Do creationists have anything new?

[Jose Fly]

You think they are failed, they dont

How so? What specifically can you point to to indicate that creationist arguments have been scientifically successful?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Right, exactly as I described.
So now the question is, do you apply this same line of reasoning to other areas? For example, if we can find cases of deliberate fraud within the history of say.....Christianity, would you apply the same standard you do to science, and conclude that those who rely on Christianity to understand reality run the risk of their idea of reality being fraudulent?

Of course its possible that God does not exist. I can not agree with some of my christian peers that its 100% sure thing that God exists. So I believe its 99.9% too the hundredth power that God exists! That is something we can't change. Also the real question is does God exist, not does God fit to an accuracy of 100% every attribute that MAN has assigned to him via religion. So we all have choices to make. Science by its very nature relies on falsification as part of its methodology. There reasons other than the above to choose belief in God as my primary way to define religion.

I guess I'm still at a loss to understand your point then. Now it looks like you're saying, yes there are cases of fraud in the history of science, but it's no big deal because science eventually corrects itself, and because of that we shouldn't "give up on it".

I do appreciate your efforts in understanding me, creative writing, especially when writing about moderately advanced subjects is so difficult for me! So I apologize. That said I agree with what you said but sill you missed the point. As I've said many times on this forum, I love science. It's the best tool we have for discovery and applied science is indispensable in the modern age . We have built our modern world around it. However we should not risk our soul for choosing science over religion.

So if science is no more or less prone to frauds than any other human endeavor, and it has a built-in process for identifying and correcting fraud, then what was your point in citing Piltdown Man?

I suspect you think I chose piltdown man just to irritate ya'all', lol, I can assure you that's not the case! As I have said Piltdown is an instantly recognizable easy to find, easy to understand reference. Pilt has all the whistles and encapsulates the damaging aspects of fraud especially for those that may not know of sciences relationship with fraud. Thanks for your reply ~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Ok, but first you must define what you mean by "god" to a level that some determination of existence can be made.

The properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence themselves are not reasonable properties for consideration.

God can be described as the force that designed and created the universe. God is what all religions try to base their religions on. Specific details are more difficult to list if only because the number of Man made properties the many religions claim. In my opinion all religions are less than accurate. Some more than others.

The quality of being omnipotent (all powerful) is an impossible property, either in reality or even in the imagination. Quite simply, can an omnipotent being make an object so big that even he can't lift it? Any answer leads to a being that is less than omnipotent. We know this as kids, but are quickly taught to not ask such questions.

I envision God being atemporal (eternal if you must) and exists outside time and our universe. Even saying Gods realm is dimensional is risky, but if everything is material in some sense and there is no supernatural events etc then God may exist in a unknown dimension. There are good biblical references to your concerns about the big rock question. If you really are interested I will dig then up. Its when Lucifer was tempting Jesus,,,,ummm...

Omniscient (all knowing) doesn't fair any better really. An omniscient being would know everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Which makes all human activity preordained, even me typing these words would be scripted and known by such a being from time immemorial.

From the time of the first religion I have no doubt that philosophers and others have different ideas hat God is and what he or it looks like. Modern Philosophers and theists we well as those ancient thinkers have addressed that question. If you would be specific I would be happy to link you to them. However I will tell you my personal belief. I think God designed our material universe to run on probabilities just as quantum physics describes (on a micro level). It is those kinds of probabilities that give man a freewill existence when created by an all knowing designer. The universe is not preordained its ordained to a supernaturally high level of percentage. We humans can design and build sophisticated electronics to a cell phone using quantum calculations that are not precise measurements but only probabilities. God builds universes using something similar.

Omnibenevolence (all loving) leads to the problem of evil. Which is, as Epicurus put it: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Again I can direct you to a very good source (Dr William Craig PhD ThD). I disagree with his complicated theory about why we have free will, but think he is spot on on the problem with evil. Here is the link; The Problem of Evil | Reasonable Faith

And when you start to combine these properties with something like "creator of everything" and "hell" you invariably end up with a horrific monster deity that defies rational justification.

