Page 1 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2010, 12:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
No, more like denial of Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Oparin, and the work of a few other people. Creationism doesn't deny most of science, it does deny where the intersection of an interpretation of science would speak about history, but for the hard sciences and that involved in technology it doesn't deny those.

It denies cosmology, geology, biology, archaeology, some aspects of physics, as well as some of our psychology and sociology which ends up being a rather large fraction of our scientific knowledge.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jul 2010, 2:38 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

No, more like denial of Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Oparin, and the work of a few other people. Creationism doesn't deny most of science, it does deny where the intersection of an interpretation of science would speak about history, but for the hard sciences and that involved in technology it doesn't deny those.


To deny evolution requires that most of the chemistry and physics of the last 500 years be denied almost in toto. To assert the correctness of Genesis requires the denial of physics, astronomy and cosmology.

Biblical literalism is incompatible with science and mathematics: (according to the bible, pi =3).

ruveyn



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

01 Jul 2010, 3:00 pm

ruveyn wrote:
(according to the bible, pi =3).

P=3 does mean that the Bible is not a mathematics book, it's aimed was not towards mathematics, the Bible is not a biology book either, nor is a physics book nor a geological book nor an astronomical book.

Biblical literalists don't take the P=3 literally, nor they take the notions of a geocentric system literally anymore (well some still do), but Genesis accounts on creation is still a problem.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

01 Jul 2010, 3:09 pm

greenblue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
(according to the bible, pi =3).

P=3 does mean that the Bible is not a mathematics book, it's aimed was not towards mathematics, the Bible is not a biology book either, nor is a physics book nor a geological book nor an astronomical book.

Biblical literalists don't take the P=3 literally, nor they take the notions of a geocentric system literally anymore (well some still do), but Genesis accounts on creation is still a problem.


Really?! 8O It's funny how creationists aren't consistent in their approach :lol: .



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Jul 2010, 5:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:
I have a question for you: how much science (particularly physics) do you know and understand? From your output I would assume you are fairly ignorant of science. That is just a guess and an estimation.

ruveyn


One class biology, two classes AP Chemistry, two classes algebra-based Physics, all with percentile grades above 93% in all tests. That was highschool. Currently I'm enrolled at a cost-college studying the most boring subject in the universe, Accounting, but I'm going to transfer to the University of Minnesota and finally be able to have some interesting and challenging courses again.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Jul 2010, 5:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

No, more like denial of Darwin, Huxley, Haldane, Oparin, and the work of a few other people. Creationism doesn't deny most of science, it does deny where the intersection of an interpretation of science would speak about history, but for the hard sciences and that involved in technology it doesn't deny those.


To deny evolution requires that most of the chemistry and physics of the last 500 years be denied almost in toto. To assert the correctness of Genesis requires the denial of physics, astronomy and cosmology.

Biblical literalism is incompatible with science and mathematics: (according to the bible, pi =3).

ruveyn


As for Pi, that's not the Bible, that's a Lebanese craftsman at worst. http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-30

But lets see here, does the all-evil CREATIONISM negate kinematics, Newtons Laws, Ohm's Laws, Le Chatilier's principle, Boyle's Law, Charlie's Law, Kirchoff's Laws, etc? All of which can be tested in the present to be demonstrably cogent, yet the interpretations of things which lead to untestable conclusions are held higher than the actual science.



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

01 Jul 2010, 5:59 pm

I stopped at 00:16;
"What you're about to see... There are no cameras."



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

01 Jul 2010, 6:00 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
As for Pi, that's not the Bible, that's a Lebanese craftsman at worst. http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-30

well, you know, 3 is an approximation of 3.1416...... so, does that really matter given that the Bible is not a geometry text book? I mean, I can say that because the Bible says pi=3 that doesn't mean anything, other than the Bible is not about teaching you mathematical principles, and not about geometry, so pi=3 is not really a problem.

