The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

page: 1
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+13 more 
posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Class, who can tell me what the point of science is?

...nobody? Oh, I'm typing out a thread, not talking to anyone. Ok, the point of science is to explain the universe around us in a manner which we can then put to use. Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. Creationism has no explanatory power...it merely has a single answer that helps us with nothing.

Evolution helps us understand the way life works. It helps us provide more appropriate and varied doses of antibiotics to prevent antibiotic resistance evolving in bacteria, it provides us with all sorts of helpful insights into agriculture and husbandry, and it just generally helps us understand biological systems. I mean, this is really why I find the people arguing against evolution more and more ridiculous the more I learn about how evolution is actually applied daily. If people are actually doing useful things with a scientific theory, it's a pretty good indication that it works.

Creationism...doesn't do jack. If a 'creator' 'created' life, what are the uses of it? What are the predictions of such a theory? Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.




posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


If science can absolutely tell us how humans were created,then it seems that a scientist
with that knowledge should be able to create a human too,if one knows how something is made then they can remake it, right? This looks like that there is a scientific problem with science,
edit on 12-4-2011 by infojunkie2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


Creationism...doesn't do jack. If a 'creator' 'created' life, what are the uses of it? What are the predictions of such a theory? Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.


1. God is Goodness

If God is the creator of the universe, he has to be the most powerful, so whatever God is, it has to be the most Good, so it is 'Goodness.'

2. His creation is the emanation of this Goodness

Emanation meaning to pour outward, like the sun's rays pour out from the sun. The sun does not diminish just because it sheds its light, it instead grows because of this transmission. In the same way the ultimate good pours out like a superior sun and creates all things underneath it through the process of emanation (divine hierarchy where each level is the lord of the realm just below it, too complicated to talk about here but the competition for evolution and creationism).

3. The universe is caused by God

What we call the universe is simply the emanation from God

4. The process of emanation involves an outward and an inward, an outward manifestation and an inward contemplation. Each sou' contemplates the universe and achieves knowledge of itself, and of the greater whole (God, "The One"). This is the purpose, to emanate outwards from God and to view God through a specific moment in time, and eventually rejoin with God once life is complete.

5. What are the predictions of such a theory?

That things will flow from the more perfect, as opposed to the less perfect. So that wisdom comes from the mind and soul, not from the lesser body.

6. Does a 'created' world have certain properties?

Each phase or hypostasis of emanation shares in the properties just below it, but as an inferior. So in other words man is inferior to his higher level the earth, the earth is inferior to its higher level the sun, the sun is inferior to its higher level of universal laws, and universal laws are inferior to its higher levels the one law, and the one law is not inferior to anything because there is no hypostasis above this, thus it is the Absolute.

7. Can we gain anything from exploiting them?

Knowledge brings peace and awareness.

8. No?

Scientific studies have proved that meditation alters the brain

9. Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.

Only to a skeptic/materialist.

Everything I said is not "new" it is 1500+ year old philosophy and metaphysics, society has just simply ignored it because it is no longer "mainstream" which is why people have psychological problems: they don't meditate and attune to the higher spirit. It also is the reason why religious wars are waged: because people have lost sight of the true God (within).
edit on 12-4-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


+26 more 
posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
If a creator created the universe, then who created the creator? If the creator spontaneously came to be, then why is it not possible that the universe spontaneously came to be? If both options are equally as probable, then I will go with the universe spontaneously coming to be, as there is absolute evidence of the universe, but zero evidence of a creator.

my 2-cents



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I agree. The thing about science is that it is always evolving, the more we learn, the more we can explain. In reading a light book by Stephen Hawking on quantum physics, he explains that we live inside the model we are trying to determine, so we are in a model dependent universe. We can make theories on how something works, and as long as they fit, we can use them.

If 2 differing theories both correctly anticipate the outcome of a system, we can be free to choose whichever theory is most convenient for us.

Some see this as making it up as we go along, but that's only half right. Science is trying to explain the world around us.

Sure, we can say we believe things evolved this way, then use science to prove it. That doesn't actually make it right, it's just the best possible answer we have so far.

This is where religion is different, the answer is set in stone as it were, so don't bother looking.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Not sure what you are trying to say but the subjects are interesting .....I recently watched a interview with Professor Walter J. Veith ,he has traveled widely throughout North America and the world presenting his seminars to large enthusiastic crowds. The information presented is based on his in-depth research in the areas of evolution/Creation, health and diet, and Bible prophecy. amazingdiscoveries.tv... amazingdiscoveries.tv... peace



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


This way of looking at life causes all the destruction in the world we see around us.Quote : Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless. End quote.
See, unless we can exploit something then it is useless, this is the general thinking. This is why we fail to see the beauty under our noses, we are looking at this precious moment as a stepping stone to something better. Good luck.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
If a creator created the universe, then who created the creator? If the creator spontaneously came to be, then why is it not possible that the universe spontaneously came to be? If both options are equally as probable, then I will go with the universe spontaneously coming to be, as there is absolute evidence of the universe, but zero evidence of a creator.

my 2-cents


If a creator created the universe, then who created the creator?

It always existed (came from itself)

If the creator spontaneously came to be, then why is it not possible that the universe spontaneously came to be?

Because the universe is physical, God is immaterial


How could the egg come from nothing? It had to have come from itself.

