I have a question for those who hate creationism

[edthecynic]

We know how a lot of thngs work on Planet Earth yes. But that and the moon is pretty much all the experience we have and ithat is practically no experience at all when we consider how small Planet Earth is within the entire universe that we know of. Or even our solar system within the entire universe. And science is only capable of supposing how big that is or if or whether there is any end and what that end might be.

To asssume that all the scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth will be the same anywhere in the universe is simplistic and unrealistic enough to be naive.

We've landed probes on Mars and sent satellites to some of the farthest points in our galaxy, so we know a lot more than just the Earth and the Moon. And we are not talking about all laws, just the FLoT, but even assuming the FLoT is not universal, that would in no way require the existence of the supernatural. Assuming the supernatural is truly simplistic and naive.

Did you mean to say solar system here?

Yes. The New Horizon probe is more than halfway to Pluto and it is collecting data from the Kuiper Belt.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

nteresting vocabulary for someone who is anti-intellectual and anti-science. do you think it somehow "proves" your belief system to do that? you know, sort of like calling "creationism" by the synonym "intelligent design".

just wondering.

Well, given that you clearly do not grasp the implications of my statement, you're charge that I'm "anti-intellectual" is a hoot, and given you're notion that metaphysical naturalism/Darwinian naturalism is the same thing as science itself, which is what you're unwittingly implying (another thing flying right over your head) . . . well, 'nough said on that score.

Also, not that it will make any difference to a reactionary mind like yours, but creationism and ID theory are not the same thing. Some of you don't realize how silly that is. This slogan speak of yours, the rhetoric of politics, really, that of those who demagogue the dispute, is akin to the scientifically illiterate creationist arguing that if evolutionary theory is true, why are monkeys or apes or chimpanzees still around? LOL!

You left the other thread early after making a similar drive-by insult, and so you missed the drubbing I gave your compatriots over the metaphysics of science and the nature of ID research.

See link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/170193-the-lies-and-arrogance-of-evolutionists-6.html

Listen up, missy, you're flying nowhere near the altitude of my intellect and understanding of the metaphysics, the methodology and the theories of science. In fact, your little plane has been grounded for some time due to grave malfunctions.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

SO? What's your point? If "absolute naturalism" means life developed without design, then yes, presuppose away. It still doesn't touch my reasons for believing in evolution unguided by anything but the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. They may or may not have come from God, but that's a separate question.

No. Not exactly. And you still don't get it because you weren't paying attention on the other thread. The point is self-evident. All you're really saying here is that because there is no designer of known life residing within the temporal plain/nothing beyond the temporal plain, evolutionary theory is necessarily true. That's what's called circular reasoning. That's what your "presupposing away" with.

The laws of chemistry and physics, eh? Well, it's certainly not based on your understanding of biochemistry: http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...arrogance-of-evolutionists-8.html#post3738218

 

[Yoda]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

Why should anyone waste their time "educating" someone who either :

A. Doesn't get it.
B. Refuses to get it
C. Is to lazy to look it up yourself.

Science isn't like religion. It contains theories, and constant testing and thought. In religion, you just believe what you were either raised or told to blindly believe.

You should read past the first post...read what i've been replying with in the first several pages and you will understand my thread.

Im questioning those who hate creationists but have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't have faith in neither, in one hand you have a nice theory (but no longer prevalent) and on the other, I have a hard time believing some invisible, all knowing, all powerful being created everything. It just sounds like a fairy tale. BTW, Here's the theory that some scientist are looking at: loop quantum gravity. Look it up, it's an intresting subject.

 

[manifold]

Im questioning those who... have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.

And this is how many members?

My guess is zero.

And until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I have to assume your belief is based solely on rock solid faith. And what a sorry sorry thing in which to put one's faith.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[edthecynic]

And now for a little entertainment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o16D97dZ2Y]YouTube - ‪Big Bang‬‏[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Im questioning those who... have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.

And this is how many members?

My guess is zero.

And until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I have to assume your belief is based solely on rock solid faith. And what a sorry sorry thing in which to put one's faith.

But whatcha gonna do?

I guess i'll put myself back in context

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

Why should anyone waste their time "educating" someone who either :

A. Doesn't get it.
B. Refuses to get it
C. Is to lazy to look it up yourself.

Science isn't like religion. It contains theories, and constant testing and thought. In religion, you just believe what you were either raised or told to blindly believe.

You should read past the first post...read what i've been replying with in the first several pages and you will understand my thread.

Im questioning those who hate creationists but have rock solid faith that the universe was created by a random big bang.

 

[Foxfyre]

Focusing on the question in Pilgrim's restated context, the obvious answer is nobody knows. We have no proof or evidence to go on and only the incredible mind we are blessed with to consider possibilities.

There are those who suppose that all the stuff of the universe has always been there as there could not possibly have been a Creator for it, and yet nobody has yet determined exactly what causes living cells to divide and living things to grow. Does a 100-ft tree grown from a single seed remove as much stuff from the universe as it contributes?

There are those who say energy can neither be created nor destroyed and yet who can say for certain that every living cell, each a unit of energy itself, takes as much energy from the universe as it contributes? Can anybody say for certain that it does?.

There are those who point to the randomness observed in our physical environment and yet with equal confidence point to laws of science that are apparently consistent, universal, and not at all random. And they see no dichotomy in that.

And nobody has yet been able to explain through any science known to humankind how it is that our species is capable of caring about other species that it has never even seen or what love is or what makes something beautiful to behold or how there can be an end of space or time.

Way too many questions to answer the thesis of the thread.

A whole lot of possibilities though for those with open minds.

 

[hortysir]

There are those who point to the randomness observed in our physical environment and yet with equal confidence point to laws of science that are apparently consistent, universal, and not at all random. And they see no dichotomy in that.

I love that part and know exactly who it pertains to

 

[Eranimus]

very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.

 

[Immanuel]

very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.

Although I believe that God created all things, I want to ask you what other ideas would you teach if you will not allow the teaching of Evolution. As far as I know the Big Bang Theory is taught as being theory while Evolution is taught as fact.

But, if you are not going to teach Evolution what else are you going to teach?

One of the benefits of teaching Evolution is that it teaches the process of science. It also helps to teach the process of life. I, myself, am highly skeptical of the idea of "missing links" and dogs evolving into whales, but, I think it is evident that through time species do adapt/evolve.

Until we have a better theory, I have no problem teaching evolution. I don't want a teacher standing in front of the class telling kids they are stupid if they believe in God, but I have no problem with them teaching evolutionary science as we know it.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Focusing on the question in Pilgrim's restated context, the obvious answer is nobody knows. We have no proof or evidence to go on and only the incredible mind we are blessed with to consider possibilities.

There are those who suppose that all the stuff of the universe has always been there as there could not possibly have been a Creator for it, and yet nobody has yet determined exactly what causes living cells to divide and living things to grow. Does a 100-ft tree grown from a single seed remove as much stuff from the universe as it contributes?

There are those who say energy can neither be created nor destroyed and yet who can say for certain that every living cell, each a unit of energy itself, takes as much energy from the universe as it contributes? Can anybody say for certain that it does?.

There are those who point to the randomness observed in our physical environment and yet with equal confidence point to laws of science that are apparently consistent, universal, and not at all random. And they see no dichotomy in that.

And nobody has yet been able to explain through any science known to humankind how it is that our species is capable of caring about other species that it has never even seen or what love is or what makes something beautiful to behold or how there can be an end of space or time.

Way too many questions to answer the thesis of the thread.

A whole lot of possibilities though for those with open minds.

So many questions for those with open minds indeed.

That was my whole point in creating this thread was to try and open a few minds that have been shut with either 100% faith in science or 100% faith in religion. Not questioning things is bad for us all.

 

[edthecynic]

Focusing on the question in Pilgrim's restated context, the obvious answer is nobody knows. We have no proof or evidence to go on and only the incredible mind we are blessed with to consider possibilities.

There are those who suppose that all the stuff of the universe has always been there as there could not possibly have been a Creator for it, and yet nobody has yet determined exactly what causes living cells to divide and living things to grow. Does a 100-ft tree grown from a single seed remove as much stuff from the universe as it contributes?

There are those who say energy can neither be created nor destroyed and yet who can say for certain that every living cell, each a unit of energy itself, takes as much energy from the universe as it contributes? Can anybody say for certain that it does?.

There are those who point to the randomness observed in our physical environment and yet with equal confidence point to laws of science that are apparently consistent, universal, and not at all random. And they see no dichotomy in that.

And nobody has yet been able to explain through any science known to humankind how it is that our species is capable of caring about other species that it has never even seen or what love is or what makes something beautiful to behold or how there can be an end of space or time.

Way too many questions to answer the thesis of the thread.

A whole lot of possibilities though for those with open minds.

Anyone who has taken the time to repeat Joule's experiment can be certain. Only those who are too afraid to put the FLoT to the test are closed minded enough to doubt it.

 

[rdean]

Where did fossils come from?

Did God put bones in the ground do show us what creatures from other planets look like?

