Creationism--Proof ?

[C1ay]

C1ay is very adept at avoiding the main issue by playing “picky, picky, picky” with some irrelevant aspect of someone else’s post. This is a good tactic in both war and debate – if you cannot challenge the main force, pick at the fringes as a diversion.

No, you're really missing my point entirely as I'm not trying to create any diversion at all, I'm merely stating the fact that there are many questions of nature that man does not currently understand or have answers for. Do you not agree with that? Can you point to the post where I have done as you claim?

[C1ay]

perhaps it might be interesting to have a post on which those who support creationism could list the reasons for their belief and those who believe there is some other explanation for the presence of the universe could list the reasons for their belief. of course, this does not prove anything but the relative merits of logic and subjective evidence. at least this may get us off the semantic problems and petty squabbling.

I think that would best be done in a new thread. This thread should really be about proof of creationism.

[questor]

Damocles, you might take note that this thread is in the Theology section. i haven't seen anyone here claim hard proof of anything. my understanding is that some may believe the circumstantial evidence for ID is stronger than that against ID. you may think it is the other way, therefore why not give your reasons for your opinion? is it just because it cannot

be lab tested?

[damocles]

Damocles, you might take note that this thread is in the Theology section. i haven't seen anyone here claim hard proof of anything. my understanding is that some may believe the circumstantial evidence for ID is stronger than that against ID. you may think it is the other way, therefore why not give your reasons for your opinion? is it just because it cannot

be lab tested?

 

Quit trying to change the argument.

 

Re: Creationism--Proof ?

 

I have noticed that when someone doesn't like the way the discussion is going he tries to change the terms of discussion..

 

You will not do this.

 

I discussed the need for evidence and necessity for testing. How else do you prove something?

 

If you want to discuss pie in the sky then sobeit. But do it with some one who will stand for that fallacious shifting in the sands of reason.

 

If you discuss creationism(that is religion) with me, then this Roman Catholic will meet you headon with the best tools at my hand.

 

This universe doesn't need a creator to be here. Applying Occams Razor and best present explanations show this to be true and correct to within the best observed and measured experimental confirmation of predicted outcomes ACROSS all studied disciplines and all measured scalars. The quibbling is at the margins for the moment though I detect rumblings in the distance that there is something wrong with the Standard Model of physics.

 

If there is a creator, its existence hasn't been tested. And you have yet to present one ongoing test to show otherwise. Whereas I've shown that even the bedrock theoories that we use in physics are subjected to skeptical tesating to the present.(Gravity probe B.by Stanford Universitty and NASA checking some predictions of General Relativity.)

 

That at bedrock without the obfuscation, squirming, twisting, and dodging(and the misrepresentation by you of what I wrote), is where we are.

 

Now if you wish to continue this, don't try to make this about "opinion". This discussion is about "proof" and that is where it stays.

 

I don't give opinion here when I discuss this subject. I discuss the subject based on the premise. "Proof?" is the subject and what I apply to it is the process whereby you gather it.

 

If you don't understand it that way, then let me explain it for the fifteenth time this way;

 

I don't care about "faith" when someone asserts.

 

I want his evidence for his hypothesis and the methods by which he came to his conclusions so I can check his work.

[daytonturner]

damocles, this is going to come as a great shock to you, but you are wrong!

[Guest FinalFantasy]

You are opening yourself up for attacks by using fallacious arguments here. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.

 

The US has a strict separation between church and state. I wonder why on earth you pitch this as a freedom of speech thing. It would mean that every teacher in the country can teach that Jesus was gay as much as they want, since it is impossible to prove that he wasn't.

 

On the same note, it will by your reasoning be fully okay to teach kids about fairies in biology because it is impossible to prove they do not exist.

 

It is the ID movement that is pitching this as a "creationism vs evolution" debate. But it is not about evolution at all. It is about whether teaching religious views in science classes in state funded schools is okay.

 

Evolution is being used as a strawman argument by the ID movement with the claim that "it is faith based, just like religion". Since this becomes a semantic issue rather than a scientific issue, it is in fact misleading. The real question is not whether evolution is correct or not, but whether ID is a religion or not.

