Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[AV1611VET]

What would be the official ruling if Genesis 1 was submitted for peer review to substantiate Creation?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

What would be the official ruling if Genesis 1 was submitted for peer review to substantiate Creation?

Now there's a funny mental picture. Thanks. I needed a laugh.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now there's a funny mental picture. Thanks. I needed a laugh.

Glad I didn't ask about the whole Bible!

 

[Aron-Ra]

It is my personal belief that creationists and evolutionists are largely reflective of different personality types. If you are born with one personality type, you will see truth for yourself in the creationist perspective, and if you are born with the opposite personality type, you will see truth for yourself in the evolutionist perspective. Of course you may disagree with me, but that's how I see it. We will find our truths wherever we are predisposed. We will regard as evidence what we wish, and reject counter-evidences that do not prealign with our perspectives. And we will believe ourselves more logical than our opponents in doing so.

I do disagree, sir. I disagree because I can't choose to believe something and then deliberately believe it. I can't believe as an act of will because my beliefs are not a conscious choice for me the way it is for people of faith. Whatever I believe is a tentative perspective controlled by the evidence as I understand it. In other words, if you show me any logical argument or accurate data to imply another position, my mind will obligately change whether I want to believe the new perspective or not. But the faith-based mindset is able to ignore or dismiss anything and everything necessary simply by saying "that doesn't prove anything" regardless what they're shown. There is no circumstance where one can't deny something this way. The holocaust, the lunar landing and the death of Elvis can all be easily and thoughtlessly dismissed with this simple phrase. The same thing goes for rammifications of the environment, overpopulation, or what Bush will get away with now that Congress has passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Anything you don't want to know about can be ignored or blotted out by faith. You can't show anyone anything if they insist on keeping their eyes closed. That is not my way, nor could it be. I can't decide to ignore anything.

Similarly, I can't have any degree of conviction about anything that might be true without some substantial positive indication that it is true. But faith permits one to select any weird notion one likes and become stoicly convinced of that with complete certainty even if its something that person made up in his own mind, and even if that idea is both impossible and already disproved because it stands counter to everything anyone knows about anything. It comes down to a matter of faith vs reason. That, and the fact that all my experience shows that creationism is unreasonable, irrational, and illogical, based on emotion (primarily fear) is deliberately dishonest, and serves as a platform for the politics of prejudice and paranoia. Science on the other hand isn't a political platform the way anti-science is. Science is all about improving understanding, and that's its only purpose. That is also the only option because reality is still true whether we want to believe it or not, and wishing to believe something else ain't gonna change that.

 

[Aron-Ra]

What would be the official ruling if Genesis 1 was submitted for peer review to substantiate Creation?

About the same thing as the ruling would be if Vedic scriptures were submitted instead.

The Torah, the gospels, the Qu'ran, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Adi Granth, the Avestas of Zoroaster, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Book of Mormon and the Urantia Book are all declared to be the "absolute truth" and the "revealed word" of the "one true god", and believers of any of these assume those who believe in the others are all deceived.

 

[milkyway]

In people's personal lives. Scientific principles function great in test labs, but they often lack in interpersonal relationships, for example.

Such as? Can you be more specific? You're being a bit vague.

If I present a question, then it is not an answer. It is best for you not to interpret a question as an answer to another question. A question is a question and an answer is an answer. If you encountered a question while looking for an answer, then you will have surely disappointed yourself.

Nor will I offer you any in your lack of specificity. I'm not quite certain that your want is worthy of my effort. On what specific topic or issue are you searching for substance? Please be specific.

What a bizarre response! Has anyone ever suggested to you that the scientific method be used to conduct interpersonal relationships?

 

[razzelflabben]

What would be the official ruling if Genesis 1 was submitted for peer review to substantiate Creation?

My guess, that it isn't intended to be a scientific paper of explaination for the origins of life.

 

[razzelflabben]

I do disagree, sir. I disagree because I can't choose to believe something and then deliberately believe it. I can't believe as an act of will because my beliefs are not a conscious choice for me the way it is for people of faith. Whatever I believe is a tentative perspective controlled by the evidence as I understand it. In other words, if you show me any logical argument or accurate data to imply another position, my mind will obligately change whether I want to believe the new perspective or not. But the faith-based mindset is able to ignore or dismiss anything and everything necessary simply by saying "that doesn't prove anything" regardless what they're shown. There is no circumstance where one can't deny something this way. The holocaust, the lunar landing and the death of Elvis can all be easily and thoughtlessly dismissed with this simple phrase. The same thing goes for rammifications of the environment, overpopulation, or what Bush will get away with now that Congress has passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Anything you don't want to know about can be ignored or blotted out by faith. You can't show anyone anything if they insist on keeping their eyes closed. That is not my way, nor could it be. I can't decide to ignore anything.

