Is a creationist a creationist because they feel it makes sense?

[Oncedeceived]

In both cases, the only thing propping up the belief is the belief itself.

Millions of people could be deluded for the same reason that a single person is deluded. The hindu would believe you are deluded in the same way that you believe the hindu is deluded. Again (paraphrasing Stephen Roberts), I only disbelieve in one more god than you do. Once you understand why you disbelieve in all those other gods you will understand why I disbelieve in yours.

I could very well be deluded, but I would be deluded by an outside force (outside of myself) that has claimed that He is the Christian God. The delusion would have to be able to interact and affect the universe and mankind's destiny.

I disbelieve in other gods because I know the real God. The Hindu believes in many gods and so He is not opposed to my God as He could be God in the gods of the Hindu.

The earliest evidence of life are stromatolite-like colonies. This coincides with thick sediments of oxidized iron, consistent with these stromatolites producing the first source of oxygen that led to something resembling our current atmosphere. Before that I have no evidence of what life was like. The only thing that is even remotely supportable is that these stromatolite-like colonies had precursors, as does all life.

So you have no opinion on the origin of life and how it arose?

Objectivity is not defined by what I have personally measured or sensed. Objectivity is defined by what can be measured or sensed.

There are some things that are objective but are not testable or measured. Love for one. Truth for another.

Have I checked the data in every scientific paper ever published? Of course not, but why should this be expected of me?

Why would you assume that every paper is based on objective information? Do you trust that everyone that publishes the scientific paper has all the information needed to provide that each paper is objectively true?

I have dug up many fossils myself, including my favorite which is a fossilized leech. My second favorite is a well preserved "monkey jaw" which is actually a gill raker from a fish that specialized in eating shelled invertebrates. My fossil collection is limited to aquatic fossils in the Snake River Basin in SW Idaho, but it's not bad.

I like fossils myself. Yet, we trust those who have examined fossils of great import to have enough of the needed information to make an objective observation and determination. What if that is not possible? Many findings lately have turned evolutionary models upside down in many ways. Some findings support earlier theories and others falsify them. We don't know what will be found next that will do more of the same.

I don't think that meme theory is objective. I have swayed back and forth on this one in the past, but I now am firmly convinced it is not an objective theory.

Good for you, my estimation of you has increased many fold.

I work in a lab where I could, in principle, repeat every experiment dealing with genetics, such as the ERV papers. Again, objectivity is not defined by what Loudmouth has measured or sensed. If I truly had a question about something in science I could test it, even if this involved going back to school and getting into a lab in a specific field.

The fact that there are scientists that disagree with many experimental findings against other equally educated scientists tells us that even those who do the experiments have opponents to their findings. So yes, it can be measured and tested but opinions vary on the findings more often than not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If I have neglected to respond to anyone's posts please bring it to my attention, I have tried to find all the posts to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

I could very well be deluded, but I would be deluded by an outside force (outside of myself) that has claimed that He is the Christian God. The delusion would have to be able to interact and affect the universe and mankind's destiny.

If you and others are deluded then it is you and others that are affecting the universe and mankind's destiny. Do you believe that Buddha reached enlightenment? Even if he didn't his teachings still have afffected the universe and mankind's destiny.

I disbelieve in other gods because I know the real God.

That is exactly what the Hindu would claim.

The Hindu believes in many gods and so He is not opposed to my God as He could be God in the gods of the Hindu.

The christian God is not part of the Hindu pantheon.

So you have no opinion on the origin of life and how it arose?

Opinions, yes. Beliefs, no. My opinion is that the origin of life was the result of natural mechanisms. This opinion comes from extrapolation from history, that many things previously ascribed to the supernatural because of unfounded belief is now known to be caused by natural mechanisms.

There are some things that are objective but are not testable or measured. Love for one. Truth for another.

Love is not objective and truth is axiomic. Neither are objective. There is no way that I can be sure that my experience of love is the same as yours, just as we can not compare spiritual or religious experiences. Truth is metaphysics. Science is not able to find truth. Philosophies can claim truth, but only through the acceptance of axioms which can not, by definition, be shown to be absolute. Axioms are accepted as absolutes.

Why would you assume that every paper is based on objective information?

If the conclusion of a paper is not based on objective data then the paper does not make it through peer review (or at least, it shouldn't). Go to www.pubmed.com and find a paper that is not based on objective data.

