Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
50 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (2 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 881,990 Year: 13,738/23,288 Month: 256/412 Week: 43/40 Day: 15/13 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 1 of 30 (875639)
05-01-2020 4:46 PM


I’m the newest member of this forum, and this is my first post. I’m a retired scientist, creationist and Christian.

If my understanding is correct, the name of “EvC Forum” or “Evolution versus Creation Forum” contains an assumption: evolution essentially belongs to Atheistic view, so a Creationist must reject evolution. This is not true.

Whether evolution is true or not is one thing; how to explain evolution is another matter: there can be an Atheistic explanation and a Theistic explanation.

Of course, Neo-Darwinism’s interpretation of evolution is an Atheistic theory. On the other hand, the Catholic Church recognizes the existence of evolution: in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body: “there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith, …, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” does this mean Pope John Paul II recognizes an Atheistic theory? Absolutely not. In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul: “Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.” Pope Francis has stated on October 27, 2014: " The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.” (See: Evolution and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia)

Therefore, evolution can be explained from a Theistic point of view, so evolution is NOT the opponent of Creationism.

What is the opponent of Creationism? Naturalism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online, in philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Therefore, Naturalism believes that all natural phenomena, including the origin and evolution of life, have or will have scientific explanation based on the natural laws, while God does not exist.

Jerry Coyne, the author of “Why Evolution is True”, believes that the battle with Creationists is a war: “The battle for evolution seems never-ending. And the battle is part of a wider war, a war between rationality and superstition.” In this war, if the Creationists don’t even know who the opponent is, how can Creationists win the battle?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-02-2020 1:21 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 05-02-2020 2:57 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2020 7:07 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2020 6:11 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 05-03-2020 1:58 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1973
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 30 (875641)
05-02-2020 12:58 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Welcome to EvC Richard. These guys are used to giving each other a hard time, but I hope that they treat you warmly even if they love to dogpile creationists.

We have some basic Forum Guidelines and I will try to moderate this topic somewhat while you get to know our forum.

Edited by AdminPhat, : welcome message for new member


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1719
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 3 of 30 (875642)
05-02-2020 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-01-2020 4:46 PM


Creation of everything fully formed and suddenly IS falsified.
It is not an issue about God and religion. It might not even be an issue about the Hebrew Bible, though nobody can say for absolutely sure if the Bible itself is on the same line with creationism.

Critics of creationism are not at all part of an anti religion ticket.

God is not attached to the butt of creationism. These are separate issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-01-2020 4:46 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7988
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 4 of 30 (875644)
05-02-2020 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-01-2020 4:46 PM


R.L.Wang writes:

... evolution essentially belongs to Atheistic view, so a Creationist must reject evolution. This is not true.

Yeh, us atheists know this. You need to tell the creationists; they're constantly telling us that evolution=atheism.

Of course, Neo-Darwinism’s interpretation of evolution is an Atheistic theory.

It's nothing of the sort, it's simply science explaining reality by adding genetics to Darwin's original work. (Darwin knew nothing about genes and DNA of course.)

… evolution can be explained from a Theistic point of view, so evolution is NOT the opponent of Creationism.

Whether evolution can rub along with religion depends on precisely what the believer believes. The problem Christian religions originally had with it was that until Darwin came along they all believed that species were immutable. They believed in special creation. The sensible, self-preservingly minded Christian sects modified this view - eventually - but some refused so you have the current divide. But it's a declining number.

In this war, if the Creationists don’t even know who the opponent is, how can Creationists win the battle?

The creationist's enemy is actually knowledge and education.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-01-2020 4:46 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5404
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 5 of 30 (875645)
05-02-2020 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-01-2020 4:46 PM


Invasion of The Pointy Hat
Hi Richard. Welcome to our little corner of the internet. Glad you have joined us. I see you’re another canuck. We have a few of you here. All good folks. Hope you hang around and contribute often. Welcome, again.

We already know, and have known for some decades, that the EvC debate isn’t really atheism v creationism. The creationists who come here, however, think they are doing battle against godless atheism. We have a smattering of theistic evolutionists here, mostly of the deist variety, but, in truth, the majority of us are indeed heathen baby-eating atheists of the science nerd variety. So pick a chair and have a seat.

Of course, Neo-Darwinism’s interpretation of evolution is an Atheistic theory.

Wrong start.

Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, whatever the accepted nomenclature is these days, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) can not be atheistic because it is science and science doesn’t do atheism or religionism or agnosticism or theism or any other –ism except fact-ism.

