Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:22:06 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Which still doesnt lessen the appropriateness of the word believe

You already declared that "belief" has no prerequisites for use.

At which point, using it to substantiate the veridical quality of something becomes a disingenuous semantic trick since "believing in purple gnomes from another universe" is just as viable in the "belief" department as "believing in DVDs containing audio and video information".



I declared no such thing.

And your example is nonsense, because there is no evidence of "gnomes from another universe"...ie there is no basis for belief....you are conflating "belief" with "faith" and they are not the same thing.

I leave you with Richard Dawkins, who clearly uses "belief" in both contexts:

"There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. "

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:23:39 AM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline 		In many ways, I think the ancient religions that recognized some type of Sun God were remarkably close to the scientific truth.

Over the years, all that seems to remain is the image of God as an all-powerful Man. There's the great leap... backwards.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:26:45 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

In many ways, I think the ancient religions that recognized some type of Sun God were remarkably close to the scientific truth.




In what ways were they close to the truth?

(in reply to Silence8)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:31:48 AM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Which still doesnt lessen the appropriateness of the word believe

You already declared that "belief" has no prerequisites for use.

At which point, using it to substantiate the veridical quality of something becomes a disingenuous semantic trick since "believing in purple gnomes from another universe" is just as viable in the "belief" department as "believing in DVDs containing audio and video information".



I declared no such thing.

And your example is nonsense, because there is no evidence of "gnomes from another universe"...ie there is no basis for belief....you are conflating "belief" with "faith" and they are not the same thing.

I leave you with Richard Dawkins, who clearly uses "belief" in both contexts:

"There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. "



One way to think about is would be along lines of evidence strength.

To put it in quasi philosophical-logical terms, consider there's a function Strength() that weighs the verifiability of the evidence supporting some proposition.

Then, generally speaking, Strength(know)>Strength(believe)>Strength(have faith in).

Yes, there are a ton of exceptions; otherwise, the epistemologists would have nothing to discuss.

Still, this is all a major digression, though interesting, from the original topic...

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:34:59 AM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

In many ways, I think the ancient religions that recognized some type of Sun God were remarkably close to the scientific truth.




In what ways were they close to the truth?


They recognized that the sun is the source of all life on Earth, including plants and animals. Not a bad intuition.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:47:03 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

You already declared that "belief" has no prerequisites for use.


I declared no such thing.


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

"Believing" is accepting something as true, and does not connote the reasons for the belief, which can range from personal experience to faith to scientific inquiry.


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

And your example is nonsense, because there is no evidence of "gnomes from another universe"...ie there is no basis for belief....you are conflating "belief" with "faith" and they are not the same thing.

Belief needs no basis other than "faith", as you so clearly mentioned above. And faith has no prerequisites other than the desire to adhere to the idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

I leave you with Richard Dawkins, who clearly uses "belief" in both contexts:

"There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. "

He is describing belief there, not referencing it to himself.

Should he actually apply the word to himself at any point, though, I would disagree with him. The same way I disagree with him about whether religion and/or religiosity itself should or can be eradicated.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 11/29/2009 2:49:23 AM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:48:13 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

One way to think about is would be along lines of evidence strength.

To put it in quasi philosophical-logical terms, consider there's a function Strength() that weighs the verifiability of the evidence supporting some proposition.

Then, generally speaking, Strength(know)>Strength(believe)>Strength(have faith in).

Yes, there are a ton of exceptions; otherwise, the epistemologists would have nothing to discuss.

Still, this is all a major digression, though interesting, from the original topic...

20 Points.


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Silence8)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 3:31:37 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Which still doesnt lessen the appropriateness of the word believe

You already declared that "belief" has no prerequisites for use.

At which point, using it to substantiate the veridical quality of something becomes a disingenuous semantic trick since "believing in purple gnomes from another universe" is just as viable in the "belief" department as "believing in DVDs containing audio and video information".



I declared no such thing.

And your example is nonsense, because there is no evidence of "gnomes from another universe"...ie there is no basis for belief....you are conflating "belief" with "faith" and they are not the same thing.

I leave you with Richard Dawkins, who clearly uses "belief" in both contexts:

"There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. "



One way to think about is would be along lines of evidence strength.

To put it in quasi philosophical-logical terms, consider there's a function Strength() that weighs the verifiability of the evidence supporting some proposition.

Then, generally speaking, Strength(know)>Strength(believe)>Strength(have faith in).