Similarly, I can't have any degree of conviction about anything that might be true without some substantial positive indication that it is true. But faith permits one to select any weird notion one likes and become stoicly convinced of that with complete certainty even if its something that person made up in his own mind, and even if that idea is both impossible and already disproved because it stands counter to everything anyone knows about anything. It comes down to a matter of faith vs reason. That, and the fact that all my experience shows that creationism is unreasonable, irrational, and illogical, based on emotion (primarily fear) is deliberately dishonest, and serves as a platform for the politics of prejudice and paranoia. Science on the other hand isn't a political platform the way anti-science is. Science is all about improving understanding, and that's its only purpose. That is also the only option because reality is still true whether we want to believe it or not, and wishing to believe something else ain't gonna change that.

Let's try a little experiment, shall we? Let's use the evidence that we exist, the universe is vast and works, that "miracles" that is things that defy our logic happen. That's enough evidnece to start us off. Now, it seems to me that all this evidence has two possibles. 1. There is a God who created, and defies the natural way things work or 2. There is no God and therefore no order to the world.

If one is true, then belief in God is rational and offers more than simple blind faith, (the blind faith part comes later.) If two is true, then science is worthless because there are no absolutes for us to study. Which do you choose?

 

[Nooj]

There is no God and therefore no order to the world.

Who says a universe without God is disorderly? Why would it be?

 

[Tomk80]

Let's try a little experiment, shall we? Let's use the evidence that we exist, the universe is vast and works, that "miracles" that is things that defy our logic happen. That's enough evidnece to start us off. Now, it seems to me that all this evidence has two possibles. 1. There is a God who created, and defies the natural way things work or 2. There is no God and therefore no order to the world.

If one is true, then belief in God is rational and offers more than simple blind faith, (the blind faith part comes later.) If two is true, then science is worthless because there are no absolutes for us to study. Which do you choose?

I choose 3: There are absolutes, even without God, and science sets out to study these.

Why would there be no absolutes if God does not exist?

 

[razzelflabben]

About the same thing as the ruling would be if Vedic scriptures were submitted instead.

The Torah, the gospels, the Qu'ran, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Adi Granth, the Avestas of Zoroaster, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Book of Mormon and the Urantia Book are all declared to be the "absolute truth" and the "revealed word" of the "one true god", and believers of any of these assume those who believe in the others are all deceived.

Which is an interesting observation when talking about Gen. Gen. is an argument for why one should believe in God and not all the gods others worship. Whether or not you find the arguement convencing in a matter or personal conviction.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Let's try a little experiment, shall we? Let's use the evidence that we exist, the universe is vast and works, that "miracles" that is things that defy our logic happen. That's enough evidnece to start us off. Now, it seems to me that all this evidence has two possibles. 1. There is a God who created, and defies the natural way things work or 2. There is no God and therefore no order to the world.

If one is true, then belief in God is rational and offers more than simple blind faith, (the blind faith part comes later.) If two is true, then science is worthless because there are no absolutes for us to study. Which do you choose?

If option one is true, then there should have been some evidence of a positive nature to indicate that, and that something shouldn't be limited to the imaginative folklore of superstitious primitives. Also if option one is true, then nothing in the universe makes any sense anymore. If option two is true, and that seems infinitely more probable, then there is order in the world, and science has value where it couldn't under option one. But there are few (if any) absolutes under either option.

 

[razzelflabben]

Who says a universe without God is disorderly? Why would it be?

If there are things that defy order, thus defined loosely as miracles, then the universe is without order. God, if He is the creator of the world, can and according to the bible and common belief, orders it, therefore, just as a computer functions by commands given it, the universe would also function by commands and could step out of the realm of what we deem logical order, at God's will.

Point is this, with God, there is a reason for things to be disorderly, without God, we have chaos. There are some common schools of thought that the universe is just that, chaos.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Point is this, with God, there is a reason for things to be disorderly, without God, we have chaos. There are some common schools of thought that the universe is just that, chaos.

Wow. So God is the reason the world is dis-orderly? God is the cause of chaos? That's a new one.

Without God, however, we will see just what we see. Everything in the universe will either establish equilibrium or be destroyed. And there's no reason to say that either extreme is the result of magic.

 

[razzelflabben]

I choose 3: There are absolutes, even without God, and science sets out to study these.

Why would there be no absolutes if God does not exist?

I am not suggesting there are NO absolutes in that there is nothing we can rely on, but rather that there is always a chance? of that absolute not being absolute at all. This is true in both situations, but one allows for chaos the other, disorder in the midst of order which is exactly what you seem to be looking for as a scientist. Therefore what you are looking for is God without ever accepting the fact that God exists.

 

[Tomk80]

I am not suggesting there are NO absolutes in that there is nothing we can rely on, but rather that there is always a chance? of that absolute not being absolute at all. This is true in both situations, but one allows for chaos the other, disorder in the midst of order which is exactly what you seem to be looking for as a scientist. Therefore what you are looking for is God without ever accepting the fact that God exists.

Okay, so there are in fact absolutes in both scenarios. And we may never be able to find those in both scenario's, I agree.

But the rest becomes quite a jump in logic. What scientists are looking for is a description of reality. Whether this will lead to finding chaos or to order is irrelevant. And how does finding chaos suddenly equate to finding God?

 

[TeddyKGB]

If there are things that defy order, thus defined loosely as miracles, then the universe is without order. God, if He is the creator of the world, can and according to the bible and common belief, orders it, therefore, just as a computer functions by commands given it, the universe would also function by commands and could step out of the realm of what we deem logical order, at God's will.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he hops.

