Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Originally posted by Wesker
I still think you're wading through semantics. The point you're attacking (And from a glance, the fellow below your post) is that of truth. What can we actually know? This hasn't been conclusively decided. Pure rationalism has faults. Pure empiricism has faults. Any student of philosophy knows the inherent problem with defining proof. Even the idea of anything here being "proven" is proven in a personal or collective way; that is, it's proven in that somebody accepts it and it conforms to common sense.

Now the end result of scientific empiricism and faith-based religion are totally different; it's the fundamental difference between Mythos and Logos. Logos tries to find natural causes for natural phenominon via trial and error and observation. It does not proclaim anything to be true unless it has been supported by lots of this type of testing. Compare this with Mythos, or religion, which comes up with a supernatural explanation for the unknown or myserious (and even the mundane) natural occurences and things. Mythos and religion claim things without proving them using pure reason OR pure empricism. And likewise, there are fundamental problems with using either to establish bonafide truth, since the very idea of truth itself is elusive.

Suffice to say that scientific "proofs" are observable, practical, and reliable. This makes them much more useful in a real world than faith to explain things. If you see the sun in the sky and you say "That's the wolves pulling the spark's from Thor's hammer" and I say "No, its' actually a celestial body that works according to certain principles", which answer is more trustworthy? Why?

Trying to generalize science and religion based on semantics is piss poor, man. There is a very fundamental difference, and it's like night and day.

Thats what I´m talking about.... I understand and I agree that we must not generalize science and religion in that way. But what I am saying is that it is not logic reasoning that tell us they re different, we must "choose" to agree with that, it is more an intuition that we have. And some religious thought works based on intuition as well, not that they must make sense because of that, but they work based on the same thing, intuition. Who decides that scinetific proof is more reliable ? Its us, and we make that by our intuition.

In perusing some of the posts, I am struck by statements generally featuring/asking the following...
1. If there is no God, where did the Big Bang come from?
2. If there Is a God, where did "He" come from?
3. Evolution is not a "fact," it is a theory, just like creationism/I.D.

As such, I feel compelled to throw in more 2-cents worth. It would help, IMO, if...
1. ...we define what we mean by "God." If the consensus is the Biblical interpretation, then so be it, though, personally, this is not where I would go.
2. ...we considered the possibility that God/the Cosmos did not have a beginning, just always was. In fact, if we attribute the trait of "being infinite" to either, then by definition there Is No Beginning to debate about.
(As a fun alternative, when people ask where did God come from, I like to say, God created Himself, to which the response usually is, How can God create Himself? And I reply, That's what makes God God. And when the reply to this is, That makes no sense, I like to say, Why should something that is Utterly Infinite and Unimaginable in its nature make sense to a finite human mind? Kinda arrogant, no? Hell, even quantum mechanical behavior doesn't "make sense."😉
3. Instead of regarding "facts" as valid (ie, truthful, depicting Reality as it "really is"😉, regard them as reliable (ie, offering accurate models of reality, models which conform with observations, logic and allow for predictions. Let evolution and ID be compared along these lines).

balloon

Originally posted by Mindship
In perusing some of the posts, I am struck by statements generally featuring/asking the following...
1. If there is no God, where did the Big Bang come from?
2. If there Is a God, where did "He" come from?
3. Evolution is not a "fact," it is a theory, just like creationism/I.D.

As such, I feel compelled to throw in more 2-cents worth. It would help, IMO, if...
1. ...we define what we mean by "God." If the consensus is the Biblical interpretation, then so be it, though, personally, this is not where I would go.
2. ...we considered the possibility that God/the Cosmos did not have a beginning, just always was. In fact, if we attribute the trait of "being infinite" to either, then by definition there Is No Beginning to debate about.
(As a fun alternative, when people ask where did God come from, I like to say, God created Himself, to which the response usually is, How can God create Himself? And I reply, That's what makes God God. And when the reply to this is, That makes no sense, I like to say, Why should something that is Utterly Infinite and Unimaginable in its nature make sense to a finite human mind? Kinda arrogant, no? Hell, even quantum mechanical behavior doesn't "make sense."😉
3. Instead of regarding "facts" as valid (ie, truthful, depicting Reality as it "really is"😉, regard them as reliable (ie, offering accurate models of reality, models which conform with observations, logic and allow for predictions. Let evolution and ID be compared along these lines).

balloon

scientific article: The scientific article is similar in format to the lab report, but it is written by professional scientists in order to relate findings of new science to the scientific community and to contribute to the knowledge available in a particular field of study.

