Stirring the pot - creation vs. evolutionism

[Rodnik]

...scientific context....

Right. The observations, whether religious or scientific, are made \"in context\" of the belief system....

Thus one is not greater than the other...only different. Science is based on how man perceives the universe. Faith would be based on how the man feels the universe perceives him.

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by Rodnik
Thus one is not greater than the other...only different. Science is based on how man perceives the universe. Faith would be based on how the man feels the universe perceives him.

With the above definition, wouldn\'t you agree then with me that you\'ll get into trouble if you use religious arguments in a scientific context? Which was my original point... :innocent:

 

[Rodnik]

With the above definition, wouldn\'t you agree then with me that you\'ll get into trouble if you use religious arguments in a scientific context? Which was my original point...

I would NEVER agree to this, simply because I\'d be admitting you were absolutely right!! (and you are right).

My point was that neither is more credible than the other--because the arguments must be made in a limited context---from the view of a given belief system, and thus the conclusions are ONLY credible inside their respective belief system-----whether scientific or religious.

And from the physicist standpoint----Quantum/Newtonian has had some of those same challenges. Explaining one in the context of the other has proved to be somewhat difficult---without taking a \"leap of faith\", that is..

 

[Ritual]

@rodnik
It\'s funny sometimes how you have to argue for an hour before discovering you are more or less agreeing with each other! lol

Now we can both go do something else, which we should have done an hour ago... :innocent:

 

[Rodnik]

It\'s funny sometimes how you have to argue for an hour before discovering you are more or less agreeing with each other!

Yep...it is. Still, the fun in a debate isn\'t in the destination; it\'s in the journey.

...back to work now...lol

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by Rodnik

With the above definition, wouldn\'t you agree then with me that you\'ll get into trouble if you use religious arguments in a scientific context? Which was my original point...

I would NEVER agree to this, simply because I\'d be admitting you were absolutely right!! (and you are right).

My point was that neither is more credible than the other--because the arguments must be made in a limited context---from the view of a given belief system, and thus the conclusions are ONLY credible inside their respective belief system-----whether scientific or religious.

And from the physicist standpoint----Quantum/Newtonian has had some of those same challenges. Explaining one in the context of the other has proved to be somewhat difficult---without taking a \"leap of faith\", that is..

Obvious problem however arises when criteria gets mixed - intentionally or unintentionally. This is what, unfortunately, moder creationists do all the time - replacing \"scientific\" observation by \"religious\" without using proper qualifier and then trying to convince listeners that they have identical meaning in both system. In other words it is and attempt to convince people that \"scientific\" and \"religious\" observations are essentially the same

If you think about it it is very wrong from both religious and scientific point of view. For example if you introduce \"scientific\" criteria of observation you would have to dismiss resurrection as a irreproducible at given conditions event. I hope I don\'t have to tell you how scientists treat \"irreproducible\" events.

 

[Gilvan Blight]

According to Religion, resurection is reproducible though.

Lazurus was it, was the first before Jesus? Their may have been others, it\'s been a long time since I read \'the book\'

My earlier comments about humans disproving Darwinism were meant as a joke. It\'s a current running joke among my firends right now as 3 of us are all having babies around the same time and all befuddled by the \'weakness\' of the human spawn.

 

[vincegamer]

Other, smarter minds have addressed this but I want to reiterate:

Originally posted by supervike
It is still, a THEORY, it is not concrete evidence.

Still a theory? It is gloriously a theory. A theory is the end goal of scientific investigation! It will never be more because there is nothing more. A theory is the gold medal of science. You start with a hypothesis and test it out with thousands of scientists doing their best to prove it wrong. If it holds up and is sufficiently predictive, then it is elevated to the grand platform of theory.
Is it truth? Well, no. Scientists always accept the possibility that some as yet unknown evidence will disprove it, or at least require it to be modified, but the theory of evolution has had 150 years of people trying to disprove it and all that has happened is more and more evidence supports it.
Evolution is a fact. Living creatures change over time. The Theory of Evolution is the best known explanation of HOW that happens.

Similarly, gravity is a fact. The Theory of Gravity is the best known explanation of HOW that happens.

[edit] Givlan, I don\'t remember the exact text, but Ezekiel raise an entire army from the dead. And that\'s just if you only take the bible. If you look at other things, Gilgamesh returned from the dead. In fact there have been lots of reported resurrections in ancient myths.

Of course none stands up under modern scruteny or the higher demand of proof in the modern world.
If Jesus had risen from the dead and stuck around for the past 2000 years, now THAT would have stood up to our modern standards.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
My earlier comments about humans disproving Darwinism were meant as a joke. It\'s a current running joke among my firends right now as 3 of us are all having babies around the same time and all befuddled by the \'weakness\' of the human spawn.