Do you trust that everyone that publishes the scientific paper has all the information needed to provide that each paper is objectively true?

For science, the data needs to be objective. The conclusions based on that evidence are tentative and not considered to be "true", only tentatively supported. If you think the data is wrong then should be able to, in principle, to run the experiment yourself and compare results. For fossils, you should get the same measurements for bones, find the same origin and insertion sites for muscles, etc.

I like fossils myself. Yet, we trust those who have examined fossils of great import to have enough of the needed information to make an objective observation and determination. What if that is not possible?

Science is set up so that it is highly competitive. Scientists compete for limited money and limited positions. There is no reward for agreeing with faulty interpretations. There is great reward in getting rid of your competition.

Many findings lately have turned evolutionary models upside down in many ways. Some findings support earlier theories and others falsify them. We don't know what will be found next that will do more of the same.

Examples?

The fact that there are scientists that disagree with many experimental findings against other equally educated scientists tells us that even those who do the experiments have opponents to their findings. So yes, it can be measured and tested but opinions vary on the findings more often than not.

Care to give an example? If we deal with a specific example I think we can come to an agreement about what is objective and what tentative conclusions are.

 

[automan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by automan

So you think the Muslims and the Mormons could well have been indoctrinated but not the Christians, the Christians have all come to Jesus all on their own, even if they live in a town or a village that is all Christian and they would be ostracized if they were to believe anything else (as they would be if they were Muslims).

I didn't say anything about the Mormons. Muslim tradition does indeed indoctrinate and if you know anything at all about them you would see the difference between Christian and Muslim tradition.

So you think all of the Mormons living in Salt Lake City are Mormons because they chose or choose to be Mormons?

Quote:

Luckily for me I was raised in a country that is about 75% atheist, the UK, so I was not subjected to a religion as I was growing up,
a few of my friends were, mostly Catholics,
so I know at first hand that most religions need to be taught to the very young for them to be most effective,
if a child is not caught early enough they are pretty well lost for ever to religion, a few are not but the majority are.

If that were true then the world would not be most Christian.

The world is NOT mostly Christian, if you think that the most widely spoken language in the world is Mandarin Chinese it stands to reason Christianity is only a small cog in the wheel of the worlds religions, not to mention Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and hundreds of other religions you and I have never heard of.

So are you saying that if you were raised in this country you would have been a Christian?

I think you said yourself that 3/4 of Americans were Christians, so had I been raised in the US the odds are 3 to 1 ON that I would be a Christian, had we both been born in Mexico the odds are we would be Catholics, the same with Spain, Iran a Muslim, Greece a Greek orthodox, so are you telling me that everyone in all of these countries chose the religion they believe in?

Quote:

So I think you are completely wrong in your assumption that most Christians are Christians out of choice,
some were most certainly given no choice at all, and they are unable to change,
(like a lot of married people when love has gone, it is easier to stay married than it is to get a divorce, so they stay with what is easiest.)

This is total bunk. People are free to choose. You have a very skewed view of Christianity.

Just because you tell us you are strong enough to choose to be a creationist does not mean all creationists choose to be creationists.
But to be honest I have a very skewed view of All religions.
Quote:

I am happily married by the way, to another Atheist, we were married in a registry office, not a church.

Your point?

I threw this in just in case you accused me of being a woman hater.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you and others are deluded then it is you and others that are affecting the universe and mankind's destiny. Do you believe that Buddha reached enlightenment? Even if he didn't his teachings still have afffected the universe and mankind's destiny.

I have objective evidence that supports what the Bible says is true and ultimately what God says is true.

That is exactly what the Hindu would claim.

That is very true, but we can't both be right. One must be wrong.

The christian God is not part of the Hindu pantheon.

Regardless, the Hindu's world view holds to many gods.

Opinions, yes. Beliefs, no. My opinion is that the origin of life was the result of natural mechanisms. This opinion comes from extrapolation from history, that many things previously ascribed to the supernatural because of unfounded belief is now known to be caused by natural mechanisms.

But you yourself said that things like love and the supernatural are not evaluated by Science. So how can you determine by Science whether the supernatural is not needed?

Love is not objective and truth is axiomic. Neither are objective. There is no way that I can be sure that my experience of love is the same as yours, just as we can not compare spiritual or religious experiences. Truth is metaphysics. Science is not able to find truth.

