Jump to content
Science Forums

What Creationists Should Learn Here


Pyrotex

Recommended Posts

This thread has veered way off-topic. Please amend future posts to one of the many threads involving religious thought (with relevancy, of course). Otherwise, please keep future posts in this thread limited to "What Creationists Should Learn Here". Thanks! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationists should learn here that their beliefs are baseless and without merit (rooted in faith alone), and that it's okay to change their minds once they've been shown contradictory evidence.

 

 

Btw, Glenn... Truth is not a democracy. The number of people who believe something does not lend it any validity, credibility, nor accuracy. Reality is a cruel ***** which cares not what we weak minded humans would prefer, even if group psychosis has made the number of believers disturbingly high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get back to the OP of this thread.

 

NOTE Concerning Our Future Creationist Visitors:

 

It may be impossible to change the mind of a true-blue believer that God created the world 6,148 years ago on a Tuesday morning. Typically, such folk thrash about here and then they leave.

 

But I pose this question to all of us:

What do we want them to take away after they leave ?

(whether they leave voluntarily or are suspended)

 

I propose that we strive to get just one tiny point across, a point that may stick with them for a long time. That point is this: What scientists DO, what WE do when we "do science" is NOT the same as reading a book and believing it is true. Or listening to an "authority" and believing what is heard.

 

Science is NOT the same as what theologists do.

 

The very thought processes and mental skills we take for granted are DIFFERENT from the thought processes of the theologist and the believer. ...

 

That be just the fac's Jack. :) So again I say, quit all this pretention to decorum and the molly-coddling and making believe that these folk constitute anything but trolls. It ain't rocket science. Three strikes and out. Sooner or later we always get from the interlopers the ol' "science is just belief" business, and claptrap that it is, if we assume it true then these religious bargers are doing the equivalent of coming into our tabernacle and piddling in our sacrament. If a scientist or Jew, or a Muslim, or a Seik, or a Hindu, yada yada yada came into a Christian church and did the same (or any combination of such interference) we all know it would go over like a lead balloon.

 

By all indications, this whole Theology Forum bright idea of ours is turning out more trouble than it is worth. :hyper:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

While perusing the web idly, I happened upon this thorough criticism of the ark story as found in the bible. It seems to me to be pretty comprehensive in laying out how ludicrous the story is, and since I couldn't really find a better place to post it, I'll do so here.

 

http://www.grahamkendall.net/Unsorted_files-1/A130-Noah_Ark.txt

 

In doing so, I will give this thread a bump and hopefully help to remind some of the recently frequent users of this sub-forum what the intent is of having a theology section in a science forum.

 

I would also like to point the reader to the stickied thread at the top of this forum, Rules for the Theology Forum

This is not the place to discuss Bible verses, nor is it the place to explain why your religion is much better than the alternatives. There are plenty of forums for that on the web already. Please respect our wishes to maintain a forum which first and foremost concerns the scientific aspects of religion, and not the faith aspects of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The difficulty on Hypography (not that I'm complaining, it's your forum) is that as soon as someone mentions the Bible in a positive light, it's assumed they're either creationist or Intelligent Design (and certainly many are).

 

There are some like myself however, who are science-minded evolutionists (but with a strange twist) and not religiously affiliated in any way but who also believe there's another component to our universe.

 

There are four kinds of people: the ones who are only concerned with the physical reality, the ones who are only concerned with God or religious matters and those that are in the middle and believe the two realities interact, causing a 'rip in the fabric of time', and those that don't give a rip.

 

I think that most Hypographers deal with the physical reality only, which is certainly fascinating on its own but have you considered that you're only looking at one side of the coin?

 

In the interests of science I was hoping to find more open-minded people. If you wish to deal with physical realities only however, I will certainly respect your wishes (again it's your forum) but you need to tell me your expectations rather than ignoring me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science cannot deal with anything other than physical reality. Anything outside of that is the land of mythology and fairy tales, and while it may be interesting, it has nothing at all to do with science.

 

All too often people make the mistake of assuming that science is a set of beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is what you do when you exclude beliefs, and instead insist on verifiable evidence. Science does not negate religion, it just doesn't give a flying brick about religion. One's imaginary friend is just as good as another's. However, when various religions make claims to happenings in the physical world, then their claims can and should be testable.

 

I don't have a problem with the Bible, the Upanishads, The Four Noble Truths, the Theogony, the Quran or any other book laying out a culture's mythologies. You can debate the meanings of various passages of various works of fiction all day.

