|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Both are religious by any definition since they both possess traits of fundamentalism, blindly adhering to whatever their respective camps' dogma is touting. I was going to say that your ignorance of science is astounding, but the fact of the matter is that it's all too common. You really should try to learn at least the basics of a subject before commenting on it.
Conversely, to say all that we are, and life in general came from a random, matter of chance, therefore our existence and lives means nothing, and we go nowhere after this mortal existence is equally preposterous. Well, it is preposterous to say that since we came into existence through a natural process life means nothing. But it's only the creos who believe this.
But I am definitely on the creationists' side of the fence when it come to this debate Never would have guessed. You have a lot to learn. If you are truly interested in learning, you came to the right place. There are many people here, me included, who would be delighted to teach you what science really is, what it does, and how it works. On the other hand, if your intent is to come here and tell us what we think and tell us things about science that we know to be incorrect, you are wasting your time.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 47 Joined:
|
Yes, please teach me. Show me in a rigorous scientific method how you can spontaneously create life with some kind of biological compatible matter, and how the environment to sustain this viable biological matter came into existence from some unexplainable cosmic explosion, and tell me why this explosion occurred? You must know the secret of the god particle. Please tell me how it came to being too, since you don't think any higher beings exist to cause life. Is there a mathematical equation you have, or experiments that show that this phenomenon is repeatable? If not, you have contradicted yourself along the same standards your scientific theory religion rests upon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Wonderful, wonderful. More misunderstandings about how science works and what it thinks.
Here's a hint: when you're trying to learn, the best way is to ask questions, not make ridiculous claims. In any event, I'll address those points you make to the best of my ability. We don't know exactly how life came into existence. There are different theories and research into that question is ongoing. However, since there is no definitive answer, there is no dogma to cling to about this question. There was no "cosmic explosion," at least not in the sense that most people think of when they think of explosion. There was an expansion. Don't let the somewhat misleading name "Big Bang" mislead you. I don't really know much about the Higgs boson. I never got past high school physics. Since, to my knowledge, it hasn't even been seen, I don't think anyone knows how it came to be. Research in this area is ongoing.
Is there a mathematical equation you have, or experiments that show that this phenomenon is repeatable? You have an undefined referent there. I don't know what "phenomenon" you are referring to, so can't reply directly to that. However, your implication that an event must be repeatable to be scientific is incorrect. Science studies many, many things that are not repeatable. What's important is not that the event itself be repeatable, but that others be able to replicate the same observations that a scientist makes. Whether those observations are about an event that happened in the past is irrelevant.
...scientific theory religion... An oxymoronic word salad. Running through your post is an implicit derogation of science if it hasn't answered all questions about a particular subject. The fact that scientists are still researching an area is actually one of the hallmarks of any field of scientific inquiry. Any scientist will tell you that for every answer, there is another question, sometimes more than one. So if you think you can attack science by asking questions it cannot yet answer, this is just something else you are wrong about.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 47 Joined:
|
You cant answer the questions without contradicting your dogma. Neither can a creationist. They both want ALL the answers right NOW, and turn their theories/interpretations into facts. Some things remain unknown, beyond our scope of understanding. However, Creationists will be more accepting of this than the science community because they believe that some things are unfathomable mysteries of God, while scientists will reject anything that contradicts the popular, anti-spiritual theory of the day. Both are small-minded approachesand get it the way of truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
You are wrong.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bridgebuilder, and welcome to the fray.
... Both are religious by any definition ... This is a hoary old PRATT:
quote: To a evolutionist, saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset. They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ... Those that look to understand the universe through science, the scientific method, and objective evidence, can refer to mountains of objective evidence that shows the earth to be old. For an example of the evidence see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. To think that this kind of evidence can just be swept away because of personal belief is not just ridiculous but delusional:
If you disagree, then feel free to participate on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.
... They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ... People of a scientific disposition will not accept any hypothesis or theory that is not only unsupported by evidence but contradicted by evidence. The rejection of all theories and hypothesis that are invalidated is specifically why science is not dogmatic.