If there were some kind of god or demon, wizard or spirit, necessary and evident in the dynamics of evolution then such would be an accepted part of the ToE. But there isn’t so, frankly, we just don’t care.

Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul …

Just so much wind and word salad until someone brings to the fore evidence, hard and fast, of such gods or demons or wizards or spirits, and lays them on the table for study, dissection, and critical examination. Absent this the human “soul” can not be said to exist. And the Pontiff, god bless his pointy little hat, can shuck and jive all over the stage insisting on the invisible, un-evidenced, conjured by faith doctrines as he so desires, the science of the ToE doesn’t care.

So, yes, the creationist can accept the science of evolution without endangering his mortal soul and acknowledge the ToE as our best explanation of the diversity of life on this planet. What he cannot do is insist that the ToE accommodate his articles of faith.

Therefore, Naturalism believes that all natural phenomena, including the origin and evolution of life, have or will have scientific explanation based on the natural laws. while God does not exist.

There, fixed it for you. God doesn't enter into the situation at all. If it did God would be a part of the science, a part of the natural laws, the naturalism.

Until you can show some efficacy, evidence, reality for this God hypothesis it is ignored. Not opposed, not shunned ... just ignored.

how can Creationists win the battle?

They can’t. They never could. They lost this war some 100+ years ago.

Evolution, science, naturalism underpin the reality of this debate. When you step outside that box … you lose.

Welcome, again, to Godless Atheists vs Evil Creationists, Richard.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-01-2020 4:46 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33012
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 6 of 30 (875647)
05-02-2020 9:30 AM


The opponent of Creationism is reality.
Welcome home. Pull up a stump and set a spell. The issue of Evolution and Christianity was settle over a century ago within most recognized Christian sects and they fully accept the fact of evolution.

The point you raise about Creationism and Naturalism may or may not be relevant . Folks are of course free to hold almost any belief but the facts and reality is that there is overwhelming evidence for Nature and natural processes but absolutely no evidence for any supernatural being or supernatural processes.

As a life long Christian raised in a Christian family and educated in Christian schools I see absolutely no way to ever justify any Creationist or Intelligent Design marketing ploy.

I do hold the unsupportable, irrational and illogical belief that there is a GOD that is the creator of all that is seen and unseen but must also admit that ALL of the evidence shows only totally natural and unguided processes created everything we can observe to exist now or at anytime in the past.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


(4)
Message 7 of 30 (875658)
05-02-2020 4:26 PM


Thank you all
Thanks for everyone. I’m glad to find this little corner of the internet, where Theists and Atheists discuss their opposite views on science, rather than fight each other.

AdminPhat – Thank you for reminding me of the Forum Guidelines and, of course, I’ll follow it.

I’m sorry for my replying late and for not responding one post by one post, because I’ll submit my post at least one day after it’s finished, and I type very slowly. I’ll submit my response tomorrow. Sorry again.


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2020 4:45 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5404
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 8 of 30 (875660)
05-02-2020 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Richard L. Wang
05-02-2020 4:26 PM


Re: Thank you all
No apologies necessary, Richard. Take your time. We're not going anywhere.

And you needn't respond to each message. We're flexible.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-02-2020 4:26 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 9 of 30 (875664)
05-02-2020 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-01-2020 4:46 PM


Welcome. Your first post suggests that we may finally have a creationist here who is capable of constructive discussion. I certainly hope so.

If you do not feel warmly welcomed, please understand that multitudes of dishonest creationists, mostly young earth creationists (YECs), have thoroughly poisoned the well for you. Sorry about that, but them's the facts of life that we have to pay a price for the malfeasance of others.

First, I need to ask a few questions so that we know that we are talking about the same things. Sorry, poisoned well again. So many creationists spread lies and seek to deceive by redefining and misrepresenting terms and ideas. I hope you understand.

BTW, for formatting this forum accepts most HTML tags as well as dBCodes tags. When you reply, in the left column you will see "HTML On" and "dBCodes On" with a help link next to each one. Click on those help links for information about using those tags.

In addition, you can look to see what tags we have used. In the bottom right-hand corner of each message you will see two buttons: Reply and Peek. If you click on Peek then a new page (or tab on your browser) will open up showing the text of the message with the tags. When you are in the middle of replying, then in the upper right-hand corner of the message that you're replying to you will see two radio buttons: Normal and Peek Mode. That will do the same thing for you.

For example, we use QS tags to quote from the message we're replying to. If you switch to Peek Mode, then you can copy and paste the formatting as well as the text.

I’m the newest member of this forum, and this is my first post. I’m a retired scientist, creationist and Christian.

