a question for creationists...

[Naraoia]

That means that GOD is much of a god in "scientific terms...." I disagree. GOD created everything and without HIM there is not anything (time, matter, space) that would exist.

Haven't you left out a "not" from "is much of a god"? See, you are free to believe that God created space, time, matter, laws of physics, whatever, because science can only describe how time, space, matter and laws work but it can't answer the ultimate question of where they come from. As far as I'm aware, anyway.

 

[Naraoia]

[quote from article]
Scientists can measure them, so I guess they aren't that virtual anymore.

Yes, I was thinking about the Casimir effect. It's cool, though, that there are other manifestations of VPs as well.

It's time I updated myself on physics. My newest popular book on quantum physics is 13 years old Heh, and it's time I read all the books that have been accumulating on my shelf for the past few months...

 

[LittleNipper]

Haven't you left out a "not" from "is much of a god"? See, you are free to believe that God created space, time, matter, laws of physics, whatever, because science can only describe how time, space, matter and laws work but it can't answer the ultimate question of where they come from. As far as I'm aware, anyway.

Sorry, I sometimes I think faster than I can type or spell for that matter.... The problem is that some scientists have religiously stepped outside the bounds of what they may be seeing (scientifically), and using what they believe they see (scientifically) to project backwards to what must have been or happened ------ which is unscientific. They are also attempting to hold a bay any reasonable explanation that do not fit THEIR criterion.

 

[Naraoia]

No, it is based on belief.
There is no evidence which mandates evolution as the one/only possibility.
The evidence shows a possibility, which is taken on faith as the one/only possibility.

What you say is half true. Indeed we can't be sure if evolution is the only possibility. However, we don't know other possibilities yet (and can't say if we will ever know them, because fortune telling, unlike science, doesn't work) So, until we have better alternatives, evolution is the only possibility, as there is plenty of evidence that supports it and so far none that convincingly refutes it. Therefore science accepts evolution and works with evolution and advances using evolution. Just as it does with atomic theory, germ theory and general relativity. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of practicality. If you don't accept any theory ever, you can't make advances either.

 

[Merlin]

what model are you using?

Creationism, of course.

 

[Merlin]

And to add to gamespotter's question, in what context are you using it?

Don't come at us with a hand wavy qualitative ad-hoc and post-hoc explanation of how things are now. Those of us that actually do the scientific research need quantitative predictive models that look forward...and don't feel bad if this completely destroys your argument. Guzman pretends the question isn't there, Av1's idea of a predictive biological model is the prohpecy concerning the state of Israel, and Inan3 promises to reply and then reneges.

You'll be in great company if you cannot find an answer.

I have not come to you "with a hand wavy qualitative ad-hoc and post-hoc explanation of how things are now."
I have merely shared my beliefs.
Please, do reread my posts.

Personally, I don't care what you believe in.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Creationism, of course.

Which one? there are numerous ones. theres young earth, old earth, ID, Gap, and then there's the creation story from the countless religions and cultures all over the world.

 

[Naraoia]

I have not come to you "with a hand wavy qualitative ad-hoc and post-hoc explanation of how things are now."
I have merely shared my beliefs.
Please, do reread my posts.

Personally, I don't care what you believe in.

I only wonder what you are doing in a debate forum if you aren't interested in others' beliefs and have no intention of actually debating the topic at hand...

Because this is a debate forum. It's a subforum of something called "Discussion & Debate".

 

[thaumaturgy]

Creationism, of course.

So you are a creationist. And we all pretty much know how Creationism views science in general.

So what part of "science" do Creationists dislike the most? The part where everyone is able to test the assumptions of a model? The ability to explain all the variability in the data using only factors that all can agree on?

Why is science so frightening to Creationists? Maybe it's just overwhelming to them, many of the ones I've talked to have virtually no understanding of even simple scientific concepts, let alone more advanced stuff.

Now, of course, there are a few notable exceptions.

What I like most about Creationism is it is so transparent about why it questions the science. It has nothing to do with making a better theory or stronger hypothesis, Creationism is all about religion.

And considering that Science doesn't have much to say about religion, it makes one realize that when someone claims to be a Creationist then you know that person is doing it for wholly non-science reasons.

It's all religion. Either they think Evolution will hurt their immortal souls or they think that Evolution means they are "less special" in the grand scheme of things.

That's why I write off Creationism in a science debate. Creationists aren't talking science. Sure they might accidentally use a science word their pastor taught them, but they don't understand the science against which they are debating, and more importantly they don't seem to understand that it isn't a valid critique of a scientific theory if your sole motivation and criticisms are non-scientific.

If it makes you feel yucky to realize you are nothing more than an animal, that doesn't change the solid scientific analyses. If you fear for your immortal soul, that doesn't say anything about the data.

Creationism is, simply put, not just bad science, but anti-science.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

the theory of gravity does not try to tell people where gravity came into existance. It simply tries to explain how it works... The Germ Theory of Disease only really attempts to convey how illness is spread and why. Evolution is designed to show how a man developed from a worm. If evolution only attempted to show why man may act as one, no one would care.

Ok who has ever said that humans evolved from worms? humans evolved from extinct species of apes. we are related to worms though very distantly. i mean we develop butt first and they develop mouth first.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Personally, I don't care what you believe in.

Well, no one actually cares that you don't believe in evolution, so long as your disregard for fundamental scientific processes doesn't actively stand in the way of real science.

You have in other threads claimed you are a "healer". That's fine and dandy. I hope your healing works. For me, I'll always go with medical science.

