The puzzle of life - science versus creationism

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

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 >> The puzzle of life - science versus creationism

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/28/2009 12:42:10 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

I like what he said, “We can only hope reason will win out in the end and humanity will rise above the superstition that blinds humanity to the obvious.”

Whenever science contradicts religion it appears science eventually turns out to be right.
It amazes me how people don't believe facts or the obvious but have no problems believing or having faith in a fantasy or fairytale to be true. What is it about our brains that we need to have some God delusion?

I think science will prevail but I just hope it doesn't take 1000 years. If fundamentalist Christianity has its way we'll be reversing back to believing the earth is flat. That sounds ridiculous but if suicide bombers believe they need to protect their privates for the 50 virgins in heaven then people will believe anything, anything is possible.

YouTube - The Puzzle Of Life - Science vs. Creationism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RyUa3OubY&feature=sub

Post #: 1

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/28/2009 12:55:06 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

It will never happen Brain...some things are impossible to learn and know with certainty...

As soon as you can explain with certainty the creation of all from nothing... time and distance without beginning or end... then you may explain away the possibility of a source that many call God.

Your mind is closed to the possibility and that is shortsighted and not even very scientific. You do not have enough data to make that determination with certainty.

You seem fanatic in your views as those whom you rant against and will not be taken seriously until you can show the same proof you demand of others.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Brain)

Post #: 2

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/28/2009 4:09:08 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

What's important, Brian, is that God believes in YOU, and Jesus died for your sins. Who are you trying so hard to convince? Methinks you doth protest too much.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Brain)

Post #: 3

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/28/2009 6:28:33 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

I'm not a fanatic I am just frustrated. They have already explained away the possibility of a source of God as you say, and it doesn't exist. Science will never explain God and cannot explain God because science is about facts not fantasies. It's just something (God) people made up when they had no science and could not explain anything. That' s why they believed the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, which was wrong.

Not that my opinion is important but I think people need to spend more time educating themselves about science and a lot less time, better yet no time at all, on religion. In fact, if you look at religion closely, organized religion, they don't do what's good for the people they do what's good for themselves to maintain their significance. I'm not a socialist but Marx was right, religion is the opium of the masses

I think religion would be better off coming clean and just telling people the truth, which is that there is no God. Then they can do what they really ought to do which is to act as the moral compass of humanity to make the world a better place to live. I think that would make religion more valuable in the long term and ensure its relevance.

And in addition we would not have to waste time trying to understand illogical contradictory nonsense. It just doesn't make sense, why don't they just tell people they rewrote the Bible five or 10 times just to take out the parts that conflicted with each other?

And it still doesn't make any sense. I would love to see the pope tell people the truth that Adolph Hitler was a proud Roman Catholic, and Hitler said so himself in the German parliament.

That's my opinion, but I don't expect it to get much traction.

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 4

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/28/2009 6:34:17 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

Tell him I don't need him and tell him I believe in myself. Also tell him, if he does exist, which I know he doesn't, but just to humor you for your sake, tell him I'm making a deal with the devil and selling my soul in exchange for immortality.
Bil

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 5

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/28/2009 9:10:29 PM

Fellow

Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

The video reduces the discussion (creationism vs. evolution) to a kindergarten level. The creationism hypothesis is standing firm if we raise the discussion up to the higher level. The arguments about biblical age of earth etc... do not really belong to the deeper philosophical discussion. Scientism and materialism are not really scientific per se but the belief systems.

(in reply to Brain)

Post #: 6

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/28/2009 11:08:13 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I think religion would be better off coming clean and just telling people the truth, which is that there is no God.

Science knows this? Or just you?

Please provide the details in your answer. Thank you.

K.

(in reply to Brain)

Post #: 7

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 12:44:11 AM

switch2please

Posts: 494
Joined: 12/5/2008
Status: offline

I absolutely believe in evolution and I don't find the prospect of some omniscient infallible and oh-so-powerful deity in any way believable.
That said, I'm not religious, but I think tolerance of others and a sense of humor is necessary no matter what you choose to believe in - and no matter how hard you defend the faults of that belief system. What's that Douglas Adams quote about Jesus, something like '2000 years ago a guy was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to everybody for a change'...
If there is a hell I'm going there for more reasons than I have fingers to count them on - it makes me wonder what hell would be like for a masochist, haha

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 8

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 12:51:54 AM

NihilusZero

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

You do not have enough data to make that determination with certainty.