 

I will give more credence to "the other side of the coin" when someone can show that it even exists. Until then, I find reality absolutely fascinating, and don't wish to waste what little time I have on this earth chasing the easter bunny to find where the tooth fairy lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science cannot deal with anything other than physical reality. Anything outside of that is the land of mythology and fairy tales, and while it may be interesting, it has nothing at all to do with science.

 

Try going back in time and telling the people of Copernicus's, Galileo's, or Newton's day about atoms, photons, quarks, string theory, etc. They would have thought you came from the land of oz!

 

If living in their day, you yourself might very well have been anti-Copernicus (etc.)!

 

All too often people make the mistake of assuming that science is a set of beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is what you do when you exclude beliefs, and instead insist on verifiable evidence.

 

Physics (except for the math) deals with unseen realities all the time. Granted those things can be tested but it wasn't until you were first aware of the atom that you began to see other components. You couldn't have known about sub-atomic particles until you knew about atomic ones! We're not done, there's more going on than meets the eye.

 

Some strange ideas have recently emerged in quantum mechanics (multiple universes), which mainline physics is calling 'quantum weirdness'. It seems to me that the same attitude of intolerance that existed in Galileo's day, exists in much of science today.

 

Science does not negate religion, it just doesn't give a flying brick about religion. One's imaginary friend is just as good as another's. However, when various religions make claims to happenings in the physical world, then their claims can and should be testable.

 

I dislike religion as much as you but again, there are variables to consider from a scientific viewpoint; anti-matter for instance. What is anti-matter?

 

I don't have a problem with the Bible, the Upanishads, The Four Noble Truths, the Theogony, the Quran or any other book laying out a culture's mythologies. You can debate the meanings of various passages of various works of fiction all day.

 

I have a problem with them because they're unreasonable.

 

I will give more credence to "the other side of the coin" when someone can show that it even exists. Until then, I find reality absolutely fascinating, and don't wish to waste what little time I have on this earth chasing the easter bunny to find where the tooth fairy lives.

 

I agree, physics is fascinating but it's not everything. Life is relatively short, are you quite sure this is it? My concern is there is a component to our universe that physical science is refusing to acknowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a human being you cannot know of anything that isn't physical. Since you can't know anything about it, including whether or not it even exists at all, why concern yourself with the idea? Even a god, for example, if it's interacted with affairs in this universe, is a physical entity. Ghosts are the same. As is chi, or any of other energy, if it has any perceivable effect. In short, any stimulus to our perception is necessarily physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a human being you cannot know of anything that isn't physical. Since you can't know anything about it, including whether or not it even exists at all, why concern yourself with the idea?

 

Who says we cannot know! The biggest question facing the first scientists was 'the earth was the center of the universe'. We have what we have today because someone questioned the status quo.

 

Even a god, for example, if it's interacted with affairs in this universe, is a physical entity. Ghosts are the same. As is chi, or any of other energy, if it has any perceivable effect. In short, any stimulus to our perception is necessarily physical.

 

True but some things are not yet measurable! If history teaches us anything it's that 'we should keep our minds open'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is an existence that doesn't interact with the senses still perceivable?

 

Anti-matter isn't perceivable yet apparently it exists. It doesn't react like matter (we haven't even figured out dark matter). You can't see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, taste it or manipulate it - so then it's not perceivable - at least not in any physical way. Unless you mean by certain things existing in theory, like atoms!

 

I believe there are things yet unperceived by science and quantum physics is beginning to unravel those mysteries.

 

When science becomes closed to at least examining new ideas, I think that's a step backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-matter isn't perceivable yet apparently it exists.

 

Interesting. Granted i shouldn't hold human senses up to such a high degree of accuracy but i still don't think that idea works against the idea that what we can sense, or what interacts with existence in a perceivable manner, must be physical. As far as i understand it, dark matter is only a concept that was invented because its existence would explain certain gravitational effects. In this manner dark matter must be physical since it's effecting things physically. How could something effect things physically if it wasn't physical in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-matter isn't perceivable yet apparently it exists. It doesn't react like matter (we haven't even figured out dark matter). You can't see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, taste it or manipulate it - so then it's not perceivable - at least not in any physical way. Unless you mean by certain things existing in theory, like atoms!

 

I believe there are things yet unperceived by science and quantum physics is beginning to unravel those mysteries.

 

When science becomes closed to at least examining new ideas, I think that's a step backwards.

 

This is such a wonderfully illustrative post. Please allow me to dissect.

 

1) The claim that anti-matter isn't perceivable is easily falsified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-matter#Natural_production

 

2) Atoms do not exist "in theory" alone, in the same way that dark matter is theoretical. Perhaps I misunderstood your implication though.

