Creationists are selfish and un-American

[Yusuf Evans]

It's not up to us to prove there is no creator. It's up to those who make the assertion to provide the evidence.

Then both our arguments are moot, because science can't assert the non-existence of a creator.

 

[FishFace]

Then both our arguments are moot, because science can't assert the non-existence of a creator.

But I can, if there's no evidence for it.

 

[Chalnoth]

Then both our arguments are moot, because science can't assert the non-existence of a creator.

Why not?

 

[meebs]

What bothers me is that creationists can't accept that maybe the way that science teaches us how the universe started and life started could be god's way of creating things*. It's still creationism just by other means. The way that we have been discovering using science. I think it's pretty sad. They waste so much time, money and effort on trying to fight science and the scientific community instead of doing what Jesus supposingly commanded. Why should they use so much time to fight it when they could just find out after? They are the ones, after all, who believe our time is limited.

*What i used to believe.

It's also very sad because some great minds have come from the United States.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

But I can, if there's no evidence for it.

You can choose not to believe in a creator, but you can't use science as justification for it; just as pure creationists can't use religous science as justification for creationism.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Why not?

What has science proven so far, that could debunk a creator? Nothing. Science is still evolving and we are continously finding creatures older than what we thought. We are in an "evolutionary" phase of science, so to speak, that is enabling us to learn more and more about how we came to be. Hell, scientists have yet to prove or disprove the existence of aliens.

 

[Chalnoth]

You can choose not to believe in a creator, but you can't use science as justification for it; just as pure creationists can't use religous science as justification for creationism.

Why not? Because the scientific answer is no? It seems to me that this can be the only real reason why people claim that science can say nothing about the existence of a creator: because they still want to continue believing in one.

The simple fact of the matter is that whether or not a creator is responsible for the intentional creation of our universe is an empirical claim. You can't get around that statement. It is either true or false, and one can examine the likelihood of it being true or false given what we know about the universe. And the answer? It's almost certainly false. Here is one such argument along these lines:
http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/scientific-proof-of-gods-non-existence

Another is found in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, where he shows that because this proposed deity is even more complex than that which it explains, it is even less likely for this deity to exist than that which it creates to 'just exist.'

Edit:

What has science proven so far, that could debunk a creator? Nothing. Science is still evolving and we are continously finding creatures older than what we thought. We are in an "evolutionary" phase of science, so to speak, that is enabling us to learn more and more about how we came to be. Hell, scientists have yet to prove or disprove the existence of aliens.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know some things. And what we do know handily rules out any creator deity as being obscenely unlikely. May future knowledge eventually overturn this? It is conceivable. But is it likely? About as likely, I'd say, as discovering that fire breathing dragons actually did exist here on Earth.

 

[Vene]

What has science proven so far, that could debunk a creator? Nothing. Science is still evolving and we are continously finding creatures older than what we thought. We are in an "evolutionary" phase of science, so to speak, that is enabling us to learn more and more about how we came to be. Hell, scientists have yet to prove or disprove the existence of aliens.

Is the idea of a creator even falsifiable? For example, I don't know how science could debunk the idea of a deistic god that set the universe into motion using natural processes. And without a creator being falsifiable it doesn't belong in science. It's an unsupported entity, the very think that Occam's Razor eliminates.

Yes, a specific creation story is falsifiable. One that would leave evidence behind is very much falsifiable. But just the general notion of a creator cannot be scientific in any sense.

 

[Allegory]

Then both our arguments are moot, because science can't assert the non-existence of a creator.

But it doesn't matter. There's no reason anyone should consider a creator at all when it comes to real world application. You can't use the teachings of the bible to make medicine or computers or space craft or anything.

Look, the point I'm trying to make here is this: You can argue for creationism until you're red in the face, but it will not make any difference. The only potential outcome of teaching creationism in classrooms is a negative one.

 

[Vene]

But it doesn't matter. There's no reason anyone should consider a creator at all when it comes to real world application. You can't use the teachings of the bible to make medicine or computers or space craft or anything.

Look, the point I'm trying to make here is this: You can argue for creationism until you're red in the face, but it will not make any difference. The only potential outcome of teaching creationism in classrooms is a negative one.

I don't think he's advocating teaching the Bible. Look at his faith icon.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't think he's advocating teaching the Bible. Look at his faith icon.

Meh, Bible, Bhagavad Gita, it all comes to the same thing.

 

[Allegory]

I wasn't necessarily addressing him specifically with the bible comment.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can choose not to believe in a creator, but you can't use science as justification for it...

I agree --- until "science" can build a machine that can do this ---

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

--- they can keep their clipboards out of Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

The simple fact of the matter is that whether or not a creator is responsible for the intentional creation of our universe is an empirical claim. You can't get around that statement.

I can --- with this.

 

[AV1611VET]

But just the general notion of a creator cannot be scientific in any sense.

And until this question is answered, neither is science.

 

[FishFace]

You can choose not to believe in a creator, but you can't use science as justification for it;

No, I use lack of science - or any evidence at all - to justify it.

 

[FishFace]

I can --- with this.

That doesn't get around anything. In fact, it does precisely nothing - because it was pure rhetoric.

 

[Athrond]

I agree --- until "science" can build a machine that can do this ---

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

--- they can keep their clipboards out of Christianity.

and vice versa.

Edit: Actually there are computers and vizualisation equipment that can visualise stuff like that on top of the real world - It would convince a bronze age nerf herder to be sure. Science can also make blind people see again. Science you know - pwns all.

 

[Vene]

And until this question is answered, neither is science.

Physicists are closer than you think.

And how on earth does the fact that we don't know everything make you think we know nothing?

 

[Inan3]

I'd start learning Mandarin if I were you, it'll help when your company is taken over by the atheist Chinese

I heard that! I'm not worried though, I'm from another Kingdom! I'm believing for one last hurrah for the USA...revival that is. Don't worry you guys will be included also.