• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does anyone else find creationism insulting to God?

zorn said:
Where did anyone say time is a magical factor that makes anything possible? As you obviously agree, that's a ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

It's been used in arguments by people in this forum. For the record, I don't agree with it.
 
Read the last paragraph of zorns last post again and *think* about what that analogy implies about the theory of evolution.
 
Turbo Monk said:
It's been used in arguments by people in this forum. For the record, I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...
Can you show me where? I think almost certainly they were making (or intending to make, at least) the same argument I just made in my last post.

Do you understand what I'm saying there? Not having a very slow process isn't an argument against its existence, correct? Engage with me here, TurboMonk.
 
zorn said:
Can you show me where? I think almost certainly they were making (or intending to make, at least) the same argument I just made in my last post.

Do you understand what I'm saying there? Not having a very slow process isn't an argument against its existence, correct? Engage with me here, TurboMonk.
Click to expand...

I don't find what you said debateable, just furthers my notion that both views take faith.

If you want to know specific posts for people mentioning time being the magical factor, you're gonna have to do a search. I don't have any posts saved nor do I have time to look but I do recall several posts over the months/years where people imply time as god.
 
Turbo Monk said:
I don't find what you said debateable, just furthers my notion that both views take faith.
Click to expand...
Why do have that notion? If there were no scientific evidence for common descent, then belief in it would be a matter of faith. If this were the year 1750 then I would agree with you.

But it's 2005 and there is an enormous amount of evidence available to us, and it shows that common descent is correct -- eg, the fossil record, tons of genetic evidence, geographical & anatomical features of species, etc; see my earlier posts or ask for details. That evidence, not faith, is the reason to accept that common descent / evolution is true.
 
I think there is always a small bit of faith involved in science. Mainly because no matter how much evidence we gather there is always a probability of it being wrong.

This obviously applies to some things more than others. Even with fundamental laws in physics, there are situations where those laws do not apply. We can predict a 99.9% probability of something happening but we can never say anything in science is absolute because sceince is perpetually evolving. On the other hand religious ideologies state an absolute truth without much evidence to support it so the faith factor is a lot higher. There are many people who do treat sceince as a religion, they foolishly believe that the current theories are absolutely true, while there is always a possibility that a new discovery could be made that would majorly impact our view onthe world. There have been a number of those types of discoveries throughout history.
 
I think there is always a small bit of faith involved in science. Mainly because no matter how much evidence we gather there is always a probability of it being wrong.
Click to expand...

Just to second this, yes the fact that scientists admit that existing observational evidence is imperfect is what separates science from faith.

Faith requires an absolute belief in something. That is, one cannot believe 99.9% in G_d.

Science is not an absolute belief. Often a scientific theory is said to be the best explanation of known observational data. For instance, Newton's theory of gravity was an excellent explanation for known gravitational phenomena. It is still useful for the vast majority of physics problems, such as the rate of an object falling towards the Earth. Unfortunately, it is not a complete theory, as it was written before it was known that gravity is the manifestation of how matter bends four-dimensional space-time. When Einstein realized this, his theories made our understanding of gravity more perfect, and addresses some of the inconsistencies in Newton's theories.

Note, however, that this does not mean that Newton's gravitational theories were crap. Most importantly, it has nothing to do with any of Newton's other laws. Newton is still taught in physics classes because his theories are still very good descriptions of natural processes, and unless one is describing the accretion disc of a Black Hole or the orbit of a planet, such as mercury, that is very close to a massive star, it should suffice. Nobody pretends that Newton's theory of gravity is perfect, and incidentally, nobody predicts that Einstein's theories on gravity are perfect either. Right now, physicists are attempting to come up with a quantum theory of gravity, which would be, by definition, non-relativistic. Personally, I'm of the opinion that gravity cannot be quantified, but I am very likely wrong. But you know what? If someone does come up with a theory of quantum gravity that is shown to be consistent with observations and known natural laws, then I will accept it.

while there is always a possibility that a new discovery could be made that would majorly impact our view onthe world.
Click to expand...