I apologize for having to ask you this, but the well water has been poisoned by YECs. You see, a YEC who emailed me claimed to be a scientist and was very adamant about it. I asked him what field and after some bluster he finally replied that he had taken a science class once, so that made him a scientist. Because of that and similar BS from other YECs, I have to ask the question.

What kind of scientist were you? Which field? It may be useful to know where your expertise lies.

 
The label of "creationist" doesn't really explain much, since there are many possible definitions arising in part the existence of a broad spectrum of creationism. See the NCSE article, The Creation/Evolution Continuum, which begins:

quote:
Many — if not most — Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated: creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution.

For example, biologist Dr. Kenneth R. Miller has self-identified as a creationist since, as a practicing Catholic, he believes in a Creator God. He has also been for decades one of the leading and most effective opponents of "creation science".

While a PhD candidate in Physical Geology at a conservative Christian college, an evangelical Christian and creationist wrote essays and hosted a Christianity/religion discussion site (web ring) in which he was highly critical of YEC-style creationism. The beginning and conclusion of one of his essays:

quote:
I am an evangelical Christian and a creationist. I am also a Ph.D. candidate in geology, believe that the earth is approximately 4,600,000,000 years old, and have taught evolution in historical geology courses. Does this sound contradictory to you? Well, read on...

. . .

Keeping all of the above in mind, I think it's time for Christians to reclaim the word creationists from the Biblical literalists. To be a creationist means to believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life therein. This is the historic, orthodox Christian position and implies nothing about the age of the earth or the mechanisms (or lack thereof) of biological evolution. Let's speak of Biblical creation or young-earth creation when distinguishing the beliefs of those who accept a literal reading of Genesis.

In regard to the Biblical-creation/evolution controversy, I think it's probably best for Christians not to become dogmatic one way or another, to accept that devout Christians can hold differing viewpoints on the issue, to be willing to examine the evidence with an open mind, and to remain humble in the knowledge that only God knows the whole Truth. I think we'll all be surprised when we one day stand face-to-face with our Creator!


However and unfortunately, most uses of "creationist" applies to the dishonest anti-evolution factions, most of which are YECs and IDists (of the dishonest faction, which includes too many of the ID movement's leaders). That is the variety that most of us encounter, especially here, which again poisons the well for other creationists. But since that is the variety that we encounter with such sickening regularity, that is the variety that we mean when we use the term, "creationist". Be advised of that fact when you read our posts here.

So then what kind of creationist are you? You can see that that "creationist" is too broad a term and that it does require explanation and discussion.

If my understanding is correct, the name of “EvC Forum” or “Evolution versus Creation Forum” contains an assumption: evolution essentially belongs to Atheistic view, so a Creationist must reject evolution. This is not true.

I agree fully that such an assumption is not true. However, that assumption is not being made by this forum. Rather, that is the fundamental assumption of creationists (ie, the anti-evolution movement which consists mainly of YECs and the dishonest ID proponents (which includes many of the leading proponents of "intelligent design", but also the YECs who have donned ID garb in order to hide their fundamentalist religious agenda)).

For our part, we keep trying to explain to the creationists what evolution has nothing to do with atheism, but they never listen. You can always tell a creationist, you just cannot tell him anything.

Whether evolution is true or not is one thing; how to explain evolution is another matter: there can be an Atheistic explanation and a Theistic explanation.

Here we disagree. How to explain evolution is a scientific matter -- unless you are engaging in typical YEC creationist deception by redefining and misrepresenting evolution to be something that it clearly is not. Please demonstrate that that is not your intent.

When we speak of evolution, we are talking about biological evolution, which is a scientific idea. Whether or not it is true must be done scientifically and explaining it must be done scientifically. There are no "Atheistic or Theistic explanations" about it, only scientific explanations. Do you also insist that gravity must have "Atheistic or Theistic explanations" as well? Why not? So why single evolution out for special treatment?

You got some 'splainin' to do. Specifically whether you are applying some special non-scientific definition to evolution (just as the YECs do) and why you would think that it would need "Atheistic or Theistic explanations" that are not required of any other scientific idea (assuming that you are not making such a requirement of gravity, kinematics, dynamic, etc).

Therefore, evolution can be explained from a Theistic point of view, so evolution is NOT the opponent of Creationism.

Rather, evolution is a scientific idea which works through natural processes. My own definition of evolution is that it is the natural consequences of populations of living things doing what living things do (ie, interact with their environments, survive, reproduce, rinse and repeat). Nothing special or mysterious about it.

