Creationists and science

Post Reply New Topic

Well, there's a school of thought that says that evolution is a "fact" but the explanatory mechanism it is a "theory" in much the same way as "stuff falls when it's dropped" is a fact but GR is a theory. This pops up from time to time, though I'm afraid I can't recall who the originator of that argument is.

Peanut Butter Jelly Time!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504[/youtube]

Oh, I think I understand you now. I wasn't trying to argue otherwise. But what I was trying to say is that merely having a religion doesn't make one a bad scientist. You seemed to indicate that you thought it did when you said:



~

Is that video a parody Henriksson?

Yeah, I'm fairly sure it is.

But that's the nature of Poe's Law: You can never quite know for sure.

You really have to be joking. All science does is to continually push god further and further into the realm of make believe.

Please support your argument with just one instance where a belief in god has helped us figure things out, or a single instance of science providing evidence of god. And by science I mean peer reviewed, with data that can be backed up.

His problem, he didn't consult Chris Angel - *he* could have made butterflies or a drunk David Hasselhoff come out of that jar of peanut butter!

How?


Um, do you mean to say evidence of God is that things didn't happen by accident? First of all, I wouldn't call anything an 'accident', but rather just how things panned out. Which really I don't see as all that improbable, I mean with the specific way our Universe works and all it would be surprising if there wasn't something even more incredible than life on one of the billions of galaxies there are out there. And yes, literally billions we're talking here. And in each Galaxy there are billions of stars. (Which for the record, if this God of yours existed it clearly has more of a taste for stars and galaxies than it does life by far considering what we see)

Second, let's go to the extreme and take your word that things didn't happen by chance. Why do you automatically assume this is the work of an all powerful 'intelligent' supreme creator of the entire Universe? (Intelligent would be a bit of an insult to name something that advanced or complex I would certainly say, especially as such a being or thing would most definitely not operate or function in a way we could possibly even mildly understand). But really, if you want to say that we're not here by chance and we're here by say a controlled process, why not go from there?

There are tons of other ways we could have come from a controlled process rather than assuming an all powerful creator of some sort did it. And what really confuses me further is, why at all would you assume this to be the Christian God? How is it that you're so in a bubble that you can't seem to just notice the absolute ridiculousness of some of the stories you would take literally. Sin, Jesus, Miracles, Angels, Monsters, Ghosts etc. these are all such human concepts, none of which are even slightly portrayed anywhere in the universe of which we see except in old books and stories created by us here.

And as for "God did it", why is it that the data we've gathered through Science seems to point to the contrary? It sure isn't God keeping us on the ground nor God making the tides flow in and out. And for the record, and I should have stated this in the first paragraph, even if you were able to prove "Things didn't happen by accident" it wouldn't be evidence for a God which is what I was trying to state above. Mmmk?

^ I am coming to the conclusion that shadow girl is a troll. Sorry if that sounds offensive but posting something that is a known antagonist and then not replying to debate that this raises is in my opinion trollish behavior.

And if that's the case she has a lot of people eating out of the palm of her hand...seems almost a little S&M'ish in the respect that everyone who retorts back seems to simultaneously love and hate it.

Troll or not, I gave my reply to the post. If this person in general does not respond to any opposing view points at all, as far as I'm concerned it's because she can't or yes as you guess she's just playing with us.

if you believe parents pass on their traits to their children then you believe in evolution, because that is the definition of how evolution occurs. The passing on and strengthening of genetic traits depending on what their species need to survive. The giraffe thats neck is too short to reach the food doesnt live to have kids of its own, so no short necked giraffes get to pass on their shortness to the next generation. This can be shown in other species. The weakest lion gets whooped by the big lion and doesn't get to mate, so no small lions, its just how it works.

I think Bill Maher said it best: If you don't believe in evolution, don't bother getting the new flu shot.

A true blue Creationist will tell you that mutation of viruses is micro-evolution, not the creation of a new species. That virus is the lineal descendant of the virus that came on the Ark.

ruveyn

I think truly I lack the faith and imagination to believe that the universe came from nothing; and that this nothing made singularity, a spot about the size of a period ( . ), which then expanded into a big bang, which made matter and by extension the primordial soup.

And while swimming about in this primordial pool a couple of bacteria met each other, fell in love, and created a family that included snakes, toads, and humans. I don't really see how nothing can be the creator of anything, though I know a lot of good people who do believe it. But I think I have to go along with Aristotle when he said that "nothing is what rocks dream about."

What about the idea of Spinoza that the universe was "always" their (how problematic the us of time-related word here ever is). Simple there was no creation, because it never had a "beginning" in the sense of a creating. Following Spinoza's idea the Big Band had a cause in anything we may not understand now, but shall be within the reach of scientific understanding.

---

I must say Spinoza's suggestion is for me much less difficult to swallow than the logic paradoxes the assumption of a creator god and the problem of understand the origin of this god.

Just inserting "God" as an answer is pretty problematic though, as it only serves to raise questions. Like, did god come from nothing?