Evolution or Creation

To be honest, I think this topic is in the wrong forum, but as this forum doesn't get a lot of attention, I propose we leave it here. Creationism isn't science, it's pseudo-science, plain and simple.

You can rationalize to dispute God's interaction with people all you want Lucifer, but you won't convince anybody who has experienced it. But that is better explored in the religion forum probably. For the purposes of this discussion, we are comparing Creationism with Science/Evolution. All I am saying is that everything that exists is not observable or measurable by scientific means. Therefore, one must rationalize that science is not all that there is in the universe.

Science does not have all the answers to the secrets of the universe, but at least they are still searching, unfettered by dogma.

I'm quite aware of that, but that also depends on what you're applying science to. It's not right to apply science to creationism because it's not possible to observe god. It's an idea, but it's not scientific. In this way, people are abusing science and using it for the wrong reasons. You might want to tell it to those fundamentalists who think creationism is a science. As for convincing, that's just the way I see things. I don't care if you like your way better, but I would like to know if you've considered other ideas.

I'm not telling anybody anything. You err, Lucifer, in continuing to put more importance on the tiny minority of fundamentalist literalists who don't accept conventional science as fact than you put on the rest of us who do. For science to fail to recognize the existence of things that cannot be observed or measured flies in the face of all reason when the experience of even the non-religious is otherwise.

The point is, it is not necessary to disprove the existence of God in order to believe in science, and it is not necessary to disprove the validity of science in order to believe in God. I advocate a peaceful coexistence here to further the education of our children and cool the rhetoric that only muddies the waters.

as cav and Lucifer had said, so well, I might humbly add, science is an ongoing process.
We are involved in searching for self replicating molecules to go a few steps further than the S. I. Miller experiments of 1957. weve now gotten the science as far as creating hydrolyzates that can link and react and undergo hydrolysis "on command".Weve also got manmade peptides created from the Miller goop, and these undergo ppt linkage. Not a big step, true, but its only been like 40+ years since the entire Oparin postulate was forwarded. SCience is never done. So , if I were taking cover beneath the presently unexplainable, just remember , its only a matter of time before we pull back the curtain on the unexplained and relegate it to childrens textbooks.
I see that, with the discovery of the potential vast numbers of solar systems within our own galaxy , solar systems with planetary configurations similar to ours (a series of smaller inner planets and a large Jovean "vacuum cleaner planet" ) speak for the high possibility of other life forms.
I wonder how most of our worlds religions, which preach solitary uniqueness of Earth, will handle this?

there are two possible models 1) they will handel it the same way the handled the solar centric/ terra centric controversy. 2) They will approach they problem the same way the approached the question of whether or not Native American were human. They held a debate decided they were and then forceable converted them (or else) Science vs religion is often a contact sport.

farmerman writes:


I can't speak for the others, but I think the vast majority of Christiians not only acknowledge the possibility of other life existing out there in the universe but consider it a probability.

Further I think the majoiity consider it probable that many of those lifeforms will be far advanced in their evolution when compared to us.

acquiunk-- word


foxfyre--"WE will make man in our own image, in our own image shall we make him". Genesis ; somethin :somethin.

Im only familiar with the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council, in which the laws of Physics that govern planetary motion , as well as rejection of the concept of "special evolution", were actually adopted . Im not familiar with the rest of the religions and how theyve officially dealt with science ( including evolution). I suppose I should run a search on this and add it to my stuff .

Foxfyre

You're not supposed to believe in science--science is not a religion. You can understand it, use the scientific method, observe and explain using its results, but there is no belief involved--it is objective.
If you say not everything is measureable by scientific means, give examples. As for love and other emotional things, some of these have been explained by psychology and social sciences, even if it doesn't have to do with physical sciences. And if something has to be considered existing and measureable, it has to be considered objectively--not subjectively, as in experience. Go ahead and ask the people doped up on drugs--they may experience these things, but we all know they're just illusions.

Methinks Lucifer, you are working way too hard to deny the existence of anything beyond the scope of modern science. My world is bigger than that, but good luck in your studies.

I asked you to provide examples of cases where science cannot explain the existence of something, so that I may be able to interpret it, but you haven't given me any yet.

If you mean the existence of god, then what other explanation would justify it?

And don't say religion because religion doesn't explain. It only states.

The smartest psychiatrist, psychologist, sociologist has been unable to adequately define the essence of or the cause of love, compassion, creativity or other innate gifts unrelated to genetics, or independent ideas unrelated to any physical experience or stimulus. The existence of God is a reality for those who have experienced God and science cannot explain it. Science is useful to define and explain the physical world--that which can be detected by the physical senses. There is much much more to existence than that, however.

You mean they don't know why one person is attracted to a person but not another? What about nurture? And what do you mean by defining the essence or cause of love, compassion, creativity, etc. if it's not related to genetics or stimulus? What would you then accept as adequate or reasonable for the cause of love?
That's the problem with these things sometimes. It's like someone who's asking for a transitional form of a fossil when they're already there.

Hi,

I'm sorry, but I haven't read the previous 18 pages. I don't have that much time. From what I gathered you assume that science can't prove god is or is not there. Bah! You just say that because you've heard it before. Can science prove god is or is not there? I think it can. I don't know a proof, but quite frankly I think there is a proof. The closest real theorem that resembles the common statement that god's existence can't be proven either way is Godel's theorem: Within any reasonable axiomatical system there are infinite theorems that are correct but can't be proven. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a fact. It is true. Get used to facts because this is how this discussion should be run.

Notice that I haven't taken any side as of yet, I have merely criticized your logical thinking process. To be fair I'll mention that I am an Atheist. However, I think, as scientists tend to think, that above my opinions lies pure logic.

As a mathematician I've had the privilege to witness rather unique models of the universe as a mathematical system, and I can honestly say that I find the existence of god to be ludicrous as a result (although I have not seen a real proof either way, the spirit of the results tend to imply that god doesn't exist).

I hope that in my small way I made some contribution to this thread...

Lucifer writes:


Well you know what I believe is the cause/source of love whether one is a believer or not. I don't require you to believe it. But I dare say you can't use science to explain love or creativity, etc. as the variables too often defy nurture, environment, genetics, or any other measurable criteria.

Science can break down and identify every basic element of a flower seed in the most minute detail, but no scientist can make a flower seed that works. I accept that some are driven to learn and know and understand as much as possible about the earth and the universe and life forms. I don't know why, however, it is so important to some to confine all that is to what can be known and understood.

Just because a scientist can't make a functioning flower seed doesn't mean he can't do that in the future. And as for those that we do not know or understand, we may come to understand them in the future. Just because we don't quite understand the brain now doesn't mean we won't in the future. So are you happy not knowing things that "can't" be known, and just be content with God knowing it? What if god doesn't exist and no one knows? If you would like to believe god exists, then I'd like to believe a three headed, hundred eyed, ten-tentacled, five-tailed, four-horned creature with gold scales and blue fur exists.

Just because a scientist can't make a functioning flower seed doesn't mean he can't do that in the future. And as for those that we do not know or understand, we may come to understand them in the future. Just because we don't quite understand the brain now doesn't mean we won't in the future. So are you happy not knowing things that "can't" be known, and just be content with God knowing it? What if god doesn't exist and no one knows? If you would like to believe god exists, then I'd like to believe in a three headed, hundred eyed, ten-tentacled, five-tailed, four-horned creature with gold scales and blue fur.