Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#333
#333
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I like having discussions with you man, you still try and make yourself seem smarter than you might be though.
Click to expand...

You don't know me. I just get on here and discuss things like anybody else. What you see is what you get, except I am a little more quiet in person.
 
#334
#334
For the heck of it....

Where did the Genesis flood water come from?

How could the flood form the Grand Canyon?

How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?

What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is only a few thousand years old?

How do you explain the astronomical evidence that the universe is billions of years old, without resorting to the preposterous assumption that the speed of light was millions of times faster in the past than it is now?
visit.gif

What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

If your claim that thermodynamics will not permit the evolution of complex living structures is true, then how do you explain, without resorting to make-believe special mechanisms that have no basis in thermodynamics, the development of a chick in an egg?

If creationism is scientifically valid, then why is it necessary to emphasize that the sectarian religous dogma of the Book of Genesis is the ultimate scientific authority?
 
Last edited:
#336
#336
rjd970 said:
I respect your opinion on this, I really do. I find it worthwhile to discuss. But I don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye on this.
Click to expand...

I agree.

You've said time and time again that you are a 9 out of 10 on believing there is no creator - to me that's about as close to faith as you can come thus why I hammer on the intellectual honesty thing. In your mind (I'm guessing) you think the notion of a creator is complete BS. However, that is inconsistent with a scientific inquiry view that all is possible. I really don't see that as much different than someone who leans strongly towards a creator (me).

The more scientific inquiry I do, the more convinced I am of it's limits. I simply don't buy the notion that an invention of man is inherently capable of explaining all that "is". It may be the best we have but I don't place the faith in it that you and others do.
 
Last edited:
#338
#338
rjd970 said:
I don't care if creationism...any flavor (ie religion) of it...or its bastard child intelligent design is taught in schools. Just keep it out of the science classroom and we're good. It has no business there. Science classes are meant for, you know, science. Say what you want about what you believe and how you came to believe it but creationism or ID simply aren't alternative theories with any kind of scientific backing.

Have at it if you want to discuss it in a theology or philosophy class.
Click to expand...

Hey! We agree on something.
 
#339
#339
turambar85 said:
Copout. If you think your view is scientifically adequate and/or better, propound a little on your beliefs. If it is just faith, admit it and leave science classes to science. I have no problem with you admitting it isn't rationally based at all. But, as I said, if it is...participate. You wouldn't take so kindly to us evading all posed questions.
Click to expand...

You have faith in science - a creation of man. Admit that this is your "faith" and we can move on. To me, that is part of being intellectually honest. It seems your world is bounded by what can be known by western-style scientific thought. Anything else is fantasy, faith or worse "irrational".

I agree with separating science and non-science but don't accept the notion that science is the only rational way to understand things unless you limit the definition of "rational" to only being based on scientific inquiry.

Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such. On that we definitely agree.
 
#340
#340
volinbham said:
You have faith in science - a creation of man. Admit that this is your "faith" and we can move on. To me, that is part of being intellectually honest. It seems your world is bounded by what can be known by western-style scientific thought. Anything else is fantasy, faith or worse "irrational".

I agree with separating science and non-science but don't accept the notion that science is the only rational way to understand things unless you limit the definition of "rational" to only being based on scientific inquiry.

Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such. On that we definitely agree.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, from which of my posts did you derive these beliefs? Talk about a misinterpretation!

First, I explained the differences in tentative acceptance of hypotheses and faith. I have the former, not the latter.

Second, I do not think science is the only route to knowledge. I am, my future trade after all, a philosopher. Science as knowledge kind of infringes on my space here! :p

I simply believe that, in science classes, only science matters. Teach philosophy (please!) but not in the same space. And scientists and theologians - if intellectually honest - should be able to have fruitful discussions.
 
#345
#345
turambar85 said:
I'm sorry, from which of my posts did you derive these beliefs? Talk about a misinterpretation!

First, I explained the differences in tentative acceptance of hypotheses and faith. I have the former, not the latter.

Second, I do not think science is the only route to knowledge. I am, my future trade after all, a philosopher. Science as knowledge kind of infringes on my space here! :p

I simply believe that, in science classes, only science matters. Teach philosophy (please!) but not in the same space. And scientists and theologians - if intellectually honest - should be able to have fruitful discussions.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misinterpreted some of you comments.

Maybe it's your rhetoric describing other views as deranged and silly.

I assume then you acknowledge:

1) a creator is possible and that evidence to date does not point to the lack of one.

2) some phenomena may never be explainable by scientific inquiry.
 
#346
#346
volinbham said:
Perhaps I misinterpreted some of you comments.

Maybe it's your rhetoric describing other views as deranged and silly.

I assume then you acknowledge:

1) a creator is possible and that evidence to date does not point to the lack of one.

2) some phenomena may never be explainable by scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

1) Scientific evidence doesn't point to a lack of a creator, but as a scientific hypothesis a creator fails because of the well-mentioned null hypothesis. Also, a creator is metaphysically and philosophically possible, sure. But philosophical evidence against a creator is, I believe, better than the arguments for.

2) Agreed. If we accentuate 'may'.

And, as I've mentioned earlier, that was an attempt to ensure a successful thread. I think the position of creation science is bat **** crazy, sure. Creationism, on the other hand, is just wrong in my opinion. The difference lies in trying to make your faith a science.
 
#347
#347
turambar85 said:
1) Scientific evidence doesn't point to a lack of a creator, but as a scientific hypothesis a creator fails because of the well-mentioned null hypothesis. Also, a creator is metaphysically and philosophically possible, sure. But philosophical evidence against a creator is, I believe, better than the arguments for.

2) Agreed. If we accentuate 'may'.

And, as I've mentioned earlier, that was an attempt to ensure a successful thread. I think the position of creation science is bat **** crazy, sure. Creationism, on the other hand, is just wrong in my opinion. The difference lies in trying to make your faith a science.
Click to expand...

I do not know of a single Christian that tries to make faith a science. That is your game to be able to argue against it.
Do you know the Biblical definition of faith?
 
#348
#348
turambar85 said:
1) Scientific evidence doesn't point to a lack of a creator, but as a scientific hypothesis a creator fails because of the well-mentioned null hypothesis. Also, a creator is metaphysically and philosophically possible, sure. But philosophical evidence against a creator is, I believe, better than the arguments for.
Click to expand...

Agree with the first part but don't see that as a strike against a creator - just shows that a man-created approach "science" doesn't work well with a supra-man concept.

It seems to me that science uber alles advocates actively seek to show that a creator doesn't/didn't exist which is anti-scientific in and of itself. They should be truly agnostic on the issue to be true to scientific inquiry.

Don't necessarily agree with the second part.

We do agree that creationism is not a science. i think those that argue it is are unintentionally hurting their argument.
 
#349
#349
T-TownVol said:
I do not know of a single Christian that tries to make faith a science. That is your game to be able to argue against it.
Do you know the Biblical definition of faith?
Click to expand...

Really? You have never heard of ... creation science? :)

And, yes...I know that definition. Substance of things hoped for and what not.
 
#350
#350
volinbham said:
Agree with the first part but don't see that as a strike against a creator - just shows that a man-created approach "science" doesn't work well with a supra-man concept.

It seems to me that science uber alles advocates actively seek to show that a creator doesn't/didn't exist which is anti-scientific in and of itself. They should be truly agnostic on the issue to be true to scientific inquiry.

Don't necessarily agree with the second part.

We do agree that creationism is not a science. i think those that argue it is are unintentionally hurting their argument.
Click to expand...

I didn't use it as a knock. I am just responding to creationism and natural theology.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top