If by 'universe' you mean the total collection of stars, planets, and natural laws, then this system, even if it did always exist, must have a fundamental center which is eternal. If it was not eternal, it would fluctuate randomly and possibly go out of existence. For the universe to be eternal (as you claim) and thus always come from itself, then there must be one localized center of the universe, since things within the universe (plants, cars, people) do not come from itself. That center is God. Call it what you will, that is what is meant by The One.
edit on 12-4-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Class, who can tell me what the point of science is?

...nobody? Oh, I'm typing out a thread, not talking to anyone. Ok, the point of science is to explain the universe around us in a manner which we can then put to use. Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. Creationism has no explanatory power...it merely has a single answer that helps us with nothing.






Evolution helps us understand the way life works. It helps us provide more appropriate and varied doses of antibiotics to prevent antibiotic resistance evolving in bacteria, it provides us with all sorts of helpful insights into agriculture and husbandry, and it just generally helps us understand biological systems. I mean, this is really why I find the people arguing against evolution more and more ridiculous the more I learn about how evolution is actually applied daily. If people are actually doing useful things with a scientific theory, it's a pretty good indication that it works.


Yes, evolution does help us understand many things. But this is microevolution your referring to; evolution that we can observe within our lifetime, such as microorganisms mutating, viral particles adapting, etc. And then there macro-evolution, where monkeys are men and vice versa; all of this speculated from a few sparsely scattered remains.



Creationism...doesn't do jack. If a 'creator' 'created' life, what are the uses of it? What are the predictions of such a theory? Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.


Creationism doesn't do jack, I agree, but what if its the truth? Does the truth have to do jack? Both Creationists and Evolutionists are searching for the truth. When a Creationist finds a likely evidence he interprets it to fit into the Bible, when a macro-evolutionist finds a likely evidence and interprets it to fit into present day academic beliefs. Both may be wrong for all we know. But its the search for truth, no usefulness is required to come of such a noble and essential pursuit.
edit on 12-4-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

How could the egg come from nothing? It had to have come from itself.


So, your egg is a creator. My egg is the universe. I can prove my egg exists, can you prove yours?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by filosophia

How could the egg come from nothing? It had to have come from itself.


So, your egg is a creator. My egg is the universe. I can prove my egg exists, can you prove yours?


you can't prove it exists. How can you do that? I have to agree that we live on the same universe, what if I deny that?

I can give you reasons for why I believe things but I can never give you proof, that is something you can only give yourself.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Not that I really disagree with the meaning of your reply, you can't really offer it as a counter to the OP. You have no proof that God created the Universe, so you can't really assume that he is the most powerful. Also, if God is all goodness, then why isn't that reflected in the Universe? Where does death and destruction come from? Isn't it more accurate to postulate that God is good bad ugly and pretty all wrapped up into one? Where is your proof that God only represents the good or the light? Isn't God darkness, too?
Faith is beautiful, and if your word for the seemingly divine order of things, the Balance, is God, then more power to you. The OP does make a great point though; if your answer to "why?" is simply "God" then you don't benefit from your faith. What's the point of holding onto beliefs in spite of a lack of evidence if it doesn't help you function more efficiently and effectively in our world?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
We don't know that much at the moment so i think any theory is still up for debate and one day we will find out which one is the truth.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Evolution when used by humans is seen as it were an improvement, the next stage up, a moving toward better and away from lesser states.. It is seen as a competition, more is more. When everything is as it is and fits perfectly with everything else this makes the universe. It's pretty, have a look. Perfect and complete



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Oh Yea?

We'll my dad can beat up your dad!



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by RicoMarston
 


God is immaterial, you're asking for material proof, that's impossible. The only proof of God is found within the subject of philosophy and metaphysical ideas. If you read the classics: Plato, Plotinus, Buddhism, Advaida Vedenta, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Boethius, you'd know the proof.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
If the goal of evolution is to create beings with better survival techniques, the end result of evolution is immortality. Evolution may not ever reach that point, but being as evolution is not a thing it will go on forever.

What's silly is you don't need to wait an eternity to understand eternity, it is within yourself and you can find that out now in meditation. If you fail, ask me a question about it and I'll try and help you out, if you fail to even try to meditate, well then I can't help you.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Science & Religion are two sides of the same coin.
There are aspects of science that are definitely in the right path of explaining life & religion does provide some insight (though not in terms of a god, most religious texts have a hidden message which most conveniently fail to see - the truth & not about a god/s)

anyways trying to say, in my opinion that both do not provide the complete picture.

One god sat somewhere and decided to throw us here, and throw this 'here' here as well and everything else around 'here'?
rubbish.
or we have evolved from micro organisms, single celled structures to whaat we are today?

That would probably take a gazillion years.

We were probably placed here by a vastly advanced civilization, maybe for experimentation or to create a new life form...

Well class, the search continues



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by letmeDANz
 


How about there is nobody here, not even you. You are just watching a dreamer have a dream. All there is, is the dream. No control over the dreamer or the dream.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by letmeDANz
 


How about there is nobody here, not even you. You are just watching a dreamer have a dream. All there is, is the dream. No control over the dreamer or the dream.


even if that were true, "you" would still be watching a dream. "You" would exist in a higher plane than the dream, unless the dream can actually see you as well. This also ignores the fact that if you want to move your hand, you can.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join