And some humans like making up or adhering to answers from out of thin air when faced with that situation.

_____________________________

"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 kdsub)

Post #: 9

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 12:53:40 AM

NihilusZero

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: switch2please

I absolutely believe in evolution...

I find that sort of phrasing to be counter-productive. The entire point of the scientific method is that it posits theories which have sustained sufficient continual scrutiny and analysis to remove the need for "belief" (a word never used when something is actually known).

_____________________________

"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 switch2please)

Post #: 10

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 1:11:41 AM

willbeurdaddy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: switch2please

I absolutely believe in evolution...

I find that sort of phrasing to be counter-productive. The entire point of the scientific method is that it posits theories which have sustained sufficient continual scrutiny and analysis to remove the need for "belief" (a word never used when something is actually known).

Incorrect. "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.

(in reply to NihilusZero)

Post #: 11

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 1:19:55 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

I have read the op and decided to reply to it, purely, without indulging in the views of others at the moment. I am not going to ignore what people said, but I want to get to the point here and now.

This issue is fire and ice. We lay somewhere in the balance.

None of us can say we are right with any certainty. Our beliefs are the most private things in our existence. Belief in God or Jesus or whoever, nobody will ever know if you truly believe, not in this lifetime.

IMO, people of the past were not stupid, and this question was posed more than once, and possibly used as an acid test, maybe literally. However the mob does not respond to reasoning and logic. It is ruled by impulses and "feelings". The mob becomes disorganized very quickly in the absence of leadership, or at least percieved leadership.

Logic dictates that some force, probably consious, has planned the universe. Things just fit too well. Butr on the other hand it could be argued that all that does not fit is out of our pervue, and that pure chance has resulted in our form of life. However, that does not prove that there was no who or what which provided that chance.

So here we are prepondering all the things that we surely cannot know in this life, which I firmly believe will be revealed upon our passing. If there is a supreme being, if he wanted you to know about the next life he would say something. If we are not meant to know, then so be it.

Even when we can really discard all notions of bigotry and prejudice, we will find that this must go beyond the human race. Some whackos say that makes us equal with animals, and it is abhorrent to them. Why ? And what would they say to aliens from another planet ?

Now I am not an environmentalist by any stretch. It's an endangered species and there are only twelve of them left, well they aren't likely to be doing jack shit for me. Now if we are talking about 300,000 tons of dead fish washing up on the shore that would get my attention.

Although I put no faith whatsoever in predestianation, I can tell you this. Everything that has happened was meant to happen and everythig that is to come is also meant to happen. Nobody planned it, and I don't mean it that way. I mean it is just the way it is.

I'll read the rest of the thread and be back.

T

(in reply to Brain)

Post #: 12

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 1:39:56 AM

Arpig

Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline

Personally I find the Science~Religion dichotomy to be wrong. There is nothing about science that disallows the basic tenets of religion, science has no answer for the question that religion attempts to answer, namely how did it all happen.Science may be able to explain what happened to bring about the universe (i.e. The Big Bang), but it has absolutely nothing to say about the why, nor does it have anything to say about what, if anything was before the cosmic explosion they posit (and it is a supposition, it explains all the phenomena and has so far been born out by all the observations, but there is no actual proof of it having happened...we must either accept or dismiss the theory on...wait for it...faith. That's right, faith. Accepting the idea of a Big Bang is an act of faith...you believe that that particular explanation is the correct one.

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 13

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 1:43:08 AM

NihilusZero

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Incorrect. "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.

Contextually, that's not the case though.

No one ever says "I believe my husband is cheating on me" when they have a recorded video tape of his escapade with another woman.

There is no need for the word "belief" if proof is substantial and using it connotes making up one's mind before credible evidence has been acquired (if any at all).

