Continuing Challenge to Creationists

there is a lot more to love than sex, and there is more to creation than just science.

Until you wont get the courage to start meditating and look within you don't have a clue what or who you are. Unless you are a developed soul from previous experiences/life in which case you are not needed to learn this stuff in current life.

If you consider yourself a scientist and if you consider yourself open minded, then start experiencing with your own mind. What is stopping you? Are you not sure about yourself? Buddha was said to be a scientist...

You can play scientists with yourself and can measure effects which each meditation techniques has on your body and this can be a repeated occurrence and as such can be measured by and ONLY yourself by experience. If you would like, you can even view this as scientific theory/hypotheses and start to get some proof with your own developed scientific method.

Or wait until science can detect prana or life energy, which will open many new doors into this debate and I bet that even then people will doubt and question everything, which is great! But not so great if everyone with normal circumstances can try it on your own instead of just pointing fingers for proof....

originally posted by: Phantom423
It's the disappearing act that always happens when the rational side posts overwhelming evidence that they can't match. The pro science posters continually add to the quality and quantity of evidence. The Creationists may have run their course. In that case, I guess we won

We didn't change any minds. We just pushed them into hiding until such time as they think they can come out and start all over again. By that time, I hope that the library is relatively complete so the pro side can use the links.

In any case, we'll be here when they think the coast is clear and they come out of hiding!

Tell you the truth, I am more worried about creationist constantly working on destroying science classes and trying to sell their creation fairy tales as science and embed them in education. I guess, it is not enough to brain wash and abuse their own children, but now they want to do the same to our kids?!

People like Wendy Wright pose real danger to education, and they have lots of support in republican party.



This is why this discussion/debate is important to keep, and why we all should thank you for bringing it up!

a reply to: UniFinity

Placing shroud of mysticism around and mixing reincarnation with creationism... not sure how is that supposed to work for you...

First of all, where is single verifiable proof that reincarnation is real?! Who do you know has knowledge of previous life??

Sorry, not buying...

a reply to: Phantom423

We didn't change any minds. We just pushed them into hiding until such time as they think they can come out and start all over again.

Pretty much nailed it, I agree.

However I have made 18 thread in this very sub-forum, I haven't been hiding. I make my point, get pummeled by the regulars, and return when I have something of interest to add for those still searching and have not definitively made up their minds on this topic. My posts and threads have never been designed for those that are 100% pro-evolution, rather they are for those that are still formulating an opinion. Even when responding to posts of the regulars I know it's futile for me to be doing it for their benefit, that's why they might think it's a bit trollish. But I only do it for the lurkers and the odd poster that supports creation and is brave enough to venture into the fray.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

the point here, as i understand it, is that creationism has consistently misrepresented and abused science for political gain. allowing the intellectually dishonest to piggyback on the success of the intellectually honest is...ethically questionable, at best. refer again to my second (refined) premise.

As Astyanax might have said before, this is an idealogical war, not a scientific one. It's a sentiment that I uphold deeply whenever I see these debates. It's one person's view of the world vs another. Forget that science supports one side of it... it really has nothing to do with that. And let's not pretend that the so called practitioners of science are always intellectually honest simply because they represent science. There are protagonists on both ends of this fight who have their own agendas to fight for.

This debate is and will always be a false dichotomy...there can never be a winner,

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
practitioners of science

wth???

Care to elaborate??

Who/what is practitioner of science?!

Comments / provocations like this reminds me of my favorite very looong song..

a reply to: SuperFrog

Practitioner of science as in a scientist. Sorry didn't mean for that to sound weird.

In any event, youre one of the regulars who fan the flames of this debate, Ive noticed. Worried that creationists are taking over the world?

If you have kids and are worried about what they are learning, then don't send them to the schools that are teaching creationism.

And again, lets stop pretending that the field of science is free from intellectual dishonesty

a reply to: TzarChasm

That's a rather cranky response. Want to try again? You seem to forget who you are talking to; I'm not a creationist and I am not religious.

Address my argument instead of whaling away at the straw man of religious obscurantism you appear to perceive. Is it possible that you can't actually understand me?

I am on your side in this culture war, but as an ally you're disappointing me right now. Can't you at least grasp that we are talking about schema, not the structures -- such as science and dogma -- people create from them?

You need to change up an intellectual gear. We're not discussing frogodiles or missing links or global floods here. We're talking epistemology.