Scientific concept: The scientific concept is the scientific theory, principal or law that is the basis of your lab. It is an explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs or a logical, mathematical statement describing the consistency that applies to the phenomenon.

scientific law: A logical, mathematical statement describing a consistency that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena when specific conditions are met. Examples of scientific laws: Faraday’s Law of electromagnetic induction, Coulomb’s Law of electrostatic attraction, Dalton’s Law of partial pressures, Boyle’s Gas Law.

scientific method: A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.

scientific theory: An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories: Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Mendel’s theory of Inheritance, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

scientific law - A rule that describes, but doesn't explain, a pattern in nature and predicts what will happen under specific conditions.

scientific theory - The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work.

http://jmsscienceweb.tripod.com/vocabulary.htm

Too many people don't realise that a scientific theory is called a theory because it is falsifiable and subject to change with the discovery of new facts. However, that does not mean it has not been proven correct many many times.

It remains a 'theory' because it is always possible we discover new things, even if that 'theory' has been proven correct 10,000,000 times out of 10,000,000.

Religion, on the other hand, stays rigid throughout millenia, not allowing for change that discovery of new facts to needs to explain new findings.

Intelligent Design doesn't even follow the scientific method, which barely makes it psuedoscience.

"God did it" is the easy and lazy way out.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

http://jmsscienceweb.tripod.com/vocabulary.htm

Too many people don't realise that a scientific theory is called a theory because it is falsifiable and subject to change with the discovery of new facts. However, that does not mean it has not been proven correct many many times.

It remains a 'theory' because it is always possible we discover new things, even if that 'theory' has been proven correct 10,000,000 times out of 10,000,000.

Religion, on the other hand, stays rigid throughout millenia, not allowing for change that discovery of new facts to needs to explain new findings.

Intelligent Design doesn't even follow the scientific method, which barely makes it psuedoscience.

"God did it" is the easy and lazy way out.

Well Where did the universal believe of God came from? Not from reason or argument. Belief of God is not a result of logical arguments. Not even from traditions for traditions can perpetuate only what has been originated.

The case of evolution itself is weak. it's take an organism to evole a million years? Did science had the time to witness it. So how can science say that evolution exist when it's fervent to say the God don't exist jus because they don see him? Evolution of something has to spring up out of something.... so show me the root of it.

The case of evolution itself is weak. it's take an organism to evole a million years? Did science had the time to witness it.

Originally posted by joesha28
Well Where did the universal believe of God came from?

How is it "universal"? Are you really so arrogant and ignorant as to believe that everyone believes in God, and that all believe in one God, and your God?

Not from reason or argument. Belief of God is not a result of logical arguments.

Which is exactly why they should be viewed with skepticism.

Not even from traditions for traditions can perpetuate only what has been originated.

WTF? Is this more rhetoric nonsense?

The case of evolution itself is weak.

The case of Creationism and ID is illogical. Evolution's case may seem weak at a glance, but this is coming from an ignoramus. The idea that near-microscopic transistors on chips can create the images, sounds, and experiences we have on a computer is pretty weak if generalized and misunderstood. Maybe you think the case of evolution is weak, but unless you can prove to us exactly why it's so weak and be specific (I'm so tired of religious people misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting evolution when they attack it) you need to accept that you have NO CASE.

it's take an organism to evole a million years? Did science had the time to witness it.

Again, there's literally tons and tons of observations, methodology, logic and reason behind these claims, not just a casual thought. You act like some atheist loser thought this up while taking a crap.

So how can science say that evolution exist when it's fervent to say the God don't exist jus because they don see him?

Not all science claims God can't exist. It does assert that God is unknowable at current. Get that right.

Evolution of something has to spring up out of something.... so show me the root of it.

