Creationism

Page 7 of 11 [ 166 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

07 Oct 2010, 8:27 am

Tensu wrote:

about the world. science is a good source of answers about the physical world, but religion is not concerned with the physical world because the physical world doesn't matter in the long run. In the same way, science isn't concerned with concepts like spirit an morality because they can't be studied with the scientific method. that however, doesn't mean that they are not worth exploring.

The 'physical world' is the only world that has been proven to exist. Religion is a bronze-age way to explain what science explains now.

Science isn't concerned with the supernatural because it can't be reproduced in a controlled environment. Just like magic or a pink unicorn running around you right now and offering you Tea.

Tensu wrote:

taking aside the fact that you more or less quoted scripture, why not do to other people what you wouldn't have done to you?

I do it because I believe it's the right way to live.

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

07 Oct 2010, 8:38 am

Jookia wrote:

The 'physical world' is the only world that has been proven to exist. Religion is a bronze-age way to explain what science explains now.

This is a very narrow statement, steeped mostly in definitions of words. "Physical world" can easily be extended to include all that exists including what used to be called spirit. There is no need to divide existence into natural and supernatural. At some scale it is all part of the same thing. The ability to investigate certain questions scientifically is an entirely different matter.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Oct 2010, 8:53 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

Jookia wrote:

The 'physical world' is the only world that has been proven to exist. Religion is a bronze-age way to explain what science explains now.

Yes there is. The super natural is that which is not either described or governed or constrained by physical laws.

ruveyn

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

07 Oct 2010, 9:10 am

ruveyn wrote:

Yes there is. The super natural is that which is not either described or governed or constrained by physical laws.

ruveyn

If it can be described at all, it can be described within the context of physical laws. For instance, to say something like the spirit world is not subject to the law of gravity defines a relationship between gravity and the spirit world. That relation exists. It matters not that it is effectively a null interaction.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Oct 2010, 9:15 am

ruveyn wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

Jookia wrote:

The 'physical world' is the only world that has been proven to exist. Religion is a bronze-age way to explain what science explains now.

Yes there is. The super natural is that which is not either described or governed or constrained by physical laws.

ruveyn

The business of the supernatural and spirits and afterlife etc. has a long tradition and repeated objective investigations have indicated that it is all fantasy. But people brought up with this fantasy deeply embedded in their whole outlook are incapable of accepting reality as indicated by scientific investigation and validation. You can argue with these unfortunates indefinitely and achieve no progress in getting them to see the truth. It's not worth the effort.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

07 Oct 2010, 6:05 pm

Tensu wrote:

You all seem to have a huge misunderstanding of creationism. just because evolution deniers are vocal doesn't mean they are the end-all be-all of what creationism is. You're all making fun of an idea you know nothing about, and thus aren't really any different from evolution deniers yourselves.

I disagree. They are not at fault for using the term "creataionists" to narrowly. Its you who are at fault for making the term so broad.

If I understand you- what you seem to be saying is that anyone who isnt an atheist is a "creationist', whether they deny evolution or not. Belief in a creator implies that said creator created the cosmos, even if it wasnt exactly the way its describeed in genisis.

By THAT definition Darwin himself a "creationist".
He didnt object to a diety kick starting the universe he just pointed out the obvious fact that after the universe was set in motion tho origin of living species on our tiny patch of the universe could not have occured as described in Genisis.

If you make the tent of "Creationism" so wide that it embraces Darwin and Wallace youve rendered the term meaningless. So you cant blame folks for misusing the term.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Oct 2010, 7:00 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

By THAT definition Darwin himself a "creationist".
He didnt object to a diety kick starting the universe he just pointed out the obvious fact that after the universe was set in motion tho origin of living species on our tiny patch of the universe could not have occured as described in Genisis.

Actually that would be a theistic evolutionist.

Young earth creationists do not oppose evolution, as per the act of natural selection to specialize a population to their environment, but instead common ancestry is opposed. Often, it is old earth creationists who oppose evolution more than young earth creationists, since there is heaps more time in their paradigm for evolution to have worked if it were possibly going to, so they try to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists tend to be more of the "have my cake and eat it too" type, while young earth creationists and militant atheist tend to be more all-or-nothing, though by varying degrees according to each individual.

