Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion

Religion For discussion about belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values


Thanks Tree20Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 22nd, 2017, 11:33 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 274
Question for creationists

With things like evolution or the age of distant stars, we (that means you, me, anyone) can actually perform experiments and make observations that show what they are. Essentially that's what science is, experiments and observations.

With things like creationism or intelligent design, can we do the same? Is there a way to observe them from the environment or an experiment? I'm not interested in what some religious person's interpretation or perception of their preferred version of religious text says, I want something independent of anything like that. Give me something that involves exploring nature, an experiment in a laboratory, etc.

If you can do that, I'll support your call for teaching creationism in science courses (and in case it isn't perfectly clear & obvious, that doesn't include anything from any religious texts at all).
Neil is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2017, 03:27 PM   #2
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 34,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
With things like evolution or the age of distant stars, we (that means you, me, anyone) can actually perform experiments and make observations that show what they are. Essentially that's what science is, experiments and observations.

With things like creationism or intelligent design, can we do the same? Is there a way to observe them from the environment or an experiment? I'm not interested in what some religious person's interpretation or perception of their preferred version of religious text says, I want something independent of anything like that. Give me something that involves exploring nature, an experiment in a laboratory, etc.

If you can do that, I'll support your call for teaching creationism in science courses (and in case it isn't perfectly clear & obvious, that doesn't include anything from any religious texts at all).

Okay did the universe come into existence by design or just a simple cosmic accident..

IMO it takes more faith to accept this is all accidental, t the human eye brain that can view the universe is to complex to be an accident
Thanks from discollector
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2017, 04:15 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Okay did the universe come into existence by design or just a simple cosmic accident..
The question assumes something that might not be true. It assumes that the universe came into existence, regardless of by "accident" (whatever that means) or by design, but what if the universe didn't "come into existence" at all, has always existed, and always will exist?

Suppose it did somehow come into existence from nothing (nevermind that it seems to contradict the 1st law of thermodynamics), how do we test that? Also, what you offer here fails to provide a way of observing, measuring, or performing an experiment that I can repeat to draw the same conclusion or results that anyone else has done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
IMO it takes more faith to accept this is all accidental, t the human eye brain that can view the universe is to complex to be an accident
I'm looking for something that is free of the need & dependency on faith. For example, if someone claims I can get a certain chemical compound from a formula they provide, and I try out the formula to see whether or not I end up with that certain chemical compound, it will either work or not work. It's testable and falsifiable. Whether or not that formula works has nothing to do with faith; it has to do with it either works or it doesn't work - that's it.
Neil is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2017, 04:26 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 58,246
Your request is impossible. No "control group" is available. Neither is a vantage point from which we can observe the universe without being a part of it.

No direct proof of our universe being the product of higher intelligences than we exists.

The order of the universe from quarks to super clusters of galaxies, not to mention life, seems to indicate our universe isn't a result of random, non-directed forces, but that's not proof.

Can you imagine any "experiment" that could prove the universe and life itself is a product of higher intelligence, or "intelligent design?"

I can't.
Thanks from Kate and Neil
imaginethat is online now  
Old November 22nd, 2017, 04:35 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Read Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, and see how he uses Aristotelian logic to explore the limitations of science in the broader scope of human intellect. The truth is that much of what we call "science" is grounded in a type of faith. And let's not EVEN pretend that the empirical method on its own has never led to erroneous conclusions.
Thanks from imaginethat, Kate and Sabcat

Last edited by Asimov; November 22nd, 2017 at 04:41 PM.
Asimov is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2017, 05:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
Read Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, and see how he uses Aristotelian logic to explore the limitations of science in the broader scope of human intellect. The truth is that much of what we call "science" is grounded in a type of faith.
When we go into the philosophical, semantics/interpretation, abstract, etc. direction, sure, we run into something like that. But when it comes to practical, real world situations, bringing home the bacon, getting results that bear fruit, we can reach a point where we can tell what works and what doesn't work. That's the point of science and engineering, to figure out how to make a better mousetrap, how to make this or that more efficient, etc.

We use science & engineering to put food on our plates, roofs over our heads, to make planes that can fly, vehicles that won't break down so easily, bridges and buildings that won't collapse (before their expiration date, or the right maintenance & repairs, etc.).

If scientists make discoveries that lead us to things like the theory of evolution, the same type of situation of questions, problems, and solutions applies. Does the theory of evolution help scientists & physicians discover or invent better medicines/treatments? Does it help biologists find better ways of producing food or protect the environment? If so it not only reaffirms the theory of evolution, but it also shows that it's useful, practical, and beneficial for us.

