occurring chimeras, i.e. creatures composed of parts from multiple different kinds of animals? An explanation is an explanation because it can tell us why things are the way they are and not any other way. Therefore, for a theory to have explanatory power, it has to forbid some things in order to differentiate between what can and cannot happen. That theory above however, would accommodate absolutely everything that can be observed, even in principle. Theories that accommodate everything, explain nothing.

Hey, I didn't write the Bible.

Are we talking about me personally or are we talking about reconciling the Bible in some profound way to science? I'm the kind of person who, if someone says literally there's no evidence of this or that, I'll go looking for it. I've given evidence that suggests creationism over evolution, for example, and it seems to have been outright rejected in favor of evolutionist dogma without so much as a thought. So I'm pretty much done with the whole "physical evidence" argument. People are going to believe what people are going to believe. There's nowhere left to go with that.

So all I have left to say is a matter of my personal experience and beliefs. From a Christian perspective, we understand that God made the world and everything in it (some seem to believe that species could have arrived at their present state through evolutionary principles even if creationist origins are assumed--the method is irrelevant here). The first man mentioned in the Bible was Adam. God gave Adam a choice, expressly stating ONE THING that was forbidden. Adam made the wrong decision. The imperfect state of the world is inherited through Adam. There are many different angles to look at it, but it remains what it is, and I see no point in explaining it.

I'm not sure why you say that it has no explanatory power at all. By your definition of an explanation, the fall of man is a perfect explanation. God created a perfect world and gave it over to Adam. God gave only one commandment in regard to what was good and evil. Adam disobeyed, therefore introducing the corruption sin into a perfect world. Hence the perfect world became imperfect.

If you're too closed-minded to understand how it is someone can believe in something without seeing it, that's your problem.