Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent DesignPage 5 of 54    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)

I think it's fair to say that religion is the 'highest' science


you can think that sure. You'd be wrong, but you can think that. Just because it tries to explain something doesn't mean it's science. Science needs to be able to be tested in a real world environment in order to be considered science. If you want to believe in religion there is nothing really wrong with that, but don't try and put it in the realm of science. Anyone who says religion is science, doesn't even understand what scientific theory means. It does not mean guess.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 106
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 10/31/2011 3:57:11 PM

If you read my whole post you would see where I clearly said it would be unjust to place religion in the same domain as science .. because religious truth/knowledge is greater.


Oh I don't know. As someone once pointed out, the growth of knowledge of the real world has reduced the role of god(s). People used to think that lightning was thrown by angry gods and famine was the result of displeased gods that needed to be appeased by the sacrifice of the young. Or that "witches" needed to be tested by dunking into water and, if they floated, they were witches and had to be burned at the stake but if they drowned, well...

Now we know that lightning is caused by static discharge, we can avert famine by better agricultural techniques and we don't have to kill our children. As for witches, well, to each their own.


Scientific knowledge is useful because it increases the standards of living.


Yup. Cured diseases, improved food production, allowed for the mass dissemination of information and education...


Politics (most would argue) is greater than science because it concerns the actions of men or society.


Very arguable. But who's to say one is better than the other.


Finally, Religious knowledge is greater than politics because it concerns the Infinite.


Quite the opposite, really. Religion isn't "knowledge." Its belief. Usually in supernatural agency that acts without being visible or leaving any evidence of its supposed existence. And the logical and rhetorical loops the believer has to go through to maintain that belief is...well...dizzying!

Then there is the notion that religious belief is somehow required to be a "moral" person. Apparently this "god" that people believe in infantilizes its followers, leaving them bereft of self-control and the ability to make good decisions and choices on their own, without paternal permission from a magic sky daddy.

Not a very "superior" form of thought, really.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/3/2011 4:04:36 PM
haven't read all 8 pages, so forgive me if this has aleady been said,

"God works in mysterious ways" It is possible that god formed the universe by gathering together what-ever it was that caused the big bang thus leading up to the formation of the earth and the evolution of man. Even in the Adam and Eve story, there is suggestion of evolution... Eve did not exist until it was realized that poor Adam needed a companion. Eve was created out of Adam's rib (evolution, from single bone to entire being). And Eve further evolved when she sinned and it was realized that she needed punishment (menstration & pain of childbirth)

That said, I'm an Athiest. Why?

Because the idea that the universe was created by a supreme being is implausible. I say this because it is natural for processes to take the path of least resistance. It would be easier for the universe to just simply exist than to have to be created. It would require more chance that a grander being exist to create the already grand universe. It is so much easier for us to evole ourselves from single celled organisms thru the evolutionary chain and into what we are today than to have some grand being initiate or bypass the process altogteher for us... (and also have an arch-enemy plant trick evidence to fool us)
The reality though, is that its easier for our minds to credit god with all these wonderful things than it is to conceive the idea of something simply existing (path of least resistance again). We are too accustomed to the idea of beginning and end and while things do follow that pattern, their components do not. The man eats a mushroom then poops it out and fertilizes his mushroom which he then eats and part of it was his poop which was previously the mushroom.
I also don't like the big bang theory, for the same reason.
Something had to bang and where did that come from? Probly god
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 108
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/4/2011 2:00:39 PM

Consider the possibility that the static discharge is caused 5 steps prior to its occurance by the angry god.


Consider the possibility that the static discharge is caused 5 steps prior to its occurance by fuzzy bunnies. Or magic unicorns. Supernatural explanations are not explanations at all. That's the point.


Or consider the possibility that Thor is actually contained within the static discharge. Improbable, but not impossible.


Probability doesn't play a role when it's about the evidence. And, as Chris Hitchens is credited with saying, explanations that explain everything (actually) explain nothing."
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/4/2011 3:37:13 PM
No, it's NOT called a Theory because we DON'T know what happened. [sigh] PLEASE go back and look up the SCIENCE definition of THEORY.

And your muddled idea about something having to take place over a specifiable length of time in order to be real, or to exist, isn't even worth going into. Suffice it to say that as with your misuse of the word THEORY, you are also misapplying all manner of suppositions, vague ideas, prejudices, and PERHAPS an actual fact somewhere in there.


