Author Topic: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.  (Read 15108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2007, 01:14:23 PM »

Most people are not actual scientists , if seprated from scientific sorces and asked to explain evolution , what you often get is a declaration of faith.


To an extent, I agree. But that does not make scientific theory the same as religious myth. A non-scientist may accept a scientific theory with a certain level of faith, but that does not negate the scientific basis for the theory. A creation myth, on the other hand, has no scientific basis at all and cannot be verified by science. This is not an insignificant difference. So your attempt to equate the two seems highly questionable.


Moses had the best education availible in his time , you seem to be well educated .

Lets imagine that you are catapulted about fourthousand years into the future , will your understanding of the sciences be interesting to the denisens of a time presumably so much more advanced?

The Egyptians had science , it was just less .

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2007, 01:34:21 PM »
I have a question about creationism.
what are all the variations in this concept?
in evolution there are no limits of concepts
some actually think we`re decended from chimps.

modestyblase

  • Guest
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2007, 02:05:22 PM »
U.P.-My faith comment was snarky. Though you are correct, most people readily hold their faith as "infallible" and to paraphrase Ingersoll, keep it locked tight, free from debate or question(and to agree with Ingersoll, if it can't stand the rigours of free debate, it shouldn't stand at all).
A creation myth, on the other hand, has no scientific basis at all and cannot be verified by science. This is not an insignificant difference. So your attempt to equate the two seems highly questionable.
You are correct on that as well. For the forum participants: A scientific theory has the ability to be proven or disproven, to keep it short and simple. Creation-sort theories fail on those two most critical and initial foundations. Demonstrated and repeatable results are key. To even entertain it as science is absurd.

The scientific method requires:
(1) Results of experiments to test the theory are replicable,
(2) In that sense, the theory may be used to predict results,
(3) The theory itself must be disconfirmable, i.e., there must be a method by which the theory could be disproved.
I.D. and creationism(oh, haha, i.d.-Id!, thoughts of freudian psychology in regards to the arrogance and idiocy of creation theories are now making me laugh out loud!), hardly fit this bill. To even consider it, one would have to expostulate Plato's dialogues about the nature of objective reality. Who was it who ordered the tides to stop to prove they would not listen?

Plane: Most people are not actual scientists , if seprated from scientific sorces and asked to explain evolution , what you often get is a declaration of faith.

Pish. I tell them to look it up in their Funk n Wagnalls. If you mean "seperated by scientific sources" as "unable or in the context of argument disallowed to source science", then you have done yourself a disfavour. Evolution is one of the most solid sicences, with more evidence than not, and refraining from sourcing evidentiary support of this established theory is disingenius.

NOW, one could entertain the notion that "intelligent design" points to current gaps in understanding, and as long as one doesn't argue a "supernatural force" and instead rationally attempts to seek evidence, than they have my attention.

Ami - Didn't we do that at one time as well? I know that the value of pi was debated in at least one state legislature at one point.
Oh, hahaha! Thats entertaining! What a bunch of fools; which state was that?

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2007, 02:23:23 PM »
Oh, hahaha! Thats entertaining! What a bunch of fools; which state was that?

Most people would assume Kansas, Louisiana, or Mississippi.

However, it was Indiana.

Indiana Pi Bill
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2007, 02:57:01 PM »

Moses had the best education availible in his time , you seem to be well educated .

Lets imagine that you are catapulted about fourthousand years into the future , will your understanding of the sciences be interesting to the denisens of a time presumably so much more advanced?

The Egyptians had science , it was just less .


This doesn't justify equating scientific theory with creation myths. Moses did not, to the best of my knowledge, put forth the opening chapters of the book we call Genesis as a scientific explanation.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2007, 05:44:34 PM »

Moses had the best education availible in his time , you seem to be well educated .

Lets imagine that you are catapulted about fourthousand years into the future , will your understanding of the sciences be interesting to the denisens of a time presumably so much more advanced?

The Egyptians had science , it was just less .


This doesn't justify equating scientific theory with creation myths. Moses did not, to the best of my knowledge, put forth the opening chapters of the book we call Genesis as a scientific explanation.

Oh?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2007, 06:00:41 PM »
Who was it who ordered the tides to stop to prove they would not listen?




King Canute (994 – 1035) was at one point King of England, Denmark, Norway and part of Sweden. He is famous for saying,

‘let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings,

for there is none worthy of the name but God,

whom heaven, earth and sea obey.’


http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session4/18/kingcan.htm



Quote
(3) The theory itself must be disconfirmable, i.e., there must be a method by which the theory could be disproved.


Hey great! I didn't know that the Theroy of Evolution had this as a feature.

If a creature were discovered , which had a phisical feature or a behavior that could not have evolved ,would the theroy be disproven?


Quote
"....  most people readily hold their faith as "infallible" and to paraphrase Ingersoll, keep it locked tight, free from debate or question(and to agree with Ingersoll, if it can't stand the rigours of free debate, it shouldn't stand at all). "

"..........and as long as one doesn't argue a "supernatural force" and instead rationally attempts to seek evidence, than they have my attention."



How do you limit yourself so narrow mindedly when you seem to know better?
Why do you hold the non- existance of superntural power to be infallible and above all need for free debate?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 06:39:46 PM by Plane »

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2007, 06:15:30 PM »

Oh?


Yes, really. Have you some evidence to the contrary? I'd like to see it if you do.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2007, 06:41:40 PM »

Oh?