 

Wikipedia is a remarkable resource for the lay person to quickly get a reference to specific concepts without having to wade through meaningless google hits. A well referenced article will provide a starting point for further personal discovery as well, if one wishes. While ignorance alone is not particularly bad, there are far more areas in which I am ignorant than areas in which I am not, repeatedly making factually incorrect statements is bad form. This site requires sources for claims. If you spend a small amount of time trying to find a source for your claim, you may quickly find that your assertion is false.

 

However, neither of those points is pertinent to this thread. What I would like to discuss is what makes the idea of dark matter a scientific idea, while the idea of some supernatural powers, beings, super best friends, what have you is not. The idea of dark matter, whether it exists or not, was brought about in order to explain observed phenomenon. It can be tested, and in fact must be, in order to be widely accepted as accurate. The fact that it interacts ONLY through gravitation though is what makes the testing so difficult.

 

Difficult to understand is not equivalent to magical, supernatural, etc. You previously said, "Try going back in time and telling the people of Copernicus's, Galileo's, or Newton's day about atoms, photons, quarks, string theory, etc. They would have thought you came from the land of oz!" Perhaps, however, given enough time to go through the explanation, and given that people are willing to do science rather than mysticism, there is no reason to believe that any person in history could not be taught to understand current physical concepts. These concepts, even though they may be difficult to understand, do not lie outside the physical realm, whether you are dduck, a five year old, an Egyptian living three thousand years ago, or a life form in another solar system.

 

You said, "Physics (except for the math) deals with unseen realities all the time. Granted those things can be tested but it wasn't until you were first aware of the atom that you began to see other components. You couldn't have known about sub-atomic particles until you knew about atomic ones! We're not done, there's more going on than meets the eye." Absolutely, and that is what so fascinates me about science. Where is your proof for the supernatural, the other side of the coin? How do you propose to test it? What is it that your belief in mythology is supposed to explain? Why do you accept that belief as an acceptable explanation without demanding that the explanation be falsifiable and repeatable (moving it out of the realm of mysticism and into the realm of science). That things could exist of which we are not currently aware should be obvious. However, this is not what you are claiming. You are claiming that a particular way of interpreting a work of fiction gives you insight into the world, or at least that is what I am getting out of your thread http://scienceforums.com/topic/23122-interpreting-method-for-the-bible-and-some-apocrypha/. Why that book? What makes the interpretation of the Bible more useful to you in explaining the natural world than the interpretation of Don Quixote?

 

Please understand that I do not want this to be a personal argument. I get that enough with my family and neighbors. I suspect the fact that you have been an active member at a science forum for so long means that you are interested in science. For that reason, it would be good for you to know why the scientific method of inquiring about the world around us is different from revelation, interpretation of historical documents, or any other means of inquiring about the natural world. This is the thrust of this thread, and is what makes the scientific method such a useful tool for understanding reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Granted i shouldn't hold human senses up to such a high degree of accuracy but i still don't think that idea works against the idea that what we can sense, or what interacts with existence in a perceivable manner, must be physical. As far as i understand it, dark matter is only a concept that was invented because its existence would explain certain gravitational effects. In this manner dark matter must be physical since it's effecting things physically. How could something effect things physically if it wasn't physical in the first place?

 

You're right, if we held the human senses as the be all and end all to science, quantum physics wouldn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a wonderfully illustrative post. Please allow me to dissect.

 

1) The claim that anti-matter isn't perceivable is easily falsified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-matter#Natural_production

 

I'm corrected once more. Anti-matter can be manipulated, which makes it a physical property.

 

My point was more that the proof for the existence of anti-matter is relatively new. Physicists are always discovering different aspects to our universe so then no idea, no matter how bizarre-sounding (unless proven otherwise) should be off-the-table.

 

2) Atoms do not exist "in theory" alone, in the same way that dark matter is theoretical. Perhaps I misunderstood your implication though.

 

I should have clarified: I meant theory in the scientific usage of the word: not a 'guess' but a 'verifiable hypothesis'.

 

However, neither of those points is pertinent to this thread.

 

It's pertinent to me! One of the difficulties I have is the perception (I think) that some Hypographers have of me, is that I spout the Bible so I must be a creationist or I.D. proponent when nothing is further from the truth.

 

I want to learn about science, that's why I'm on Hypography. I want to have my ideas about the Bible and Apocrypha challenged by the best (even when it's not easy), that's how I learn if what I'm thinking is correct. At the same time I consider myself an expert on the Bible and Apocrypha.

