Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

Rashi (R. Schlomo Yitzchak) explained why the creation story (and it is a story) is at the beginning of Genesis. He tells us that the creation story asserts that G-D is the maker and therefor the owner of the world, so He can grant lands to whosoever He pleases to. This makes the the grant of the Holy Land to Abraham and his descendants kosher. No one in his right mind can take the creation story literally. There is a massive amount of evidence that proves the earth is very old and a literal interpretation of the Genesis story implies the Earth was created in 4004 B.C.E. (around 2:30 in the afternoon on the 28th of September of that year). It is illogical to take much of the TNKH as literal truth.

ruveyn

If you held these "personal experiences" of Christians to the same standard of proof that you insist we measure logic itself by, they wouldn't hold water for a nanosecond.

You have to decide what meaning of the word logic you intend, and avoid switching to a different meaning without noticing. Here you appear to use logic as if it were the same as human reasoning. That is a colloquial use of the word. Whether a syllogism is valid or not, whether pi is an irrational number or not does not change. People's beliefs about the matter may differ, their reasoning may differ, but not the logic or the maths. A logical or mathematical proof is not a matter of opinion. Mathematicians can come to an agreement whether a theorem is proven or not.

Are you prepared to answer the questions you asked about logic with regard to gravity? I think it would be useful to discuss the relationship between physical evidence and what you broadly call logic.

Logical or mathematical proof a matter opinion? OK... For example, I think 1+1=4. I can prove it, too. Try to guess why that would make some kind of logical sense. The only hint I'll give for now is there's not necessarily one right/wrong way to arrive at that conclusion.

Logic in regard to gravity... I suppose I could throw a stone into the air and see what eventually happens. I suppose if I were to repeat that test 100 times, I ought to get the same result. Whether I believe in various theories about WHY that is, I nonetheless have to assume that there is SOME force that causes the rock to eventually fall. Is that what you meant? The rising/setting of the sun/moon, the yearly cycle of the stars--whether or not I can ascertain as to what those exactly are, I can nonetheless determine that they do indeed also exist.

Logic and math, as to whether they exist, only do exist in the mind. They aren't "out there" in the same sense as gravity, the sun, moon, and other celestial bodies. We have the means to travel to the moon and Mars and verify that SOMETHING is up there, so we KNOW that those things are physical things. We have ways to observe cells and cellular activity, molecules and molecular activity.

Logic cannot be said to exist the same way. If we refer to math, sure, we have notation for mathematical proofs. But those are only symbolic representations of those things that don't physically exist. Unless numbers are assigned to real objects, they have no "real" meaning.

HOWEVER, logic, math, even the imagination are very real to us. They do exist on some level, even if we can't directly show exactly what that level is. We can only show "evidence" for it--that is, proving theorems and so on. Actually putting those theorems into "real" practice, we add a whole new understanding to our universe. If Logic and Math did NOT exist at all, on any level, many other things we think we know couldn't make sense at all. When I talk about "imagination," I just mean that on some level we are able to turn away from logic/reason and consider possibilities beyond the realm of what we know or beyond what makes sense.

Just as an example, a graphical interface for a computer doesn't really makes much sense because a lot of graphics aren't necessary because the basic function of a computer doesn't require its output to look pretty. However, a musician like myself, who can't make sense of computer music languages like C-Sound or Supercollider (or even PureData for that matter), does better if the methods in which sound is produced are actually represented analogous to "real" sound generators (like analog synthesizers, for example). At SOME point in the development of computer software, certain key developers figured out how to create graphical interfaces that were more functional for a greater number of users, especially those of us who have trouble with systems that are exclusively text-based. The other alternative to using computers for subtractive synthesis (for example) would be to actually buy an analogue synthesizer, no digital circuitry. But fortunately, as advanced as graphical interfaces have become, as efficiently as present-day computers have become in processing the visual as well as the sound data, and sense a professional-grade computer plus the required software is roughly 1/3 the price of a good analogue synth, it only makes sense for lower-income musicians and sound designers to start out their synth programming on a good notebook computer.

For that to happen, someone has to say--hey, computers are capable of doing this graphically, why not develop an application that visually represents the functions of analog synthesizers and faithfully recreates the sound? SOMEONE, at some point, dreamed up something that didn't before exist, and then took several steps to solve the required problems in making such a product. Is it delusional for someone to just randomly dream things up? Perhaps it is. Indeed, an inventive mind may dream up many more failures than successes. But how is it that an illogical mind or the illogical aspect of the mind--something not really explained with pure logic or math, something that in and of itself makes no sense whatsoever, can give birth to something logical, mathematical, and even PHYSICALLY viable and "real"? Now, I talk about musical instruments because that's what I know, but I'm sure there are limitless applications of this idea. We have no "proof" of logic or math or imagination or God or common sense or proper rules of grammar ( ). The "evidence," however, is very much real as we use those things to accomplish "real" goals.

I don't care what you've been told: 1+1=4. Call me crazy, or delusional, or absurd, but if you think about it just a little, you can understand why, and there might be multiple explanations that all work just as well.

If ALL there is in the world is what you can prove, then those things I mentioned can't exist. Yet we almost universally agree that they do. To believe that evolution is true, then, based on our observation, our logic applied to those observations and evidence, and imagination (just for example--opening up one's mind to the possibility) is to form an opinion founded on that which is unseen/existing only in the mind. To do so requires a certain amount of faith. To hang on to those opinions requires conviction. In principle, the operation of scientific thought or logical discourse is not unlike that of religion. By the way, I'm not equating science with religion, just suggesting similarities. The difference is that a system of belief within religion does not require "proof."

It's easier for me, then, to take Biblical principle (the existence of God, the teachings of Jesus, universal atonement for sins, and so on) on faith. To hold it up to a human "standard" as one would with science and logic is like comparing apples and oranges. They have substance, they are both fruit, but that's about it.

