Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[lewisnotmiller]

A chef can put ingredients in a pot, let it cook for a while and then taste it and add things to make it tastier. What's to stop God from doing the same thing? (note: theology not science) Maybe God enjoys watching life unfold just like a gardener watches flowers grow and bloom.

Or, as the button says: God wrote the program, evolution is the output, meteor strikes are the reset button.

I can see that, sunrise, but only up to a point.

So...metaphorically...God samples the soup, and decides it needs a little more spice. He throws in redheads. Or whatever, but you get the picture. Makes sense.
God samples redheads, and decides the outcome is to his liking.

But applying the same metaphor as it would pertain to various mutations, and their impact, you get a slightly different picture. God samples the soup, and decides it needs a little more... something. Green eyes, baldness, colour-blindness, a longer second toe...into the pot. Whilst I'm at it, I'll chuck a few other things in. There...that should be tastier...
God samples a green-eyed bald dude who doesn't stop at red lights, and has trouble finding comfortable shoes, and says...err...I knew I shoulda ate out tonight.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And all this has what to do with science???

All you have said here is "I have decided that creationism is important and that is my opinion."

And that's your brain on evolution theory.

If you look at the thread, look at the forum, you can see the supposed religion Christian etc. evolutionists profess, is without spirit.

Now a generation of people is growing up who have little knowledge about how they choose themselves, how things are chosen in societey, and in the universe. A generation of people that is more emotionless than any in history. People who have intellectually rejected subjectivity, nothing good will come of it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I got to ask...
Why is it that the chemical change produces the emotion? And not the emotion that produces the chemical change?

Adrenaline production for example is the effect of what? Emotion?

We can introduce chemicals to the brain to change mood. We cannot introduce "moods" to change the chemicals. This implies a causal relationship of chemicals to one's mood rather than the reverse.

Otherwise antidepressants wouldn't work.

That does actually, as by logic which I demonstrated, make your opinions into facts, that is why it is simply false.

What you write is a jumbled mess. You cannot define opinion with even more opinion, that is circular logic. You say the beauty is based on facts, and then the facts are based on "importance". And what's importance based on then huh? Even more facts?

You have just confused the issue by adding 1 layer of complexity, deferred choosing beauty, to choosing importance. Still the exactsame logic applies, what it is that chooses the "importance" is a matter of opinion.

You are so horribly mistaken you need to take a step back.

If my thoughts come about through a chemical process that is highly complex and difficult to understand and that is a FACT then that must mean that any conclusion that I come up with should be a fact? That isn't logical.

If I program a calculator and all of its calculations are based on electronic signals that I have programmed it with then does that mean that the calculator is infallible? No. Not it is not.

 

[sun rise]

I can see that, sunrise, but only up to a point.

So...metaphorically...God samples the soup, and decides it needs a little more spice. He throws in redheads. Or whatever, but you get the picture. Makes sense.
God samples redheads, and decides the outcome is to his liking.

But applying the same metaphor as it would pertain to various mutations, and their impact, you get a slightly different picture. God samples the soup, and decides it needs a little more... something. Green eyes, baldness, colour-blindness, a longer second toe...into the pot. Whilst I'm at it, I'll chuck a few other things in. There...that should be tastier...
God samples a green-eyed bald dude who doesn't stop at red lights, and has trouble finding comfortable shoes, and says...err...I knew I shoulda ate out tonight.

I'll throw reincarnation/karma (what you sow, you reap) into the stew pot here for people who don't stop at red lights (and those that do) and those that can't find comfortable shoes (and those that do).

When we get to topics like this, frame-of-reference becomes critical because of another great metaphor: the blind men and the elephant.

 

[sun rise]

We can introduce chemicals to the brain to change mood. We cannot introduce "moods" to change the chemicals. This implies a causal relationship of chemicals to one's mood rather than the reverse...

Actually it has been shown that meditation can change brain chemistry but I don't think that was the point you were trying to make since you quoted "moods".

 

[Midnight Rain]

Actually it has been shown that meditation can change brain chemistry but I don't think that was the point you were trying to make since you quoted "moods".

