Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Speaking of creation;

The lesser spotted universe

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Ros:

Do you believe that creation (of the universe, earth, everything that we know...) is 'magic'?

No. I don't know what caused the BB to occur, and I don't know what came before it.

Was the BB a result of natural forces operating within the laws of science?

I don't know if it was natural forces or not. We do know that it was not the natural forces of physics that science currently understands, simply because all of the physical forces and elements that we know about are contained within, and part of, the Universe. Even the flow of time itself is an aspect of the Universe. We don't even know if time existed outside of our Universe. And without time, there is no cause and effect, and it's hard to say that anything got "Created" without cause and effect. We simply don't know what happened outside of our Universe. We don't even have a way to conceptualize the parameters involved.

real life wrote:

If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?

If you define the unknown as being equivalent to the supernatural, then yes. But the unknown is not equivalent to the supernatural, otherwise everything we don't know would be defined as supernatural, and it isn't.

And if you define anything outside of our Universe to be supernatural, then yes. But if you do that, then you've multiplied entities without necessity, and you're faced with Occam's Razor again.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?

I'm not sure what scientists you are citing here, or if this is simply a misquote, but I'm not familiar with any theory that states that the laws of science were not present prior to the BB.

I've never heard of the laws being created by the BB. I think your mistaken.

T
K
O

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Hi Ros:
Isn't it fair to say that 'poofism' as it were. could have happened either way, whether you believe in Creation or creation?

No, because science doesn't ever accept magic as an answer. But science MUST consider that anything (even if it's "magic") is potentially viable if it is as yet scientifically unproven. (Such as creation.) Even when science doesn't have a theory to explain something (such as the origin of the Universe), it still doesn't posit theories which use magic in them. Hmmm. Many examples come to mind that disagree with your thoughts here. Personal flight, space travel, communication via airwaves... All were considerd to be "magic" prior to discovery and invention. Science simply stops at its boundaries and says, "I don't know". Strongly disagree ros. If science said "I don't know", would surgery be here? Penicillin? Cell phones? And that's a much more flexible stance than to assume a "bounded" condition. Not sure what you mean here.

The whole reason science has been so successful as a tool for understanding the world around us is that magic (or poofism) is simply not an acceptable answer in science. "Magic" as it were is the proverbial carrot for all of science.

Every time you invoke magic as the answer to something, you stop the process of understanding. In the matter of creation; no one inferred that magic is the answer. At this point in time - what happened in relation to creation is "magic". The philosophy of magic held the human race back for eons and created a plethora of reinforced emotional realities which became entrenched in human culture, in some cases to the exclusion of physical evidence (delusion). We call them religions.

To say, "I don't know", is not equivalent to saying, "It was magic (supernatural)" To say, "It could be "magic" is not equivalent to saying It cannot not exist.

I have to say, I expected better. These responses to Ros' statements fall a bit short. I'm not even sure how you could write them in honesty. Flight and EM communication were only considered to be magic by the very same people who believed in the magic of creation.

Cmon Hokie. You're not serious!

"...Keen to sell his invention, Bell approached the Post Offices and commercial organisations responsible for carrying mail. The U.S. Post Office turned him down, as did Western Union. Then he approached the British Post Office, whose Chief Engineer, Sir William Preece was one of Britain's most distinguished scientists. Preece was a Fellow of the Royal Society who had studied under the great Michael Faraday himself. Preece examined Bell's invention, but he, too, rejected it on the grounds that, "England has plenty of small boys to run messages." Preece later surpassed even this judgment. When told that Thomas Edison was researching an incandescent electric lamp with a high-resistance filament, Preece described it as "A completely idiotic idea...."

and

"...But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists..."

from: http://www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm

0 Replies

I think the situation here is prior to the BB no one knows what's there. It is totally unknown. That doesn't mean some people in science have not thrown out any ideas but with virtually no evidence no one can say anything with any authority.

Of course this opens it up to any religion, cult or belief one wants because there is no knowledge to prove anything one way or the other.

Religion thrives on ignorance so anything prior to the BB will be a feast for the supernatural believers.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Ros:

Let's back up for the sake of clarity.

ok

baddog1 wrote:
Do you believe that creation (of the universe, earth, everything that we know...) is 'magic'?