Yes, really. Have you some evidence to the contrary? I'd like to see it if you do.


In that era was there anydistinction made between knoledge of tradition and knoledge of science?

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2007, 06:58:59 PM »

In that era was there anydistinction made between knoledge of tradition and knoledge of science?


Not being a historian of the era, I would not make a definitive statement, but I think there probably was. But whether or not there was, that doesn't do anything for your assertion that the theory of evolution is a creation myth. You're still in the position of saying a myth and scientific theory are equivalent, and so far you haven't said anything that gives credence to that assertion.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2007, 07:55:28 PM »

In that era was there anydistinction made between knoledge of tradition and knoledge of science?


Not being a historian of the era, I would not make a definitive statement, but I think there probably was. But whether or not there was, that doesn't do anything for your assertion that the theory of evolution is a creation myth. You're still in the position of saying a myth and scientific theory are equivalent, and so far you haven't said anything that gives credence to that assertion.

There was a time when theroy was less formally developed , in th time of Aristotle there was no especial need felt to prove by experiment what pure logic produed.

What Moses knew from his Egyptian education incuded the best theroys of sciene availible , what he knew from revilation of God one would have to suppose to be infallible.

Yet even though God would certainly have understood the details of his creation , was Moses ready to understand an explanation that we would unerstand to be scientific?

Probly not to my thinking , Moses got the best explanation he could possibly have understood.

If Moses were presently graduating from Princeton with doctorates in several feilds , God could use more tecnical terms and up to date demonstrations of principals , getting much further down the roads of knoledge before haveing to stop at the point that Moses was not prepared to adzob any more.

For all that the story of genisis includes some interesting parallel parts with recent science.

In the beginning God ...
Earlyer than the first few moments of the big bang , we still have little idea of the history of the universe It can be supposed that before the big bang there was no matter and no energy therefore no space and no time .
Butthere was darkness and void and Go moveing aross the void.

Perhaps this just a good guess.



In an other Chapter Jacob gets a job as a top hand on a ranch owned by his father in law , hi pay was to be all the calves  that were born that year of a particular color.
But when Jacobs share was the white calves , all of the calves were white , next year when his share was the spotted calves , all of the calves were spotted , and so on every year untill his father in law owned only the oldest cows and Jacobs share was a motly herd of young cows equal in number to the original herd.
This could be taken as a miricle , or it could be that Jacob was a canny cattleman with an early understanding of the power of selection on genes , it would not be hard for a cowboy who understood selective breeding to hobble all the bulls that were not the desired color , and this would be in caricter for Jacob .

There are other  stronger evidences that the power of selective breeding is anchient knoledge  , several breeds of Dog and cattle an plant are very changed from the wild form from earlyer dates than Moses. I would Guess that Moses knew that selection can exegerate the expession of a caricteristic in an animal  , but Moses seems to reject the also common theroy of the time that diffrent animals were interspecies cross breeds.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2007, 08:17:50 PM »
I'm still waiting for you to get to the point of scientific theory as creation myth. I get that you're arguing unfamiliar science translated into religious text, but that is not verifiable in any way. And it does not support your assertion that current scientific theory is the equivalent of a myth.

Oh, and the part of Genesis you're talking about is, as best I can tell,  the second half of Genesis 30. The story is not quite as you told it. I suggest you read it again.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2007, 01:12:37 AM »
I'm still waiting for you to get to the point of scientific theory as creation myth. I get that you're arguing unfamiliar science translated into religious text, but that is not verifiable in any way. And it does not support your assertion that current scientific theory is the equivalent of a myth.

Oh, and the part of Genesis you're talking about is, as best I can tell,  the second half of Genesis 30. The story is not quite as you told it. I suggest you read it again.


What documents of the same era do you know of that are more scientific , from a modern standard?

In Ecclesiastes Soloman asserts by force of logic that Human beings are made of the same sort of matter as animals.




Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2007, 08:36:46 AM »
Plane: Most people are not actual scientists , if seprated from scientific sorces and asked to explain evolution , what you often get is a declaration of faith.

=================================
This is a totally bogus argument. Most people cannot explain how to build an arch or a dome, but they still will stand under one on faith in the architects.

This in no way disproves the match used by the architects who build these structures.

One may have faith in what seems to make the most sense.

Creationism, especially of the "world was created in six days 4004 years ago" crap does not make any sense to any except the most ignorant.

There is not time in any life to not take must on faith.

The important thing is that faith must be guided by logic and reason.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

modestyblase

  • Guest
Re: Creation debate going Global. Sigh.
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2007, 10:28:23 AM »
Hey great! I didn't know that the Theroy of Evolution had this as a feature.

Then you haven;t read enough about it.

If a creature were discovered , which had a phisical feature or a behavior that could not have evolved ,would the theroy be disproven?

That is highly probable to stemf orm and devolve into circular thinking, so I'll bow out.


Quote
"....  most people readily hold their faith as "infallible" and to paraphrase Ingersoll, keep it locked tight, free from debate or question(and to agree with Ingersoll, if it can't stand the rigours of free debate, it shouldn't stand at all). "

"..........and as long as one doesn't argue a "supernatural force" and instead rationally attempts to seek evidence, than they have my attention."



How do you limit yourself so narrow mindedly when you seem to know better?
Why do you hold the non- existance of superntural power to be infallible and above all need for free debate?
[/quote]

I don't hold an existence or a non-existence of any power to be anything, unless scientifically proven. Err on the side of rationality, I suppose. Maybe you should read some Spinoza.