Yes, there are a ton of exceptions; otherwise, the epistemologists would have nothing to discuss.

Still, this is all a major digression, though interesting, from the original topic...


This still doesnt address the appropriateness of the word "belief" however. A more elaborate version of your proposition is Dawkins Belief Scale, where 1 is "I know God exists" and 7 is "I know god does not exist". In describing the scale however, he refers to the extremes as "total belief" and "total non-belief". Again, use of "belief/believe" does not necessarily denote any degree of uncertainty.

(in reply to Silence8)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 3:38:20 AM   
Fitznicely


Posts: 1597
Joined: 10/18/2006
Status: offline 		OK, sorry for the derailment, but I have to ask...for those who DO believe in God...that all powerful, all-knowing entity...

Why is it so hard to believe that he is clever enough to create all the stuff science discovers?


_____________________________

I tell you this: No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
Proud Owner of Darkmoonkat. Such a good girl!

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 3:40:42 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

OK, sorry for the derailment, but I have to ask...for those who DO believe in God...that all powerful, all-knowing entity...

Why is it so hard to believe that he is clever enough to create all the stuff science discovers?



?? that is the basis of most thesits'/deists' arguments...that no matter what science finds doesnt preclude that an omnipotent god designed it that way.

(in reply to Fitznicely)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 3:45:28 AM   
Fitznicely


Posts: 1597
Joined: 10/18/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

OK, sorry for the derailment, but I have to ask...for those who DO believe in God...that all powerful, all-knowing entity...

Why is it so hard to believe that he is clever enough to create all the stuff science discovers?



?? that is the basis of most thesits'/deists' arguments...that no matter what science finds doesnt preclude that an omnipotent god designed it that way.


Yes, good. I know the professionals ask the question as a starting place, but what about Joe Average? What about all the many who will say "I believe my faith means I mustn't accept any scientific findings".


_____________________________

I tell you this: No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
Proud Owner of Darkmoonkat. Such a good girl!

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 3:47:03 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

OK, sorry for the derailment, but I have to ask...for those who DO believe in God...that all powerful, all-knowing entity...

Why is it so hard to believe that he is clever enough to create all the stuff science discovers?



?? that is the basis of most thesits'/deists' arguments...that no matter what science finds doesnt preclude that an omnipotent god designed it that way.


Yes, good. I know the professionals ask the question as a starting place, but what about Joe Average? What about all the many who will say "I believe my faith means I mustn't accept any scientific findings".



Ive never seen anyone take that position.

(in reply to Fitznicely)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 3:53:55 AM   
Fitznicely


Posts: 1597
Joined: 10/18/2006
Status: offline 		http://creationmuseum.org/

http://www.canada.com/technology/Creation+evolution+debate+perseveres/2249848/story.html

In addition to this, the tours of Museums run by a certain Christian group who puts a biblical spin on all scientific discoveries, mocking the cold hard facts. Can't find a link right now.

EDIT: Found it! http://bctours.org/

Seriously, if you've never heard of someone taking that position, you need to read around a little. It's kinda rife

< Message edited by Fitznicely -- 11/29/2009 3:57:36 AM >

_____________________________

I tell you this: No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
Proud Owner of Darkmoonkat. Such a good girl!

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 3:58:54 AM   
HimNbabygirl


Posts: 645
Joined: 11/4/2009
From: Knoxville, TN and Somewhere, WV
Status: offline 		Going back to the original question, here is what i believe. i personally believe in both. i know this sounds weird, but please hear me out. The bible was written approximately 2000 years ago, at a time when people would have a hard time understanding millions of things let alone billions. So, i believe, the bible was written in layman's terms, for want of a better word right now. i believe that evolution and the big bang theory both happened, with the help of a greater being (having been raised catholic i would normally say God, but i also believe there is a distinct possibility of it being Goddess, or even both as life can not be created, at least for most things, without a male and a female). When the bible says God created the earth in 7 days, i believe He/She is all powerful enough to have done this, but not that this is necessarily how things happened. I mean, in the scope of all eternity, who is to say what a day really is to an entity that lives for all time?

All this is my own personal opinion, and not meant to be forcing anything down anyone's throat.

His baby girl

(in reply to Fitznicely)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 4:06:40 AM   
Fitznicely


Posts: 1597
Joined: 10/18/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

“We can only hope reason will win out in the end and humanity will rise above the superstition that blinds humanity to the obvious.”