Creation is a religious idea that there was something supernatural that brought things into existence. Those things would necessarily include natural processes. Exactly how creation through supernatural means happened or even would happen is not known and very likely will never be known. For that matter, supernatural creation does not eliminate the involvement of natural processes.

That last is very important, because too many creationists seem to assume that if something happened through natural processes then that would disprove God, as if God is only able to operate by supernatural means and cannot use natural processes.

Evolution does not conflict with Creation. They don't really have much of anything to do with each other.

However, Creationism can conflict with evolution along with many other aspects of reality. Creationism would do so by artificially creating that conflict, such as through misrepresention and by making flagrantly false claims about the real world.

What is the opponent of Creationism? Naturalism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online, in philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Therefore, Naturalism believes that all natural phenomena, including the origin and evolution of life, have or will have scientific explanation based on the natural laws, while God does not exist.

OK, now we get to the crux of the matter. Along with a basic point of confusion in "intelligent design" (ID).

What you are describing is "philosophical naturalism". Indeed, that is exactly what your definition tells us: "in philosophy, naturalism is ... ". But that does not mean that other forms of naturalism follow that same definition. Such as the methodological naturalism used in science and which the IDists also attack indiscriminately.

I don't know how broad your background is, whether you just concentrated on one specific field or would study a wide range of subjects. As you study different subjects, you find that each one has a special vocabulary, what laymen deride as "jargon". You also find that most of these special vocabularies use many of the same words, but each with a special definition peculiar to that subject/discipline. A example would be the use of "work" in physics as opposed to common speech -- in common speech, if you lift a weight and then put it down again you've done work, whereas in physics you would have done zero work. One of creationists' more common deceptive techniques is called "semantic shifting" wherein they take a quote by a scientist using his field's specialized vocabulary and then reinterpreting it according to common speech, thus misquoting that scientist without having to change a single word.

ID opposes philosophical naturalism (albeit without that modifier), but it conflates different kinds of naturalism together leading it to attack them all. That is wrong and wrong-headed. And that wrong-headedness has led to the Wedge Strategy that would require the inclusion of the supernatural into science which, if actually done, would basically kill science. We had a topic addressing that over a decade ago, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY); you might find it of interest.

Questions about the supernatural have no place in science, because they are of absolutely no use in science. Because we cannot work with the supernatural nor take it into account. The supernatural is outside human means of detection, observation, examination, etc. If you formulate a hypothesis which includes supernatural factors, how would you ever be able to test for those factors and what their effects are? You cannot. How would you ever be able to construct an experiment that uses supernatural conditions? You cannot. The supernatural is beyond the ability of science to work with it.

Therefore, science uses methodological naturalism. In a scientific question (basically, the "how does this work?" questions), the only factors and the only explanations that you can use must be naturalistic ones. Not because you want to deny the existence of God, but rather because naturalistic explanations and factors are the only ones you can work with in science. It is a practical consideration, not a philosophical one.

And for some reason, IDists cannot understand that. You can always tell an IDist, you just cannot tell him anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-01-2020 4:46 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18813
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 10 of 30 (875699)
05-03-2020 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-01-2020 4:46 PM


Richard L. Wang writes:

I’m a retired scientist, creationist and Christian.


Retired creationist? Retired Christian?

I'm a recovering Christian myself. It can be a hard addiction to shake.


"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-01-2020 4:46 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 11 of 30 (875706)
05-03-2020 4:36 PM


Science reveals the creation of God
In philosophy, Godless Atheists can think that Theism is wrong, not reality, or even anti-science, but it is Theism vs. Atheism, not Theism vs. reality or science. Similarly, in science, it is Creationism vs. Naturalism, not Creationism vs. reality or science. (Please don’t use Evil to describe Creationists; maybe I understand English too formally, for me, the meaning of the word evil very negative.)

The description of naturalism - given by the Oxford English Dictionary Online that naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." - is in philosophy. In fact, this is a scientific statement, so I take it as the description of naturalism in science as well.

As I pointed out, the opponent of Creationism is Naturalism rather than Evolution. Therefore, Creationists need not challenge evolution. In my opinion, one can challenge evolution by raising this or that issue, but it is impossible to refute evolution. However, Creationism can refute Naturalism. Contrary to most people’s view, science is on the side of Creationism not Naturalism. Science reveals the creation of God.