Exactly, so why do claim that since we can't prove God scientifically God must not exist. Science says nothing about the supernatural by design, so it can hardly falsify something it says nothing about.

Philosophies can claim truth, but only through the acceptance of axioms which can not, by definition, be shown to be absolute. Axioms are accepted as absolutes.

So as far as absolutes, you have no firmer stance in your world view than do I for mine.

If the conclusion of a paper is not based on objective data then the paper does not make it through peer review (or at least, it shouldn't). Go to www.pubmed.com and find a paper that is not based on objective data.

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]"Memes" as Infectious Agents in Psychosomatic Illness[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/131/11/867
A Meme's Eye View of Speech-Language Pathology

http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/105
[SIZE=+1]On meme--gene coevolution.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11224917&dopt=Abstract
[/SIZE]
The mystery of altruism and transcultural nursing.

Dowd S, Davidhizar R, Giger JN.
School of Health Related Professionals, Medical Imaging and Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA.
Why do some individuals choose the professions they do? Is it for altruistic reasons? This article examines this question from the standpoints of sociobiology, evolutionary biology, game theory, and memetics. Implications for transcultural nursing are included. The Giger-Davidhizar Transcultural Assessment Model is presented as a nursing model and might explain altruism even beyond other models. An overview of the Giger-Davidhizar Transcultural Assessment Model is included.
PMID: 17314628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



Continuing in next post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

For science, the data needs to be objective. The conclusions based on that evidence are tentative and not considered to be "true", only tentatively supported. If you think the data is wrong then should be able to, in principle, to run the experiment yourself and compare results. For fossils, you should get the same measurements for bones, find the same origin and insertion sites for muscles, etc.

True, so we may have volumes of support for something..anything and if we find one piece of evidence that falsifies the volumes of support then all that evidence that supported the conclusion was false even though it looked as if it supported the conclusion. Correct?

Science is set up so that it is highly competitive. Scientists compete for limited money and limited positions. There is no reward for agreeing with faulty interpretations. There is great reward in getting rid of your competition.

I think this is true to an extent.

Examples?

Conditions on early earth, fossils found that refute earlier theories of evolutionary time lines.

Care to give an example? If we deal with a specific example I think we can come to an agreement about what is objective and what tentative conclusions are.

Sorry, I can't think of anything right this minute. I do want to change something I said though, when I said more often than not, I take that back. It is common but I don't think it could be said to be more often than not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Quote:
Originally Posted by automan

So you think all of the Mormons living in Salt Lake City are Mormons because they chose or choose to be Mormons?

This makes me laugh, really. Do you think that Salt Lake city makes the Mormon? Mormons moved to the city and that is why it is full of Mormons.

Quote:

The world is NOT mostly Christian, if you think that the most widely spoken language in the world is Mandarin Chinese it stands to reason Christianity is only a small cog in the wheel of the worlds religions, not to mention Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and hundreds of other religions you and I have never heard of.

Let me clarify my statement. For those who profess a religion Christianity is the largest. There are more Christians in the world than there are Islamics for instance although that is changing.

What are the world's major religions and how do they differ?
Religion in the modern world is dominated by Christianity and Islam, both of which share an ancestry with Middle East Judaism. It is indeed fascinating that these religions, which began in such a small and remote area, could have so quickly and universally spread throughout most of the world
Today, there is a consistent geographic pattern in the distribution of the world's religions which crosses national borders. In terms of the number of believers, Christianity has the most global adherents, followed by Islam. But primarily due to comparative geographic birth rates, the number of Islam adherents is increasing steadily. In numbers of modern day converts, Shiite Islamics have gained the most, followed by Christian Protestants.
Among Christians, the number of Protestants is increasing at the expense of Catholics. The U.S. remains overwhelmingly Christian although the percentage of the population indicating this preference has dropped from over 90% to 75% over the last 20 years.

I think you said yourself that 3/4 of Americans were Christians, so had I been raised in the US the odds are 3 to 1 ON that I would be a Christian, had we both been born in Mexico the odds are we would be Catholics, the same with Spain, Iran a Muslim, Greece a Greek orthodox, so are you telling me that everyone in all of these countries chose the religion they believe in?

The fact that Christianity is the largest religion worldwide that would counter what you are claiming.