 

 

 

Maybe you can't prove Jesus wasn't gay, but since he was married to Mary Magdalene, (which can also not be proved, lol) it is unlikely that he was a homosexual. :Waldo:

[damocles]

damocles, this is going to come as a great shock to you, but you are wrong!

 

How so?

 

You are going to present evidence to test at last?

 

If not; go in peace.

 

Best wishes;

[daytonturner]

damocles: I'm glad you ask.

 

1. You are wrong in continuing to hold that this thread is about creationism. It is also about proof and what kind of proof is relevant to not only creationism but, ultimately, any scientific ism.

 

2. You are wrong in continuing to hold to the idea that an objective view is the only thing relevant to science. Did not Einstein say, "Imagination is more important that knowledge?" Imagination is subjective; knowledge is objective. Knowledge is always a thing of the past.

 

3. You are wrong in that your view of the universe is far too narrow.

 

One must ponder, what does a damocles focus on when he looks up at the sword over his head -- 1. the sword? 2. the cord? 3. the fastenings on the cord? 4. the anchor which holds the cord? 5. the material into which the anchor is imbedded?

 

Take heart, you have much company.

[C1ay]

daytonturner,

 

Get on topic and quit flaming. This thread is about proof of creationism, not what you think of other members opinions. If you want to rant on and on about how others are wrong you need to provide proof or be gone. Now, read the rules and adhere.

[questor]

since i started this thread and since it has lead to some harsh words, it may cool the blood

if i could try to end the thread this way. someone said: if you want peace, don't discuss religion or politics. good idea. as for me, i try to interpret my world in a rational fashion.

i adhere to the necessity of proving hypotheses, before one can make claims to existence

of properties or activities. this thread of theology is in the philosophy forum, so it would seem that one could discuss a theological point of view without sharpening the sword. as far as i can tell, no one here has scientific evidence to support either side of this argument. since that is true, one is led to his opinion by personal perception of the world about him. i can believe either side, and when we know the truth, i will argue for that.

there has been a number of comments about an ID movement as if it is some dangerous quack cult. i have no ties to any movement , so i cannot comment on that point.

i have arrived at my own views by trying to find out about elemental particles in the human body that cause the life force, and the mystery of how thought is created. this is because my career was in the life sciences. one thing leads to another, and soon you are interested in the basic elements of all particles and how it all works together to provide an orderly universe.

in my own view, i cannot envision an orderly universe and orderly genetic information ( i did not say perfect ),

arising from chaos and chance. i may be proved wrong, and if so i will admit my mental shortcomings. until then, maybe we can just consign this thread to the unknowable pile and get on with other subjects.

[Erasmus00]

 

1. You are wrong in continuing to hold that this thread is about creationism. It is also about proof and what kind of proof is relevant to not only creationism but, ultimately, any scientific ism.

 

Look, this argument between you and damocles goes nowhere. Damocles has pointed out that in science, all arguements are settled by an appeal to nature. This is different then law, where we determine who has the best argument.

 

If you want to show that creationism is a science, not a religion, then point out one experiment going on to test its claims. If you want to settle this scientifically, demonstrate that some test designed to disprove ID has failed.

-Will

[damocles]

damocles: I'm glad you ask.

 

1. You are wrong in continuing to hold that this thread is about creationism. It is also about proof and what kind of proof is relevant to not only creationism but, ultimately, any scientific ism.

 

2. You are wrong in continuing to hold to the idea that an objective view is the only thing relevant to science. Did not Einstein say, "Imagination is more important that knowledge?" Imagination is subjective; knowledge is objective. Knowledge is always a thing of the past.

 

3. You are wrong in that your view of the universe is far too narrow.

 

One must ponder, what does a damocles focus on when he looks up at the sword over his head -- 1. the sword? 2. the cord? 3. the fastenings on the cord? 4. the anchor which holds the cord? 5. the material into which the anchor is imbedded?

 

Take heart, you have much company.

