I have a question for those who hate creationism

[edthecynic]

Or, more accurately, that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.

I have not at any time brought anything 'supernatural' into my argument that we have only a tiny amount of the science that there is to know.

You have already stated the the supernatural cannot be ruled out, unless you are trying to say God is not supernatural.

And I have merely pointed out we know more than you give us credit for, no matter how small that knowledge might be, and that some of that knowledge is based on a firm foundation that has been proven by repeatable experiments.

But God has not been part of my argument. It was simply a statement of fact in rebuttal to you folks who insist on dragging God into it. But even a tunnel visioned anti-religious fanatic has to admit that there is no science that can falsify God in any way or even cast question re His involvement. Therefore my statement stands as 100% accurate.

And I haven't given you (whomever you include in 'us') credit for anything nor denied you credit for anything. If you want to believe you've got it all figured out, well bless your little heart. That must be a really comfortable place to be.

Me? I prefer to go with science that keeps an open mind on ALL scientific concepts and allows for the possibility of new understandings and insights in everything. And I respect science that admits that huge holes remain in the body of knowledge of the universe and all that is in it. Such open mindedness allows us to move ever closer to the truth of all things however long and far that journey might be.

I never said I have it ALL figured out, I was merely pointing out that, contrary to the claims of others on this board, the FLoT is proven by a repeatable experiment and is not an article of faith!

Scientists, including myself, do admit that there are huge holes in our body of knowledge of the universe, but the FLoT is not one of them.

And regarding God, while it is true that science cannot falsify something that can't even be shown to exist, unlike energy which can be measured, that hardly means that science can't "cast question re his [or her] involvement." That is more close-minded than anything I've posted!!

 

[konradv]

Again my experience with scientists, 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words that I don't believe I've ever heard any of them use outside of a mathematical equation.

"I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.

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.

To assume that scientific laws and principles that work on Planet Earth could be different elsewhere in the universe is magical, rather than scientific, thinking.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have already stated the the supernatural cannot be ruled out, unless you are trying to say God is not supernatural.

And I have merely pointed out we know more than you give us credit for, no matter how small that knowledge might be, and that some of that knowledge is based on a firm foundation that has been proven by repeatable experiments.

But God has not been part of my argument. It was simply a statement of fact in rebuttal to you folks who insist on dragging God into it. But even a tunnel visioned anti-religious fanatic has to admit that there is no science that can falsify God in any way or even cast question re His involvement. Therefore my statement stands as 100% accurate.

And I haven't given you (whomever you include in 'us') credit for anything nor denied you credit for anything. If you want to believe you've got it all figured out, well bless your little heart. That must be a really comfortable place to be.

Me? I prefer to go with science that keeps an open mind on ALL scientific concepts and allows for the possibility of new understandings and insights in everything. And I respect science that admits that huge holes remain in the body of knowledge of the universe and all that is in it. Such open mindedness allows us to move ever closer to the truth of all things however long and far that journey might be.

I never said I have it ALL figured out, I was merely pointing out that, contrary to the claims of others on this board, the FLoT is proven by a repeatable experiment and is not an article of faith!

Scientists, including myself, do admit that there are huge holes in our body of knowledge of the universe, but the FLoT is not one of them.

And regarding God, while it is true that science cannot falsify something that can't even be shown to exist, unlike energy which can be measured, that hardly means that science can't "cast question re his [or her] involvement." That is more close-minded than anything I've posted!!

I also haven't at any time suggested that science can't question or even do research on God's (by whatever name) involvement. But would you agree that it is close minded to unequivocably exclude God or any form of Intelligent Design as a possibility in the grand scheme of things? The Lord knows that many Christians are scientists that never confuse religious belief with science but allow that both can be equally valid and even compliment each other.

 

[ABikerSailor]

yes answers have been provided but we can't prove, beyond doubt, that the answers are actually accurate. We have to have FAITH in educated guesses and extrapolations from observations.

I'll give you a hint..........the Hebrew language assigns a number to every letter of their alphabet, and Torah codes are based in numbers, as well as that thing the Hebrews do with numbers called Gumatria.

Physics outline the laws of the universe via mathematics. If it's not mathematically viable as an equation, it isn't true.

No, you don't need faith to prove the answers are accurate. You need math.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Im not I'm equating having faith in religion to having faith in science.

Sometimes in both there are things you can't prove but all the evidence tells you its probably true.

For example the origin of the universe. We can't really prove where it came from but creationists will tell you it was God and other people will tell you it was a big bang without being able to actually prove it with irrefutable evidence.

Some people will say that creationists are stupid or ignorant for believing how they do yet this same people solidly believe that the big bang is how our universe was created without proof......i find this mindset very interesting so I made this thread to see what would happen.

And some people will say that God is the cause of the Big Bang.

Or, more accurately, that God being a factor in that is something that cannot be scientifically ruled out.

 

[Montrovant]

"I don't believe," of course, is a disclaimer that allows the user to say anything!!!
Real scientists also consider REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS as proof.

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?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Faith is thinking the Bruins will win, when you don't see them winning.

No I can prove they will win using math.....but if they lose its just because, ummm, well..it had nothing to do with me having faith in the math I used

I don't care who you are. That's funny.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I'm sure he'll post the pics from Alpha Centauri soon.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.

Sure. But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too. Man is not merely a creature of induction. Right?

 

[ABikerSailor]

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?

Shit........Voyager hasn't even gotten past the Ort Cloud yet.

 

[konradv]

Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.

Sure. But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too. Man is not merely a creature of induction. Right?

Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.

 

[hortysir]

Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.

Sure. But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too. Man is not merely a creature of induction. Right?

Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.

There's fossil evidence of cross-specie evolution, like lizard-to-bird, etc...?????

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sure. But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too. Man is not merely a creature of induction. Right?

Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.

There's fossil evidence of cross-specie evolution, like lizard-to-bird, etc...?????

Yep. Pterodactyls and Archaeopterix fossils.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.

Sure. But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too. Man is not merely a creature of induction. Right?

Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.

Ah, yes. But of course that deduction is predicated on the metaphysical presupositon of an absolute naturalism.

 

[konradv]

Sure. But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too. Man is not merely a creature of induction. Right?

Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.

There's fossil evidence of cross-specie evolution, like lizard-to-bird, etc...?????

There's no such thing as cross-species evolution. Each generation is of the same species, but over many, many generations of divergence a new species may be identified. A cat won't change into a dog, but a common anscestor can be found. The same with lizards and birds. Birds may have evolved from the same family as T.Rex over the ages, but a modern lizard would not become a modern bird.

 

[konradv]

Sure. But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too. Man is not merely a creature of induction. Right?

Right, that's why we've deduced from all the fossil evidence that evolution DID occur and from DNA evidence that things occorred randomly and NOT by design.

Ah, yes. But of course that deduction is predicated on the metaphysical presupositon of an absolute naturalism.

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 seperate question.

 

[jillian]

Educated guesses and extrapolations from OBSERVATIONS are actually based on proof. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but definitely not NO PROOF.

Sure. But other extrapolations are based on the substance of certain rational imperatives that lead to reasonably derived inferences about things not observed, too. Man is not merely a creature of induction. Right?

interesting 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.

 

[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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

 

[konradv]

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.

Faith is a loaded word and inappropriate in this context. Belief in the Big Bang is based on observations of the universe. You want to challenge the "faith", you need to challenge the data.