Hell, I'd say there's a pretty damned good chance that a new discovery will majorly impact our view of the world. If one could prove, for instance, that our entire universe exists inside a Black Hole, that would certainly alter our worldview. Similarly, if Magueijo and his colleagues turn out to be correct in their hypotheses on a varying speed of light, that would change our worldview. His recent book on the subject is interesting, but he strikes me as being like a broken clock...right twice a day, but damned if I know when.

But back to evolution, it explains virtually all observed evidence. As with Newton, it is always possible that there is something for which evolution has failed to account. For instance, the discovery that some prokaryotes are capable of lateral gene transfer forced biologists to rethink some of the prokaryote lineages at the base of the tree of life. This did not disprove evolution, it actually helped microbiologists gain a better understanding of prokaryote evolution, just as Einstein allowed physicists to gain a better understanding of how gravity works in certain circumstances.
 
xxuxx said:
But why create the first cell. Cells could have come about by other means.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and they did come about by other means.

In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey did an experiment (testing Oparin's hypothesis) that proved the origins of organic compounds on Earth, and it certainly wasn't "god put them there". I encourage you all to look up the experiment if you would like to know more, as I don't have time to give a synopsis of it right now.
 
What if the universe is jsut all numbers punched into a mental computer and churned out.

But yeah, that is a cool connection you made Roger. I have always found the idea that things were just "poof" put there kind of bogus considering all the scientific proof of evolution and the complex interrelations between things. I have always found it believable that a higher being could have created matter and sort of made the skeleton for the world we live in, and then let it roll.

Something that I have always found intriguing is what our universe is inside a vaccuum tube that is part of an experiment for another intelligent race that live in different physical conditions and are trying create different physical properties that are present in their own universe. Perhaps ther universe is beyond matter, sort of just like a ball of thought type universe in which matter doesnt really exist.

And for the lions are not turning into birds and frogs are not turning into kangaroos guy, please go read about evolution and understand it before you make rather funny remarks about it.
 
Nonononono, I actually saw this bird turn into a frog one time, completely disproving evolution.

Then the acid wore off and I realized it was just my dog taking a shit. [/sarcasm]
 
Has anyone noticed this idea of "kinds" that creationists cling to? At firt, christians bitched about how evolution was impossible and god created everything himself. Then, as time wore on and evolutionary evidence mounted, some claimed god started evolution himself and some claim that animals can indeed change a little, but not out of their own "kinds". I wonder what concessions will be made next so people can still fit god into their worldview because they want to believe so badly.

I have listened to debates where Kent Hovind goes on and on about how a rock won't turn into a dog, or how a kangaroo won't produce a cat. His complete lack of knowledge of evolution is apparent, but as always the less intelligent creationists cling to that idea as a cornerstone of creationsim or basic disproof of evolution. It is fucking ridiculous and if someone needs it explained to them why it is ridiculous, they shouldn't be debating in the realm of science in the first place.

Another common trend is this idea that evolutionists view time as their god. I am sorry to break the idea that we are just as brainwashed as many religious people, but we do not view time as a god. We certainly don't ignore evidence and simply say all is possible with time, we can leave that kind of reasoning to others. What is simply being stated is that these products of evolution, which would be hard to imagine having evoloved due to the sheer complexity, are actually quite plausible given the massive number of years of mutation.
 
can i just reiterate an idea i posted earlier on the subject of individuality with regards to faith - mainly for the christians here

Also, people are different - we vary in size, intelligence (and i can understand this variation with respect to a creator) etc. - is it not also possible that we vary in terms of spiritual affinity i.e. the need we feel for a relationship with a God. Because i can't, won't and don't believe that people who are atheists all their lives are ever unhappy because of their atheism.
Click to expand...

