Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Use of Science to Support Creationism
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 76 of 122 (152957)
10-26-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by jar
10-26-2004 12:17 AM


Re: evidence and faith
Hey jar,
I don't have a problem with anything you've said.
Though, I don't think you've contradicted my statements on evidence and faith (I'm not sure if you meant to):
- Objective, scientific evidence cannot rely on faith.
- Such evidence for God does not exist without the inclusion of faith.
When you state that you take in all that you have learned from science and "see the hand of GOD," you are taking a leap of faith, I would gather.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 10-26-2004 12:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 10-26-2004 12:49 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 122 (152959)
10-26-2004 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by pink sasquatch
10-26-2004 12:34 AM


Re: evidence and faith
Though, I don't think you've contradicted my statements on evidence and faith (I'm not sure if you meant to):
- Objective, scientific evidence cannot rely on faith.
- Such evidence for God does not exist without the inclusion of faith.
I wasn't trying to contradict you at all. What I am trying to do, as I have tried to do here in the past, is to show that the two, science and religion, are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Science teaches us HOW, religion provides the WHY.
It seems that all too often what I see here are the biblical literalists that deny science and the scientific literalists that deny religion. For me, that seems to cripple both of them, leaving them as less than they might become.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by pink sasquatch, posted 10-26-2004 12:34 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
MeganC
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 122 (153034)
10-26-2004 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by sidelined
10-25-2004 11:59 PM


Re: A useful distintion
I apologize. I honestly believed that I read somewhere that Dawkins had passed into the Great Divide. Maybe I'm thinking of some other scientist that died around that time (or maybe it was wishful thinking).
Anyway, here's my point. If I call myself a Christian (which I do), then I HAVE to take some things on faith. I'm kind of required to, guys, or I can no longer call myself a Christian. As hard as I tried to convince myself that there was no God, I couldn't do it. To those of you who succeeded, however, I applaud you. I also can't bring myself to believe that molelcules (and the correct ones at that) simply randomly managed to come together one day to create anything resembling life (that would be one of those far-fetched, hard to believe concepts. Although, I've read most of the evidence and the studies and I can see why some people find it plausible. Our proverbial primordial soup.) This may seem contrary to Occam's Razor, but if all things are assumed equal in this instance then the idea that a creator made the universe is as equally plausible as the idea that it created itself. Save the arguments that Occam's Razor eliminates the need for a God hypothesis because everything can be explained without him. Anyway, am I saying that it couldn't have happened the other way? Nah. I don't have all the answers. I don't think I want all the answers because that would make life so boring. Besides, none of us are going to know all the answers until after we're dead anyway, and after that what difference does it make? Well, I guess that depends on how literal you feel death is...but that's probably another topic for another forum.
Look, I don't want to convert anybody, so calm down and stop being so defensive. Walk with your conscience and I'll walk with mine. Really, doesn't this all boil down to interpretation? So, our interpretations just don't agree. If you really want to be frightened, I'll share this with you: I'm going to be teaching high school biology. I believe it is important to put the information out there and let people make up their own minds (we all did). Will I teach creationism in my biology class? I don't think we're technically allowed to, and I'm not entirely certain that we're even allowed to teach evolution in Tennessee (still). I do believe that students get enough creationism (at least around here they do) at church. If I were allowed to teach creationism would I? I don't think I could teach it and still call it a biology class. I'll be honest, I don't have a classic form of hard-core evidence to support creationism. All I know about creationism is what I feel in my heart. Besides, it's not my responsibility as a teacher to impress upon my students my personal ideas, my responsibility is to make them think for themselves. I will teach them the things that we know (cells, DNA, genes, etc), and I will teach them the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection (assuming, of course, that we're allowed to, which I think we are now that I think about it). What they do with all that information is up to them. Someone started us on this journey to find the truth for ourselves--right?
Sidelined~
You asked what specifically I disagree with, and I know that I haven't covered that. Quite honestly, that would take up about a hundred more pages on both sides of the issue. There are things in Christianity I don't agree with and there are things in science I don't agree with. I don't even know that I've sat down and enumerated them in a detailed manner before. Perhaps that's something I should do. It will be a little while before I have a lengthy period of time in which to do that, but I thank you for setting my mind in that direction. Keep in mind, however, that my evolutionary point of view is primarily biological. While I understand chemistry and physics, I am no great master at either. Anything you could share with me regarding either of those two fields and their evolutionary evidence would be greatly appreciated.
Hope this message finds you all well. I guess there is no scientific evidence to support creationism. But, then again, I don't think that matters to a creationist anyway. All the scientific support I need for God I see everyday--and so do other people. It's all a matter of perception and interpretation.
Jar~I agree with you whole-heartedly. To deny one cripples both. The church I was raised in was staunchly anti-evolution. Everything about evolution was bad, Charles Darwin was the spawn of Satan, and the story of creation in the book of Genesis was taken as literally as it could be taken. It wasn't until I was in college that I encountered true, honest evidence that told me what evolution REALLY was and professors who were willing to really explain it. I don't attend that church anymore, and I feel sorry for the individuals who do. They preach "Question everything", but turned around and expected you to accept everything they fed to you as the rock-solid truth. How sad. Oh, and if you didn't accept it, you were a sinner--plain and simple. The Greeks preached moderation in everything (well, the wise ones did). Perhaps we should take their advice.
This message has been edited by MeganC, 10-26-2004 09:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 10-25-2004 11:59 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by mark24, posted 10-26-2004 10:46 AM MeganC has replied
 Message 94 by sidelined, posted 10-27-2004 8:31 AM MeganC has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 79 of 122 (153036)
10-26-2004 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by MeganC
10-26-2004 10:37 AM


