Creationism

[The Professor]

I want to thank the author of this topic. Like him, I have asked many people over the years to tell me what it is that draws you to this line of thinking. How did you arrive at your conclusions? What do you base your reasoning on? There are so many people that claim to believe someone or something created all that there is out of nothing but when they are pressed about it all they can say is "you have to have faith" or they quote some Biblical gook that has been slammed down their throats since infancy.

 

The author of the topic can speak for himself but all I have seen is more of the same---faith-based arguments and little more. As a scientist, I need more than faith in "the man upstairs." Give me gravity or give me death...

Good post.

[woodsrider]

I want to thank the author of this topic. Like him, I have asked many people over the years to tell me what it is that draws you to this line of thinking. How did you arrive at your conclusions? What do you base your reasoning on? There are so many people that claim to believe someone or something created all that there is out of nothing but when they are pressed about it all they can say is "you have to have faith" or they quote some Biblical gook that has been slammed down their throats since infancy.

 

The author of the topic can speak for himself but all I have seen is more of the same---faith-based arguments and little more. As a scientist, I need more than faith in "the man upstairs." Give me gravity or give me death...

 

But doesn't it take faith to believe the all was created through evolution/big bang/insert scientific theory here________?

[PP1]

I'm only saying if their belief gives them comfort and a feeling of well being it doesn't matter if it's 'true' or not. Who can prove that anyway. They're all faith based. I'm sure Hindu's or Buddhist feel just as much comfort in their religion when at a funeral for a loved one as a Christian does at their's. They all acheive the same objectives.

 

I understand your point. I still disagree but I understand it. I personally think that what is actually true is more important. My objective with my faith is not to simply feel comfortable. In fact, sometimes my faith causes me extreme discomfort at times. I have faith because I believe it is actually real, true, and yes proven.

[The Professor]

I understand your point. I still disagree but I understand it. I personally think that what is actually true is more important. My objective with my faith is not to simply feel comfortable. In fact, sometimes my faith causes me extreme discomfort at times. I have faith because I believe it is actually real, true, and yes proven.

 

But what you feel is "actually true" is what works for you. Another person of a different belief would say what is actually true for you is not actually true for them. They already know the truth, and it works perfectly fine for them, and is also proven.

 

I still go back to something I mentioned in an earlier post: Religions are faith based but are for the most part determined by geography and culture. Its all about indoctrination more than revelation or anything else. And who is any better at this than one's immeadiate family, their friends, and the community where they live. That's why children in Pakistan more than likely grow up as Muslims, children in Calcutta grow up as Hindu, and most American children grow up as Christians. It's what they're all taught from birth. And what they are taught is the "actual truth"...... at least in their part of the world.

[PP1]

But what you feel is "actually true" is what works for you. Another person of a different belief would say what is actually true for you is not actually true for them. They already know the truth, and it works perfectly fine for them, and is also proven.

 

I still go back to something I mentioned in an earlier post: Religions are faith based but are for the most part determined by geography and culture. Its all about indoctrination more than revelation or anything else. And who is any better at this than one's immeadiate family, their friends, and the community where they live. That's why children in Pakistan more than likely grow up as Muslims, children in Calcutta grow up as Hindu, and most American children grow up as Christians. It's what they're all taught from birth. And what they are taught is the "actual truth"...... at least in their part of the world.

 

I understand what you are saying and agree with your second paragraph. I know that what a Jehovah's Witness believes is true is different from what a mormon, protestant, or Jew believes is true. All of them believe that they are correct and right and they receive peace from their prayers and sacraments.

 

But Objective Truth does exist. The mormon and the Catholic cannot both be right. At least one of them is wrong. The Absolute Truth is Absolute regardless of whether or not I or someone else receives comfort form believing it.

[True blue (and gold)]

But doesn't it take faith to believe the all was created through evolution/big bang/insert scientific theory here________?

 

Not if you understand the science. Then you can see the evidence.

[Jim Schue]

Seven pages of this stuff and nobody's mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Somebody throw a pie or something!

[Plato]

Not if you understand the science. Then you can see the evidence.

 

In my opinion, some scientific theories require less evidence and more faith than others.

[True blue (and gold)]

In my opinion, some scientific theories require less evidence and more faith than others.

 

Care to give an example?

[Getslow]

Care to give an example?

 

Magnets. HOW DO THEY WORK?