Quote:

Just because you tell us you are strong enough to choose to be a creationist does not mean all creationists choose to be creationists.
But to be honest I have a very skewed view of All religions.
Quote:

You do realize that not all Christians are Creationists?

I threw this in just in case you accused me of being a woman hater

Never even entered my mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have objective evidence that supports what the Bible says is true and ultimately what God says is true.

And it is . . .?

That is very true, but we can't both be right. One must be wrong.

So how, outside of subjective experiences, do we determine who is right? Maybe we are both wrong and the Hindus are right.

Regardless, the Hindu's world view holds to many gods.

None of which is the God that you believe in. If a hindu can delude himself into believing in a non-existent god (according to your beliefs), then how do you know that you are not deluded? How can I, someone who does not adhere to either belief, choose one subjective spiritual experience over another? What gives one subjective experience more importance than another?

But you yourself said that things like love and the supernatural are not evaluated by Science. So how can you determine by Science whether the supernatural is not needed?

What supernatural? You are begging the question.

Exactly, so why do claim that since we can't prove God scientifically God must not exist. Science says nothing about the supernatural by design, so it can hardly falsify something it says nothing about.

I don't claim that God does not exist. I claim that there is no evidence for God or any of the gods that people have believed in through the ages, many of which you disbelieve in as well. I fully admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, there is no reason to believe that something DOES exist without evidence for it.

So as far as absolutes, you have no firmer stance in your world view than do I for mine.

I am not the one claiming absolutes.

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]"Memes" as Infectious Agents in Psychosomatic Illness[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/131/11/867
A Meme's Eye View of Speech-Language Pathology

http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/105
[SIZE=+1]On meme--gene coevolution.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11224917&dopt=Abstract[/SIZE]

The mystery of altruism and transcultural nursing.

Dowd S, Davidhizar R, Giger JN.
School of Health Related Professionals, Medical Imaging and Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA.
Why do some individuals choose the professions they do? Is it for altruistic reasons? This article examines this question from the standpoints of sociobiology, evolutionary biology, game theory, and memetics. Implications for transcultural nursing are included. The Giger-Davidhizar Transcultural Assessment Model is presented as a nursing model and might explain altruism even beyond other models. An overview of the Giger-Davidhizar Transcultural Assessment Model is included.
PMID: 17314628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I will take a look at this and get back to you.

In the mean time, I will say this. There is an old saw in science that says "You are entitled to personal interpretations but no one is entitled to personal facts." Facts are the objective data that I am talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

True, so we may have volumes of support for something..anything and if we find one piece of evidence that falsifies the volumes of support then all that evidence that supported the conclusion was false even though it looked as if it supported the conclusion. Correct?

Evidence can only falsify theories, not facts. Evidence can not falsify support for a theory, it can only falsify the theory. For example, Young's double slit experiment still supports that idea that light is a wave. It still does. However, Einstein's photoelectric effect falsified the idea that light was only a wave. It's not as if one day the double slit experiment worked and the next it didn't.

Conditions on early earth, fossils found that refute earlier theories of evolutionary time lines.

As new data is uncovered they had to readjust their models. What is wrong with that? It's not as if early data had to disappear. As new data is produced the models will have to be readjusted to fit ALL of the data, both the old and new. This is why every scientific theory and conclusion is tentative.

Sorry, I can't think of anything right this minute. I do want to change something I said though, when I said more often than not, I take that back. It is common but I don't think it could be said to be more often than not.

That's cool. Might I suggest ERV's as a good example?

 

[automan]

Quote:

I think you said yourself that 3/4 of Americans were Christians, so had I been raised in the US the odds are 3 to 1 ON that I would be a Christian, had we both been born in Mexico the odds are we would be Catholics, the same with Spain, Iran a Muslim, Greece a Greek orthodox, so are you telling me that everyone in all of these countries chose the religion they believe in?

The fact that Christianity is the largest religion worldwide that would counter what you are claiming.

Sorry Oncedeceived but that does not answer my question, please read the question and try and answer it again.

On the subject of Christianity being the largest religion, all of the countries listed are quite big but they
are sparsely populated, India has over a billion people and China has 1.4 billion that is more than the population
of the rest of the world put together (there are only 4 billion people on this planet)
and neither of these countries are Christian countries.

But enough of this, suffice to say there are hundreds of other religions beside Christianity and according
to you they are all the wrong ones, only Christianity is the right religion, that's not much good to someone
born in a country that has never heard of Christianity is it? what happens to them?