 

Understand that I refer to the sword and not to the man to whom Dionysus the Second, Tyrant of Syracuse, taught the lesson?

 

I will amend that so it is clear.

[daytonturner]

Subjectively speaking, this will, likely, be my last post here, but here goes:

 

Yes, C1ay, I think you better ban me, because I am never going to be able to limit my thoughts to the rules and their built in scientistic bias. For example, the rules in the theology department to which you referred me ban the discussion of any Bible verses, yet they don’t equally ban the discussion of any other religious writing. Is there some scientific test to show that only the Bible lacks theological significance? What is the scientific justification for this blatant form of discrimination against one, and only one, religious book? Or is that the one book which most seriously challenges the scientistic oriented thinking which dominates this forum?

 

I will always find it somewhat difficult to stick to the listed topic of any thread, wherein it pits science against religion because, in essense, they are all the exact same thread, being hashed and rehashed against differing backdrops.

 

In my short presence on a couple of threads here, my purpose has never been to prove or disprove the controversial ideas involved, but rather to challenge the method of thinking employed by some of the posters. I have challenged not only the postings of scientistic oriented people, but also a couple of rather inane postings by suspected religious people.

 

There is an approach to science which seems to dominate the thinking processes of many science oriented people who post on this site. That approach, I think, has been assigned, by someone, an “ism” label of its own, giving it some, I must admit, recognition. It is called scientism and one of the main purveyors of this style of science was the well renowned Carl Sagen, a person whose observations and commentaries I always found very interesting.

 

But back to scientism. It is the school of thinking that suggests there is nothing in the universe except that which can be quantified or qualified. And, as a result, if something cannot be validated by physical facts, it cannot valid. Or, to put it another way, science is the only valid yardstick by which something may be evaluated. Or -- science is the only valid road to truth.

 

Scientism has its own set of dogmas very similar to the way religions and other isms have their dogmas. While “ites” of any “ism” may often express themselves in different words, but it is not at all difficult to see their dogmas being expressed.

 

It has never been my intent to attack persons, only their thinking. I am sure some of the scientistics who post on here are much nicer people than I am. I am an absolute rabble rousing rascal. But, for the most part, I have only challenged the dogmas of scientism as I see them expressed here.

 

questor accurately notes the topic of this thread is beyond proof or disproof via conventional scientific investigative methods. So what is left to discuss other than alternative methods of evaluating whatever data we have relating to the topic?

 

You seem to have a nice little club of scientism here which prefers only scientistic thinking and rejects any threat from contrary forms of thought, especially that which directly confronts the dogmas scientism.

 

So -- do you have a forum which is desirous of mind expansion and exploration of many points of view, or is it intended only for those who subscribe to scientism or have wishy-washy religious ideas incapable of challenging scientism?

 

If it is the latter, I agree, C1ay, I am far too dangerous to be allowed to run amok on this site. You better ban my butt before I challenge more of the flaws and expose more of biases of scientism.

 

Perhaps a good thread question would be this: Is scientism a valid approach science?

[C1ay]

Subjectively speaking, this will, likely, be my last post here, but here goes:

 

Yes, C1ay, I think you better ban me, because I am never going to be able to limit my thoughts to the rules and their built in scientistic bias.

Too bad, this is a science site, not a religious site. If you want to discuss bible verses I recommend you explore another site like TheBibleForum.com.

[Tormod]

For example, the rules in the theology department to which you referred me ban the discussion of any Bible verses, yet they don’t equally ban the discussion of any other religious writing.

 

It is not a ban on Bible verses. You may use Bible verses as part of a discussion which fits under theology.

 

Is there some scientific test to show that only the Bible lacks theological significance? What is the scientific justification for this blatant form of discrimination against one, and only one, religious book? Or is that the one book which most seriously challenges the scientistic oriented thinking which dominates this forum?

 

The Bible is not a challenge, nor is any other book. We are open for members of all faiths and religions. However, it seems only that Christians have a problem with understanding that this is a science.