Aich.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 110
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/4/2011 3:39:44 PM

In fact, you cannot prove that he's not in that charge, it works both ways.


Actually, no it doesn't. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. So if you want to say it was Thor, then provide your proof a) of Thor's existence, b) his making thunderbolts and c) his mechanism for making thunder bolts.


And where was Chris Hitchens' evidence?


Evidence...for what?


With respect to space and time merging, thats, again, rediculous.


Um...any more ridiculous than the other three dimensions being a part of spacetime?


If time was birthed then it was an event, the it must be quantifiable in time, both the point of occurance and the duration of the occurance.


Um...wow! First of all, time wasn't "birthed." It began with the big bang, according to present evidence. And since we have no information from "before," we must therefore conclude that time, as well as space, had a beginning and that beginning we colloquially refer to as the "big bang."


We don't even know what happened at the big bang, thats why its called a theory


No, that's not why it's called a "theory." You're falling into the same trap that creationists do. Look up scientific meaning of "theory."
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/4/2011 4:05:28 PM
Its a bit of a silly hypothesis that time magically started with the big bang, infact its practically creationism being smuggled into science with a blanket over its head

Religous person "God was bored so he created the universe and everything in it"

Scientist "Thats a silly idea, what utter tosh"

Religious person "So what do you believe happened?"

Scientist "There was a big bang, and all matter, time and space suddenly popped into creation"

Religious person "What was there before the big bang"

Scientist "Nothing silly, what a dumb question"

Religious person "So basically you believe in creationism, you just dont know who is responsible then"


Has the church secretly infiltrated the scientific community to try and sneak the basis of creationism under the radar as a scientific theory so it can be taught in schools to make people easier to convert I wonder?
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/4/2011 10:00:37 PM
I wish I could do the quote thing,
But to Mr Frankenstein, I'm no physist. I was taught in physics that theories are based are based on the laws of physics. I decided to look it up as you suggested, key point that I found,

"Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:
It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty. "

If my source is correct, then its safe to say we actually don't know what occured at the big bang (or even if it occured), we merely have a current model based on our current knowledge. This means it's not definite. Ibelieve the people who actually derived these theories or quantified the various laws are more qualified to define a theory than you. I expect a religous person to state his "theory" as "fact" but not one of science.

Mr Stargazer,
You quoted Chris Hitchens
He made a positive claim regarding the capabilities of things that explain everything.
The burden of proof is upon him. Where is his evidence? And why do you feel he doesn't need it?

As for burden of proof for Thor and the lightning, there are countless texts from ancient religions stating the existance of gods, including eye witness accounts. Some of these texts are more recent than what we consider to be the start of the study of physics. Some date back as far as text. We arrogantly assume we have more information now than the authors of said works, yet we are still baffled by many mysteries of the past. We cannot dismiss them for lack of evidence, because there is so much evidence. I think the problem is you can't program it into your calculator.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/5/2011 3:33:06 AM
One of the problems with "theories" throughout history and I think far more so now is that having a theory that many people like or think could be possible can get somebody noticed, create a type of fame and recognition even if its only within a select circle of their peers and will in most instances get them increased income and funding options as a result

The problem however, is when somebody comes along with a new theory that supplants theirs, and instantly the limelight is lost, nobody wants to fund research into an outdated theory and employing somebody who dreamt up an outdated theory is less attractive

So right back to when we thought the world was flat science as well as many other facets of humanity has had a fairly natural drive to protect their postulations and intil in them a degree of authority that isnt justified as well as using various means to perpetuate an "orthodoxy" and reject alternative postulations and theories

And as so many people will attain their status based on theories that were based on previous theories like a house of cards you can get a situation where its like a house of cards, and replacing one theory with a very different one doesnt just affect one person, but everyone else whos living is related to that theory or theories based on it as well as the upheaval it might cause in the education system

Infact we still teach many things at school that were later on disproved for varying reasons. Many of which are just ease and simplicity in place of acuracy and the newer "real" theories dont get taught till a higher level

So quite often people have had better theories, but have struggled to get the money for reasearch because the establishment and peer review process tends to stack the deck in favour of what is already "accepted" rather than diversity or scientific discovery