Re: A useful distintion
MeganC,
As hard as I tried to convince myself that there was no God, I couldn't do it. To those of you who succeeded, however, I applaud you.
No atheist or agnostic "tried", hard or otherwise, to convince themselves that God exists. There is no evidence of God, therefore there is no reason to accept him.
You can convince yourself of anything if you habitually take any given proposition on faith. Why allow such an obviously flawed mental construct convince you of God, when you wouldn't accept it at any other time?
I am a pink elephant, right?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 10:37 AM MeganC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 10:54 AM mark24 has replied

  
MeganC
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 122 (153038)
10-26-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by mark24
10-26-2004 10:46 AM


Re: A useful distintion
mark24 writes:
You can convince yourself of anything if you habitually take any given proposition on faith. Why allow such an obviously flawed mental construct convince you of God, when you wouldn't accept it at any other time?
I never said that I didn't believe it before I went to college. I did. It was in college that I attempted to convince myself otherwise (what better place in the world to change your point of view--right?). I actually have a very good friend who went into college a Christian and came out an agnostic. It can happen. Just didn't work for me. Nothing especially wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with you not believing in God (as I assume you don't).
Btw, my husband would love your quote. I bought him a binary clock for our anniversary. He understands it, but to me it just looks like a bunch of flashing blue lights.
Sorry, I have to get the quote thing down. Give me time.
A visit from the quoting elf. --Admin
This message has been edited by MeganC, 10-26-2004 09:56 AM
This message has been edited by Admin, 10-26-2004 10:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mark24, posted 10-26-2004 10:46 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 10-26-2004 11:08 AM MeganC has not replied
 Message 86 by mark24, posted 10-26-2004 4:59 PM MeganC has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 81 of 122 (153040)
10-26-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by MeganC
10-26-2004 10:54 AM


Re: A useful distintion
Sorry, I have to get the quote thing down. Give me time.
To see how people do things you can click on the RAW button under each post.
For example, clicking on the RAW button will show you how I quoted your comment.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 10:54 AM MeganC has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 82 of 122 (153046)
10-26-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by MeganC
10-25-2004 11:22 PM