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 11/29/2009 1:50:26 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)

Post #: 14

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 1:44:27 AM

NihilusZero

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

science has no answer for the question that religion attempts to answer, namely how did it all happen.

Cosmologists everywhere would be quite perplexed by this suggestion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
but there is no actual proof of it having happened..

Do you know what red shift is?

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 11/29/2009 1:45:58 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 Arpig)

Post #: 15

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 1:53:28 AM

willbeurdaddy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Incorrect. "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.

Contextually, that's not the case though.

No one ever says "I believe my husband is cheating on me" when they have a recorded video tape of his escapade with another woman.

There is no need for the word "belief" if proof is substantial and uaing it connotes making up one's mind before credible evidence has been acquired (if any at all).

Contextually that is precisely the case. Someone does say "I believe my husband is cheating on me" when they see lipstick on his shirt, he comes home late from the office, she finds credit card receipts for a restaurant they didnt eat at together....ie she has a theory supported by substantial evidence, evidence that has been shown to be a very good predictor of straying husbands. And that is as good as it gets for evolution or any other scientific theory.

(in reply to NihilusZero)

Post #: 16

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:01:33 AM

willbeurdaddy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

, science has no answer for the question that religion attempts to answer, namely how did it all happen.

neither does religion

quote:

Science may be able to explain what happened to bring about the universe (i.e. The Big Bang), but it has absolutely nothing to say about the why,

that presupposes that there is a "why"

quote:

nor does it have anything to say about what, if anything was before the cosmic explosion they posit

actually there are theories about what came before the Big Bang

quote:

(and it is a supposition, it explains all the phenomena and has so far been born out by all the observations, but there is no actual proof of it having happened...

which puts science far ahead of religion, which explains nothing

quote:

we must either accept or dismiss the theory on...wait for it...faith. That's right, faith. Accepting the idea of a Big Bang is an act of faith...you believe that that particular explanation is the correct one.

that is a fallacy and merely a ploy that tries to put religion and science on equal footing, when for the reasons above they clearly are not

(in reply to Arpig)

Post #: 17

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:04:13 AM

NihilusZero

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Contextually that is precisely the case. Someone does say "I believe my husband is cheating on me" when they see lipstick on his shirt, he comes home late from the office, she finds credit card receipts for a restaurant they didnt eat at together....ie she has a theory supported by substantial evidence, evidence that has been shown to be a very good predictor of straying husbands.

The "evidence" you are providing here is interpretative and not actual "proof", as opposed to the videotape. And, when she would say "believe" in that case, it is a more common semantic word used rather than what is actually taking place, which is:

"My best educated guess based on what I seem to have noticed is that he is cheating on me."

Her guess is based on the probabilities of all the events you listed happening in conjunction leading to the likelihood of infidelity.

Again, though..."believe" is used precisely in counter-proportion to how sure she is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

And that is as good as it gets for evolution or any other scientific theory.

Yes and no. "As good as it gets" would then qualify for everything in our universe. "Belief", then, is the best I can do in assuring myself I'm typing on a keyboard and not a purple donkey's ass. "Belief", then, is the best you can do to assure yourself that you're not a gazelle permanently shape-shifted into human form.

Viewing life in monochrome does not mean everything is black or white...it means there are infinite shades of gray. And, after a certain point on the spectrum, something being so light so often is enough reason to consider it factual unless some ridiculously unforeseen brighter evidence comes along to render it inapplicable.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 11/29/2009 2:05:39 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)

Post #: 18

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:05:41 AM

willbeurdaddy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Viewing life in monochrome does not mean everything is black or white...it means there are infinite shades of gray. And, after a certain point on the spectrum, something being so light so often is enough reason to consider it factual unless some ridiculously unforeseen brighter evidence comes along to render it inapplicable.

Which still doesnt lessen the appropriateness of the word believe

(in reply to NihilusZero)

Post #: 19

RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 11/29/2009 2:08:26 AM

NihilusZero

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

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 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)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The puzzle of life - science versus creationism

Page: [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

0.094