... or ex nihilo creationism, which defies laws of thermodynamics. Demonstrating that you don't understand thermodynamics. This is another hoary old PRATT:
quote: If you want to build bridges, then I suggest you start from a realistic position. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
I attacked the creationists also even though I personally lean toward a Higher Being as they do, an Intelligence that caused life as we know it. But they should not reject science either. Science shouldn't out right reject everything spiritual. Quantum physics could do a lot for religion, as well as super-string theory, etc,. and the like. Perhaps religion/spirituality doesn't have as much to offer science as science has to offer the spiritual side. Perhaps it does. both sides seem closed minded in my view. Most truths lie in the middle of radically opposite theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Subbie writes:
...We don't know exactly how life came into existence. ... I don't think anyone knows how it came to be. ... bridgebuilder writes:
Comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it? Some things remain unknown, beyond our scope of understanding. However, Creationists will be more accepting of this than the science communityTradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
Don't tell me to start from a "realistic" approach when you didn't read my post. I am not a proponent of a new/young earth. I believe the earth is very old
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Science shouldn't out right reject everything spiritual. Science doesn't reject everything spiritual. It ignores it. Science studies the natural world. Science studies anything that can be observed. Since the spiritual cannot be observed and does not have any observable impact on the natural world, science has nothing to say about it.
Perhaps religion/spirituality doesn't have as much to offer science as science has to offer the spiritual side. Religion has nothing to offer science. Religion is about believing in the absence of evidence or, in many cases, in contradiction to what the evidence shows. This is anathema to science. Where there is no evidence, science stands mute. And, to the extent that religion insists on making claims in the absence of evidence, science has nothing to offer it. To the extent that religion makes claims that defy observable facts, science will say that it is wrong.
both sides seem closed minded in my view. I sincerely hope that science can get over the profound disappointment it no doubt feels following this revelation.
Most truths lie in the middle of radically opposite theories. Science doesn't deal in "truths." Science is about putting together the best explanation for the evidence found to date. One theory says that the Earth is the middle of the universe. One says the Earth revolves around a star near the edge of a galaxy in a universe that has no discernible center. Do you think the truth is between those two theories, or is one accurate and one inaccurate?Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
"We don't know exactly how life came into existence.
... I don't think anyone knows how it came to be." I agree. It is a matter of faith. Faith in science or faith in religion. I happen to believe that God is the ultimate scientist and both sides have validity. Both side have falsehoods. I am aware that this view will not make allies either side. That is fine. Peace out, I learn even when I'm insulted. http://209.160.41.193/Images/Moods/mood10.gifon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it? Well, in one sense, bb is accurate. Creos are considerably more accepting of things they don't know, and quite willing to let those unknowns remain unknown, particularly when they might not like the answers. Scientists, on the other hand, are willing to acknowledge what they don't know, but then set about finding out the answers.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I agree. It is a matter of faith. It's not, not for science. For science, it's a mystery, to be investigated and solved, if possible.
I happen to believe that God is the ultimate scientist and both sides have validity. That's because you don't know what the evidence is.
Peace out, I learn even when I'm insulted. Well, you haven't been insulted here, and you haven't learned. Maybe we should try being insulting.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bridgebuilder,
Don't tell me to start from a "realistic" approach when you didn't read my post. I am not a proponent of a new/young earth. I believe the earth is very old Curiously, it appears that you did not read my post with complete comprehension. An astute reader would know that I did not even imply you were a YEC, but was replying to your point:
To a evolutionist, saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset. They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ... Those that look to understand the universe through science, the scientific method, and objective evidence, can refer to mountains of objective evidence that shows the earth to be old. For an example of the evidence see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. To think that this kind of evidence can just be swept away because of personal belief is not just ridiculous but delusional:
If you disagree, then feel free to participate on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.
... They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ... People of a scientific disposition will not accept any hypothesis or theory that is not only unsupported by evidence but contradicted by evidence. The rejection of all theories and hypothesis that are invalidated is specifically why science is not dogmatic. This is how science works as opposed to religion. Now would you care to reply to the post (Message 21) rather than play games? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
subbie writes:
But in most other senses he is wrong.
Well, in one sense, bb is accurate. subbie writes:
But they do require that criteria. Creos are considerably more accepting of things they don't know, and quite willing to let those unknowns remain unknown, particularly when they might not like the answers.Their acceptance of unknowns is intrinsically tied to (and limited by) their beliefs: it is dogma. subbie writes:
True, scientists will want to 'fix' unknowns by finding the answers. Scientists, on the other hand, are willing to acknowledge what they don't know, but then set about finding out the answers.But they don't deny that they exist. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024