No. I don't know what caused the BB to occur, and I don't know what came before it. I do know (beyond any reasonable doubt) how the Earth formed, and how live evolved. So those things are not unknown.

baddog1 wrote:
Do you believe the same for Creation?

I don't know, because I don't understand the distinction you are making. I don't quite understand what you mean when you say, "Creation" with a capital "C".

baddog1 wrote:
Is 'magic' the same as 'poofism'?

Yes. "Poofism" is the term I use to represent belief in magic (or the supernatural). It sounds better than "Magicism", but amounts to the same thing.

Then (as you've stated) it's fair to say the current dilemma involves 'poofism' and the unknown. You contend that poofism is not the same as the unknown. I agree, but with a caveat. Because we cannot confirm all that is unknown - clearly 'poofism' could be an unknown.

We're headed to a paradox aren't we?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I think the situation here is prior to the BB no one knows what's there. It is totally unknown. That doesn't mean some people in science have not thrown out any ideas but with virtually no evidence no one can say anything with any authority.

Yep - well stated xingu.

xingu wrote:

Of course this opens it up to any religion, cult or belief one wants because there is no knowledge to prove anything one way or the other.

And of course any scientist, physicist, mathematician, etc. for the same reason(s).

xingu wrote:

Religion thrives on ignorance so anything prior to the BB will be a feast for the supernatural believers.

Then certainly you must say the same about science & scientists. Doesn't science thrive on learning the unknown?

0 Replies

Quote:

Doesn't science thrive on learning the unknown?

Yes. And here we find the difference:

Science says "We don't know. Let's find out."

The true believers say: "We do know. It's right here in this Scripture, The (Fill in the blank with the name of your favorite holy writ).

Science says "Uh, no, we don't know. Let's find out."

Believers faint, gasp, yell about blasphemy and personal insults to their beliefs.

Science goes on working.

Joe(not the end)Nation

0 Replies

Bad dog wrote:

xingu wrote:
Religion thrives on ignorance so anything prior to the BB will be a feast for the supernatural believers.

Then certainly you must say the same about science & scientists. Doesn't science thrive on learning the unknown?

The difference between science and religion is science does try to learn. Religion, as we all have seen with our fellow Creationist, thrive on remaining ignorant.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Bad dog wrote:
xingu wrote:
Religion thrives on ignorance so anything prior to the BB will be a feast for the supernatural believers.

Then certainly you must say the same about science & scientists. Doesn't science thrive on learning the unknown?

The difference between science and religion is science does try to learn. Religion, as we all have seen with our fellow Creationist, thrive on remaining ignorant.

Even worse then remaining ignorant, they claim to KNOW the complete truth. In this way they are the opposite of ignorant.

What's worse is that religions need to have the POPULACE remain ignorant.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Then (as you've stated) it's fair to say the current dilemma involves 'poofism' and the unknown.

I don't think there's a dilemma. There are just mysteries still to be solved. That's not a dilemma, it's a gift.

baddog1 wrote:

You contend that poofism is not the same as the unknown. I agree, but with a caveat. Because we cannot confirm all that is unknown - clearly 'poofism' could be an unknown.

Yes.

baddog1 wrote:

We're headed to a paradox aren't we?

I don't know. Are we? What paradox do you see coming?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

...Science says "We don't know. Let's find out."

The true believers say: "We do know. It's right here in this Scripture...

Joe(not the end)Nation

What about true believers who study science Joe? :wink:

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
...Science says "We don't know. Let's find out."

The true believers say: "We do know. It's right here in this Scripture...

Joe(not the end)Nation

What about true believers who study science Joe? :wink:

Those folks, if they exist, will either come to the conclusion that :
Hey, we don't know. Let's find out."
or they will try to bend Science to fit their particular (fill in the blank) holy writ. They will fail in that effort.
Kind of like those folks back when who were dead sure that the planets had to follow a perfectly circular orbit around the sun because god must have created a perfect world.

Joe(they just couldn't get that darn math to agree with the holy word)Nation

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
...Science says "We don't know. Let's find out."

The true believers say: "We do know. It's right here in this Scripture...

Joe(not the end)Nation

What about true believers who study science Joe? :wink:

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance, eh?