What do you think of that approach? - because there is certainly evidence for it (although i don't know how you would distinguish between personal "affinity" and those beliefs imposed and accepted by the surrounding society).
(i think this idea should be interesting also in terms of inexorably linking creationist attitudes within an evolutionary "frame")
 
Just throwin' this into the mix, but it was discovered not too long ago that there is a genetic chunk that codes for one's likelihood to have faith in things. In the context of this discussion, it's pretty damn funny. :)

And I will reiterate, because for as many times as it has been repeated, people don't seem to understand: when you have evidence for something, believing in it is NOT faith!!!! When you believe in something without any evidence, that is faith - that is the definition of faith!!! In case it's too difficult to put two and two together here, that means that believing the theory of evolution requires NO FAITH and believing in creationism does. :p
 
I don't have any posts saved nor do I have time to look but I do recall several posts over the months/years where people imply time as god.
Click to expand...

I sat took a chair out to my lawn to try to watch grass grow. I sat there all day yesterday, but I didn't see the grass grow at all. Nobody I know has ever managed to watch grass grow while sitting on their lawn, and I suspect that the time-lapse photography showing grass growing is the work of evil botanists and their vast conspiracy. Neither I nor anyone I know has seen grass grow, therefore grass does not grow.

Or at least, that's my excuse for why I'm not mowing the lawn tomorrow.
 
hahaha.

No amount of faith in the theory that boot men quack the jesus hole will ever prove it true. You can have faith in whatever you want, but the chances are if you have no good observational evidence you might as well have faith in a basket full of boot men quacking the jesus hole.

I once got in a conversation with a girl about god and creationsim and one of her main arguments was that whatever you create must be lower than yourself. I was just thinking "you really make me doubt my belief that intelligence is non existant." Does that mean that my kids will be lower than me since I created them. Does that mean the first cell that underwent mitosis was god. Well hell then, if you wanna call the first cell god then go ahead. I mean as far as I am concerned why cant the creationists just give up their belief that God is sitting somewhere in his thrown beyond the dimensions of time and space and just call the natural forces that created our world god.

I really dont know what I am going on about anymore and there is no way to ever know anything for sure, and knowing that I think I am going to shut up now.=D
 
>>And I will reiterate, because for as many times as it has been repeated, people don't seem to understand: when you have evidence for something, believing in it is NOT faith!!!! When you believe in something without any evidence, that is faith - that is the definition of faith!!! In case it's too difficult to put two and two together here, that means that believing the theory of evolution requires NO FAITH and believing in creationism does. >>

As an empirical scientist, I disagree. Any empirical investigation will rely on, at some point, unproven presuppositions, and at the same time, religious faith is very often bolstered by religious experience. The line is fuzzier than you make out.

ebola
 
Yes, but an empirical investigation will also be willing to throw out any inference which is later shown to be incorrect. Also, empirical investigations do not refer to an inference or presupposition as an incontrovertible fact. That is the difference between faith an inference.
 
Exactly, and they did come about by other means.

In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey did an experiment (testing Oparin's hypothesis) that proved the origins of organic compounds on Earth, and it certainly wasn't "god put them there". I encourage you all to look up the experiment if you would like to know more, as I don't have time to give a synopsis of it right now.
Click to expand...
Actually the Miller-Urey experiment didn't prove any such thing. Miller & Urey showed that complex organic compounds could be naturally generated in conditions thought to resemble those of the early Earth. They didn't prove that that was how organic compounds on Earth originated. In fact, IIRC it'conditions on the early Earth are now thought to be substantially different than we used to think they were, so different chemistry than Miller & Urey observed is thought to have been at work.

Right now there is no solid scientific evidence on how the first cellular life originated. We do not even have a *detailed,* plausible account of how it might have originated. And even if we did that would not by itself prove that the first cells *did* originate that way. Right now, all we have are some suggestive clues and a lot of guesses and speculation, no solid knowledge.

This is to be contrasted with the evolution of life on Earth from that first cell, which we do know about. Thanks largely to genetic evidence and the fossil record, we can tell a great deal about how life evolved -- and for many things we have plenty of evidence proving that it did in fact evolve that way.

Personally I believe the first cells evolved through natural processes, and I suspect we'll learn a lot more about how in the next say fifty years. But right now we don't have hardly any solid evidence about it. That's one of the things about science -- it's not about "believing in" or "not believing in" things. It's a process of looking at the facts and trying to discover what happened and how sure we can be that we're right. There are many things we believe that we aren't very sure of, or are just guessing about; others things we are quite certain of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top