I can understand how someone that is an unbeliever, and someone that has a limited knowledge of scripture can think of God as a monster. Personally speaking I will take God anyway when one considers the alternatives.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

How so? What specifically can you point to to indicate that creationist arguments have been scientifically successful?

I think Jenny means some of the Creationists present debatable material. For example Behe* and others are defending their publications and claims.
*...(Behe....PhD evolutionary Biology and author)

All that said, I feel creationist should bend together and develop a standard progressive theory. Until then they will not be taken seriously. However infighting has made that impossible for the near term.

 

[Thumper]

....
I can understand how someone that is an unbeliever, and someone that has a limited knowledge of scripture can think of God as a monster. Personally speaking I will take God anyway when one considers the alternatives.

Actually I studied to be a minister in college back in the '70s. My Bible was an interlinear text with Hebrew O.T. & Greek N.T. Lots of classes on apologetic arguments, Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, etc. Been there, done that. Ended up changing my major. I don't see how anyone who really reads the Bible and/or studies the arguments can still believe in any of these myths, but it is an interesting industry.

You mention "the alternatives." Please elucidate.

 

[Thumper]

I think Jenny means some of the Creationists present debatable material. For example Behe* and others are defending their publications and claims.
*...(Behe....PhD evolutionary Biology and author)

All that said, I feel creationist should bend together and develop a standard progressive theory. Until then they will not be taken seriously. However infighting has made that impossible for the near term.

Behe has repeatedly been proven wrong with his "irreducibly complex" arguments, both in the lab and in the courts. And no creationists have yet to produce one piece of verifiable evidence. It produces nothing, while biological evolution studies continue to improve human healthcare, crop production, etc.

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course its possible that God does not exist. I can not agree with some of my christian peers that its 100% sure thing that God exists. So I believe its 99.9% too the hundredth power that God exists! That is something we can't change. Also the real question is does God exist, not does God fit to an accuracy of 100% every attribute that MAN has assigned to him via religion. So we all have choices to make. Science by its very nature relies on falsification as part of its methodology. There reasons other than the above to choose belief in God as my primary way to define religion.

I said nothing at all about the existence of God. Here's the point again......you seemed to be arguing that since there have been frauds and hoaxes in the history of science, if one relies on science to inform their sense of reality they run the risk of having a fraudulent version of reality. My question to you is, do you apply that same line of reasoning to Christianity? And by that I mean, since there have been deliberate frauds and hoaxes in the history of Christianity, if one relies on Christianity to inform their sense of reality, don't they run the risk of having a fraudulent version of reality?

I do appreciate your efforts in understanding me, creative writing, especially when writing about moderately advanced subjects is so difficult for me! So I apologize. That said I agree with what you said but sill you missed the point. As I've said many times on this forum, I love science. It's the best tool we have for discovery and applied science is indispensable in the modern age . We have built our modern world around it. However we should not risk our soul for choosing science over religion.

What do you mean by "choosing science over religion"? Can you give an example?

I suspect you think I chose piltdown man just to irritate ya'all', lol, I can assure you that's not the case! As I have said Piltdown is an instantly recognizable easy to find, easy to understand reference. Pilt has all the whistles and encapsulates the damaging aspects of fraud especially for those that may not know of sciences relationship with fraud. Thanks for your reply ~

Like I said before, I just don't understand your point in bringing it up. Usually creationists do so as part of a rock-throwing exercise against evolutionary biology, in an attempt to cast doubt on all fossils in the human-primate lineage.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think Jenny means some of the Creationists present debatable material.

We'll see I guess.

For example Behe* and others are defending their publications and claims.
*...(Behe....PhD evolutionary Biology and author)

Where? Where has Behe published anything in the scientific literature on ID creationism?

All that said, I feel creationist should bend together and develop a standard progressive theory. Until then they will not be taken seriously. However infighting has made that impossible for the near term.