Ridiculous. Science doesn't have to locate the root of evolution to prove that it exists. I see a ball rolling down the hill. Do I have to locate the total origin of it to conclude that it does roll down the hill? You're asking science to pop answers out of its figureative ass, and then accusing it of doing so at the same time. Science isn't claiming to have ALL the answers here; that's religion. Get it right.

Originally posted by joesha28
Well Where did the universal believe of God came from? Not from reason or argument. Belief of God is not a result of logical arguments. Not even from traditions for traditions can perpetuate only what has been originated.

The case of evolution itself is weak. it's take an organism to evole a million years? Did science had the time to witness it. So how can science say that evolution exist when it's fervent to say the God don't exist jus because they don see him? Evolution of something has to spring up out of something.... so show me the root of it.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

Originally posted by xyz revolution
FFS, read something. Why don't you listen, god never existed. There's no evidence that proves god, no evidence that proves creation.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

Originally posted by debbiejo
Though I do have to say they're is evidence that there is some kind of intelligence at work. Unseen forces.... 😎

Originally posted by Wesker
How is it "universal"? Are you really so arrogant and ignorant as to believe that everyone believes in God, and that all believe in one God, and your God?

Which is exactly why they should be viewed with skepticism.

WTF? Is this more rhetoric nonsense?

The case of Creationism and ID is illogical. Evolution's case may seem weak at a glance, but this is coming from an ignoramus. The idea that near-microscopic transistors on chips can create the images, sounds, and experiences we have on a computer is pretty weak if generalized and misunderstood. Maybe you think the case of evolution is weak, but unless you can prove to us exactly why it's so weak and be specific (I'm so tired of religious people misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting evolution when they attack it) you need to accept that you have NO CASE.

Again, there's literally tons and tons of observations, methodology, logic and reason behind these claims, not just a casual thought. You act like some atheist loser thought this up while taking a crap.

Not all science claims God can't exist. It does assert that God is unknowable at current. Get that right.

Ridiculous. Science doesn't have to locate the root of evolution to prove that it exists. I see a ball rolling down the hill. Do I have to locate the total origin of it to conclude that it does roll down the hill? You're asking science to pop answers out of its figureative ass, and then accusing it of doing so at the same time. Science isn't claiming to have ALL the answers here; that's religion. Get it right.

christians don't know the difference between religion and science.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
christians don't know the difference between religion and science.

No, it's more deliberate, they don't want a difference.

This is supposed to prove creation 😆 only one I've seen.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
This is supposed to prove creation 😆 only one I've seen.

If science agreed with them, they would embrace it. Sounds like a bunch of Hitters to me.

hitler hitler hitler hitler

National Geographic is absolutely erotic this month. I dare you to argue.

Observe the cover.

And observe the first page of the article.

And observe my wild-eyed, unreasoning joy.

Yes, it can be measured in the laboratory. Shut up.

Yes, there is fossil evidence. Shut up.

No, no one claims we evolved from present-day apes. Shut up.

And yes, it's just a theory. And so is that whole "the Earth orbits the Sun" thing. Time out to look up the scientific definition of the word "theory," okay? Go on. I'll wait here.

Got it? All done?

Good. Shut up.

The article didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but I don't think it was written for me. It was written for the 44 percent of Americans who, through force of will, misinformation, or simple ignorance, don't actually understand evolution, or refuse to understand it. It's for the special class. This issue's for that kid who shit in the study hall garbage can. It's for the Young Earth Creationists among us going through their homeschooled kid's textbooks with black Sharpies, crossing out the blasphemy. This one's for the snake-handlers picketing the Harvey Milk school in New York, and the hysterical Baptists rolling around on the cement in front of courthouses while Ten Commandments monuments are jackhammered out of the lobby floor.

I hope every Billy-Bawb in Dogpatch lets this issue sneak into the trailer, just for the cover. I just wish I could see all their faces when they sit down to read it.

Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology, Child Development, Geology, Astronomy and many more.

Sciences that support creationism: ...

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Sciences that support evolution: Biology, History, Geography, Psychology, Psychiatry, Physics, Chemisty, Technology, Child Development, Geology, Astronomy and many more.

Sciences that support creationism: ...

Here's a website if anybody is interested

http://www.answersingenesis.org/