So many truths or more acurate theories have been either delayed or I would guess in many cases became forgotten simply because people whos position and income was based on the acceptance of the existing doctrines rejected the validity of those new claims

Any theory "can" be updated or corrected, completely replaced infact

But thats just the theory itself, but it requires people to facilitate that, and as has been seen quite frequently, existing theories are often defended with religious style zealotry and are often postulated as fact when infact theyre merely a hypothesis often to the detriment of the scientific process itself or mankind in general
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/5/2011 2:31:35 PM
One key aspect which must be achieved for an hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, is that alternate hypotheses must be proven wrong. That is, "impossible". This requires defining two hypotheses so that they are mutually exclusive - each one includes all possibilities which do not fit the other. It's not unusual that this isn't the case. One can be "sloppy" and simply not account for things which are intuitively not worth considering. One can also exclude options which are demonstrably false based on outside theories. If a street sign has been knocked over, it's POSSIBLE an airplane did it, but so unlikely it's not worth considering. It's possible that someone running by at light speed did it, but other theories show that running at light speed is impossible, so that's not worth considering either.


then its safe to say we actually don't know what occured at the big bang (or even if it occured)

Evidence shows that the universe is expanding, ergo it is impossible that the universe is static. The Big Bang is simply the model that results if you rewind the observed expansion as far as it can go. While not an absolute, it's fairly safe to conclude at least that it happened. As for the details of what happened - that's too many additional theories in physics which are far beyond my knowledge. Based on studies of cosmology and quantum physics, it's conceivable that we have fairly solid understanding of the whats and hows of the Big Bang - I'm just not competent to discuss them one way or another.

This means it's not definite.

What it means is that false alternatives are ruled out, and the 'correct' explanations are open to revision and improvement. That's a far cry from what is implied in your statement.

Ibelieve the people who actually derived these theories or quantified the various laws are more qualified to define a theory than you

While perhaps valid for specific theories, the fact is that ANYone can devise a theory in a fairly rigid manner, and anyone can be quite capable of discussing what is or is not a valid theory. I've seen many flawed theories and hypotheses from people having far more 'experience' than I. There are millions of scientists, all of whom must understand how to hypothesize and develop theories. All are not equal. In fact, any human able to look after himself must be able to determine "A" and "not-A", which is the essence of hypothesizing. It's a very basic skill.


He made a positive claim regarding the capabilities of things that explain everything.
The burden of proof is upon him. Where is his evidence? And why do you feel he doesn't need it?

It's an argument of logic. The evidence is the logic, which is solidly on Hitchens' side.

If we stuck with "goddidit" as an [simple, all-encompassing] explanation, we would not be having this discussion, since we would not have the understanding required to create the tools and medium we are communicating with. The all-encompassing 'explanation' explains nothing and we come to no greater knowledge by clinging to it.


We cannot dismiss them for lack of evidence, because there is so much evidence.

We can't predict the occurence, we can't observe the reputed cause, we can't confirm the past statements as to whether they happened at all or as to their reputed causes. Anecdotes are not evidence, for all these reasons. The fact someone wrote it does not make it fact. See also L.Ron Hubbard for veracity of the written word.

On the other hand, we can create lightning on a small scale, using defined methods that do not involve Thor showing up on cue and helping out. Shaved by Occam, as ever the case when deities are "involved".
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/13/2011 1:30:57 AM
Atheism is irrelevant and has nothing to say regarding the origin of the universe. Atheism is a philosophy regarding the existence of deities. Black holes do not equal deities.


it is an unjustified assumption

It's fully justified by the fact that we do not see matter or energy vanishing or appearing, except by the calculable conversion of one to the other.


the doctrine that the energy of the universe has been here forvever is untestable and unscientific

It's the only 'doctrine' which is consistant with the evidence, and in that sense is scientific.


even if there was time before timeyou could never go through it all that not only can you not test even if you could you could not test all past eternity