 

If however, I'm automatically judged just to be a creationist because I mention the Bible (even though I present good arguments), I must wonder if truth is the desired end here. But again, this isn't my forum so I am at the mercy of its administrators and I certainly respect that.

 

What I would like to discuss is what makes the idea of dark matter a scientific idea

 

We wouldn't have known about the existence of dark matter (or whatever you want to call it) as an observable (physical) property were it not for physics so then it's most definitely a scientific idea.

 

while the idea of some supernatural powers, beings, super best friends, what have you is not. The idea of dark matter, whether it exists or not, was brought about in order to explain observed phenomenon. It can be tested, and in fact must be, in order to be widely accepted as accurate. The fact that it interacts ONLY through gravitation though is what makes the testing so difficult.

 

Whatever you want to call it, I believe that dark matter exists and my problem is not with it. What I'm proposing is that supernatural is to me what anti-matter is to physics. I believe I have Biblical and Apocryphal evidence to prove that this supposed reality is not what we perceive it to be. It will be physicists that will prove me wrong or right but I believe that what is called Quantum Weirdness by mainline quantum physicists is beginning to pierce the veil of our perceptions.

 

I have no doubts that given time, physicists will figure it out, that's the wonder of science. However, we are being propelled ever more quickly by knowledge but I wonder if we're ready? It seems that only a select few have a handle on what's really going on while the rest of the world just tries to make a living or doesn't care.

 

Difficult to understand is not equivalent to magical, supernatural, etc. You previously said, "Try going back in time and telling the people of Copernicus's, Galileo's, or Newton's day about atoms, photons, quarks, string theory, etc. They would have thought you came from the land of oz!" Perhaps, however, given enough time to go through the explanation, and given that people are willing to do science rather than mysticism, there is no reason to believe that any person in history could not be taught to understand current physical concepts.

 

I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying: that as it was in Copernicus's day, so are some attitudes today. People don't change all that much. What appears stupid yesterday is acceptable today.

 

Where is your proof for the supernatural, the other side of the coin? How do you propose to test it?

 

Quantum Weirdness is saying some pretty bizarre things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

 

What is it that your belief in mythology is supposed to explain? Why do you accept that belief as an acceptable explanation without demanding that the explanation be falsifiable and repeatable (moving it out of the realm of mysticism and into the realm of science).

 

My belief is not mythological but based on an interpreting methodology (I have named The Begaiow Principle) I discovered hidden in Bible and Apocryphal writings.

 

You are claiming that a particular way of interpreting a work of fiction gives you insight into the world, or at least that is what I am getting out of your thread http://scienceforums.com/topic/23122-interpreting-method-for-the-bible-and-some-apocrypha/. Why that book? What makes the interpretation of the Bible more useful to you in explaining the natural world than the interpretation of Don Quixote?

 

If the interpreting methodology was not scientific (it's very basis is confirming) I would have tossed it long ago.

 

Please understand that I do not want this to be a personal argument. I get that enough with my family and neighbors. I suspect the fact that you have been an active member at a science forum for so long means that you are interested in science.

 

Science is really fascinating and I'm continually amazed at how quickly knowledge is increasing.

 

For that reason, it would be good for you to know why the scientific method of inquiring about the world around us is different from revelation, interpretation of historical documents

 

Again is (I think) the assumption that I quote the Bible so I must be talking about non-scientific revelation. The reason I wanted to present the interpreting anomaly was with the intent of having it torn apart but no one seems to want to take it on. Perhaps I haven't presented it properly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both sides of the discussion about creationism and evolution should watch this series of videos by AronRa. His is straight forward and a bit abrasive but it's hard to argue against his knowledge. He is the best advocate of rational naturalism i have ever heard speak. Please, if you have trouble understanding evolution and why creationism is not science give AronRa a listen, you will come away with a good understanding of the differences at the very least. Science needs speakers like him, most scientists are good at speaking to other scientists but loose the ear of lay men, especially creationists due to most scientists simply being boring speakers to anyone but other scientists, AronRa is not boring and tells it like it is... There are 17 of these videos but well worth watching if you want to understand what creation is and what the dangers of it are as well.

 

 

Arrrggg! I accidentally added a misspelled work to my i-spell dictionary, how do I remove it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who was arguing against evolution!!

 

 

Besides Moontanman, whatever happened to:

This has to be some of the most outrageous interesting assertions i have ever read, I look forward to explanation of these things. I am familiar with the bible and I have never seen anything close to what you claim but i am willing to learn if you can show me where it says this.

 

Gave in to the pressure did you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...