a question for creationists...

[Merlin]

You never saw a brake pedal work before you drove for the first time?

Most often, something taught in childhood,

 

[Merlin]

you have evidence that the car will respond. by your standard, there is no such thing as an idea not based on faith.

Bingo!

You say that you are skeptical of evolution because it is a belief, or that it does not have adequate evidence. Tell me, why is it that you dont apply this same degree of skepticism to a belief in a personal god?

I said what?

 

[Loudmouth]

Most often, something taught in childhood,

Taught by example, not by wrote.

Beliefs based on experience and experiments is knowledge. We KNOW that the car will stop because we KNOW how a brake works.

Religious belief is not knowledge. It is a belief in the absence of objective experience and experiment. Creationism is not based on knowledge. It is based on belief, and a dogmatic belief at that.

 

[Merlin]

Taught by example, not by wrote.

Beliefs based on experience and experiments is knowledge. We KNOW that the car will stop because we KNOW how a brake works.

By this, I know the Bible to be true

Religious belief is not knowledge. It is a belief in the absence of objective experience and experiment.

Religion, maybe
But i have a relationship with the creator.

 

[thaumaturgy]

By this, I know the Bible to be true

Well, then, by all means share your proof! I know there are some facts in the bible. But the meat of the Bible relates to God, so I'd love to see proof of the spiritual truths of the bible.

Proof is a valuable thing. If you want to fulfill the Great Commission, then proof is a wonderful thing when ministering to the scientists.

 

[lilakuh]

Can you explain fossils then? Can you explain why all organisms use the same nucleotides? Can you explain why all organisms are made out of cells? Can you explain why land vertebrates have 4 limbs? (or in the case of snakes a skeletal system with vestigial bones). How about vestigial structures at all? Can you explain radiometric dating? (And before you say it's false, why do you trust nuclear medicine and why do nuclear weapons work? It's based on the same principles).

What's to explain?
God did it that way

And this is basically the whole creationist argument in a nutshell. No need to find out how or why things work the way they do; no curiosity to learn anything new.

Can you explain why PCs and Macs both use silicon microchips?

Because silicon-based microprocessors are the only technology available today that allow us to build our current class of computers. That will change as research into quantum computers progresses.

Tell me one thing tough - since you don't trust science much, if you wanted to build a more powerful computer, which verse in the bible would you turn to? How would creationism explain the concept of the next generation of computes? Can't you find out in prayer how to build quantum computers, today?

 

[gamespotter10]

hey, merlin, how do you explain the asorbic acid gene that exists in humans?

 

[Merlin]

Well, then, by all means share your proof! I know there are some facts in the bible. But the meat of the Bible relates to God, so I'd love to see proof of the spiritual truths of the bible.

Proof is a valuable thing. If you want to fulfill the Great Commission, then proof is a wonderful thing when ministering to the scientists.

I suspect my methodologies and standards of proof would not be acceptable to you,.

 

[Merlin]

Tell me one thing tough - since you don't trust science much...

I never said that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I suspect my methodologies and standards of proof would not be acceptable to you,.

As I suspected.

Don't you even believe in your "proof" enough to present it?

That speaks more loudly about your "proof" than anything else.

How weak is it?

 

[lilakuh]

Tell me one thing tough - since you don't trust science much, if you wanted to build a more powerful computer, which verse in the bible would you turn to?

I never said that.

Then I must have misinterpreted what you wrote earlier:

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.

Be that as it may, do you accept the current scientific theories that led to the development of microprocessors?

btw, Why did you bring up microprocessors in the first place?

 

[KCfromNC]

Because silicon-based microprocessors are the only technology available today that allow us to build our current class of computers. That will change as research into quantum computers progresses.

There are other materials that can be used (e.g. sapphire), but regular doped silicon wafers are the cheapest. Human designers optimize away costly features which have no effect on performance. This is unlike what we see in things designed by natural selection, where the result just has to work better than before, regardless of the complexity, cost, or elegance of the solution.

 

[Loudmouth]

By this, I know the Bible to be true

How so? Did you personally witness Jesus rising from the grave?

Religion, maybe
But i have a relationship with the creator.

You BELIEVE you do.

Also, how do we determine which beliefs are correct and which are wrong? Or do you subscribe to post-modernism?

 

[Pesto]

Merlin, why do you believe that the sun rose the day before you were born? On what do you base this belief?

 

[Naraoia]

hey, merlin, how do you explain the asorbic acid gene that exists in humans?

Or more precisely, a nonfunctional pseudogene that's awfully similar to the gene of the enzyme that makes ascorbic acid in mice

(Sorry to correct, I know I'm an absolute maniac )

I actually had a bioinformatics lab on that one last year Genome and protein databases are fun. After you decipher at least some of their outputs, that is.

 

[Naraoia]

Human designers optimize away costly features which have no effect on performance. This is unlike what we see in things designed by natural selection, where the result just has to work better than before, regardless of the complexity, cost, or elegance of the solution.

*nods*

A long list of examples of markedly non-elegant design can be found at Oolon Colluphid's website (I bet the guy is a Douglas Adams fan, by his pseudonym and the site's title ).

 

[Merlin]

Then I must have misinterpreted what you wrote earlier:

Be that as it may, do you accept the current scientific theories that led to the development of microprocessors?

I accept them (for the most part).
I 'accept' most scientific theeories as a good progess report of current understanding, but I do not accept all of scientific theory as fact.
They are good for creating models to help one understand that which is experienced.

It's like going to a restaurant and reading a menu.
The menu is not the meal.
The model is not reality.
The theory is not reality, only a description of the reality.
Though the menu may describe the meal, there is more to the meal than the menu.

btw, Why did you bring up microprocessors in the first place?

In answer to the post I quoted.
Specific materials may be chosen to accomplish certain things.

 

[Merlin]

Merlin, why do you believe that the sun rose the day before you were born?

Convenience.

On what do you base this belief?

Faith

 

[Merlin]

How so? Did you personally witness Jesus rising from the grave?

No, but I have other experiences.

You BELIEVE you do.[/quote]
All is belief.

Also, how do we determine which beliefs are correct and which are wrong? Or do you subscribe to post-modernism?

I don't concern myself with rightness or wrongness of beliefs.
I just care if they are functional.

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, but I have other experiences.

Make sure not to tell anyone about them! I mean that would be scary, right? Having to present proof of your claims?

I don't concern myself with rightness or wrongness of beliefs.

That way you don't have to worry about justifying why a belief feels good to you. That's understandable.

I just care if they are functional.

So you aren't a creationist? Because Creationism is pretty much the definition of a NON-FUNCTIONAL HYPOTHESIS.

It provides no utility whatsoever. It justs says "Goddidit" and walks away from everything else.