Do creationists have anything new?

[arthra]

"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated."

Disagree. Neither has anything to do with the other, and religion brings nothing to science. How could it?

Thanks for your post "It Aint Necessarily So"... I was wondering if you had pondered on some of the statements regarding science and religion composed by Einstein... I offer a brief quote here:

"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described...."

One of the participants in our local Inter-Faith Council was a Muslim physician who was on a committee at the Loma Linda University Medical Center served on a standing committee of the Medical Center dealing with ethics and medical science... so it seems to me there is already a recognition of a need for reflection on issues that can arise between medical science and religious ethics and values that Einstein hinted at in the quote cited above.

 

[Skwim]

I don't believe science knows the real purpose of the universe.

That's because science doesn't believe there is a purpose.

Science could use a creationist explanation for the design of the universe.

No it couldn't because most creationist explanations aren't open to scientific investigation, and those that are have been shown to be phoney.

Science has no idea except for theories related to physical laws or advanced science.

No idea about what?

I have a degree in science, so I don't need a lecture about science.

Okay.

What if God created the universe for Satan? Would science consider the possibility? Probable not, but what if it is true?

Then it would be true, but so what? What if it's true that god is a monkey? Then it would be true, but so what?

It would explain a lot about the universe.

What would it explain about the universe?---The universe as science regards it.

And remember, just because there's an explanation for something doesn't mean it's right or even reasonable

You state, "Interesting that god needs the help of evolution to explain how he did it. As far as evolution itself is concerned, it has no need for god, which is quite apparent to those who are familiar with it."

How is that possible?

It's possible because positing god does nothing to advance the understanding of evolution. If you think it does please share your examples.

Humans on earth are on their own because God has assumed a policy of nonintervention.

Since when? Is there some kind of nonintervention statement in the Bible? Please share.

God is eternal, humans are mortal creatures. Unless you have an understanding of God's purpose you are stuck with secular theories for everything.

Which are far better than myths.

.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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. I think we caught it in time, before any grudges were embedded, and now I am happy when I see his name on a rebuttal or reply. I see you and he are also sorting things out and wish both of you the same result. Hope you all' don't mind a little virtual armchair psychology ....

The question of religion and science merging etc; I am sure in the future probably in less than fifty years science will be coexisting, merging with spiritual or spiritual metaphysics,that support the belief of 'supernatural' or 'anormal' entities, while making fantastic discoveries. We may not be able to call directly on God, or visit the deities realms where they exist. But I am sure that those now diametrically opposed worldviews will become one. Yes that is just speculation... but not just recklessness irrational speculation.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

PSSSST REPOX!!!!....ASK POPEYE TO VET HIS MORE EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS WITH RELIABLE SOURCES!!!!

 

[Cobol]

PSSSST REPOX!!!!....ASK POPEYE TO VET HIS MORE EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS WITH RELIABLE SOURCES!!!!

Metaphysics, the supernatural, abnormal entities and spirits are extraordinary claims.

 

[Repox]

That's because science doesn't believe there is a purpose.


No it couldn't because most creationist explanations aren't open to scientific investigation, and those that are have been shown to be phoney.


No idea about what?


Okay.


Then it would be true, but so what? What if it's true that god is a monkey? Then it would be true, but so what?


What would it explain about the universe?---The universe as science regards it.

And remember, just because there's an explanation for something doesn't mean it's right or even reasonable


It's possible because positing god does nothing to advance the understanding of evolution. If you think it does please share your examples.


Since when? Is there some kind of nonintervention statement in the Bible? Please share.


Which are far better than myths.

.

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.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Repox; post 123: "Science has no idea except for theories related to physical laws or advanced science."

Skwim; post 142: "No idea about what?"
​

Repox; post 123: "What if God created the universe for Satan? Would science consider the possibility? Probable not, but what if it is true? It would explain a lot about the universe."

Skwim; post 142: "What would it explain about the universe?---The universe as science regards it."



Repox; post 123: "Humans on earth are on their own because God has assumed a policy of nonintervention."

Skwim; post 142: "Since when?"
​

Still awaiting your answers.


.

 

[Altfish]

I don't need religion to know the purpose of the universe. And I don't need lectures from atheists to tell me how to think.

Correct, perhaps you now understand why we don't like preaching from religious people.

 

[Repox]

Correct, perhaps you now understand why we don't like preaching from religious people.

Here we go again. I am not a member of the religious community. You don't have to identify with a religion to believe in God. And, yes, I don't need a lecture about how to think.

 

[Repox]

Repox; post 123: "Science has no idea except for theories related to physical laws or advanced science."

Skwim; post 142: "No idea about what?"
​

Repox; post 123: "What if God created the universe for Satan? Would science consider the possibility? Probable not, but what if it is true? It would explain a lot about the universe."

Skwim; post 142: "What would it explain about the universe?---The universe as science regards it."



Repox; post 123: "Humans on earth are on their own because God has assumed a policy of nonintervention."

Skwim; post 142: "Since when?"
​

Still awaiting your answers.


.

It is obvious I am referring to science excluding God as the explanation. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You answer for me, it is obvious. Science would focus on characteristics of the universe preventing Satan to escape. Then, you don't think God has assumed a policy of nonintervention. I don't think we are gaining anything from this "I gotcha" discussion.