If you want to take the meaning of faith broadly to include this, that's fine; that's different from saying it's true because someone somewhere is interpreting some religious text to say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
And let's not EVEN pretend that the empirical method on its own has never led to erroneous conclusions.
That's why science relies on something being tested many times rather than relying on just one test.
Neil is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2017, 03:33 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Asimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
... when it comes to practical, real world situations, bringing home the bacon, getting results that bear fruit, we can reach a point where we can tell what works and what doesn't work. That's the point of science and engineering, to figure out how to make a better mousetrap, how to make this or that more efficient, etc. We use science & engineering to put food on our plates, roofs over our heads, to make planes that can fly, vehicles that won't break down so easily, bridges and buildings that won't collapse (before their expiration date, or the right maintenance & repairs, etc.).
Precisely. I don't think any rational person would deny the benefits of science in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
If scientists make discoveries that lead us to things like the theory of evolution, the same type of situation of questions, problems, and solutions applies. Does the theory of evolution help scientists & physicians discover or invent better medicines/treatments? Does it help biologists find better ways of producing food or protect the environment? If so it not only reaffirms the theory of evolution, but it also shows that it's useful, practical, and beneficial for us.That's why science relies on something being tested many times rather than relying on just one test.
Here where inquiry departs from the realm of pure science and enters into the realm of faith. No one has either observed OR tested the alleged "science" of the Big Bang OR of the origins of man. We are still searching. These are, as you say, theories. Like all theories they are based not upon proven facts but upon assumptions grounded in presuppositions and opinion. That is why they remain theory and not fact. The problem arises when one claims in the name of science to have solved what remains a mystery. They fall into the error of "I think/suppose/theorize, therefore I have attained a monopoly on all truth, and anyone who disagrees with me or points out the holes in my opinion/supposition/theory must therefore unscientific and stupid." And genuine learning runs up against a wall of subtle arrogance that leads to pointless and sometimes false conclusions.
Thanks from discollector
Asimov is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2017, 05:32 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
Precisely. I don't think any rational person would deny the benefits of science in this regard.



Here where inquiry departs from the realm of pure science and enters into the realm of faith. No one has either observed OR tested the alleged "science" of the Big Bang OR of the origins of man. We are still searching. These are, as you say, theories. Like all theories they are based not upon proven facts but upon assumptions grounded in presuppositions and opinion. That is why they remain theory and not fact. The problem arises when one claims in the name of science to have solved what remains a mystery. They fall into the error of "I think/suppose/theorize, therefore I have attained a monopoly on all truth, and anyone who disagrees with me or points out the holes in my opinion/supposition/theory must therefore unscientific and stupid." And genuine learning runs up against a wall of subtle arrogance that leads to pointless and sometimes false conclusions.
No one observed the Big Bang, but the theory is based on observations of the universe. Scientists have observed evolution, measured it, touched it, they've done it in the lab. They haven't turned a monkey into a man, but we know that people turned a wolf into a Fox Terrier. And there are experiments that have turned wild foxes into playful, gentle, floppy eared, white spotted "foxes". Mimicking in the laboratory a process that may have turned the wolf into the dog.
Science doesn't claim to have the monopoly on Truth, that is for the hocus-pocus people thumping on an old book of myths, those are the people who claim to have TRUTH.
Scientists look for the ring of truth, what sounds true, they really don't claim it's true, just that the theory seems to work.

The arrogance, the persecution, the wholesale murder of those that don't accept the TRUTH, is something that the Children of God do, always have, always will.
Thanks from Neil
goober is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2017, 09:19 AM   #9
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimov View Post
Precisely. I don't think any rational person would deny the benefits of science in this regard.



Here where inquiry departs from the realm of pure science and enters into the realm of faith. No one has either observed OR tested the alleged "science" of the Big Bang OR of the origins of man. We are still searching. These are, as you say, theories. Like all theories they are based not upon proven facts but upon assumptions grounded in presuppositions and opinion. That is why they remain theory and not fact. The problem arises when one claims in the name of science to have solved what remains a mystery. They fall into the error of "I think/suppose/theorize, therefore I have attained a monopoly on all truth, and anyone who disagrees with me or points out the holes in my opinion/supposition/theory must therefore unscientific and stupid." And genuine learning runs up against a wall of subtle arrogance that leads to pointless and sometimes false conclusions.
Is gravity a theory or a fact? I think you are applying terms incorrectly here.

I don't know of any reputable scientist who in formal discussion would ever claim to know truths. Is gravity truth? In this case in fact the question isn't if an object will fall to the floor if you drop it, but whether masses attract each other with a certain force as is quantified in the theory of gravity.

Now, this theory is pretty strong in that it explains what we observe, it allows us to make predictions that turn out accurate, for which the Apollo astronauts will forever be grateful and it fits in with the general body of knowledge.

I would put evolution into that same category.

On the other hand, we have the theory of light being a wave. And the theory of light being a particle. Both right and both wrong by the criteria above. So it works but obviously that needs improvement, further work and is a work in progress.

The big bang theory is one that isn't as strong as gravity. But it does explain a lot of things that are observed. Now, it doesn't answer why it happened just as the theory of gravity doesn't answer why two masses attract each other. But we learn and try to improve and answer more of these questions.

And thus far I have never needed to invoke a "force" to satisfy myself. Some do.

But even then, it is a long way from "a force" to the god of the bible.
Thanks from Neil
RNG is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2017, 07:43 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Okay did the universe come into existence by design or just a simple cosmic accident..

IMO it takes more faith to accept this is all accidental, t the human eye brain that can view the universe is to complex to be an accident
No, it isn't.

The evolution of the human eye has been fully explained by the theory of evolution if you would just bother to look.

But you don't want to look because you don't want it to be true. So you'll just take the word of the pseudo-scientists making that claim.
Thanks from Neil
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion

Tags
creationists, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To Avoid Taxes Creationists Sell Ark Park To Themselves For $10 imaginethat Current Events 11 July 24th, 2017 12:46 PM
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence. Nwolfe35 Atheism 95 December 14th, 2013 07:43 AM
Why People Laugh at Creationists... tadpole256 Religion 6 September 4th, 2009 06:50 PM
How to Shut-Up Creationists... tadpole256 Religion 5 August 31st, 2009 09:08 PM
Hey Creationists! Explain this... tadpole256 Religion 34 July 31st, 2007 08:32 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.