Re: A useful distintion
Hi Meagan,
Meagan C writes:
It was in those classes that I decided there HAD to be a God.
What do you think would happen if tomorrow a astroid the size of the US hit the Earth? All traces of mankind wiped out from existance. Then Billions of years later life emerges again to be concious and sentient and intelligent. Given that there is no record of any religions or text which theory would be redeveloped to explain existance. Evolution or Creationism? If Homosapiens were to become extinct tomorrow would bacteria hold any reverence to our passing? Would bacteria formulate a bacterial god to worship? I believe that humans matter because we say we do, not because there is some supernatural entity holding our species in higher regard to other lifeforms on this planet. God if he exist in my opinion is not a racist. You decided that there HAD to be a God because how could all the complexity that makes up existance come to be without a creator? The answer is simple if you remove yourself from the asking. There does not HAVE to be anything. I believe that the reason there is something rather than nothing is because (something ) is the natural state of the universe.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MeganC, posted 10-25-2004 11:22 PM MeganC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 10-26-2004 2:22 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 84 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 2:44 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 83 of 122 (153087)
10-26-2004 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by 1.61803
10-26-2004 11:44 AM


Re: A useful distintion
I'm sorry but it seems to me by your logic that there would not have been a GOD until man came along.
As I see GOD's place in this universe, the existence of man is but a passing moment.
If GOD exists, and I believe HE does, then HE existed long before man and will exist long after man. Our knowledge of GOD, our theology, is manmade. It is but a construct of mankind and may be, in fact likely is, but a pale image of what is true.
You ask:
Given that there is no record of any religions or text which theory would be redeveloped to explain existance. Evolution or Creationism?
Hopefully, as observations grew and knowledge accumulated, something would once again puzzle out the HOW, puzzle out evolution.
But, as I have mentioned once or twice, the map is not the territory. Our theories, no matter how closely they approximate reality, are not reality itself. They are but tools we use to try to understand, to make sense of what we see.
If Homosapiens were to become extinct tomorrow would bacteria hold any reverence to our passing?
Probably not.
Would bacteria formulate a bacterial god to worship?
If bacteria were capable of such thoughts, possibly.
But once again, the knowledge of GOD, even the worship or denial of GOD has nothing to do with either the existence or nonexistence of GOD.
edited to fix grammer.
This message has been edited by jar, 10-26-2004 01:39 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by 1.61803, posted 10-26-2004 11:44 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by 1.61803, posted 10-26-2004 6:29 PM jar has not replied

  
MeganC
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 122 (153089)
10-26-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by 1.61803
10-26-2004 11:44 AM


Re: A useful distintion
An interesting thought. I'd never really considered what would happen if the world should be hit by a asteroid tomorrow and the entire population of the world obliterated. Just a question: Are we dealing with just the demise of the human population or of all multi-cellular organisms? Since you specifically said Homo sapiens, I'll go with that, though I can only assume that most of the plants and other animals also inhabiting this planet would also suffer tremendous casualties. No, I don't think the bacteria left behind to rule the planet would begin worshipping a god. I don't think they'd care that we'd disappeared in the traditional sense of "caring" because, as far as I'm aware, bacteria are incapable of caring at all. If you are privy to any information that indicates otherwise, I'd be very interested in reading it. However, our disappearance would certainly leave its mark on the bacteria. Some would probably cease to exist entirely, having relied on humans as hosts or at least carriers. Others would adapt (do I hear Natural Selection calling?). Can we really assume that life would come about again in a few billion years? I guess you can, though none of us would be around to know it. I read somewhere years ago that someone (and I honestly don't know who it was) had suggested that this was not the first earth. That it was indeed a second or third earth (or perhaps more than that for all I know).
As for the beliefs of the post-apocalyptic humans (if they are, indeed, humans for that matter), I really don't know what they'd do or believe. Are we assuming that all indications of a former civilization of any kind are also completely gone? Granted, after a billion years or so, I don't suppose there would be much left. Whether or not this be the case, we know that civilizations have been using gods to explain nature for centuries. The ancient Greeks, Romans, Norse, Native Americans, Egyptians--I honestly can't think of a civilization that didn't have a system of gods that they worshiped. Doesn't mean that such civilizations didn't exist, but it just means that I don't know of them. Would this new group of humans (let's call them humans, just for the sake of argument) choose to do the same? Who knows? Humans had been around for thousands of years before the Theory of Evolution came about.
Now, I'll be honest, but I don't know what God you're talking about when you say that he holds humans in higher regard than other species. My God cares about everything on this planet, regardless if it's a human or a dog or a mosquito or a giant Redwood tree. However, because we are "conscious and sentient and intelligent" beings, we are regarded more responsibilty. I also tend to believe that humans probably require more work. I'm also confused about your saying that there doesn't HAVE to be anything, yet the natural state of the universe is for there to be something? I thought the natural state of the universe was towards disorder and decay. Or did I misunderstand the lecture on entropy? Further clarification would be appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by 1.61803, posted 10-26-2004 11:44 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2004 4:02 PM MeganC has not replied
 Message 88 by 1.61803, posted 10-26-2004 7:15 PM MeganC has replied
 Message 89 by Loudmouth, posted 10-26-2004 7:22 PM MeganC has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 122 (153097)
10-26-2004 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by MeganC
10-26-2004 2:44 PM