No. This has shown that we have the capability to hone our own minds and have some control over our own brain function. Which is amazing and needs more study. But that does not imply that some exterior force caused the "mood" first and then that changed our brain chemistry. However the processing of information can change the mindset. Hypnosis for example is a neat study people should look into.

 

[metis]

Meditation doesn't really change brain chemistry as it can change brain function, and this latter case has been well established.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If my thoughts come about through a chemical process that is highly complex and difficult to understand and that is a FACT then that must mean that any conclusion that I come up with should be a fact? That isn't logical.

Yes that is logical, as you can see if you just simplify it. Adding complexity does not change the logic.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yes that is logical, as you can see if you just simplify it. Adding complexity does not change the logic.

No it isn't. Just because you understand what the process is does not mean that the product of that process is infallible. You confuse this.

If it is a fact that the house is made of stone does not mean that the house is structurally sound.

 

[averageJOE]

And that's your brain on evolution theory.

If you look at the thread, look at the forum, you can see the supposed religion Christian etc. evolutionists profess, is without spirit.

Now a generation of people is growing up who have little knowledge about how they choose themselves, how things are chosen in societey, and in the universe. A generation of people that is more emotionless than any in history. People who have intellectually rejected subjectivity, nothing good will come of it.

So...one must choose creationism as the foundation of science otherwise they have no emotions?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So...one must choose creationism as the foundation of science otherwise they have no emotions?

I should be angry about that, but I'm not...ahem...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So...one must choose creationism as the foundation of science otherwise they have no emotions?

The reason you aren't capable of understanding what I write is because you aren't capable of distinghuishing fact from opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Interested if you have a response for #110

 

[averageJOE]

The reason you aren't capable of understanding what I write is because you aren't capable of distinghuishing fact from opinion.

In case you haven't figured it out...no one can understand what you write. And that's a fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In case you haven't figured it out...no one can understand what you write. And that's a fact.

Still several billion people on earth officially accept that the soul chooses, and that the existence of a soul is a matter of faith and revelation, and that at the final judgement their soul, who they are as being the owner of their decisions, will be judged by the lord God almighty.

And all of humanity in practice uses the logic that they have alternative courses of action available, and that what emotions are in their heart is a matter of opinion.

The creationist logic of free will cannot be avoided in practice, no matter what bogus atheism their intellect comes up with about the way things work.

 

[averageJOE]

Still several billion people on earth officially accept that the soul chooses, and that the existence of a soul is a matter of faith and revelation, and that at the final judgement their soul, who they are as being the owner of their decisions, will be judged by the lord God almighty.

And all of humanity in practice uses the logic that they have alternative courses of action available, and that what emotions are in their heart is a matter of opinion.

The creationist logic of free will cannot be avoided in practice, no matter what bogus atheism their intellect comes up with about the way things work.

Since you made this thread asking if creationism should be taught as the foundation of science, please explain how everything you said above; existence of a soul, final judgement, and god, can be scientificly tested . (Try not to mention "atheism" at all anymore.)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Since you made this thread asking if creationism should be taught as the foundation of science, please explain how everything you said above; existence of a soul, final judgement, and god, can be scientificly tested . (Try not to mention "atheism" at all anymore.)

With this logic one can distinghuish opinion from fact, and then you get pure facts. Unlike you, whose opinions and facts are in essence pseudoscientific socialdarwinism, facts and opinion rolled into one big mess, because you don't distinghuish fact from opinion.

 

[Midnight Rain]

With this logic one can distinghuish opinion from fact, and then you get pure facts. Unlike you, whose opinions and facts are in essence pseudoscientific socialdarwinism, facts and opinion rolled into one big mess, because you don't distinghuish fact from opinion.

So is a soul your opinion or is it a fact? Can you distinguish that?

 

[averageJOE]

With this logic one can distinghuish opinion from fact, and then you get pure facts. Unlike you, whose opinions and facts are in essence pseudoscientific socialdarwinism, facts and opinion rolled into one big mess, because you don't distinghuish fact from opinion.

You know, you could have just said "No. I can't."

 

[Ingledsva]

To the OP.

NO, just NO!

*