Your chain of thought is impenetrable. There is no justification to assume a priori a disorderly universe. There is no justification to assume a priori that God is a consistently stabilizing force. In fact, miracles provide a good reason to think a God-present world is not always orderly.

Point is this, with God, there is a reason for things to be disorderly, without God, we have chaos. There are some common schools of thought that the universe is just that, chaos.

Chaos theory does not mean what you think it means.

 

[razzelflabben]

If option one is true, then there should have been some evidence of a positive nature to indicate that, and that something shouldn't be limited to the imaginative folklore of superstitious primitives. Also if option one is true, then nothing in the universe makes any sense anymore. If option two is true, and that seems infinitely more probable, then there is order in the world, and science has value where it couldn't under option one. But there are few (if any) absolutes under either option.

I suddenly feel like we are hijacking this thread, but let's deal with it for a moment and if we need to move the discussion I'm good with that.
1. If God does exist
a.many believe that there is positive evidence for God, things like the beauty of life, the complexity, history, spiritual renewal. I even resently read about an experiment done in which a person was weighed before death and then again at the moment of death in order to see how much the soul weighs. Interestingly, there was a weight difference. This would indicate some kind of positive evidence of the supernatural existance of a god. We could go on, but we don't have all day. The very world around us, boasts of a force or being beyond the chance and it is this very evidence that seems to be at the core of the creationists belief. (now before you judge me as a creationist, I do not hold to the traditional creationist beliefs so don't even go there or this will turn into the usual abusive debate real soon. You need to listen to what I am saying not label me)
b. The universe suddenly does make sense rather than not make sense. If God exists then there are forces outside our world that control our world. For example, why does the wind blow, where does it start? The wind has no beginning or end. What makes DNA function, how does the mind work, we know some basics, but for every qestion we answer there are infanitely more to ask, this makes sense if there is a God who created it because it means that a being greater than our intellect created. In fact, the bible tells us that it is good to explore and look for the answers that God has hidden from man. That in short means that God wants us to be scientists, asking questions and exploreing.
2. There is no God.
a. As to probability, that would be very improbable but that is another discussion all together and your premis seems to be that there is no God so we will leave that one for the moment.
b. It does nothing more for the need or desire of science than if there is a God. In fact, see above where the bible encourages exploration and questions.

So then what are we left with. From a scientific standpoint, either option is possible. From a logical standpoint, there is more evidence to support God than not. So you need to sit down with your scientific mind and ask yourself if you are as scientificly minded as you think you are. You read the words I type, but you can not see me nor evidence my existance beyond, do you believe I exist? God put His fingerprint all over the place, but if your premis is that He doesn't exist, He won't exist for you. Plain and simple, just doen't go around saying there is no evidence, there is more evidence for His existance than for His non existance.

 

[razzelflabben]

Wow. So God is the reason the world is dis-orderly? God is the cause of chaos? That's a new one.

Without God, however, we will see just what we see. Everything in the universe will either establish equilibrium or be destroyed. And there's no reason to say that either extreme is the result of magic.

Me doest think thou protesteth too loudly.

What I am saying is that if there is a God, chaos isn't chaos at all. What we deem disorderly, is really order. What we see as chaos is'nt chaos at all, it provides a different mindset, a different set of options to the world and our understanding of the world.

Look at it this way, there is an old saying that there are two sides to every story. The same can apply here, there are two sides to the issue, either there is a God or there isn't. What would there being a God change about our understanding of the world. Well, if you "trust" God, then it will all come out in the end, if you don't "trust" God, then God is evil and vindictive and doesn't care about His creation.
If there is no God then there are no absolutes because even if I test the same thing a million times with the same results, the million and one time could show something different, therefore,science has no real meaning because it cannot lead us to truth since truth relies on consistancy.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Look at it this way, there is an old saying that there are two sides to every story. The same can apply here, there are two sides to the issue, either there is a God or there isn't. What would there being a God change about our understanding of the world. Well, if you "trust" God, then it will all come out in the end, if you don't "trust" God, then God is evil and vindictive and doesn't care about His creation.

Or God never existed in the first place, which is infinitely more likely. You can't be evil if you don't even exist. Only your believers can be evil in that case. Everything you see as evidence of his being I see as indicating the contrary. But more than that, since there never was any positive evidence of such a thing, since people often admit they believe in gods for no other reason than their emotional need (which I don't understand because I don't share it) and since there are hundreds of conflicting denominations just within Christianity -to say nothing of all the other religions, and while everyone claims theirs is the "absolute truth" (a logical impossibility) and none among them ever had any way to verify if their beliefs were any more accurate than anyone else's -and since no one can even show that their religious beliefs weren't simply made up out of nothing, then I have no reason to believe in gods and plenty of good reasons not to.

If there is no God then there are no absolutes because even if I test the same thing a million times with the same results, the million and one time could show something different, therefore,science has no real meaning because it cannot lead us to truth since truth relies on consistancy.

So you agree then that if God exists then nature makes no sense anymore.