I think what he's asking is, if a new culture, ignorant of the Bible and all Hebrew/Christian culture, tried to develop origin stories about the origin of life, would they come up with anything at all like the Book of Genesis?
A similar question is "if Noah had escaped an asteroid instead of a flood in the Bible story, would the creationists really be trying to prove the flood?"
Personally I don't find these to be fair questions; creationists believe that the stories in the Bible represent an underlying historical reality, so naturally they would propose that if the Bible were written again, with God dictating again, it would come out about the same, no matter who God was dictating to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 2:44 PM MeganC has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 86 of 122 (153102)
10-26-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by MeganC
10-26-2004 10:54 AM


Re: A useful distintion
Hi MeganC,
I never said that I didn't believe it before I went to college. I did. It was in college that I attempted to convince myself otherwise (what better place in the world to change your point of view--right?).
You miss my point. You said that we have to accept that you accept things on faith. I merely ask how you know how to accept one thing on faith, & reject something else that you could accept on faith. It seems to me to be an intellectual get out clause so you can accept/reject things as you see fit, rather than basing your position on evidence.
There is no evidence of God, therefore there's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't have enough evidence to accept the existence of God", is there?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 10:54 AM MeganC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 8:41 PM mark24 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 87 of 122 (153113)
10-26-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jar
10-26-2004 2:22 PM


Re: A useful distintion
Hi Jar, good to see I could jar a response from you.
Jar writes:
I'm sorry but is seems to me by your logic that there would not have been a GOD until man came along.
My only point is the creation stories depend on man being a central figure to Gods creation. When you and I both know that humans tend to anthorpomorphsize God. There is a base ten number system because we have 10 digits, but it is arbitrary.
Jar writes:
If GOD exists, and I believe HE does, then HE existed long before man and will exist long after man.
I do not know the answer to 'does God exist'. I do know that there was a time when the question was never raised.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 10-26-2004 2:22 PM jar has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 88 of 122 (153124)
10-26-2004 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by MeganC
10-26-2004 2:44 PM