It's not the infighting, it's that so many of their arguments are just plain wrong. Yet they continue to make them, sometimes for over a century (see OP).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hi Arthra Mr. 'it Ain't Necessarily So' and I came close to missing a good opportunity for mutually beneficial debate between myself, who is attempting to live the life as a Christian and he, who I think is an agnostic or atheist just for the joy of male posturing.

Really? I don't posture in either gender.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again, you have me mixed with the religious community. I don't have a religious affiliation, I have my own belief system based on revelations. I made a mistake coming onto this thread. I forgot I would be labelled a member of the Christian community. I believe the Bible is God's message to humankind, but, based on a dream, I don't believe it is entirely accurate. I accept the idea that science explains how God did it. I don't separate science from God. Therefore, I don't take sides. It is a big mistake to assume God has nothing to do with nature, humans, and the universe. You can try, but it is not possible. Look around and see the consequences of God's creation.

You sound religious to me. You refer to gods as if they are real. How is that not religious?

 

[Repox]

You sound religious to me. You refer to gods as if they are real. How is that not religious?

I suppose so. I don't have a religious affiliation, so I am somewhat religious. However, I don't believe in gods, just the one God, the OT Lord. I base my ideas about God on revelations from dreams and visions. However, what I believe doesn't really fit anywhere.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Firstly God can not and has not be proved false. God is the main player unlike in science where there is no central leader or component that causes a system failure for lack of a better word. The moral of this reply is this; if anyone can prove God does not exist I will be the first to become atheist.

There is no need to prove all gods or any particular god false to be an atheist. We should all be atheists until somebody can demonstrate a god.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

one day if greed does not destroy us first maybe science will redeem itself....that's a big MAYBE!

What would science need to redeem itself from? The attacks of creationists? They have no meaning outside of creationist circles. The scientific community isn't interested in the religious agenda. Science is doing just fine. It is well respected everywhere else, and most people are grateful for its gifts.

Now if you want to talk about a need for redemption, organized, politicized religion has a lot of 'splainin' to do. It has been impeding the progress of mankind and dividing its people for millennia. It can never make up for that. It offers nothing but false hope that people don't need unless they are raised in religion. Without religion, we can learn to be people with no need for those kinds of ideas.

I did. I have no need for false hope and promises that don't need to be kept.

"It is no defense of superstition and pseudoscience to say that it brings solace and comfort to people…If solace and comfort are how we judge the worth of something, then consider that tobacco brings solace and comfort to smokers; alcohol brings it to drinkers; drugs of all kinds bring it to addicts; the fall of cards and the run of horses bring it to gamblers; cruelty and violence bring it to sociopaths. Judge by solace and comfort only and there is no behavior we ought to interfere with." - Isaac Asimov

Reality is a little intimidating as we learn to grapple with it, but with perseverance, one can learn to stand upright and face it on its own terms. One can stand up like the bipedal ape he was born to be, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. Then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years.

Accept that you may be vulnerable and not watched over.

Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finititude.

Accept the reality of your insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by some of the creatures living on the surface of a small planet.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

Religion Western style robs us of that opportunity and experience. It keeps people in an immature and relatively undeveloped state. You live life in a psychological state of dependency on a cosmic baby sitter watching you 24/7. You know the ill effect that treating children that way has. They need to be given a little latitude to develop into mature adults.

Or how about the people that say that life has no meaning from an atheistic worldview? What are they telling us about their spiritual development? They're telling us that they define meaning in terms of the opportunity to praise a god for eternity, without which, why live? How much less meaningful can existence get than that?

Or how about those that tell us that there is no reason not to steal and kill without a god belief. What are they telling us about their moral development? They're telling us that they never developed an internal moral compass. They have no concept of being good for goodness sake. They apparently don't know the pleasure of living a life well lived.

How about the concept of love in Western religion? It's tied to blood sacrifice. It's ascribed to a deity willing to keep the dead conscious just to torture them for not submitting to a book and the will of a priesthood. A mature concept of love is nothing like that.