To give dogs something to chew on and dig up?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Where did fossils come from?

Did God put bones in the ground do show us what creatures from other planets look like?

To give dogs something to chew on and dig up?

Fossils came from dead animals and this is how they are formed

Bones got buried by debris over time thats how they got into the ground when animals died.

I dont think dogs like to chew on fossils, they prefer non-fossilized bones.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are missing one crucial point here plymco. Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories. There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists. You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point. We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it. That requires no faith whatsoever. We do not know where the big bang material came from. That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ You do not need to know the entire story to explore it’s outcome. Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith. Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available. They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole. There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science. It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known. I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.

 

[Foxfyre]

very well, but scientists also cannot prove that evolution or the big bang theory is true but they still teach it. i think if you are going to not allow creationism in public schools then you should also not allow them to teach that evolution or the big bang theory is how we came to be. just sayin.

I have no problem with schools teaching ANYTHING so long as it is not taught as dogma or something people should or must believe. I have zero problem with a science teacher explaining that million/billions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design and theories within these beliefs can answer questions that science cannot yet do. Such honest teaching allows students to think, consider, and analyze what is reasonable and what is not. It teaches them to think about how much larger the questions are than what the science we now have can answer.

I have no problem and would strongly encourage that same teacher to explain that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are not science and won't be taught or considered as science. And then I think the science teacher must teach all concepts of science that we now have which would include evolution. The science teacher should also be teaching what we can learn from evolution and allow or even present questions that evolution cannot answer.

I think we have a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know, and we will never advance beyond the primitive science we have if we infer that the science we have is what there is and there is nothing more to learn about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are missing one crucial point here plymco. Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories. There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists. You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point. We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it. That requires no faith whatsoever. We do not know where the big bang material came from. That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ You do not need to know the entire story to explore it’s outcome. Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith. Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available. They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole. There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science. It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known. I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You are missing one crucial point here plymco. Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories. There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists. You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point. We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it. That requires no faith whatsoever. We do not know where the big bang material came from. That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ You do not need to know the entire story to explore it’s outcome. Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith. Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available. They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole. There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science. It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known. I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

I would have responded but you said what I was thinking Fox .

 

[edthecynic]

You are missing one crucial point here plymco. Evolutionists and big bang theorists do not have faith in their theories. There are some that are fanatical, yes but they are not the norm or the scientists. You are coming from a reference point where answers are required, that IS NOT a scientific reference point. We theorize that the big bang happened because there is measurable evidence for it. That requires no faith whatsoever. We do not know where the big bang material came from. That also requires no faith because it is a simple answer of ‘I don’t know.’ You do not need to know the entire story to explore it’s outcome. Only in religion is the answer to all a requirement and that is part of why religion requires faith. Science requires evidence and theories are built on whatever evidence is available. They will change with more data no matter how well established the theory is.

As for evolution, it is taught as fact inn school because that is the best theory that we have at the moment and there is tons of evidence for the theory as a whole. There are questions and the theory itself changes rather frequently as more is discovered but that is at the very core of science. It is an ever changing exploration of the world around us.


I will never really understand why it is so difficult for the religious person to accept that science requires no faith and does not demand that all the answers are known. I cannot see what the problem is with simply acknowledging there are things that we are currently unable to explain.

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent science? Scientists are hardly in agreement as to whether the universe will expand forever or not. If you have even a casual relationship with the Big Bang, then undoubtedly you've heard of the "BIG CRUNCH." I've even mentioned it earlier in this very thread. So how you can be dishonest enough to make the highlighted statement is beyond me!

HowStuffWorks "How the Big Crunch Theory Works"

The universe is huge compared to a single planet, even a single galaxy, and its timeline is much, much longer. Because of this, cosmologists can't know with certainty how the universe began or how it will end. They can, however, collect evidence, make educated guesses and establish theories.

*One such theory, concerning the future of the universe, is playfully known as the "big crunch." According to this theory, the universe will one day stop expanding. Then, as gravity pulls on the matter, the universe will begin to contract, falling inward until it has collapsed back into a super-hot, super-dense singularity. If the theory holds true, the universe is like a giant soufflé. It starts out small, then expands as it heats up. Eventually, however, the soufflé cools and begins to collapse.

Nobody likes a fallen soufflé, and we shouldn't like a universe that behaves like one. It spells the doom of every galaxy, star and planet that currently exists. Luckily, the big crunch is not a guarantee. Cosmologists are currently engaged in a hot debate. One camp says the soufflé will fall; the other camp says the soufflé will expand forever. It will be billions of years before we know for sure which camp is right.