Where faith is most important is as it was intended in Jesus' time. Science, math, law/justice, philosophy, logic, and so on do not offer eternal hope for human suffering. Sure, science can propose relief from certain aspects of the human such as disease and discomfort, but the secret to physical/spiritual immortality remains lost (to science). In fact, science seems to completely ignore the soul when, in fact, most people seem assert that they possess some form of spiritual identity. Most people seem to be aware of some spiritual afterlife, even if they disagree on or express uncertainty on exactly what that is.

Most people, in fact, are perfectly capable of using logic or common sense, though not quite always in a very disciplined way, i.e. we aren't Vulcans. For different reasons, those things remain undeveloped for most people, perhaps throughout their lives if they're never concerned with them. Here faith succeeds where logic fails, answering those questions that are nonsense to logic, bringing forth miracles denied to us by "hard" science, and making perfect sense of the absurd.

As to what THE answer is, well, that's--sorry--a matter of faith. To argue whether Christ had it right or whether Buddha got it right is a whole other topic. I firmly believe Christ got it right, and hence if certain truths are evident in His teachings, it is perfectly reasonable to assume the Bible is an inerrant text (there ARE known scribal errors that have been passed down through copying the OT, but careful studies of manuscripts give clues as to what the correct information should be. The errors themselves are hardly enough to suggest distortions of the message as a whole, much less wholesale discrediting of the entire text).

The fact that there is some kind object in the sky that appears to emit light and provide warmth in the daytime, does not mean to say that we know what it is. My point is that just about everything we know about the Sun comes from indirect evidence and has not been directly observed. But just as we can say in certainty what the chemical composition of the Sun is from the indirect evidence obtained from spectroscopy and helioseismology, there is equally compelling evidence for evolution. Fossils are only source of evidence and studies in genetics tend to confirm common descent to a T. A quote from Richard Dawkins that "evolution has been observed, just not while it was happening" is not self-contradictory.

So to paraphrase, some people have questions which may or may not be answerable (for instance "what was the colour of the invisible unicorn who caused the fall of Rome" or "what is the 'greater purpose' or 'meaning' of existence).

Since science is not answering these questions which may not actually be relevant to reality anyway, we should not only consult feelings even though we know that these cannot identify for us the answer (since canvassing feelings would produce the answer that X is true and X is untrue for a large number of propositions in respect of these questions).

And further, when a matter is one that science is answering and for which science is able to produce the kind of reliable answers and evidences that meet your standards of effective proof in any other area of your life, if the evidence conflicts with one or more peoples' feelings (or if it conflicts with your own), then suddenly these indvidually varied and mutually contrary feelings should be relied on, and empircal observation, evidence and even logic should be ignored. And this is the case, even though according to these various feelings, the answer science is producing and reconfirming persistently, is right, and is wrong, and is irrelevant, and is very important, depending on whose feelings we consult, and even in the case of some indviduals, depending when we consult their feelings?

Never mind the fact that the answer produced by those means is that every answer is right, and wrong, and significant, and insignficant.

You really cannot understand why this might strike people as being at least a teensy bit silly, even if those people were imaginative?

Who are you replying to? Me or AngelRho above?

Oh, I can understand it fine.

However, as I've said before, there is similar evidence in favor of creationism. There is a fine line between "evidence" and "proof," though. So by saying THIS is what happened, despite the evidence given one way or the other, and no proverbial "smoking gun," no "body," and so on, it can also be said that the opposite claim is also at least a teensy bit silly. See my point?

The "evidence" for creationism is "similar" to the evidence for evolution?



Give me a break. The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming, and anyone who actually understands evolution acknowledges that fact. The evidence for creationism simply is not substantial--otherwise the scientific community would embrace it--the nature of scientific inquiry would demand it.

This should be made into a bumper sticker:

Those who don't believe in evolution do not understand it.

*Testing new sig...

Galaxy's are moving away, colliding with others.. matter, fusing and creating new substances, life. Everything is possible and exists thoughout the dimensions of the Universe. To just say with creationism that things never evolved to the point they are now.. isn't practical and illogical. However, the Universe had to have started someway. It couldn't evolve from nothing, so this is a mystery I'll never understand.

Saying it and repeating it do not actually make it any more true though.

The fact is that there is a standard of evidence that you routinely accept without question as constituting "proven" for all meaningful purposes. Evolution actually meets those standards, whereas modern creationism does not.


Not by your argument. By your argument there is an unbridgable yawning chasm between them. In reality, the difference between "insubstantial/uncompelling evidence" and "a compelling body of evidence" is much more than the difference between a compelling body of evidence and proven to ordinary standards of "proof".


Which is irrelevant here, as evolution has evidence of a standard on par with gravity, and creationism has evidence on par with that for the fairy godmother in the Cinderella story.

Overwhelming... Indeed...

AND YET there is no good, falsifiable origin of life theory whatsoever that can once and for all put to rest creation.

Which is irrelevant to the theory of evolution and whether or not evolution is true, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

There are many creationist models that could be true if evolution is real and if the theory of evolution is the best means of conducting scientific inquiry into the history of evolution to date.

It is the particular model of modern creationism that posits, not only that there is a God who created the earth and life etc, but also that evolution is wrong, that appears a bit silly to many of us.

The same might be said for your position as well.

Ok, are you actually trying to get into a more scientific question of evidences? Or is this just a rhetorical rebuttal? It seems to me that you don't have a lot to offer, as you just keep on saying that the two ideas are equal. The problem is that it is almost never the case that two ideas are equal, and even further, it is even less likely that between two equal ideas, one idea would be considered correct enough to teach publicly, and the other would be so roundly condemned.

"(I)f you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”