They\'re only \"weak\" because by the standard of many other mammals, they\'re born premature. Why? Because our big giant noggins won\'t fit out of a human female\'s pelvis any other way. Our heads are grossly disproportionate in size at that age, after all. The upside is that the adult version of the same brain enables us to properly look after our spawn once they emerge in this physically underdeveloped state.

 

[Roger Bunting]

Well, surely it was Slartibartfarst that created the earth and all it\'s inhabitants. Well, him and his colleagues.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by vincegamer
Still a theory? It is gloriously a theory. A theory is the end goal of scientific investigation! It will never be more because there is nothing more. A theory is the gold medal of science.

I\'m so glad no one bothered to prove that \'the world is flat\' theory incorrect....and just accepted it as the gold medal.

Or the one about \'the sun is the center of the universe\'

My point is that there are scientists that think Evolution is a FACT...not a theory. And, to me that is more dangerous than all the creationist combined.

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
According to Religion, resurection is reproducible though.

Lazurus was it, was the first before Jesus? Their may have been others, it\'s been a long time since I read \'the book\'

Not really. End result is the same but we cannot claim reproducibility since the underlying mechanism is unknown.

 

[Mosch]

Orginal gepostet von Rodnik

Theory, as you know, does not mean \"stuff we made up\". There may not be enough evidence to sway those who don\'t want to believe it, but it has yet to be proven wrong.

Mosch, I\'d be careful in how you approach that argument. If you look it up, check a thesaurus, etc...Theory is defined as \"Belief\", for all intents and purposes. And the antonyms of the word actually contradict your statement----those being \"fact\", \"proof\", \"reality\" and the like.
Some of the synonyms being \"assumption\", \"conjecture\", etc.
A few of the synonyms I find particularly ironic---especially in the context of this argument.

doctrine, dogma, ideology, philosophy.....

I hate to say this, but I actually looked it up and theory basically seems to be defined as a model that was conceived by watching and interpreting measurable events and is constantly changed based on the same. Not a single word about \"belief\" was mentioned.

Orginal gepostet von Rodnik
And religion CAN be amended....that\'s how the protestant religions came into being (by and large, anyway)---

If they couldn\'t be...there would only be one big church for any given \"supreme being\".

You misunderstood me here. You might be able to change the effect, but not the core. Religion has this wonderful loophole of man not being able to understan god\'s will. If a scientists finds something that undeniably proves that evolution is wrong, the evolution theory will be amended or abolished. If a creationist gets a letter saying \"Evolution exists. I don\'t give a damn about controlling this stuff. Signed, god\" it will be a test of faith.
A belief can not be proven. Never. That is the very essence of belief. You can not believe if you know. Therefore a belief can not be disproved without completely destroying it.

Orginal gepostet von Rodnik

A scientific theory is built around observations and experiments and it is constantly re-shaped so that it involves new observations etc. etc. ...

But my point is that religion does work the same way. The only difference is how they each define the result.

A couple of brief, quick, and bad examples, before I check out--I wished I could stay, but alas I\'ve got some other things to do...

So...a person \"observes\" that Jesus raises someone from the dead. Jesus has performed other witnessed miracles, thus the conclusion is made he is \"the chosen\".

The non-canonical gospels were \"removed\" because, through comparison and relayed historical accounts, they weren\'t believed to be \"accurate\". As a result, the doctrine can be taught more \"accurately\"---by omitting certain unproven points and, as a result, strengthening the belief system.

The Bible was built in the exact same way theories are built---through observations and amendments (and in some cases, omissions of \"bad data\"). The only difference were how the observations were defined (Miracle vs Science).

There is a certain flaw in that thinking. The problem with it is that there is no way to really select the \"undeniably correct\" version. This is all belief, not more, not less. There is no way to check any of this - there are no miracles than can\'t be explained today. In the bible days there were miracles by the dozens, in modern days everything can be explained... well, not everything, but as of yet every single \"magic spell\" and miracle man was a hoax, a scam and nothing supernatural has ever been seen - if it would, the scientific view would have been amended and the new phenomenon researched.
I don\'t doubt that there are certain historical accuracies to be found in the bible, but walking over water on a flat earth under a dome is not one of them.

Orginal gepostet von Rodnik
Anyway...

There is \"scientific\" evidence today that supports certain accounts in the bible----the only difference is science explains an event away as a \"scientific\" event (seismic, geologic, weather-related, etc)...and the other explains it as a \"miracle\".

Perhaps it\'s man explaining the miracle with science, but the truth is the science is the result of the miracle. (Just an alternate view, mind you).