Do you want to know why? Because the results they tell me about have at least some "proof" for their outcome. Proof that is not hidden, not anecdotal and freely available.

Medical science, when done correctly, is not in the game of "overselling" the results. They will tell me I have only X% chance of survival but it will be predicated on the honest and earnest and, above all, clearly transparent work of countless researchers.

Not on someone's "feeling", gut-response, "OH-it-worked-for-my-aunt's-friend" type of responses.

I don't know what type of healing you do and I'm not a medical doctor. I don't claim to know much about that. But science and most importantly scientific rigor are the only things that provide the safety we all seek.

Desperation and pain will make people cling to whatever is presented to them. And occasionally it might work for them. I'm not to say. And I don't know what I'd do if I were near the end of my rope in pain or fear.

But science is a strict discipline and it works because it is a STRICT discipline. When we open the door to a relaxation of strict rules, or we allow anecdotes to sit in for statistical analyses, then we open the door to failures, disappointments, and abuses by those unlike yourself who might be tempted to take advantage of others.

So, your disregard (selective as it may be) of science only concerns me when you try to suggest it is science. Or when you claim a disagreement but can't really support your claim.

At least some of us who have been around in the sciences can identify that kind of bragadocio and know to steer clear of it. But others may not.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ok who has ever said that humans evolved from worms? humans evolved from extinct species of apes. we are related to worms though very distantly. i mean we develop butt first and they develop mouth first.

Yet another reason to think worms are dirty and evil! For part of their development they can eat but not excrete! EWWW!

Nature is nasty!

I'm glad we're the crown of creation and we can excrete long before we start taking stuff in.

 

[Merlin]

Did I lump you in with someone else's beliefs? Sorry. I am merely pointing out that when you talk about the "Scientific Paradigm" in the way you phrased it, then you sound "Po Mo". I was also using that to leverage my comments on Creationists, not necessarily you. I still find Creationism to be intellectually vacuous for the reasons I stated above. But that isn't necessarily talking about you.

I will also admit I made the assumption you were a creationist. But again, I possibly jumped to conclusions.

I'm sorry if I came across harsh.
I didn't intend to.
There are many Christian beliefs which are traditional, yet not Biblical.
So, when you lump me in with all the others and their beliefs, it makes responding difficult.

Yes, I am a 'creationist'
Yet, I don't subscribe to the young-Earth model.
I am an extreme Bible literalist, yet I find the original texts don't say what tradidionalists often believe it says.

 

[Pesto]

Merlin, would you please answer post 46 in this thread?

 

[Merlin]

I will predict that Merlin will do no such thing. Merlin seems to be of the opinion that merely mentioning a few points around the science is sufficient.

I have yet to ever figure out her point in detail.

mentioning a few points around is sufficient to explain my position.
That's all I wish to do.
I don't tell you that you are wrong to believe what you believe. I don't challenge your beliefs.
As far as I'm concerned you can believe anything you wish.

Remember the OP?
it asked:"why is it that you have a problem with the theory of evolution? why not the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity, or the atomic theory, or the theory of quantum wave mechanics? why just evolution?"
I answered: "Personally, I have some problems with each, whether Quantum Electrodynamics, string theory, etc."
I answered the OP.
I have problems with many current theories of science.

I wish you did too.
Then, when we question the current ideas, we have reason to explore and learn.

I even replied to another post and gave a bit more examples.
Renormalisation being one.
Feynman himself didn't like it much.
As Feynman himself was known to have said:

"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

He called it a 'dippy process' I agree.
Yes, it should be thrown out. Relegated to history.
I don't yet know a better answer.
Neither did Feynman.
But that neither he nor I have a better answer doesn't mean renormalisation is not a 'dippy process'

My opinion, string theory is another example of dippy science.

I have yet to ever figure out her point in detail.

I hope this helps

 

[Merlin]

What you say is half true. Indeed we can't be sure if evolution is the only possibility. However, we don't know other possibilities yet (and can't say if we will ever know them, because fortune telling, unlike science, doesn't work) So, until we have better alternatives, evolution is the only possibility, as there is plenty of evidence that supports it and so far none that convincingly refutes it. Therefore science accepts evolution and works with evolution and advances using evolution. Just as it does with atomic theory, germ theory and general relativity. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of practicality. If you don't accept any theory ever, you can't make advances either.

It was once thought the Sun moved around the Earth.
There was a great deal of observational evidence to support the idea.

Indeed we can't be sure if xxxxx is the only possibility. However, we don't know other possibilities yet
So, until we have better alternatives, xxxxx is the only possibility, as there is plenty of evidence that supports it and so far none that convincingly refutes it.

 

[Naraoia]

we are related to worms though very distantly. i mean we develop butt first and they develop mouth first.

'Cept if they are acorn worms "Worm" is possibly the most taxonomically meaningless word used to categorise an animal

 

[Naraoia]

It was once thought the Sun moved around the Earth.
There was a great deal of observational evidence to support the idea.

Indeed we can't be sure if xxxxx is the only possibility. However, we don't know other possibilities yet
So, until we have better alternatives, xxxxx is the only possibility, as there is plenty of evidence that supports it and so far none that convincingly refutes it.

Your point?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Merlin, have you ever wondered why evolutionary theory replaced the idea of spontaneous creation (whether by God or whatever) as an explanation for biodiversity on Earth? And why, since you adhere to creationism, are there numerous applications of evolutionary theory, but not one single application of creationism?

Seems inconsistant to me.

 

[Merlin]

Merlin, according to you, what beliefs are not based on faith?

None