And how about the Bible's description of creation that doesn't go along with what is known about of physics, astrophysics and biology? The Bible isn't a text book of any of those. I dunno but I tend to think that a biology text book would give a better description of biology than a geometry text book, and a geometry text book would give a better description of geometry than an ethics text book.

Quote:
the all-evil CREATIONISM

Finally you agree with us, that's a start.

Quote:
yet the interpretations of things which lead to untestable conclusions are held higher than the actual science.

well, Orwell has stated several times that speciation has been tested in laboratories, a part from other evidence.

And, most likely, evolution is "untestable" not because it is actually untestable but because it undermines an ideology, therefore it must be untestable.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 01 Jul 2010, 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

01 Jul 2010, 6:00 pm

Asmodeus wrote:
I stopped at 00:16;
"What you're about to see... There are no cameras."

He was mocking the big-bang theory with that. Kirk has argued before on the lines on intelligent design, such as, someone designed a tv camera and it didn't evolve itself from "nothingness".


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 01 Jul 2010, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

01 Jul 2010, 6:05 pm

greenblue wrote:
Quote:
yet the interpretations of things which lead to untestable conclusions are held higher than the actual science.

well, Orwell has stated several times that speciation has been tested in laboratories, a part from other evidence.

And, most likely, evolution is "untestable" not because it is actually untestable but because it undermines an ideology, therefore it must be untestable.

In another thread I have proposed a possible test we could perform to compare how well creation systematics explains the data in comparison to mainstream bioinformatics. I await further discussion from iamnotaparakeet on the specific parameters under which the test should be performed in order to best test the disparate predictions and minimize any possible bias.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2010, 6:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:
I have a question for you: how much science (particularly physics) do you know and understand? From your output I would assume you are fairly ignorant of science. That is just a guess and an estimation.

ruveyn

He actually strikes me as not being ignorant of science, but just ideologically blinded in the most striking of manners. A lot of the references he makes even indicate this fact. This isn't even because I am astoundingly ignorant of science myself(it isn't my specialty, but I took all kinds of AP tests in high school and still read a bit about psychology and snippets on other things)



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

01 Jul 2010, 6:16 pm

Recent headlines in US newspapers have given us statements along the lines of "Russians caught spying on US."

Does this imply that all Russians are spying on the US?

If not, then how does the headline "Creationist Dishonesty" imply that all Creationists are deceitful?

Intellectually dishonest, sure (happy to acknowledge chemistry and physics, up until it gives them facts about the universe they'd rather not face), but not necessarily purposely deceitful - most people have some aspects of reality they'd really rather deny...


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2010, 6:41 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
Recent headlines in US newspapers have given us statements along the lines of "Russians caught spying on US."

Does this imply that all Russians are spying on the US?

Yes.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

01 Jul 2010, 11:27 pm

I think the problem for a lot of creationists, things that might be claimed to be flat-out wrong, have to do with the creation account of Genesis, even if interpreted literally, being interpreted too rigidly.

I can think of a few possible solutions. For example, Genesis seems to indicate that "light" came into being before God created the universe. I take this to mean that God prepared the Earth and the rest of the universe separately--that perhaps the Earth existed directly in the presence of God Himself and the spiritual plane of existence before being placed within the rest of the universe. It makes sense that way, that the Earth itself was a special creation, since there has YET to be discovered any kind of other world even remotely suited for the conditions for life in any kind of sense, whether such life evolves or whether we set out to colonize it. As it is, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to plant a moon base or a Martian base, but only under the same or similar conditions as the international space station. The only LIKELY possibility is terraforming Mars, but somehow I doubt that will even begin to happen in my lifetime. As for worlds beyond our solar system, hypothetical conjecture abounds, but given the current state of technology relating to space travel and the possible millions of light-years taken to reach those worlds, such ideas are far removed from the realm of falsifiability at this time. While a "special creation" scenario can't be tested scientifically, it IS a perfectly logical explanation of how a world such as ours can appear within a universe that otherwise seems wholly antagonistic towards intelligent life.

