The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Souron]

But the underlying text is (as stated by part 4 in Perfection's reasoning for a new thread) "lol stupid creationists. lol."

True. Sadistic pleasure is not easy to justify, so I'm not going to try.

I would agree and disagree. The non existance of God is not a scientific fact (nor is the existance of God). With that prospective, it could easily be theory rather than philopshy.

I guess it depends on your definition of God. If God is a concious entity, then he can be part of scientific theory. If God is an abstract being whose sole mark on this world is the performace of miracles, then he cannot be part of scientific theory, as miracles are inherrently unscientific. If God is the person you meet on judgement day, then he has no place in science. If God is "the thing that 'caused' the big bang", then he has a place, but not meaningfull one.

The truth is what we make of facts, not the facts themselves.

Whatever that means.

 

[Perfection]

I would like to state that I agree with Perfection completely on this topic.

Cool!

I would ask this: why does the scientific community insist on showing the world the truth?

Because it excites them, and it leads many of the general populace to experience joy and wonder.

Is it no worse to try and disprove another's faith as they to try and prove theirs to you? Religious people are still people, not just sheep who need to learn the world correctly

Religious people are people, but I think some religious people are wrong for taking a certain stance. Is it wrong for me to have a place for such dialogue?

In other words: What is the truth to you and I (evolution, physics, ect) is just as invalid to some as the Bible is to us. And in turn, the Bible is just as valid to some as science is to us. Our truth is what we choose to believe and can never be 'proven.' Forgetting this dehumanizes the other's beliefs, something many put a lot of stock into. I would not wish to rip away another's foundations as I would not wish this to occur to me.

Well, this isn't about the philosophy of religion versus science. People here are expected to argue from the scientific frame. If people don't care about such frame, then why are they here?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Right, I am a theistic evolutionist, but theistic evolution isn't a scientific theory or even a school of thought. It is rather the combination of accepting science and a particular religious viewpoint. It is akin to a philosophy, I suppose, and the theistic part of it lies outside the realm of sciendce (just as the evolution part lies outside the realm of religion).

 

[Markus6]

then he has no place in science.

Of course not, if he gave us science how can he be in it?

 

[Perfection]

Of course not, if he gave us science how can he be in it?

I'll bite: How did God give us science?

 

[Souron]

Of course not, if he gave us science how can he be in it?

Science is man's way of coming with an explanation of the wold around him.

God may have created nature, but man created science.

 

[Markus6]

I'll bite: How did God give us science?

Perhaps science was the wrong word then. God created nature, everything scientists study are his works, the reason it is interesting to study is because God did it. He also gave us curious minds and minds capable of studying nature. I guess we did the rest but we were created to study his creation. It's not like a child searching through his Dad's office while he's not looking.

 

[plarq]

If evolution theory holds water, why creationists don't get eliminated over time? Lol stupid creationists who don't oblige the principle!

 

[Perfection]

Perhaps science was the wrong word then. God created nature, everything scientists study are his works, the reason it is interesting to study is because God did it. He also gave us curious minds and minds capable of studying nature. I guess we did the rest but we were created to study his creation. It's not like a child searching through his Dad's office while he's not looking.

Well, I don't see how that really draws a close connection to God and Science.

But we're beginning to digress. What is your opinion on my two claims (see first post)?

 

[Markus6]

Science being the study of God's creation isn't a close connection?

Your two claims seem pretty sound though. Sorry to disappoint you, I'm sure there will be some creationists around soon.

 

[The Last Conformist]

"[Natural Theologians s]ought to find evidence of God in the appearance of design in the natural world, yet, only a century later, when the evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane was asked what biology taught of the nature of God, he is reported to have replied "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles", since there were so many species of beetle. Other than that, he couldn't really say. "

(from here)

 

[Samson]

If evolution theory holds water, why creationists don't get eliminated over time? Lol stupid creationists who don't oblige the principle!

I truely belive it is happening. Not many years ago everyone in europe belived in YEC, now it is a very small percentage. Given a few more generations I expect it will be as rare as belif in a flat earth. [edited for rather unfortunate typo]

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

That's my favourite part of creationism: instead of being a straighforward theory, it just seems to seep into whatever areas evolutionists can't cover yet. In spite of the fact many creationists seem to demand rigid proofs from evolutionists, any failure of evolutionists to demonstrate a point is seen as supporting creationism, as if biblical stories are some sort of a priori assumption we can make lacking any other evidence...

Hence why these threads suck, because they only serve to reinforce the delusion that creationism is the null hypothesis.

 

[Che Guava]

Hence why these threads suck, because they only serve to reinforce the delusion that creationism is the null hypothesis.

Well, then let's get that out of the way right now.

in the OP, claim #2 is that creationism is not a valid scientific claim. In my opinion, this is because there creationism has positioned itself mainly as an opposition to evolution, thus having no defined criteria for testing. Furthermore, a lot of creationist thought seems to derive from a priori assumptions about the creation of earth and the chronosequence of events thereafter from faith (not proven) documents, something that you cannot do in science.

So let's get to the root of it: leaving out theology, what is the creationist argument? The best way I could summarize it would be something like this:

All life on this planet was created in a manner that was concious, deliberate and had specific function of organisms in mind. The evolution of species was not acheived through a random series of events, but through a guided creation with a specific end-point in mind.

So the debate comes down to whether we arrived at this point in our earth's life through an organic bottom-up development, or a guided top-down development.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Flames?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'd contend that creationism is not merely not a valid scientific claim, but also not an invalid scientific claim. It's not a scientific claim of any description.

 

[Stile]

edit: but even they are not as bad as the Geocentrists (yep, that's right - there are some people who still believe that everything revolves around the earth 'cos it says so in the bible)

I know you're just trying to join in the mocking, but your subject matter is about a century too late. Here in modern times we know that motion is relative and there is no problem with dubbing the Earth the center of the universe. I'm sure Perfection can work the equations for everything revolving around his keyboard, and the math will work out just fine.

And frankly you have a poor attitude. What's with the portrayal of bible believers as ignorant hicks with your "'cos it says so?" Can't we be civil?

 

[brennan]

I know you're just trying to join in the mocking, but your subject matter is about a century too late. Here in modern times we know that motion is relative and there is no problem with dubbing the Earth the center of the universe. I'm sure Perfection can work the equations for everything revolving around his keyboard, and the math will work out just fine.

And frankly you have a poor attitude. What's with the portrayal of bible believers as ignorant hicks with your "'cos it says so?" Can't we be civil?

From 2 days ago on 'Christian Forums':

How many geocentrists post here? I want to hang out with you guys, and discuss things with you. I have a couple questions aswell. Post here if you are a geocentrist.

Thread is currently 4 pages long and no he was not alone. Any questions?

 

[Stile]

I'm saying geocentism is as valid as any -centrism.

 

[brennan]

Except perhaps the accurate one.

 

[Samson]

From 2 days ago on 'Christian Forums':
Thread is currently 4 pages long and no he was not alone. Any questions?

Go on, post a link.

I think the point is that you can consider any ponit in the universe as stationary and everything is moving relative to that point. I am not sure what geocentralism belif is, and how it contradicts our understanding of gravity or whatever.