If divine works are the basis for modern science then god is a force of nature, a mathematical force, something that can be taught in schools, that can be analyzed and tested. This idea would probably be obscene to christians...

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by johnboyjjb
...wanted somebody here to punch holes in his argument. He is offering $250,000 reward for proof of macro-evolution.

I wish Stephen Jay Gould were still with us, he\'s argue this guy into the ground. And then make a pretty pattern out of the dust left behind.

A little sample for anyone interested here. You can feel yourself getting smarter reading his stuff, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in science and rigorous, logical thought.

Originally posted by No Such Agency
[snip]

Sincerely,
Allison Mackay
a biologist

Go you

johnboyjjb I think you\'ll have fun looking up exaptation.

Einion

 

[Undave]

I take it you guys are all familiar with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

My pet philosophy regarding God and stuff goes something like this; If I sit in a chair I don\'t have to believe in it to avoid falling on my arse. Similarly the chair does not rely on my belief to exist. So if there is a God He/She/It will surely go on existing regardless of my personal views so I\'ll carry on not actively believing and leave God to it\'s own devises.

Regarding evolution I\'ve been doing biology related degree stuff for what seems like forever so I\'m pretty convinced that it works. That said if someone turned around and offered proof that it was all down to aliens I\'d quite happily go with it.


Ramen Brothers and Sisters

 

[Rodnik]

I hate to say this, but I actually looked it up and theory basically seems to be defined as a model that was conceived by watching and interpreting measurable events and is constantly changed based on the same. Not a single word about \"belief\" was mentioned.

Please provide the reference from the dictionary and thesaurus used.
I would be interested to see the source.

 

[Mosch]

\"Knaurs Wörterbuch\"

 

[Shawn R. L.]

This is the result of random chance?? To believe that requires a HUGE amount of FAITH..................

 

[Infidel Castro]

Originally posted by johnboyjjb
Just to clarify, creation is a Judeo-Christian belief. New Testament gospels have little to due with support for creation/evolution debate. Also, in regard to miracles, the medical field frequently has miracles. Since people have become more skeptic, even the mentioning of miracles in media has become more remote. The doctors said that my brother had a 5% chance to live through his car accident. He would never come out of a coma. Never be anything more than a vegetable. Never eat, talk, or walk on his own again. He does all these things. The doctors were certain he wouldn\'t. Would you call that a miracle, probably not. I do.

The Egyptians had creationist ideas, as did the aborigines and the south/central americans. Mostly these are about earth being brought out of water/chaos if I recall. A word that sticks in my mind from the Egyptians is Duat. It covers the underworld, but I\'m sure it as the first step of creation(ish) stuff too....

 

[Infidel Castro]

Actually:

Lower Kingdom Creation Myth
Only the ocean existed at first. Then Ra (the sun) came out of an egg that appeared on the surface of the water. Ra brought forth four children, the gods Shu and Geb and the goddesses Tefnut and Nut. Shu and Tefnut became the atmosphere. They stood on Geb, who became the earth, and raised up Nut, who became the sky. Ra ruled over all. Geb and Nut later had two sons, Set and Osiris, and two daughters, Isis and Nephthys. Osiris succeeded Ra as king of the earth, helped by Isis, his sister-wife. Set, however, hated his brother and killed him. Isis then embalmed her husband\'s body with the help of the god Anubis, who thus became the god of embalming. The powerful charms of Isis resurrected Osiris, who became king of the netherworld, the land of the dead. Horus, who was the son of Osiris and Isis, later defeated Set in a great battle and became king of the earth.

(Upper Kingdom creation story)
At first there was only Nun, the primal ocean of chaos that contained the beginnings of everything to come. From these waters came Ra who, by himself, gave birth to Shu and Tefnut. Shu, the god of air, and Tefnut, the goddess of moisture gave birth to Geb and Nut, the earth god and the sky goddess. And so the physical universe was created. Men were created from Ra\'s tears. They proved to be ungrateful so Ra, and a council of gods, decided they should be destroyed. Re created Sekhmet to do the job. She was very efficient and slaughtered all but a few humans, when Ra relented and tricked her into stopping. Thus was the present world created.

Against Ra\'s orders, Geb and Nut married. Ra was incensed and ordered Shu to separate them, which he did. But Nut was already pregnant, although unable to give birth as Ra had decreed she could not give birth in any month of any year. Thoth, the god of learning, decided to help her and gambling with the moon for extra light, was able to add five extra days to the 360-day calendar. On those five days Nut gave birth to Osiris, Horus the Elder, Set, Isis, and Nephthys successively. Osiris became the symbol of good, while Set became the symbol of evil. And thus the two poles of morality were fixed once and for all.

......

Let\'s not forget Moses hung about in Egypt for a while