Another possibility lies within the wording of Genesis 1. Let's say we assume that the six days of creation are literal 24-hour days (they NEED not be, but let's say that they are). A careful reading of Genesis 1 does NOT take into account or deny the possibility of intermediary days between the 6 days that are mentioned. One could simple read each day of Genesis 1 as a special day upon which God caused certain things to be or performed certain actions in creating life sustained by the universe. It is NOT, therefore, unreasonable to think that millions or billions of years COULD have passed within the creation story but that the creation account is a summary of creation that hit the most important points or stages in the creation of the world. It's a perfectly logical, scientific, AND miraculous way of looking at it that doesn't NECESSARILY discount evolution (although, as I've often pointed out, macroevolution cannot be proven, either, just adaptive variation within species and limited speciation that does not significantly deviate from the originating species--and that is only ONE problem with macroevolution).

And finally, there IS the VERY literal, limited scope of strict, 6 24-hour day creationism. If it is true that God IS all-powerful and can intervene in the physical realm as He pleases, then it is not out of the realm of possibility that God could create the universe in less than a week. And since this IS, after all, the "Philosophy" and "Religion" forum and not the "Science" forum, such an idea is well worthy of exploration from a religious point of view. My opinion on this is that holding such a belief holds a number of functions for the believer--one of those being, as I said, that God is powerful enough to make that happen in that way. Another purpose would be as an exercise of faith--the kind of person who can believe that it is as it says it is will be the kind of person who holds the ideal of faith that is God's desire for us to possess. It basically means that it is enough to understand that God is the source of all creation and knowledge, and such understanding is enough. It also means that God desires for us to learn more about our world, to use it for our benefit, and to help each other. For me, leaving the Biblical creation account there places the focus of spiritual as well as intellectual discovery upon the Creator God, which for the believer is more important than the creation.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2010, 11:52 pm

AngelRho wrote:
A careful reading of Genesis 1 does NOT take into account or deny the possibility of intermediary days between the 6 days that are mentioned. One could simple read each day of Genesis 1 as a special day upon which God caused certain things to be or performed certain actions in creating life sustained by the universe.

You mean one where you can take things in as ad hoc of a manner as you please?

"And there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day." seems to strongly suggest a sequence without an intermediary period. So, talk of intermediary days does not make sense within the text. Even further, the text interprets itself, and likens creation to the days of the week. While perhaps there is something Hebrew I am not getting, I doubt you are basing your own claim on this great exegesis of Hebrew either.

Quote:
(although, as I've often pointed out, macroevolution cannot be proven, either, just adaptive variation within species and limited speciation that does not significantly deviate from the originating species--and that is only ONE problem with macroevolution).

AngelRho, you have little knowledge or competence in biology, so for you to criticize the "flaws of evolution" is an exercise in folly on your part.

Quote:
And finally, there IS the VERY literal, limited scope of strict, 6 24-hour day creationism. If it is true that God IS all-powerful and can intervene in the physical realm as He pleases, then it is not out of the realm of possibility that God could create the universe in less than a week.

In the same sense that it is possible that the universe was created 5 minutes ago.

Quote:
And since this IS, after all, the "Philosophy" and "Religion" forum and not the "Science" forum, such an idea is well worthy of exploration from a religious point of view.

Some philosophies uphold the value of science intensely, as well as doubt the religious point of view intensely.

Quote:
My opinion on this is that holding such a belief holds a number of functions for the believer--one of those being, as I said, that God is powerful enough to make that happen in that way. Another purpose would be as an exercise of faith--the kind of person who can believe that it is as it says it is will be the kind of person who holds the ideal of faith that is God's desire for us to possess. It basically means that it is enough to understand that God is the source of all creation and knowledge, and such understanding is enough. It also means that God desires for us to learn more about our world, to use it for our benefit, and to help each other. For me, leaving the Biblical creation account there places the focus of spiritual as well as intellectual discovery upon the Creator God, which for the believer is more important than the creation.