No more responses from me till you give me something worth responding to.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
However I have made 18 thread in this very sub-forum, I haven't been hiding. I make my point, get pummeled by the regulars, and return when I have something of interest to add for those still searching and have not definitively made up their minds on this topic. My posts and threads have never been designed for those that are 100% pro-evolution, rather they are for those that are still formulating an opinion. Even when responding to posts of the regulars I know it's futile for me to be doing it for their benefit, that's why they might think it's a bit trollish. But I only do it for the lurkers and the odd poster that supports creation and is brave enough to venture into the fray.

But there is no "formulating an opinion". You guys keep acting like evolution is a personal preference choice like blue vs red. It's not. Either you agree that science teaches us things about the earth and universe or you don't. There is no other stance. You have made MANY threads here, and most of them had numerous errors with the science. Arguing against evolution without addressing the evidence itself IS futile, and that's the primary form of argument you use.

You do it to preach and to convert the unsuspecting person who is on the fence, which is why I feel the need to correct the faulty logic and wrong claims. It's nothing against god, or against religion, it's to dispel the attacks on science that are completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated. If you guys argued honestly, it would be different but that's hardly ever the case. You are stubborn in a worldview and it leads you to attack certain cherry picked scientific theories (ie big bang, evolution, radiometric dating) without merit while hypocritically agreeing with all other science.

Would you consider me brave or stupid if I started arguing against the heliocentric model of the solar system, or something like gravity using arguments that don't even apply to it? I can make strawmans as well, it's just dishonest. You believe in micro gravity but can't prove macro gravity!

a reply to: SuperFrog

Very true. I don't object to students learning how to think critically - present different sides of an argument and teach them how to research and debate the argument. But Creationists have been hell bent on putting Creationism into the regular curriculum as though there was some validity to it. I think they did that in some Texas schools.

So imagine this scenario at a high school in Texas:

First period: Creationism - today's lesson - the Earth is 6,000 years old and anyone who says differently doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

Second period: Chemistry - today's lesson - radioactive decay. Example: age of the Earth. Kids are asked to calculate radioactive decays for several elements including uranium.



After second period, one kid asks the teacher:
"Hey teach, I don't get it - first period class says that the Earth is 6,000 years old. But here in second period class you showed that it was billions of years old using radioactive decay. Which one should I believe?"
The teacher says: "Well, Sonny, it's really up to you. I can't tell you what to believe or I'll get fired."
Sonny says to himself: "Okay, forget both of them - why bother?"

Lawrence Krauss was absolutely right when he said that teaching Creationism in schools is child abuse. Here's the video again:

a reply to: PhotonEffect

on the contrary, it is completely a scientific war. the op him (her) self has addressed pseudo science specifically.

a reply to: Barcs

You are stubborn in a worldview and it leads you to attack certain cherry picked scientific theories (ie big bang

Nope, the huge amounts of energy being transformed into matter and then expanding into the void of nothing billions of years ago to start our universe off looks like a "big bang", I have no issue with the science behind that. After all this time of back and forth, and you STILL don't know what I believe, a shame really.

I leave where all that energy came from, for another thread.
That's what I do like about you Barcs you always give me idea's for new threads.

a reply to: Phantom423

I think the child abuse moniker is a bit much, but that's just me.

Are there universities that teach creationism?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Creationism is not science, it's religion. So no, it's not a scientific debate. A scientific debate might be about whether a virus is alive or not. Or more relevant to the times: climate change.

Creationism is not even "pseudoscience" based on the definition thereof, because in no way can it be mistaken for science, or for that matter, adhering to the scientific method.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

We can explore the processes of what happened, at least within the confines of human understanding, but it simply has nothing to do with whether or not 'this' was created.

It seems to me that, historically, when a social group splits into one part that finds information and another that receives it, a faith based authority is born. When the latter group not only defends the information, but can be directed towards manufactured opposition, a controlled ideology emerges.

As far as education goes, perhaps we should teach our children how to think, rather than what to think. Maybe then, we could focus on growing our limits rather than how far we can swim within their confines.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Is it me or number of people believing in creationist claims on ATS has dropped?

Not sure about 'believing', but the number of members expounding or promoting such views has fallen dramatically.

The above distinction speaks to the core of my argument on this thread. Evolution deniers have received such an intellectual drubbing in the last ten years that they've drawn their heads back down beneath the parapet. Those still trying to argue Creationism rationally are an obstinate minority.

This doesn't mean that the rest have changed their beliefs, or that the earnest efforts of people like Barcs have convinced them of the truth of evolution. Rather than accept scientific evidence and rational argument, Creationists have come increasingly to embrace irrationality. This is good, by the way; it means they're being pushed steadily towards the (lunatic) fringe.