Are you suggesting that we ignore everything in the past and not pursue explanations? That IS a natural consequence of your argument, since in point of fact we cannot travel back to five minutes ago to confirm anything. I also have to wonder if you have any ALTERNATE explanations? You know, the kind which are supported by evidence and which we can travel back in time to confirm? Oh...and which also do not demand further and more intricate explanations [like impossibly complex deities required to create a universe of simple particles bound by simple and consistant rules].
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/13/2011 4:36:29 AM
Actually I wasnt refering to AGW exclusively, the "orthodox" assumpotions of what caused stomach ulcers, The AIDs hypothesis, claims of immunity to DDT as a pesticide are a few others that spring to mind even theories that it might be "wise" for physicians to wash their hands were vehemently opposed and rejected for decades as "ridiculous"

Its not a new trend
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 117
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/13/2011 8:37:16 AM

Its not a new trend


Science is self-correcting.
 Deerclan
Joined: 8/5/2009
Msg: 118
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/15/2011 12:50:57 AM

I generally try not to get into this subject, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Why are so many religious believers threatened by evolution? Why can you not have your religion while accepting science? If you don't accept evolution, there are so many things that you have to deny exist or happened.


A lot of people have their religion while accepting science. You can get a good general overview on some things from the notoriously un-scholarly source called Wikipedia, and I think it offers a fairly good over on this issue.


This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/15/2011 1:41:41 AM
First, give an example of a scientific theory that bucks a law.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/15/2011 8:26:05 AM

For you Evolutionists: Please, will someone tell me what happens to a theory when it BUCKS a LAW?

The 'theory' of creationism/ID spits in the face of a few laws, and it gets derision heaped on it, it's widely criticised, and tends to attract mockery.
Often too, prominent scientists and experts in the field will band together to debunk the kinds of crackpot 'theories' that contradict known 'laws' as well.

Does that answer your question about what happens to a 'theory' when it "BUCKS a LAW?".
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/15/2011 5:09:12 PM

with in that time frame is so much time, that the process would have started over countless times


I dont get that bit at all, what do you mean by "started over"?

As for waving to dinosaurs, do you doubt the dodo existed? Can you wave to one of those in your garden?

If not then WHY not?

Its because theyre extinct which makes it a bit difficult, same would appear to be true for the dinosaurs as well as millions of other species

Even if they "might" evolve again in another million years it wouldnt affect the fact you cant wave to one NOW in the slightest

And as evolution is "allegedly" a progressive process why on earth would a species DE evolve back to a form of life that has already failed once already?

But if you REALLY wanted to wave to a dinosaur you still can cant you?

Theres several species of reptile, snakes and even insects that havent changed much in millions of years so you can go wave at them if the need takes you because theyre NOT extinct

Anyhoo, arent we still evolving? I was sure there was recent changes in our physiology that have been observed like a continued shrinking of the toes, elongation of the fingers, brain size increasing every so many hundred years by a teaspoon or so, changes in hieght

So give that 1000, 10.000 years or so and we would probably be classed as a "different" species of humankind by the humans of that time too

But they probably wouldnt be able to wave at any of us either
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/15/2011 10:17:04 PM

The Fantasy of Evolution goes against every law of Physics.....

Can you be a bit more specific? Which ones do you think are 'violated'?


what is the basic most general thing that must be done to even formulate a theory????? "ah, but we can't possibly observe evolution because it takes too long."

Evolution has been observed many times, in both plants and animals.


FARSE!!!! this is meant so you don't do it!!!!!

What's a "FARSE"?


I don't care how long it takes the process MUST repeat itself !!!
therefore even if I am in the lead, and it took 100 million years to get here.....with in that time frame is so much time, that the process would have started over countless times.....therefore....I should be able to step outside and wave to my Neanderthal neighbor while watching the dinosaurs feed on my front lawn.....

What are you talking about? That ^^^ makes no sense. Why "MUST" it "repeat itself" from the very beginning every day, or every so often, to be valid?
Evolution does 'repeat itself' in the sense that it's a continuing process that can be observed now.
Besides, using your logic we'd have to assume that anything that appears to have happened only once mustn't have happened at all. For instance, that a new identical 'you' doesn't appear every so often is no reason to suppose that the present 'you' therefore does not exist.

Using unsupported assumptions based on a false premise to make deductions about anything invariably means you arrive at erroneous conclusions.
All you've actually demonstrated is your own flimsy grasp of logic, and willingness to abandon rationality rather than revealing anything meaningful about science, or evolution... or anything really.


DO YOU CARE TO GO ON? i.e. do you want me to expose every farse perpetrated?