Well, I am glad that you love your trickster God, who creates all of this fake apparent age just to force you to choke away your critical thinking. I don't think I could accept such an idea, as I see the benefits of critical thinking as being rather clear, but y'know, if God doesn't like intelligence for whatever reason, he's "sovereign" or whatever crap your favorite theologian wants to call it.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Jul 2010, 1:24 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
A careful reading of Genesis 1 does NOT take into account or deny the possibility of intermediary days between the 6 days that are mentioned. One could simple read each day of Genesis 1 as a special day upon which God caused certain things to be or performed certain actions in creating life sustained by the universe.

You mean one where you can take things in as ad hoc of a manner as you please?

"And there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day." seems to strongly suggest a sequence without an intermediary period. So, talk of intermediary days does not make sense within the text. Even further, the text interprets itself, and likens creation to the days of the week. While perhaps there is something Hebrew I am not getting, I doubt you are basing your own claim on this great exegesis of Hebrew either.


It doesn't NECESSARILY suggest a sequence without an intermediary period. Ad hoc or not, it's at least referencing 6 days that happened in succession--as in THIS happened first, and then on another day at some point after that, THIS happened, and on another day later on after THAT, something else happened, and so on. The only thing really specific is the order in which those things appeared or were created. The writer of Genesis obviously did not think any greater detail was really that important. It certainly has nothing to do with the preeminence of the Creator. If you choose to interpret it that way, it does NOT contradict a literal reading of the text at all.

This occurs elsewhere in Genesis 1 as well, starting with the first verse: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That statement is followed up with "Now the earth was void..." What is INTERESTING about this specific ordering of the opening of the creation account is it leaves open the possibility (even in a literal reading of it) that some time had passed between the creation of the heavens and the earth and the ensuing 6 days. There is SOME room to wonder, to contemplate what had happened before the earth had, through whatever reason, become void. The existence of dragons/dinosaurs perhaps? The rise and fall of Lucifer and the angels who followed after him? I choose not to make up my mind about it simply because there isn't a way to know, nor does it seem especially relevant. What I DO know is that there are those Christians who do point out this fact, the way the days of the week are presented along with the 1st two verses of Genesis 1, and believe in at least the possibility of some prior existence of the Earth. If that is TRUE, then it also leaves open the question of exactly how old the Earth, along with the rest of the universe, really is. I'm not saying I share that belief. I'm just saying that the clues presented in the text are certainly worthy of debate. I don't see Creationists as necessarily dishonest as you put it. But I have come to the conclusion that the YC view is terribly inflexible. It need not be so, even for a literalist interpretation.

As far as the original Hebrew goes, you aren't really going to do that much better since most (virtually all with few exceptions) translations are taken from the MT, which itself doesn't deviate from other manuscripts. So it would appear that the original Hebrew leaves the same possibilities open.

As far as biology or even bio-chemistry goes, there IS "Darwin's Black Box," particularly the idea of the eye being irreducibly complex. As to what any degree of competency even has to do with it, you also have to consider that MOST people in general lack sufficiency in the wide range of disciplines required to understand and participate in the debate of evolution and creationism. Even within the community of science it takes a rigorous dialogue among those within a variety of individual disciplines to sort out the bigger picture: The biologist concerned with an evolutionary mechanism, a chemist concerned with the actual origin of life, the astronomer/physicist/astro-physicist/other concerned with the origin of the universe, and so on. And those individuals have no immediate need or concern to study beyond their given field, simply because there aren't enough years in a lifetime for a single person. So I have my doubts as well that AG possesses the appropriate mastery of an array of disciplines to make sense of it all, either.

So if it doesn't make sense to us, there's no harm at all in saying so and pointing out exactly what doesn't make sense. It doesn't require any vast amount of knowledge or competency offer those kinds of critiques. I mean, after all, you do often make the opposite critiques regarding things you don't seem to fully accept or understand. I think it's only right and "honest" (and fair) to point out such inadequacies, wouldn't you agree?