Or justice. Where is the justice in deciding the fate of a soul based on whether it submitted to these ideas when alive? Where's the accountability for crimes gotten away with? Where's the reward for a lifetime of loving service to mankind and the beasts lived outside of religion. There is none. None of that has any value in that system.

Or where is the justice in seeding the earth with stratified fossils and nested anatomical, biochemical, and genetic hierarchies, giving man reason, and then punishing him for believing the physical evidence over an ancient holy book filled with internal contradictions, unkept promises, failed prophecies, intellectual and moral errors attributed to a deity, and errors in science and history?

So, no, it's not science that needs redeeming. It's this terrible ideology and the institution that administers and promotes it that has so much to answer for.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose so. I don't have a religious affiliation, so I am somewhat religious. However, I don't believe in gods, just the one God, the OT Lord. I base my ideas about God on revelations from dreams and visions. However, what I believe doesn't really fit anywhere.

OK, thanks for that clarification.

Today, the word "freethinker" is generally another synonym for atheist, unbeliever, and skeptic. But I think it used to refer to people like you that were theists, but didn't adhere to the orthodoxy of any religion.

I notice that you limited God to the Old Testament. Not Jesus?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All right, you want something new, well here it is: There is not one word in the Bible against evolution, in fact the Bible supports evolution! Here is the proof: After the flood God said to Noah "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Why did God use the word "replenish"? The reason God used the word replenish is because everyone else had died in the flood. But it just so happens that God said exactly the same words to Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Question: who was Adam and Eve replacing? The answer is the "ape men". It was God who created evolution, in fact as I see it, God himself is a product of evolution. If one understands what Satan is trying to do, and understands what God is trying to do one knows fairly well what is going on in a basic sort of way. Satan is trying to become god, God is trying to create the perfect existence. God has been at this endeavor for a long time and is going to achieve it, that is why it is called "The Great Day Of The Lord".

Why do you suppose that God not only allows Satan to continue to exist, but gave him access to earth and humanity?

 

[Thumper]

What would science need to redeem itself from? The attacks of creationists? They have no meaning outside of creationist circles. The scientific community isn't interested in the religious agenda. Science is doing just fine. It is well respected everywhere else, and most people are grateful for its gifts.

Now if you want to talk about a need for redemption, organized, politicized religion has a lot of 'splainin' to do. It has been impeding the progress of mankind and dividing its people for millennia. It can never make up for that. It offers nothing but false hope that people don't need unless they are raised in religion. Without religion, we can learn to be people with no need for those kinds of ideas.

I did. I have no need for false hope and promises that don't need to be kept.

"It is no defense of superstition and pseudoscience to say that it brings solace and comfort to peopleÂ…If solace and comfort are how we judge the worth of something, then consider that tobacco brings solace and comfort to smokers; alcohol brings it to drinkers; drugs of all kinds bring it to addicts; the fall of cards and the run of horses bring it to gamblers; cruelty and violence bring it to sociopaths. Judge by solace and comfort only and there is no behavior we ought to interfere with." - Isaac Asimov

Reality is a little intimidating as we learn to grapple with it, but with perseverance, one can learn to stand upright and face it on its own terms. One can stand up like the bipedal ape he was born to be, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. Then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years.

Accept that you may be vulnerable and not watched over.

Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finititude.

Accept the reality of your insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by some of the creatures living on the surface of a small planet.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

Religion Western style robs us of that opportunity and experience. It keeps people in an immature and relatively undeveloped state. You live life in a psychological state of dependency on a cosmic baby sitter watching you 24/7. You know the ill effect that treating children that way has. They need to be given a little latitude to develop into mature adults.

Or how about the people that say that life has no meaning from an atheistic worldview? What are they telling us about their spiritual development? They're telling us that they define meaning in terms of the opportunity to praise a god for eternity, without which, why live? How much less meaningful can existence get than that?

Or how about those that tell us that there is no reason not to steal and kill without a god belief. What are they telling us about their moral development? They're telling us that they never developed an internal moral compass. They have no concept of being good for goodness sake. They apparently don't know the pleasure of living a life well lived.