Please do. And what's a "farse"?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/16/2011 7:42:52 AM
I have remnants of dinosaurs all over my yard in the form of birds and lizards. I also see remants of Neanderthals roaming MalWart stores and wrasslin matches.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/07/18/Modern-humans-carry-Neanderthal-DNA/UPI-46021311037936/

Most humans are still evolving, except perhaps those that were "created".
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html

Not sure the context but "farse"
Farse\, n. [See Farce, n.] (Eccl.) An addition to, or a paraphrase of, some part of the Latin service in the vernacular; -- common in English before the Reformation.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/16/2011 7:59:15 AM
Arguing with creationists is as pointless as arguing with evolutionists. Really, the only difference between them is that the creationists ascribe the development of reality as we know it to a supernatural being, while the evolutionist ascribes it to a statistically fluctuating process existing within an environment.

While those believing in Descartes discount the supernatural origins and oversight, Darwin's acolytes offer no opinion on the origins and oversight, believing that the origins are irrelevant and the oversight is unnecessary. The key issue to me is that the existence of an evolutionary process is evident in all of the aspects of human history. We no longer live in caves, build things using post and lintel construction to exclusion, and we progressively modify our environment. As with the human animal, all living things clearly evolve, and to deny such an easily observed process is pointless.

In a sense, the laws of physics define a master plan for all of what we call creation, and we only know that this manifestation is stable over time spans that are large compared to human lifetimes. A creationist would require these laws to be stable for all eternity and uniquely stable in the sense that no other manifestation of physical laws can result in temporal stability of significant duration, where significant relates to the perceptual capabilities of conscious life. We know not that this is the case, so the speculations as to origins are moot. Any theory will do.

Why argue?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/16/2011 2:51:48 PM
Just because two views are mutually exclusive doesnt mean ONE has to be right

Scientific discovery used to solve that problem by finding the overlap in two competing theories and building a third, fourth and fifth etc from the existing two and then repeating the process over and over

Infact from an objective standpoint the two ARENT mutually exclusive really

I dont think that it states anywhere that after "creation" nothing would ever change, evolve or improve to suit its surroundings unless someone can show where that was stated.

Which is why I think the creationists actually shoot themselves in the foot BY being contentious as evolution could have far more easily have been claimed as the natural processes that occured AFTER the creation itself ended

Which would then just narrow the scope for bickering down to whether energy and matter just "magically" came into being from nowhere because of a diety or because of scientific reasons that cant even begin to be thoerised about or tested

Claiming that given two theories one HAS to be correct is no more "enlightened" nor educated a mindset than the creationists try to pass off for "logic" which is why the entire bickering session is always going to be a bit cyclic really
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/16/2011 4:32:10 PM
Thats probably where religion PLC shot itself in the foot by assuming the origins of humanity would always remain a mystery and not leaving room for the inclusion of newer information as it emerged

Had they been more vague then with a bit of imagination and the routine purging of everything that caused a doubt in religious doctrines that have been done throughout the ages they could probably have done a half decent job of working evolutionary theories into the mix as time went by

The simplest would have been that although god "created" man he didnt just click his fingers and "poof" a homo sapien (or even a hetro sapien lol ) magically appeared as that "could" have then been a clue to the existence of the elusive wizard of Oz, but instead created the increadients for life to evolve and for mankind to evolve at a much higher rate than any other species because of their "specialness"

As silly as it sounds, and not claiming its an "alternate" theory, but as far as life on earth itself is concerned the extra terrestrial idea is at least an interesting one that was the storyline in a twilight zone episode I think. Where planets were seeded with micro ogranisms that had a genetic desire to "go home" without any specifics but which drove evolution for the best solution to that journey, So first they went onto the land, then tried flight, then man popped up as the best candidate. Man then strove for flight and then space flight all along just assuming it was natural curiosity and a desire to explore. But in actual fact turned out to be a gentic instinctual aim that remained throughout evolution

As for a valid third theory though nopem but as I stated on the thread about universe theories I tend to see the one universe that just appeared out of nowhere idea and creationism as being practically identical tbh and with niether really being too credible but both equally being a manifestation of mankinds inate ego and desire to feel special and unique within the cosmos so I'd be more inclined to lean towards a cyclic type theory such as cyclic endothermic entropy or one with a multitude of simulataneous hubble universes