Re: A useful distintion
Ok, lets use Aliens as our new inhabitants. After man and all evidence of mans history are gone. Would aliens reconstruct the story of life on Earth as creationsist do, or would the theory of evolution re-emerge.
MeganC writes:
However, because we are "conscious and sentient and intelligent" beings, we are regarded more responsibility.
Meaning we will be held accountable ; to stand in God's judgement? What about atheist? or pagans? or Hindus will they burn in hell for all eternity because they did not accept the Christian concept of God? Will someone who was not fortunate enough to be born in a Christian country with a Christian household be doomed to the lake of fire for not being born in the right place? Is mans eternal soul hinged simply on the place you were born?
MeganC writes:
I'm also confused about your saying that there doesn't HAVE to be anything, yet the natural state of the universe is for there to be something? I thought the natural state of the universe was towards disorder and decay.
Yes disorder and decay, but what is decaying? SOMETHING.
What I meant about " There doe not HAVE to be something. Is that humans place the importance of there HAVING to be a purpose, there HAVING to be a creator, there HAVING to be a reason for being. But in reality these are anthropomorphisms. There is something rather than nothing because the universe possibly exist in several dimentions / membranes. The big bang was possibly one membrane slamming into another.
This is called Brane theory. The natural state of the universe may very well be uncaused existance itself. Or as Saint Thomas Aquinas would put it. GOD.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 2:44 PM MeganC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 9:23 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 122 (153126)
10-26-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by MeganC
10-26-2004 2:44 PM


Re: A useful distintion
quote:
I thought the natural state of the universe was towards disorder and decay. Or did I misunderstand the lecture on entropy?
Just real quickly, since this is off topic, you did misunderstand that lecture. "Order" has to do with the different energy levels a system can have. Less order (not disorder) means that things will tend to adopt the same level of energy, such as things becoming the same temperature. Order, in the thermodynamic sense, says nothing about biological or geological complexity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by MeganC, posted 10-26-2004 2:44 PM MeganC has not replied

  
MeganC
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 122 (153150)
10-26-2004 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mark24
10-26-2004 4:59 PM


Re: A useful distintion
I never said you couldn't say there wasn't enough evidence for God for you to believe. I, personally, have plenty of evidence. Like I said before, I see it everyday. I realize some people need more than just that, and that's fine. Here's the deal, there are certain facets of Christianity that, as a Christian, you HAVE to accept. Probably the biggest one is faith. I can't say that I'm a Christian but I have no faith anymore than an evolutionist can say, "I'm an evolutionist, but I don't believe in Natural Selection". With no faith, there would be no Christian FAITH (I know, not that many of you would mourn its passing).
I don't say that I take everything on faith. For the most part, things tending to deal with the physical realm I need evidence for. I don't go out and say the grass is purple just because I believe it to be so. That would be stupid. Unfortunately, when you get into creation vs. evolution you don't have two scientists battling it out, you have scientists and Christians and politicians and the justice system and any number of other people. The scientists and the Christians tend to have vastly differing views. It would be easy for me to take one stance or the other if I weren't both. But I have to find a way to reconcile the two. I know the overwhelming evidence for evolution and there are things in there I just can't deny. I can't deny Natural Selection when it obviously occurs. If I accept Natural Selection then, by default, there are any number of things that I have to accept as well. BUT. . .I also know what I believe religiously which I cannot, in good conscience, deny because to do so would be to deny my faith and my Savior. That's not something I'm willing to do. I don't take the Bible literally--I don't think that everything in there is meant to be taken literally. With the exception of evolution, I don't take much science on faith. I don't need to--that's why it's called science. The problem with this topic is that it's NOT just science--it calls into question hundreds if not thousands of years of religious beliefs. To ask people to completely, unquestionably accept 100% of evolution as the full answer almost demands the end of religion. After all, if that's all it was, then there is no need for a god of any kind. I appreciate your specific question, Mark. To answer as directly as I can, no, I don't randomly take things on faith as I see fit just because something may or may not fit my personal beliefs. If I come across something new that I feel I absolutely have to have an opinion on, I'll research it and see what I can find. There are lots of things, though, that I don't feel the need to have an opinion on. For example, I don't care how old the earth is. I have no opinion on it. Whatever anyone has to say on that subject is perfectly fine with me. And, no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that YOU don't have enough evidence for God. I think that's a perfectly valid way of feeling about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mark24, posted 10-26-2004 4:59 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 10-27-2004 9:28 AM MeganC has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024