 

[Loudmouth]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]"Memes" as Infectious Agents in Psychosomatic Illness[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/131/11/867

This was an article that you claim lacks objective data.

I would disagree. The author's argument is based on very objective data, that people can develop diseases where the only causitive agent is a suggestion. This is a well known mechanism, closely related to the Placebo Effect. What I disagree with is the "Meme theory" itself, that ideas spread like infectious diseases or genes. This theory fails to provide workable hypotheses at this time, at least in my opinion. The authors of this paper try to flesh out Meme theory through the use of objective data. Here is the data I am talking about, from the paper:

"Can a mere idea cause medical pathology? Many authors would say yes. It has been claimed, for instance, that fibromyalgia, the irritable bowel syndrome, and the chronic fatigue syndrome are iatrogenic—that these are not simply methods for classifying illness, but that these nosologic constructions actually induce and sustain illness in susceptible persons (1)."

 

[arensb]

So you think that Jesus was not a good teacher?

Look at the number of times he complains that his disciples don't understand his parables. Clearly his teaching methods weren't working. Maybe he should have taught some other way.

In a purely evolutionary world view truth is lacking. What is there in an evolutionary process that would establish truth?

What does this mean?

May I assume that Christianity is offensive to you?

There are certainly bad aspects to it: the idea of torturing someone forever for a finite crime is morally bankrupt. The idea that faith is intrinsically a good thing is bogus. "Take no care for the morrow" is irresponsible. And of course, the whole notion that God had to sacrifice himself to himself to create a loophole in his own rule to forgive us for the offenses committed by a couple of people thousands of years before we were born is utter lunacy.

Would I then equally assume that you would not want the God that would be real to be Him?

What I want has nothing to do with how the world is.

Yes, I feel that if God were to reveal Himself before the time He has planned it would violate our free will.

So what you're saying is that we have less free will than Satan, or Adam and Eve, right?

 

[wmc1982]

I am a creationist because God told me thats how He did it, and I don't question Him. Although in my learning experiences I have found much to back it all up.

 

[lemmings]

I am a creationist because God told me thats how He did it, and I don't question Him. Although in my learning experiences I have found much to back it all up.

I am a evolutionist because God SHOWED us how he did it. I didn’t just listen to a book that another man wrote.

 

[arensb]

The abuses that I describe were nothing like what the founding fathers were fearful of. Taxation and lack of freedom of thought were the real problems. Freedom of religion is consistent with Christianity. Freedom to choose. No one in the United States is forced to become a Christian at the threat of losing one's life.

Right. The founding fathers couldn't possibly have known anything about the persecution of Catholics in 16th century England, or that of Protestants in Spain and Italy. Or Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies". Or any of the passages in the Old Testament where God orders the destruction of other religions' temples, idols, etc.

Freedom to choose might be consistent with Christianity, but so is persecution.

 

[tanzanos]

I am a creationist because God told me thats how He did it, and I don't question Him. Although in my learning experiences I have found much to back it all up.

Did he call you on your cell phone? or did he send you an e-mail? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the mode of communication with God?
Please don't mention the Bible because if that is the case than I too have heard Gods words and they are not pleasant I assure you. The less I have to do with him the better. Something like knowing the Mafia Boss, and staying well clear off him!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am a creationist because God told me thats how He did it,

This is your subjective experiance. May I ask how you conquered Descartes' demon, and know that your revelation did not come from a source that is not of your god? Say, perhaps, Satan, Lord of Lies?

and I don't question Him.

Why not? Question everything, even this sentence.

Although in my learning experiences I have found much to back it all up.

Now, I would like to learn of some of these experiances that back Creationism. I have been searching far and wide for support for Creationism, and have yet to find any.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did he call you on your cell phone? or did he send you an e-mail? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the mode of communication with God?
Please don't mention the Bible because if that is the case than I too have heard Gods words and they are not pleasant I assure you. The less I have to do with him the better. Something like knowing the Mafia Boss, and staying well clear off him!

Tanzanos, I must say, I find your tone here most unbecoming. I'm sure you're aware of the possibility of personal revelation, however remote that may be.

 

[Upisoft]

I am a creationist because God told me thats how He did it, and I don't question Him. Although in my learning experiences I have found much to back it all up.

When have God told you that? Will you share what have God told you?