Creationism does NOT belong in science.

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Zero, Jun 24, 2002.

  1. Mesa Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Well, language is a bitch. Has it ever crossed your mind that creationism and evolution might mean the same thing in the past? The universe might very well be the christian God. Couldn't the system be 'sentient enough?

    Christianity was taken to be a form of philosophy back then until the Romans were involved, it wasn't really a commercialised religion back then. We should go back to the beginning if we are to understand it.

    Besides, in Buddism, nirvana is gained through a leap in understanding. Most people fail to attain true nirvana throughout their entire lives. Attaining nirvana is seen as the same as entering heaven. Losing nirvana is to been seen as descending into hell(the current world). So the christian model isn't exactly wrong. eg. most christians will not enter the kingdom of heaven

    I'm not too sure, but shouldn't a model like Godel's theorm present a case where it's possible for scientific truths (expressions) being not fully able to comprehend the entire system?

    I'm a forum virgin, so please be gentle.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,908
    one of the most idiotic arguments against the "theory" of evolution is people claiming it is only a "theory". i learned scientific theory as meaning something totally different from theory as entered in the dictionary; consistently supported by tons upon tons of research and never disproven. in other words: truth. in undergrad, they told us that "theory" confused lay people so we now call it a "model" instead.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Mesa - Quite agree.

    Swedish fish - Don't believe everything they tell you about 'lay' people in 'undergrad'. Evolutionary theory is an incomplete model, one that models biological entities as mindless machines, an assumption which contradicts all the non-scientific evidence. Obviously there is a lot of truth in it, but it begs as many questions as it answers.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,908
    non-scientific evidence? hahahahaha. i'll give you my 3 magic beans for all your non-scientific evidence.
     
  8. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,908
    evolution is suuuuch a simple concept that it blows my mind when people 1. cannot understand it, 2. disagree with it. it's common sense kids. people use examples that are completely unrelated to evolution in any way in an attempt to refute it.
     
  9. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Whoah there. Who are you talking about exactly. I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said that evolutionary theory does not take into account the non-scientific evidence. In other words it ignores the possible impact of consciousness on behaviour.

    When science manges to prove that it doesn't have one then fine. But until they do, and while consciousness is still a complete mystery to science and scientific philosphers, then current mainstream evolutionary theory may turn out to be only half the story.

    Unfortunately for as long as science does not accept the subjective as being scientific evidence then, as I say, it can do little but hope that it doesn't.

    You comment that you'll "give you my 3 magic beans for all your non-scientific evidence." I would say that your concepts of magic beans ARE the non-scientific evidence.
     
  10. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,908
    no i wasn't talking about you. "non-believers" of evolution in general.

    consciousness of behavior is covered in psychology, sparky. i hear rumor that it is a science.

    science is more subjective than you think. it is limited by the researchers themselves. somebody in another forum (spuriousmonkey maybe?) said: "Maybe you should go and read a bible or something, because if you want definite answers you shouldn't ask science."

    scientific evidence is subjective enough. your non-scientific evidence just goes beyond worthless.
     
  11. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    It really depresses me when people form their beliefs in the absence of logic or evidence, and then get evangelical about them. I recommend a good dose of metaphysics.
     
  12. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,908
    erm, that's exactly what i was thinking :bugeye:
     
  13. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    I know.
     
  14. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27

    It's shit like this that make me laugh. So are you a "religous scientist"?
     
  15. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
     
  16. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
     
  17. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27

    That's a silly question. Really, if you don't know what science is, go look it up.
     
  18. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    ok at this point i have to ask, is it that hard for you to reason without putting statements into other ppl's throats? is it that hard for you not to put words into other ppl's mouths? where is the credit in saying that scientist worship data? science is tool, man is a tool maker. some ppl like to worship instead of making tools, fine.

    Your arguements and accusations are as lousy as me saying that you worship your computer because you're using it to accomplish certain things.
     
  19. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27

    You could have just said, "sorry but if I answer your question, then I will have to contradict myself"
     
  20. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27

    "The Big Bang" theory's originator was a catholic priest????Did somebody lie to you?
     
  21. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27

    If science is a religion as you propose then you better hope we don't declare jihad. Obviously someone wouldn't certainly lose in 6 days.


    you know what? that's a great idea actually. or i say, we should just completely have seperate nations. a scientific nation and a religious nation. we'll see then how things progress.
     
  22. 5th Element Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Re: Dating the earth

    Does anyone else find the first 2 sentences especially hilarious?
     
  23. Thantos Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    ok, I am going to make statements that have absolutly no pith once so ever(I think), I just want to see the statements against them(oh, and I am a little rusty on evolution so, if you could identify a site that explains exactly what is meant(such as are mutations counted even though it is an immediate change(not entirely what I am trying to ask, but I lack the vocabulary in which to communicate the question effectively), and what is the genetic variation percantage that defines a new species?). I am also intereseted in a good creationism defination(most of the evolution and creationism theories(they/it could be so called) that I know are (at least I believe they are) out are out of date.

    1. Why can't creationism and evolutionism simotaniously co-exist?(I believe people have stated that they believe it can, but others reject one or the other, I would like to see the views of the latter.)

    2. Ok, now for the statements which may be completely incorrect and others that may lack pith:

    some primary assumtions to start with:
    1. there is no god(not that I believe this but for the sake of and lack of scientific evidence this must be assumed)(do not know how this is used in my statements but it should be assumed any way right?)

    ok, for the meat:
    Since there is no emperical data that shows that evolution exists, then it is based on belief, although it may be test, thus making it scientific, so why can not the side argued by creationist also be tested?(although not feasible at the moment, or maybe never would not the only way to test either is time travel?)

    Now, I have been told(forgive me for not being able to verify this) that evolution has been see on the mirco-scale. Could this just be mutation(just observed in one generation, not produced by generations of change) due to the size of the subjects used?(being smaller making the subjects need less to mutate).

    Now, creationism, at least as I understand it, has two ways to prove it, thus being just as sketchy as evolution, since both for the most part can only be proved by going back in time and checking it. Although, creationism has the extra of us being told by some advanced civiliztion, I don't see this happining anytime soon(if ever).

    The reason that, even if the the on the micro-scale, evolution exists there is still no proof that it exists on the macro-scale. One would have to assume this, unless it is seen(similiar to humans during the 15 century assuming that the earth was flat, no one had gone around, thus no one could say for sure, even though the math said it was, emperical data is needed to convice everyone and even then the most close-minded people still won't believe(although they may admit they are wrong)).

    I am not really debating to either creationism or evolutionism, but I do believe that the statement of "creationism does not belong in science" invalid, although it may be true.

    I would now again like to state that I am no expert, I just want to see if the ideas I have posted hold up to your standards(and I would like to educate myself in both creationistic and evolutionistic theories, and to de-bias myself, using the information provided). Thank you for your time.
     

Share This Page