An example is the Big Bang theory. In the 1920s and 1930s, the mainstream cosmological theory was the steady state theory of the eternal universe. In 1931, the Belgian Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître proposed his Big Bang theory to explain the expansion of the universe observed by the American astronomer Edwin Hubble in the late 1920s. Proponents of the steady state theory had repeatedly opposed and even hinted that Georges Lemaître, as a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory for religious consideration, because the Big Bang theory shows that the universe had a beginning and a Creator. However, the Big Bang theory has been supported by many observations, and has become the mainstream cosmological theory. Robert Jastrow, an American astronomer, wrote in his book titled “God and The Astronomers” in 1978: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

dwise1 – Thank you so much for kindly helping me to familiarize with the functions on the forum panel.

I hold a Ph.D. in (Theoretical) Physics and my main field is applied theoretical chemical physics. I published a book (in Chinese) and dozens of papers; unfortunately, nothing important or influential. I am familiar with physics, chemistry, computational science, mathematics, logic. I know experiment. I self-study biology due to my personal interest.

I’m a Creationist, different all Creationists you know. You will understand what my creationism is after I propose several topics for debate. I’m going to propose a series of topics. The answer for each topic is YES or NO. If YES, I won the debate on that topic; if NO, I lost, and I would state I was wrong. As human beings, we are far from perfect. We may make this or that mistake. Admitting mistakes is not shameful at all. One should be shamed if he/she denies or even covers up mistakes he/she made.

ringo - (smile)


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2020 5:23 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2020 5:28 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 14 by jar, posted 05-03-2020 8:18 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2020 2:03 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 17 by AZPaul3, posted 05-04-2020 5:19 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 05-05-2020 1:39 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 30 (875708)
05-03-2020 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Richard L. Wang
05-03-2020 4:36 PM


Re: Science reveals the creation of God
Welcome to the fray, Richard L. Wang, it is refreshing to have a fresh voice, point of view.

maybe I understand English too formally, for me, the meaning of the word evil very negative.)

Don't worry, one of my (U of Toronto) professors opined that the international language of science was broken english.

In philosophy, Godless Atheists can think that Theism is wrong, not reality, or even anti-science, but it is Theism vs. Atheism, not Theism vs. reality or science. Similarly, in science, it is Creationism vs. Naturalism, not Creationism vs. reality or science. ...

You can describe me as an agnostic Deist, agnostic because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods/Gods/GODS. I am also an open-minded skeptic, willing to consider new ideas/concepts, but skeptical of their validity.

I’m a Creationist, different all Creationists you know ...

Technically I am a creationist because I believe tentatively that god/s created the universe.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-03-2020 4:36 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7988
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 13 of 30 (875709)
05-03-2020 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Richard L. Wang
05-03-2020 4:36 PM


Re: Science reveals the creation of God
RLW writes:

The description of naturalism - given by the Oxford English Dictionary Online that naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." - is in philosophy. In fact, this is a scientific statement, so I take it as the description of naturalism in science as well.

Round these parts we don't much care for philosophy, deep thought is only a very, very poor substitute for actual facts and information that can be tested and verified.

As I pointed out, the opponent of Creationism is Naturalism rather than Evolution ... Creationism can refute Naturalism. Contrary to most people’s view, science is on the side of Creationism not Naturalism. Science reveals the creation of God.

So now we get it.

I’m going to propose a series of topics. The answer for each topic is YES or NO. If YES, I won the debate on that topic; if NO, I lost,

And what we get is yet another loony that claims to be a scientist and knows the “truth”. But oddly, instead of publishing his “truth” in Nature, he comes to a dead and dying website to attempt to convince a handful of aging atheists of his revealed “truth”. I can hardly wait.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-03-2020 4:36 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2020 8:49 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33012
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 14 of 30 (875714)
05-03-2020 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Richard L. Wang
05-03-2020 4:36 PM


Re: Science reveals the creation of God
Nonsense, Science does not reveal the creation of God.

Science reveals creation.

You and I may well believe that there is a GOD, the creator of all, seen and unseen; but it is just our belief, an irrational, illogical unsupported by any and all evidence belief.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-03-2020 4:36 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16628
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 15 of 30 (875720)
05-04-2020 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Richard L. Wang
05-03-2020 4:36 PM


Re: Science reveals the creation of God
quote:
You will understand what my creationism is after I propose several topics for debate. I’m going to propose a series of topics. The answer for each topic is YES or NO. If YES, I won the debate on that topic; if NO, I lost, and I would state I was wrong.

I hope that you are going to provide more substance than you did here. The Jastrow quote has come up before, but without any clear indication of just what the theologians apparently anticipated. I don’t think that cosmology has really hit the final peaks even now - and I don’t see much of a contribution from theology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-03-2020 4:36 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020