How about the concept of love in Western religion? It's tied to blood sacrifice. It's ascribed to a deity willing to keep the dead conscious just to torture them for not submitting to a book and the will of a priesthood. A mature concept of love is nothing like that.

Or justice. Where is the justice in deciding the fate of a soul based on whether it submitted to these ideas when alive? Where's the accountability for crimes gotten away with? Where's the reward for a lifetime of loving service to mankind and the beasts lived outside of religion. There is none. None of that has any value in that system.

Or where is the justice in seeding the earth with stratified fossils and nested anatomical, biochemical, and genetic hierarchies, giving man reason, and then punishing him for believing the physical evidence over an ancient holy book filled with internal contradictions, unkept promises, failed prophecies, intellectual and moral errors attributed to a deity,and errors in science and history?

So, no, it's not science that needs redeeming. It's this terrible ideology and the institution that administers and promotes it that has so much to answer for.

Concise and complete. Well written!

I pulled your quote by Asimov and copied over into "Quotes from Famous Freethinkers"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course its possible that God does not exist. I can not agree with some of my christian peers that its 100% sure thing that God exists. So I believe its 99.9% too the hundredth power that God exists! That is something we can't change. Also the real question is does God exist, not does God fit to an accuracy of 100% every attribute that MAN has assigned to him via religion. So we all have choices to make. Science by its very nature relies on falsification as part of its methodology. There reasons other than the above to choose belief in God as my primary way to define religion.



I do appreciate your efforts in understanding me, creative writing, especially when writing about moderately advanced subjects is so difficult for me! So I apologize. That said I agree with what you said but sill you missed the point. As I've said many times on this forum, I love science. It's the best tool we have for discovery and applied science is indispensable in the modern age . We have built our modern world around it. However we should not risk our soul for choosing science over religion.



I suspect you think I chose piltdown man just to irritate ya'all', lol, I can assure you that's not the case! As I have said Piltdown is an instantly recognizable easy to find, easy to understand reference. Pilt has all the whistles and encapsulates the damaging aspects of fraud especially for those that may not know of sciences relationship with fraud. Thanks for your reply ~

What damage did the Piltdown man fraud do? And how does that reflect badly on science?

Although many scientists were not sufficiently skeptical, probably for nationalistic reasons - the Brits really wanted a British apeman ("missing link") - other scientists were skeptical from the start and eventually uncovered the fraud, which was apparently the work of a single man that deceived a gullible but basically honest community. Contrast that with the shroud of Turin, where the church does everything in its power to perpetuate the fraud.

Somebody asked you why you seem to have a double standard regarding fraud in science and fraud in religion. For every example of fraud in science, we can find 200 in religion. How many of these preachers do we have to see convicted of embezzlement or child molestation? Where science goes after it's fraudsters, religion doesn't. The police do. The Catholic church goes out of its way to facilitate its criminal class, which includes not just the pedophiles themselves, but the massive cover-up effort.

If you really have a problem with fraud, you're looking in the wrong direction.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Concise and complete. Well written!

I pulled your quote by Asimov and copied over into "Quotes from Famous Freethinkers"

Thank you.

So, you started a thread? I'll try to find a few good quotes for it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I envision God being atemporal (eternal if you must) and exists outside time and our universe.

What does it mean to say that something exists outside of time? Time is a necessary aspect f existence. If something used to exist, it's time for existing is over. If something will exist, it's time for existing is coming. If something currently exists, the time of its existence includes this moment.

Two other things that require time: thinking and acting. They both require before and after states. Does God think? If so, He exists in time.

 

[Repox]

OK, thanks for that clarification.

Today, the word "freethinker" is generally another synonym for atheist, unbeliever, and skeptic. But I think it used to refer to people like you that were theists, but didn't adhere to the orthodoxy of any religion.

I notice that you limited God to the Old Testament. Not Jesus?

I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, he was God. Therefore, I don't believe much of the New Testament. I believe the Old Testament Lord is God.