As one universe that just pops into existence out of nothing is pretty much just creationism under another name as far as I'm concerned, its just a painting without a signature compared to creationism being claimed to be signed by the artist

As for science being reductionist in nature, scientific PROCESS can be, that far I agree. But when science itself becomes reductionist it stops actually being sciecne to some extent too

Because as we can see even in recent history whatever we know about any area of science tends to be pretty incomplete. And a reductionist stance tends to work from the assumption that what we know is "it" and reduce from there often with quite fierce resistance to anything new or that challenges whats an already accepted truth

Thats not saying that any whacky idea should be treated with total equality, but because of the influence of money, standing and recognition I do think normal human weaknesses can become relevant to the point that the amount of resistance can surpass what would or should be "reasonable" scrutiny and be based more on protecting revenue streams, standing and status rather than being driven by pure scientific interest especially when so many scientists rely so heavily on big business to keep them in work nowadays as even scientists are still just people at the end of the day

But until you know the complete and total picture reductionism is a byproduct of ego in its purest form and the actual cycle needs to be a sinusoidal process of expanding to include new knowledge then reducting to let that new knowledge expunge the incorrect but previously believed notions and so on rather than trying to close the doors on working with what is already known

Oh yeah almost forgot

"And on the last day the grand wizard said let their be warming and lo it was so"

Couldnt resist
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 127
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/17/2011 7:08:35 AM
The idea of the "Big Bang" origin of the universe is fraught with problems, the most obvious of which is where did the event happen. Creation is a recent idea in human history, the eternal cycle being one that held sway for millenia before the creation idea took hold, necessitated by the idea of one God.

The physics we know today is most likely as deficient as that of the physics we knew 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. The assault on the "Big Bang" explanation continues today with ever more vigour, and will doubtless result in an explanation involving the operation of a physics with an environment that has temporal and spacial extent that dwarfs that of the light cone we describe as our universe.

To me, the interesting question is why the collective human mind discarded the idea of an eternal, cyclical universe in favour of a restrictive, limited and ultimately doomed creation at some point about 3000 years ago. The idea of one God requires creation, for otherwise there is no rationale for having an all powerful one God. But why is the idea of one God so appealing that people choose to accept the inevitability of the end of creation?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/17/2011 2:51:04 PM
I think the one god topology would be most probably a combination of the human subconcious combined with society starting to grasp more about he finer workings of society and how to manipulate, control and civilise it tbh

One of the problems with having multiple gods is that people can follow multiple trains of thought there will be multiple sources of power and because of that a conflict and competition between the hierarchies within each gods priesthoods similar to how the single god faiths compete and bicker with each other over who is the ONLY true faith now

Its not really that different from the battle between adidas, nike and umbro. Coke and Pepsi, Dell and compaq or any other organisations trying to establish their "brand" above everyone elses

Plus where religion is concerned by only having one god you have a monologue of what that god is alleged to want their followers to do, think, feel and react in any given situation but a society with multiple dieties would have many conflicts and overlaps

Subconciously I think having a god that is portrayed as being closer to what we are actually like has the effect of feeding the human ego whilst also fitting in with the instinctual pack mentality we majoratively have as that tends to denote and expect "one" pack leader, not multiple ones either in opposition or working democtatically

So really I think it was just figured out that trying to rule a people with a single diety that they could more readily relate to was more efficient, more likely to be adopted and would yield better results than the other religious models

Infact when you look at it from the corner of your eye the most common political model is also pretty similar where you have the "god" president/primeminister the "son of god" their deputy and the "angels" the senate/cabinet

So perhaps the answer is in plain site. That the reason we settled majoritively on that type of religious hierarchy is because when trying to create ANY type of hierarchy thats the type of format we will tend to end up choosing rather than something specifically to do with religion
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 129
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/19/2011 9:55:42 AM

"Versus" "vs" means that one is against another. Post in favor of Creation here in such a way that the retarded cannot counter, and they cry to the moderator to get your posts deleted, and you banned from the forum.


Actually, a well-reasoned and thoughtful argument from the 'pro' god(s) side would be a refreshing change from the usual drivel we see. Sadly, what we usually see are the same old tired, refuted arguments followed by the same old ad hominems, sermons and plain old BS.

And that's what gets you banned.


You are just mad because YOU LOSE!!


Not even close.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design