[Mitch Rapp]

Care to give an example?

Plato is right, for starters:

 

1.The existence of dimensions beyond length, width, height, and time.

 

2. The existence of many, and perhaps an infinite number of universes.

 

3. The existence of the graviton.

 

4. String theory.

 

5. The speed of light is constant in all parts of our universe and does not change over time.

 

Some of the above theories may eventually be supported by hard evidence that proves them beyond reasonable doubt. Humans will never prove some of these theories to a reasonable level of certainty because space and time constraints prevent any direct observation of the evidence.

[True blue (and gold)]

Some of these, I believe, are hypothetical, rather than theoretical (the gravitron, multiple dimensions).

 

String theory is something that has never interested me, so I can't attest to where it falls.

 

One of my pet peeves is confusing the colloquial definition of "theory" with the scientific definition. In order for something to be considered scientific, there must be a test for wrongness. For those things that are space and time dependent, they would fall out of the realm of science.

[The Professor]

I understand what you are saying and agree with your second paragraph. I know that what a Jehovah's Witness believes is true is different from what a mormon, protestant, or Jew believes is true. All of them believe that they are correct and right and they receive peace from their prayers and sacraments.

 

But Objective Truth does exist. The mormon and the Catholic cannot both be right. At least one of them is wrong. The Absolute Truth is Absolute regardless of whether or not I or someone else receives comfort form believing it.

 

But who knows the absolute truth? What if none of them are right?

 

I understand what you're saying, I think. But I'm sure the Jew belives he knows the Absolute Truth. The Christian believes the same. The Muslim likewise, and on and on with all the religious beliefs. All these different world religions are saying the same thing you are saying, that they know the Truth. So I agree, they can't all be right. But they can certainly all be wrong.

[Mitch Rapp]

Some of these, I believe, are hypothetical, rather than theoretical (the gravitron, multiple dimensions).

 

String theory is something that has never interested me, so I can't attest to where it falls.

 

One of my pet peeves is confusing the colloquial definition of "theory" with the scientific definition. In order for something to be considered scientific, there must be a test for wrongness. For those things that are space and time dependent, they would fall out of the realm of science.

Einstein's theory, large parts of which have been proven through experiments involving travel and atomic clocks is entirely dependent upon time and space. Does E=mc2 fall out of the realm of science? I think not but the assumption made by scientists is that the value of certain physical constants are constant across time and space within our universe. Certainly, within our neighborhood in the universe over the past 50 years, Einstein's theory has been strongly supported by evidence but was it valid a few seconds after the creation of the universe and will it be valid in another 13 billion years?

 

Everything that I listed is a theory that is generally accepted among the world's leading theoretical physicists. Many scientific theories cannot be supported by direct observation but are "proven" to some extent by making some reasonable assumptions and demonstrating that alternative hypotheses are far less likely to be true.

 

Do you believe that anthropogenic climate change is a fact, a theory, or an unproven hypothesis?

[True blue (and gold)]

Einstein's theory, large parts of which have been proven through experiments involving travel and atomic clocks is entirely dependent upon time and space. Does E=mc2 fall out of the realm of science? I think not but the assumption made by scientists is that the value of certain physical constants are constant across time and space within our universe. Certainly, within our neighborhood in the universe over the past 50 years, Einstein's theory has been strongly supported by evidence but was it valid a few seconds after the creation of the universe and will it be valid in another 13 billion years?

 

Everything that I listed is a theory that is generally accepted among the world's leading theoretical physicists. Many scientific theories cannot be supported by direct observation but are "proven" to some extent by making some reasonable assumptions and demonstrating that alternative hypotheses are far less likely to be true.

 

Do you believe that anthropogenic climate change is a fact, a theory, or an unproven hypothesis?

 

A theory is not something that is unalterable. If new evidence is discovered that invalidates part of a theory then it will be modified...or scraped altogether for one that more closely aligns with the evidence. A good example of this is continental drift vs. plate tectonics. This is a strength of science

 

Scientists can agree on things that are still hypotheses. Can you fill me in on the evidence used to support the existence of the gravitron? My quick search only yielded it as hypothetical.

 

I do not wish to discuss climate change in this thread. If you want to bring it up in CI, I might join in, but I make no promises. This topic tends to permeate a discussion and since this thread is already somewhat derailed, I don't want to send in the smallpox laden blankets.