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

07 Oct 2010, 8:02 pm

Jookia wrote:

Many people report spiritual experiences, and then there's of course Love, which is outside the realm of science. does love not exist?

And why is it the right way to live? because yo say it is? what makes you the end-all decider or moral frameworks? there are plenty of people out there who apparently think murder is perfectly fine, since they are doing it. Or are you going to say because society says it's right? Aztec and Canaanite society said human sacrifice was right. Nazi society said genocide was right. societies cannot be trusted to define good and evil.

naturalplastic: a creationist is a person who believes God created existence. If Darwin believed God did just that, he was a creationist. you seem to assume I would somehow be appalled by the thought of having something in common with one of history's greatest biologists. That is a silly assumption to make.

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

07 Oct 2010, 8:39 pm

Tensu wrote:

Many people report spiritual experiences, and then there's of course Love, which is outside the realm of science. does love not exist?.

I could say I just shook hands with a spirit, the problem is nobody's reproduced it in a controlled environment, so it can pretty much be put down to either a hoax or a lie. You could go further and look at things like hallucinations and voices in their head.

Love isn't outside the realm of science. It's simply brain chemicals.

Tensu wrote:

And why is it the right way to live? because yo say it is? what makes you the end-all decider or moral frameworks? there are plenty of people out there who apparently think murder is perfectly fine, since they are doing it. Or are you going to say because society says it's right? Aztec and Canaanite society said human sacrifice was right. Nazi society said genocide was right. societies cannot be trusted to define good and evil.

I never said it was the right way to live, I said I believe it's the right way to live. My morals are of personal preference.

Mythological books and religions are not a good source of morals; The books can set the morals to be anything they want. Muslims get their morals to cover women from their holy book. In Iran, if you move away from the religion of Islam, you face the death penalty.

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

07 Oct 2010, 8:46 pm

Just because something hasn't yet been proven doesn't automatically make it a hoax, lie, or hallucination. that is a very close-minded way of thinking.

and lust is a matter of chemicals. love is something entirely different.

But why believe in "right" at all? you cannot PROVE that there is any such thing as "right", now can you?

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

07 Oct 2010, 9:20 pm

wavefreak58 wrote:

Tensu wrote:

In the same way, science isn't concerned with concepts like spirit an morality because they can't be studied with the scientific method. that however, doesn't mean that they are not worth exploring.

There is a militant form of rationalism that believes precisely this - if it can't be explored through rational process it is not worth exploring and in fact should NOT be explored. The most radical form of this is that exploration of ideas not subject to scientific/rational methods should be vigorously obstructed. I find it ironic that this is not a rationally defensible position.

If a subject can't be explored through rational process, any attempt to study it cannot not be rational. I don't know anyone who think art, literature or music should not be explored. It is those non-rational exploration that claims to produce rational results that needs to be opposed.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

07 Oct 2010, 9:28 pm

Tensu wrote:

It is you who needs to prove that what you are talking is not a hoax, lie, or hallucination.

It is you who needs to prove that there are ways to product rigorous understanding of our universe other than the scientific method.

It is you who needs to prove that there exists something called love that is not a matter of chemicals.

FYI I don't believe in 'right', 'evil', 'love'... :lol:

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

07 Oct 2010, 9:34 pm

01001011 wrote:

Tensu wrote:

Couldn't put it better.

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

07 Oct 2010, 9:34 pm

You're missing my point.

There may not be a way TO prove that it isn't a hoax, lie, or hallucination. But to assume that it is one of the above just because it can't be is a close-minded approach.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

07 Oct 2010, 9:49 pm

Tensu wrote:

You're missing my point.

There may not be a way TO prove that it isn't a hoax, lie, or hallucination. But to assume that it is one of the above just because it can't be is a close-minded approach.

There are many similar claims that are known to be hoax, lie, or hallucination (e.g. Zeus, Loch Less Monster, experience of mental ill people). You failed to provide any reason to think they are not.

I did not claim that what you are talking are hoax, lie, or hallucination. However, I claim they are BY FAR MOST LIKELY to be the case based on my knowledge. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

07 Oct 2010, 9:51 pm

If you can't prove it isn't a hoax, lie or hallucination, then there's no reason to believe it.

Page 7 of 11 [ 166 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

Creationism Post Reply New Topic

Creationism