The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

page: 20
37
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
i was being liberal with my statement, but you know i'm right. a couple probes within our galaxy and the exploration of our moon is no where near equivalent to the true exploration of anything outside our planet. the universe is filled with trillions upon trillions of stars, we've explored less than 1 percent of the ocean of stars. why should we even begin to jump the gun on anything?




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BastianCain
 


"Because the bible says so!"
"But why should we believe what the bible says?"
"Because the bible is the word of god!"
"But why should why should we do what god tells us to do?"
"Because the bible says so!"
"But how do we know that's the right god?"
"Because the bible says so!"

And round and round it goes


edit on 21-4-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


"The light came into the world, but darkness did not comprehend it."

A2D



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


"The light came into the world, but darkness did not comprehend it."

A2D


Perhaps "the light" was not aware of the fact that the visible spectrum (violet, blue, green, yellow, orange and red) only represents a small TINY portion of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, infrared, radio ALL discovered because of Science.

Science came into the world, but religion refused to comprehend it.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


"The light came into the world, but darkness did not comprehend it."

A2D


Darkness didn't comprehend it because it has no consciousness



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps

Perhaps "the light" was not aware of the fact that the visible spectrum (violet, blue, green, yellow, orange and red) only represents a small TINY portion of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, infrared, radio ALL discovered because of Science.

Science came into the world, but religion refused to comprehend it.


Oh yes, I forgot everything is literal with you guys.

Why so serious?


A2D



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Darkness didn't comprehend it because it has no consciousness


Again with the literal interpretations...I'm sure you understand what I meant. Now you're just being antagonistic.

A2D



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Well, I'm happy you admit that creating the earth and universe in a few days, the existence of a god, talking snakes, and all the other stuff is fiction and not to be taken literally



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Did I say that? I don't think I did...

I said that you took a literal approach to the obvious metaphoric statement that I made. Don't take what I said and apply it to whatever you see fit.

A2D



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I guess when you read things like

"Between the lower east side tenements
the sky is a snotty handkerchief."
(Marge Piercy, "The Butt of Winter")

"The streets were a furnace, the sun an executioner."
(Cynthia Ozick, "Rosa")

You take them literally too? You have to learn when to literally translate and when to interpret. And to be quite honest with you, it doesn't take a genius to do this.

A2D



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
ill tell you whats wrong with creationism. science. who says the science we know is even the truth? or are you just going off another website you read...



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


So basically you're cherry picking the stuff you like and take it literally, and claim people shouldn't take it literally whenever it's inconvenient? Practical



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HispanicPanic
 


Nope, they test it and it "works" so they assume that it's 100% truth. I mean, after all, if something works then it's fail-proof right?

And then the catch22 is that if it doesn't work, they just change something to make it work for the time being. It's like magic!

It always works, but that doesn't make it the truth - because after all, truth is infallible/never changing.

A2D



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


No, I passed all of my basic and advanced english classes so I can tell a metaphor or simile when I see one.


You tell me -
"Between the lower east side tenements
the sky is a snotty handkerchief."
= metaphor or literal?



"The streets were a furnace, the sun an executioner."
= metaphor or literal?

Now, did you cherry pick those answers? Did you just decide whether it's literal or metaphoric? No, there is a solid answer, it is either one or the other.

edit on 22-4-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


So basically you're cherry picking the stuff you like and take it literally, and claim people shouldn't take it literally whenever it's inconvenient? Practical



No basically you are refusing information at this very point .

Not so scientific now are you? Proof of bigotry and bias.
edit on 22-4-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I'm arguing that you can't just randomly pick stuff...

For example, if you don't take the quote he posted above literally, you shouldn't take Genesis literally either...especially if it's scientifically incorrect.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I can tell by your answer that you have no knowledge of writing mechanisms(or simply refuse to exercise that knowledge)such as metaphors. They require, and allow for, a certain degree of interpretation.

If you really can't tell when to interpret a metaphor or when to take the passage literally, it's time for more english classes.

Here we go again, please try to pay attention and answer clearly and to the best of your ability.

1)Life is a journey, purposes are destinations, means are routes, difficulties are obstacles, counselors are guides, achievements are landmarks, choices are crossroads.....Metaphoric or literal?

2)A lifetime is a day, death is sleep; a lifetime is a year, death is winter.....Metaphoric or literal?

3)Life is a struggle, dying is losing a contest against an adversary... Metaphoric or literal?

4)Life is a precious possession, death is a loss....Metaphoric or literal?

5)Time is a thief....Metaphoric or literal?

A2D



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


I know what a metaphor is. I'm arguing that the Genesis account is a metaphor too (given that the literal interpretation is complete scientific nonsense) and that you're cherry picking what you consider a metaphor and what isn't if you accept the Genesis account as truth



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by HispanicPanic
 


Nope, they test it and it "works" so they assume that it's 100% truth. I mean, after all, if something works then it's fail-proof right?


...nope, but we assume that the model which works (it's not something you need to qualify with scare quotes) is more accurate than the model which doesn't. Of course, this model can be modified or even radically overturned if something happens to work better....but you'd need to demonstrate how and why it works better. Creationism? It doesn't work at all.



And then the catch22 is that if it doesn't work, they just change something to make it work for the time being. It's like magic!


...it's not a catch22, it's called being honest and caring if your models conform to reality. If the model science is working with is challenged by new data then the data is incorporated into a modified or entirely new model. It's not magic, it's just how science has always worked. It's how we went from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Kepler to Galileo all the way through to modern cosmology.



It always works, but that doesn't make it the truth - because after all, truth is infallible/never changing.


...no. But that's an incredibly complex philosophical discussion.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by HispanicPanic
 


Nope, definitely not going off of a website, I'm going off of millions of man hours of scientific inquiry. The reason we know science is true is because you are using a computer whose function was derived from the same scientific process which goes into all scientific claims. If you're going to question whether or not the science we have now is true then you might as well chuck your computer out the _

Is what we have now 100% right? Hell no. Is it closer to right then it is to wrong? Probably.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join