I sympathize with those who try so earnestly to promote science and the theory of evolution (actually, I too am one of those people). I think we're doing an important job; and amongst the uncommitted masses, I believe we are winning the intellectual contest. But when it comes to Creationists, we get nowhere and we never will, because they have stopped their ears to reason. They will even — as I have done here — use reason, in the form of philosophical argument, to cast doubt on itself (this, incidentally, is a venerable and highly respectable tradition in philosophy).

It is also, believe me, a perfectly valid and appropriate stance for someone to take. There is nothing intrinsically absurd or censurable about the idea that reason is not the only route to the truth, and may not even be the best way. Our friend Noinden, for example, would say that mystical intuition is the royal road to the truth. He or she is hardly the most effective propagandist for that viewpoint, but Rumi and St. John of the Cross do a pretty good job.

Some of us who believe (yes, I said believe) in science and reason think they trump all other modes of interpreting and understanding reality. Well, for some, they do. But not for everybody, or indeed for most people, most of the time. Human beings are not purely rational and yes, dear reader, this applies to you too. All of us (even Ms Phantom) must behave irrationaly now and then. Refusing to acknowledge that such behaviour is normal — and even at times appropriate — is to expose oneself as purblind and narrowminded.

True, there are any number of hypocrites and clowns among the Creationists who inhabit ATS. Since Creationism involves a denial of reason, it is attractive to those who have twisted traditional moral codes to suit their own ends. Ostentatiously moral or religious people are either hypocrites with huge character defects or trauma victims who cannot cope with life. Such people must lie to themselves constantly in order to live with themselves. Many of them have become public promoters of Creationism, which is why that constituency is riddled with liars and frauds.

But some 'evolutionists' on ATS seem at least as narrowminded and obsessive as their opponents. I am not referring to you (nor, for that matter, to anyone on this thread). But they are here, and I can name their usernames.

Although I shan't.

a reply to: SuperFrog

fair question!

But the thing is that beliefs are not of importance. They are there only to confuse the mind, drop them! They are purely human concepts and have nothing to do with reality or truth or experience.

All I am saying in my posts in general is to open your mind and stop thinking for a moment and start to meditate and try to get some experiences which will start your curiosity to kick in about the question, who am I and what is real nature of the mind?

After this step you are on a roller-coaster ride to a lot of new discoveries. But you must have pure intent or motivation and be humble, patient and persistent.
-----
I wonder what you all think about parapsychological research? there are a lot of studies which are available on the internet. Are you treating that as pseudo science and because of that is not good? Because there are a lot of experiments which were made and concluded that there are things which we have no idea about. For study I would recommend a book by milan ryzl about parapsychology published in 1969. A great book with a lot of interesting findings!

a reply to: Phantom423

We have to accept that in this universe at least, there are no absolutes.

Accepted. Now tell me again, what is the proposition we are supposed to be debating (or discussing, if you prefer)?

Scientific investigation is conducted when a question has some evidence one way or another that can be tested and analyzed. A divine entity has no such evidence.

That sounds like a shortcoming of the scientific method, not an advantage.

Besides, I put it to you (as I did before, though you may have missed it) that the Paleyan argument for Creation is actually a very powerful one, and despite the advent of Darwin and the massive advances evolutionary science has made since the latter's day, it has not yet been refuted.

a reply to: Barcs

You guys keep acting like evolution is a personal preference choice like blue vs red. It's not.

Why not, exactly?

Either you agree that science teaches us things about the earth and universe or you don't.

What if you don't?

a reply to: Serdgiam

It seems to me that, historically, when a social group splits into one part that finds information and another that receives it, a faith based authority is born.

Absolutely right, and brilliantly put.

You know how some people keep insisting that there's no such thing as 'evolutionism', only science?

They're not scientists. They're evolutionists.

a reply to: UniFinity


What is reality, truth or experience?

it is quite often that I get asked to open my mind... and truth is, it is dangerous to open your mind too much... as your brain might fall out...

From my favorite artist....



There is nothing in parapsychology, never been proven or evaluated in lab settings to produce some results. 2 really great magician (Harry Houdini and James Randi) offered money (not little money, but rather a lot of money) for anyone who would prove paranormal activity of any kind . It turns out many took challenge, none could ever prove anything. Not sure if you followed, I can provide links and interesting videos if you like...

So, there were studies, but never results in paranormal research as far as I know. Care to point to the one you mentioned above that supposed to prove something??