creation museum (2 Viewers)

[Pantone247]

Well, according to the Bible, people did not require scientific proof of the existence of God until realitively recent times.

relatively speaking until recent times we believed the Sun went round the flat Earth

 

[Lili Marlene]

Edit: fuck, I spoke too soon

 

[classic seanc]

Just read this now. I'm listening to Handel's Messiah, naturally.*

I don't see how it can be bats to insist on equal treatment of scientific theories, but I'm willing to drop the argument.



*not true.

ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!

 

[Squiggle]

relatively speaking until recent times we believed the Sun went round the flat Earth

Which just goes to show how wrong scientists can be really - and illustrates the dangers of accepting any unproven scientific theory

Oh, and it is worth noting that this theory was restricted to European scientific belief... it wasn't a global scientific theory.

 

[aoboa]

Hundreds of years? The Origin of the Species was first published in 1859.

Evolutionary theory remains a theory.

Well, according to the Bible, people did not require scientific proof of the existence of God until realitively recent times. Throughout much of the Old Testament a higher power spoke directly to humans and provided physical proof of his/her power when required.

Of course, the Bible may be a work of fiction, but the same is true of The Origin of the Species.

I know when it was published. More than a hundred then. Hundreds is quicker to type.

It's still proof versus faith, fact versus fiction, science versus philosophy.
If you can't understand why people might think it's nonsense then you really don't understand the distinction.

As an example, where do you stand on the beliefs of Scientology? They believe in a book too.

 

[Pantone247]

Which just goes to show how wrong scientists can be really

eh... right...

tell me about the apples that don't really exsist, cause I think that's the point where this whole thread went bizzaro

 

[Squiggle]

ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!

They said that about electricity.

 

[MDR]

I think the point is that if someone believes in God, ID is attractive and evolution is hard to accept; focussing on evolution's status as a 'theory' allow a religious person enough room for doubt to allow them continue to have their faith. I'm no scientist (gasp!) but it seems to me that the only type of person who would believe ID is someone who starts out from a point of view that they believe in God.

 

[aoboa]

I think the point is that if someone believes in God, ID is attractive and evolution is hard to accept; focussing on evolution's status as a 'theory' allow a religious person enough room for doubt to allow them continue to have their faith. I'm no scientist (gasp!) but it seems to me that the only type of person who would believe ID is someone who starts out from a point of view that they believe in God.

Exactly, and if they'd just admit, "Hey, this is what I believe, I know it's not science but I believe it anyway - so screw you" - it'd all be so much easier.

 

[Lili Marlene]

It's still proof versus faith, fact versus fiction, science versus philosophy.

Science does NOT deal in facts. Science and philosophy are neither opposites nor mutually excusive.

 

[Space]

I think the point is that if someone believes in God, ID is attractive and evolution is hard to accept; focussing on evolution's status as a 'theory' allow a religious person enough room for doubt to allow them continue to have their faith. I'm no scientist (gasp!) but it seems to me that the only type of person who would believe ID is someone who starts out from a point of view that they believe in God.

I believe in God but still have little time for a theory put forward in a book that also contains references to turning water into wine and magically feeding thousands of people. With that I'm quite happy to completely dismiss creationism without necessarily wholly embracing evolutionary theory.

 

[flashback]

I think the point is that if someone believes in God, ID is attractive and evolution is hard to accept; focussing on evolution's status as a 'theory' allow a religious person enough room for doubt to allow them continue to have their faith. I'm no scientist (gasp!) but it seems to me that the only type of person who would believe ID is someone who starts out from a point of view that they believe in God.

Yeah. ID is basically CreationismLite.


It sort of gets me when people say evolution through natural or sexual selection is on shakey ground.
When... it isn't. It is more or less the most proven idea in science. It is the most concrete thing we know. We do not really know how gravity works. We do not really know that much in the grand scheme of things.

But, we do know that Darwinian evolution explains all life on this planet. From the origins, to where we are now. All of it. Every. Single. Step.
There are no holes in the theory. There are just holes in our records.

 

[Squiggle]

Exactly, and if they'd just admit, "Hey, this is what I believe, I know it's not science but I believe it anyway - so screw you" - it'd all be so much easier.

But what is science? Things that we now consider to be 'scientific' and rational were once considered witchcraft or later the stuff of science fiction. When Jules Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea the idea or underwater travel was ludicrous, as was the idea of sending someone to the Moon when he wrote From the Earth to the Moon.

 

[Squiggle]

With that I'm quite happy to completely dismiss creationism without necessarily wholly embracing evolutionary theory.

Which is fair enough.

But, we do know that Darwinian evolution explains all life on this planet. From the origins, to where we are now. All of it. Every. Single. Step.
There are no holes in the theory. There are just holes in our records.

You do not know, you surmise, you theorise, you speculate, you assume, but you do not know.

So, basically you are doing the very thing you accuse christians of doing. Arguing the proofs from the conclusion. The evidence isn't there.

 

[Lord Damian]

creationism, evolution...hell, there's even a theory that we're nothing but a computer simulation a la the SIMS, programmed by a superior race of beings.

frankly, these questions of existence have no place in my head right before lunch. i'm off to eat an apple that doesn't exist.

 

[Lord Damian]

Science does NOT deal in facts.

it doesn't?

fuck it, i'm totally lost.

 

[aoboa]

Science does NOT deal in facts. Science and philosophy are neither opposites nor mutually excusive.

Science puts forward a good enough explanation for something so I take it as FACT. It provides enough scientific evidence there for me to do so.
It doesn't tell me to believe in something without providing evidence - this I would call FICTION, until I can can see some proof.

 

[classic seanc]

They said that about electricity.

When they didn't know any better. When they learned more, they said "ok, cool".
We know better than christian based creationism.

 

[MDR]

But what is science? Things that we now consider to be 'scientific' and rational were once considered witchcraft or later the stuff of science fiction. When Jules Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea the idea or underwater travel was ludicrous, as was the idea of sending someone to the Moon when he wrote From the Earth to the Moon.

You're arguing against your own point Squiggle. The strength of science is that it opens itself to correction through observation and experience. Underwater travel was considered ludicrous because people couldn't forsee the technological advances that would make it possible, but that does not mean it is witchcraft turned into science. You're implying that the idea of creationism, which we see as far fetched now, could likewise become reality someday; however, the two examples are not analogous.

(Incidentally, i know what it's like to have to defend your point by yourself against everyone else and I don't meant o gang up on you personally, I just wanted to respond to your point.)

 

[Juno]

Isn't creationism as it's described in the bible only myth and metaphor at best? I mean the bible talks about giants, horsemen of the apocalypse and people turning into pillars of salt. Surely that's evidence enough that the bible and religious types in general are not to be trusted when it comes to matters of science.