0 Replies

Im curious that (in the light of this last dialogue set), why has not the Evangelical Christian arm of "the religious" not ever once changed its story as all this new evidence piles up.EC's have had the same answers for over 200 years while the world of discovery just passes them by
If baddog is so certain that the religious world and the scientific occupy similar ground, why then is his own "revealed truth" never ever challenged. (Obviously, to him and his colleagues, science must be wrong ).

And science does dwell in ignorance, (weve gone over this many times) Science loves ignorance , since its the edge of the realm where the new answers are found. (However,It is a different kind of ignorance than that possessed by the Evangelical Christians).Evangelicals have the answers alredy to any future questions, whereas science hasnt even sorted out the questions and developed fully, a way to try to solve the problems.

SCience goes with what works, no metaphysics involved. When we are able to make predictions based upon past theories and their mathematical laws contained therein, thats strong continuing evidence that were on the right track. "Scientific " Creationism, for eample, has never been able to make one prediction based upon Genesis, isnt that strange? One information system works fine in the real world, and the other doesnt.

.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Im curious that (in the light of this last dialogue set), why has not the Evangelical Christian arm of "the religious" not ever once changed its story as all this new evidence piles up.EC's have had the same answers for over 200 years while the world of discovery just passes them by
If baddog is so certain that the religious world and the scientific occupy similar ground, why then is his own "revealed truth" never ever challenged. (Obviously, to him and his colleagues, science must be wrong ).

And science does dwell in ignorance, (weve gone over this many times) Science loves ignorance , since its the edge of the realm where the new answers are found. (However,It is a different kind of ignorance than that possessed by the Evangelical Christians).Evangelicals have the answers alredy to any future questions, whereas science hasnt even sorted out the questions and developed fully, a way to try to solve the problems.

SCience goes with what works, no metaphysics involved. When we are able to make predictions based upon past theories and their mathematical laws contained therein, thats strong continuing evidence that were on the right track. "Scientific " Creationism, for eample, has never been able to make one prediction based upon Genesis, isnt that strange? One information system works fine in the real world, and the other doesnt.

.

Ignorance plus doubt plus scientific inquiry equals new information and discovery. Ignorance defended with denial and blind faith equals dogmatism and poverty of thought. Science and Evangelical religion, which is based on incongruity and blind faith can not co-exist because they are antithetical. It can't be done.

0 Replies

right.
Weve asked , a number of times, most recently, I recalled ros asking RL for some examples of wherere "Creation SCience" or "ID" has actually been the basis of actual scientific findings.

0 Replies

They are still working on the irreducible mousetrap.

The first time I heard about that mousetrap (you can't remove a single part and have anything. Shocked

) I thought "Here is an idea thought up by someone who never had a summer job in a hardware store."

They would have been exposed to the evolution of the spring. There are drawers full of the various 'species' -looking like those drawers of beetles in the Museum of Natural History-- and they would have learned how the combining and recombining of things leads to other things. Some worthwhile, some worth nothing.

Joe(a crutch tip on a hammer nose makes a perfectly good rubber mallet)Nation

0 Replies

So much illusion, so much delusion.

So far, i have not seen a single theist tackle the titular question, and attempt to provide a scintilla of evidence for creationsim.

That is the burden of this thread--Wilso said "Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism." The theists have provided no such proof, so even if they tell him there is, they have failed to demonstrate the case.

However, people like "real life" and Baddog will continue to palaver, and to attempt to create situations in which others are required to "disprove" a creation. It's a dog and pony show, folks--unless and until the theists provide some sort of proof for creationism to be debated, this is a sterile exchange.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?

I'm not sure what scientists you are citing here, or if this is simply a misquote, but I'm not familiar with any theory that states that the laws of science were not present prior to the BB.

I've never heard of the laws being created by the BB. I think your mistaken.

T
K
O

If you think the laws of science were in effect prior to the BB, does the BB violate the law of Conservation (1st law of Thermodynamics) ?

You have two choices, either matter/energy 'came into being' at some point, violating the 1st Law....

.....or if matter/energy is eternal, then the same question which is asked about God (where did an eternal God come from?) must be asked about matter/energy -- where did it come from?

And if it has been here 'eternally' , then how come the law of entropy doesn't seem to have had the predicted effect?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know