Just to contribute to the original question...Many scientific discoveries, the majority, more than likely, have been inspired by superstition, or at least a desire to investigate commonly held beliefs


_____________________________

I tell you this: No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
Proud Owner of Darkmoonkat. Such a good girl!

(in reply to Brain)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 4:19:29 AM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

“We can only hope reason will win out in the end and humanity will rise above the superstition that blinds humanity to the obvious.”


Just to contribute to the original question...Many scientific discoveries, the majority, more than likely, have been inspired by superstition, or at least a desire to investigate commonly held beliefs



Sir Issac Newton was of a mind that if he could better understand the natural world he could better understand the nature of God.  We accept his science, even if his motivation was religious.

Science and religion seek really to answer the same questions:  "What the heck is that and how does it relate to me?"  Both science and religion is flawed when it supposes it has all the answers and stops seeking.

I think the person who tells me to stop believing in the Spirit I call God and the person who tells me I have to believe in God in exactly the same way they do... are really the same person. 

_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to Fitznicely)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 5:36:45 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

OK, sorry for the derailment, but I have to ask...for those who DO believe in God...that all powerful, all-knowing entity...

Why is it so hard to believe that he is clever enough to create all the stuff science discovers?



?? that is the basis of most thesits'/deists' arguments...that no matter what science finds doesnt preclude that an omnipotent god designed it that way.


Yes, good. I know the professionals ask the question as a starting place, but what about Joe Average? What about all the many who will say "I believe my faith means I mustn't accept any scientific findings".


I think the problem with that approach is that the idiots who try to muddy the waters with bollocks like creation science or objections to various psychological theories (Muslims are particularly opposed to the idea of imprinting for some reason) take a rabidly anti science line on general terms, and that messes things up for the more open minded theists who tend to get tarred with the same brush. A pity, but if they don't make an effort to distance themselves from the halfwits who wish it was still the fourteenth century, what do they expect?

< Message edited by Moonhead -- 11/29/2009 5:37:44 AM >

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Fitznicely)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 5:39:08 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fitznicely

http://creationmuseum.org/

http://www.canada.com/technology/Creation+evolution+debate+perseveres/2249848/story.html

In addition to this, the tours of Museums run by a certain Christian group who puts a biblical spin on all scientific discoveries, mocking the cold hard facts. Can't find a link right now.

EDIT: Found it! http://bctours.org/

Seriously, if you've never heard of someone taking that position, you need to read around a little. It's kinda rife



http://bctours.org/index.html

A look at this site tells me very little except it caters to groups who believe in creationism over evolution. Most christians i know believe in both.

The first one you posted is more disturbing.

I dont see the two at war, i see them as complimenting and enhancing each other. Both asking questions, taking different roads to come to the the answers they seek.

Medically speeking, i have seen much science could not explain... and much god could not explain.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Fitznicely)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 6:40:53 AM   
darkmoonkat


Posts: 17
Joined: 4/19/2009
Status: offline 		http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/biblically_correct_tours.php

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/03/24/biblically-correct-tours/

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=4467337&page=1

http://wikiality.wikia.com/Biblically_Correct_Tours

Links may not be particularly kind to BCTours, but do give an idea of what they do.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 8:48:14 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

When homeschooled Americans go on field trips, they visit churches and protest at abortion clinics and throw Bibles at gays where ever and when ever they see one.

Biblically Correct Tours (BCTours) gives these Christian snowflakes a sacred alternative, a visit to a secular museum, but with a Christian guide!

A BCTour Guide will explain all the heathen exhibits the way God intended them to be explained, from a Biblical standpoint. The tour guides insist children learn to think creationistically.


http://wikiality.wikia.com/Biblically_Correct_Tours

LOL... wrong! Jesus, it makes all homeschooled children sound like radicals!

Actually, i homeschooled my son. We even joined a co-op of parents from the local community (1000 familes) and we never heard of these tours. Guess that says alot.

After doing a quick research on these men, the one site i found was really interesting. I really dont understand how anyone can look at a T-Rex and believe he roamed the earth at the same time as humans, and didnt eat them all... lol... wait.. another site (here) said that was because he was a vegetarian! But it goes to show that even with a college education you can convince yourself of anything you wish. Then again, this particular college is founded by the late Jerry Falwell. Guess that says it all.



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to darkmoonkat)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109