 

[Altfish]

Here we go again. I am not a member of the religious community. You don't have to identify with a religion to believe in God. And, yes, I don't need a lecture about how to think.

You started it

 

[Repox]

You started it

Started what?

 

[siti]

Lol and you guys are whining about we religious types having no new arguments!

...

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT.

Yep that's it - that's what we were "whining about"...and BTW - shouting it doesn't make your statement any more correct. Here's another example...

Isn't it interesting how the scientific establishment ignored piltdown man was a fraud for six decades in some circles!. Piltdown was, to quote; "presented by the Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum of Britain, Arthur Smith Woodward, Piltdown man was “the missing link,” a creature whose features matched what many experts expected an early human to look like. He was a worldwide sensation, and as it turned out, a total fake.

"http://www.textbookhistory.com/what-piltdown-taught/

Lol science men who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks at us po' creationists.....Piltdown haunted college campuses until the early 70's, which is a 60 year long lie~

Well now, if we are talking about telling lies...your contention that the Piltdown fraud was "ignored" for decades is utter rubbish. In 1913 (whilst the search for fragments was still ongoing), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (a Jesuit priest and paleontologist who had assisted in the Piltdown project) returned to France after a tooth was found declaring that it (the tooth) "corresponds exactly with that of an ape". In November 1915, Gerrit S Miller published evidence that cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the finds (Miller, Gerrit S. (November 24, 1915), "The Jaw of the Piltdown Man", Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 65 (12): 1).

I couldn't find a copy of that paper online but here's a link to a 1917 paper that refers to it - the author in this case thought Piltdown to be genuine but the first paragraph shows that even in the first two or three years after the "find" the scientific community was skeptical.

By 1953, the "find" was thoroughly discredited scientifically and publicly - just 4 decades after the "lie" was perpetrated. Even so, Piltdown remains one of the worst examples of scientific fraud going uncorrected for a relatively long period. But even that compares very favourably to a couple of millennia - the time it has taken so far and the frauds committed to writing in "Holy Scripture" are still believed "in some circles" despite having been debunked centuries ago!

 

[Skwim]

It is obvious I am referring to science excluding God as the explanation. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Looking for answers to questions you refuse to answer is making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this what your teachers did in school when you asked questions? "Hey Repox! Stop asking questions I can't answers." But never mind. It's obvious this is exactly what I've done here: asked questions you can't answer. So be it.


.

 

[Repox]

Looking for answers to questions you refuse to answer is making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this what your teachers did in school when you asked questions? "Hey Repox! Stop asking questions I can't answers." But never mind. It's obvious this is exactly what I've done here: asked questions you can't answer. So be it.


.

You ask tricky questions. As an example, in reference to science you asked. "What would it explain about the universe? How would I know? The question is for science, not me. I understand your motivation is to make me look stupid. Sorry, I wont take the bate. Give it up.

 

[Skwim]

You ask nonsense questions. As an example, in reference to science you asked. "What would it explain about the universe? How would I know?

Well, you're the one who claimed that "It would explain a lot about the universe."

The question is for science, not me.

For science? What the heck are you talking about? You said:

"What if God created the universe for Satan? Would science consider the possibility? Probable not, but what if it is true? It would explain a lot about the universe."​

Parsing the sentence to its subject and object we have: "What if God created the universe for Satan? It would explain a lot about the universe." No science involved at all. In fact, you just about dismiss science.

So, I await your answer as to what would be explained about the universe if God created it for Satan.

Truthfully, I'm getting the distinct impression that you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about.


.

 

[Repox]

Well, you're the one who claimed that "It would explain a lot about the universe."


For science? What the heck are you talking about? You said:

"What if God created the universe for Satan? Would science consider the possibility? Probable not, but what if it is true? It would explain a lot about the universe."​

Parsing the sentence to its subject and object we have: "What if God created the universe for Satan? It would explain a lot about the universe." No science involved at all. In fact, you just about dismiss science.

So, I await your answer as to what would be explained about the universe if God created it for Satan.

Truthfully, I'm getting the distinct impression that you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about.


.

I will not discuss with one who uses deceptive tactics to impugn one's character. Trick questions and insults will get you nowhere. After reading so many deceptive remarks, I am certain we will never discuss again.

 

[Skwim]

I will not discuss with one who uses deceptive tactics to impugn one's character.

"Deceptive tactics"? Okay, point out just one of these deceptive tactics. JUST ONE.

Trick questions and insults will get you nowhere.

Okay, point out just one of these trick questions, and why it's tricky. JUST ONE.

Personally, like the questions I put to you, I don't think you can do either. And if you don't I can only conclude that you're blowing smoke.


.

 

[Repox]

"Deceptive tactics"? Okay, point out just one of these deceptive tactics. JUST ONE.


Okay, point out just one of these trick questions, and why it's tricky. JUST ONE.

Personally, like the questions I put to you, I don't think you can do either. And if you don't I can only conclude that you're blowing smoke.


.

From all the deception, I have a lot of smoke here. I need to put our the fire!

 

[Skwim]

From all the deception, I have a lot of smoke here. I need to put our the fire!

Yeah. didn't think you could. My condolences.

Have a good day.


.