 

Of course the Bible is of theological significance. I don't think you've been around Hypography long enough to understand why we needed to put that statement in the rules. We will consider rephrasing it.

 

There is an approach to science which seems to dominate the thinking processes of many science oriented people who post on this site. That approach, I think, has been assigned, by someone, an “ism” label of its own, giving it some, I must admit, recognition. It is called scientism and one of the main purveyors of this style of science was the well renowned Carl Sagen, a person whose observations and commentaries I always found very interesting.

 

"Scientism" is a pejorative word, although I don't mind. It basically means that one accepts that science can explain everything - something I do not subscribe to.

 

I do not however need to run to religion for the things science cannot explain - the world is not one in which religion has a grasp on everything that is hard to understand.

 

It has never been my intent to attack persons, only their thinking. I am sure some of the scientistics who post on here are much nicer people than I am. I am an absolute rabble rousing rascal. But, for the most part, I have only challenged the dogmas of scientism as I see them expressed here.

 

Thank you for coming out of the closet. It is normal in any club, say for example book clubs, to have at least one person who'd rather watch TV. Why on earth they even bother visit the club is beyond me, but it's not my problem.

 

You seem to have a nice little club of scientism here which prefers only scientistic thinking and rejects any threat from contrary forms of thought, especially that which directly confronts the dogmas scientism.

 

You know, we even meet some times. And what strikes me is how different we are. From the fundamentalist Christians to the die-hard scientists. And yet we usually get along fine.

 

So -- do you have a forum which is desirous of mind expansion and exploration of many points of view, or is it intended only for those who subscribe to scientism or have wishy-washy religious ideas incapable of challenging scientism?

 

It is a forum open to all who are able to and interested in discussing science. If not, this is the wrong place. Don't go to a rodeo if you want to see a movie.

 

Perhaps a good thread question would be this: Is scientism a valid approach science?

 

Valid? Who decides what is a valid approach? I don't care if you subscribe to satanism or scientism - as long as you follow our rules you are free to write anything you want.

 

Now, I'm getting tired of having to explain to an incredibly small minority that this is indeed a science forum and that we would like to get on with discussing science and having a good time.

[questor]

if a banning takes place, the tragedy here is the inability of the banners to understand

the difference between creationism and religion. religion is a man made construct which

usually consists of a diety. without man, there is no diety. creationism to me is the theory that the universe was created or there was intelligent design. all things in the universe

proceeded from this design. this creationism is not a religion, and i do not argue for the presence of God. creation (or not) ocurred billions of years before man and before religion.

i do not understand why this should be called theology when whatever the process was that caused the universe caused all of the forces and particles and activites that we study

in scientific endeavor. is no one able to understand this difference? this subject should be discussed without the constant referring to religion.

[TRoutMac]

You are opening yourself up for attacks by using fallacious arguments here. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.

 

Speaking of fallacious arguments, your saying that it is "impossible to prove that something does not exist" only reiterated questor's point. It's tautology. And since it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, you must, if you are to be truly objective, recognize the possibility that an intelligent designer does exist… particularly when hard evidence points in that very direction. To reject the possibility out-of-hand is to remove evolution from the roster of scientific theories and add it to the roster of faith-based theories. There's simply no escaping that conclusion.

 

In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, the ACLU brought in key witness philosopher of science Dr. Robert Pennock, who testified that science is a search for natural explanations of natural phenomena--a limitation known as methodological naturalism.

 

Now, think carefully about that statement, and follow it through. Pennock testified that science is limited to the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena. Under that limitation, doesn't that require that the natural explanation will always consist of a natural phenomena? Answer: YES. But isn't natural phenomena in general what they're trying to find a natural explanation for in the first place? Doesn't the natural phenomenon which is offered as a natural explanation for natural phenomena need a natural explanation as well? And won't THAT explanation be a natural phenomenon, too? If you're not dizzy by now, you're not paying attention.

 

Would one of you who agrees with methodological naturalism please explain to me how you expect to get out of this box?

 

And would someone like to kindly explain to me why you think it's a good idea to teach children that circular reasoning is "science"?