Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Scofflaw said:
So Creationism is a major player onthe world stage? Not the ridiculed and discriminated against minority in both the scientific, political and religious communities? It is taught alongside Evolution in our schools and colleges? Scientists can promote it without fear of losing their job opportunities?However, I am sure that you are not referring to Creationism, which (a) has tens of millions of supporters (b) attracts hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, and (c) requires very straightforward acceptance of the literal truth of a book. The only tricky bit is denying reality, but fortunately human beings are very good at that (as I'm sure you'll agree).
What were you thinking of really?
If only I'd known! All these posts under the impression we were a small ridiculed minority. Yes, denying reality seems to be a prime human characteristic.
0 -
-
wolfsbane wrote:So Creationism is a major player onthe world stage? Not the ridiculed and discriminated against minority in both the scientific, political and religious communities? It is taught alongside Evolution in our schools and colleges? Scientists can promote it without fear of losing their job opportunities?
Oh, I didn't say you were in a majority...just that difficult and unpopular are hardly applicable.
Obviously, it's not taught in science classes in our schools - for that it would need to be a scientific theory, you know. But it's taught in RE, usually. Not in the States, of course, but that's not the entire world - although there the majority of the population certainly tends to Creationism.wolfsbane wrote:If only I'd known! All these posts under the impression we were a small ridiculed minority. Yes, denying reality seems to be a prime human characteristic.
Well, I was sure you'd agree.
Of course, Creationists are in a tiny minority in science - because Creationism is not accepted as a scientific theory. Your only suggested reason for this is essentially a massive conspiracy of silence - a conspiracy for which the only evidence is that Creationism is not an accepted scientific theory. Such conspiracy theories are the last refuge of the Von Danikens and Velkoviches, the Area 51 boys and the flat-earthers - the end of the road.
You quote the papers which couldn't be published if there was such a conspiracy. You point to the divisions which wouldn't exist if there were such a conspiracy. You note the eminence of Creationist scientists - eminence which they could not reach if there were such a conspiracy. Yet still you cling to the notion that a vast atheistic conspiracy stands between science and reality.
All the evidence indicates that there is no such conspiracy, or that if there is, it's ineffective - yet still Creationist scientists are less than 0.01% of all scientists. Face the facts, wolfsbane - there's no conspiracy. Creationism simply isn't scientifically accurate.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wicknight said:
So non-Creation scientists don't defend opposing models? Or if they do are they very confused even amoung themselves about how to interpret the evidence (read "make it up") ?Then what was the point in posting either of the articles. For one to be correct the other has to be completely wrong.
If the purpose was to show that Creationists are very confused even amoung themselves about how to interpret the evidence (read "make it up") yet still fit within Biblical literal reading, well I already knew that.
Yes, that seems to be how they treat each others arguments. Egoism and a desire to keep the funds flowing their way, perhaps.Rejection of baseless theories and made up evidence? No it is not uncommon, happens all the time.
Yes, I would put abiogenesis and molecules-to-man evolution down as having an even bigger credibility problem.More "iffy" that simply guessing that despite over whelming evidence against it God produced by magic fully formed stars and the remains of exploded stars (that never existed) in a tightly designed sequence through out the universe so that the light from all would managed to appear at exactly the same time to someone standing on Earth, despite the fact that He is supposed to have done this before creating life so no one in fact would have been there to observe this event?
That's what Creation science is doing.But you aren't following the truth, because the truth would cause you to have to reconcile your religious beliefs with the world around you.
That is certainly one possible interpretation. I have already put its counterpart as to why most scientists go with evolution, an easy and comforting, albet incorrect, answer.This is too difficult for you, or simply you don't want to do it, because it opens up the possibility that what you base your religion on might be flawed or wrong. So you instead choose to follow a lie that while being false doesn't challange your religious beliefs and therefore in some way provides you with an easy and comforting, albet incorrect, answer.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Wicknight said:
No, we agree that the scientific world operates on a conciliar basis rather than a papal one.Its funny that Creationists keep looking to single scientists as if science was a religious movement, with specific leaders like the Pope, to instruct the masses what to believe.
The opposite is that case. If only one, or a handful of scientists are stating something different that what everyone else is stating, that is a warning sign to be very sceptical. If other scientists cannot be convinced of the validity of a theory then there is either something wrong with the theory or something wrong with the way it is being communicated.
I ran across that guy's site as I was searching for scientific dissent. I've no idea of his identity or status other than his credentials. Just found it an interesting read of a dissenting voice. I'm not qualified to assess the quality of his work.
Are you saying, however, that the lone voice can never be the right one? That science may not be so biased toward received understanding that it will resist the truth until it is forced to rethink?0 -
-
-
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:No, we agree that the scientific world operates on a conciliar basis rather than a papal one.
Actually, it's anarcho-syndicalist, if anything.wolfsbane wrote:I ran across that guy's site as I was searching for scientific dissent. I've no idea of his identity or status other than his credentials. Just found it an interesting read of a dissenting voice. I'm not qualified to assess the quality of his work.
Are you saying, however, that the lone voice can never be the right one? That science may not be so biased toward received understanding that it will resist the truth until it is forced to rethink?
The lone voice would be wrong maybe 99.9% of the time. Occasionally, the lone voice is right, but it's very rare. I'm sure people will now bombard me with examples....but remember that examples of correct lone voices suffer from 'survivorship bias'.
At any given time there are tens of thousands of 'lone voices' - people trying to patent flying carpets, perpetual motion machines, anti-gravity generators, or claiming to have found where everyone else is wrong. There are Lysenkoists, racial theorists, flat-earthers, hollow-earthers, UFOlogists, dinosaur-civilsationists, Atlantisists, pre-glacialists, people who believe crystals can heal you, people who believe in telepathy, people who believe in ghosts....the list is nearly endless. Here I have mentioned only a few of those that are, or were, widespread, with thousands or millions of supporters worldwide.
The primary thing that all of these have in common is that they wish science to validate their claims. If science does not do so they claim that science is "conspiring to keep the truth from people".
Now, in all honesty, the only way Creationism stands out from this Babel of beliefs is by volume. There is no a priori difference between Creationism and any other "lone voice" composed of millions.
Creationism, like the others, claims a handful of supporters who are also scientists (after all, scientists are people too - I'm willing to accept ghosts as a possibility, for example). Now, if we're talking about a decent level of supporting science, that means one thing - if we're talking about a handful of scientists, it means another. Creationism, like the others, offers no obvious proof*. Creationism, like the others, claims that a conspiracy of silence within science acts to suppress the 'truth'. There's no apparent difference.
*When I say "no obvious proof", I expect to cause a certain amount of indignation - but what would you bring with you if you went to convince a scientist of the truth of your position? Is there anything you can just lay out on the table, if you see what I mean? Apart from the bible, for obvious reasons.
So, there, in a nutshell, is the problem. Creationism is not accepted as a scientific theory. To make it accepted, Creationists would need to produce some obvious proof - not reinterpretations of other evidence, not attacks on current theories - just something like a dinosaur with a spear through it. Something that allows a scientist to say "OK, this is really something. I can't see how our current theories cope with this at all. Let's hear your take on it."
At no point in our discussion here has such a proof been offered, despite repeated requests. All "proofs" have been reinterpretations of existing evidence, attacks on current theories, and the occasional fraud.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement