The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

How does science explain imagination? Neurons firing in your head that resemble a loved one? Or the blood becoming excited stimulating a moment of free fall or flight? Even so, who is the one imagining? The neurons?

reply to post by filosophia


All of what you have written is fantastic and i'm pleased for you. But you didn't do any of it, it was all being done. Everything is being done, whether they appear as conscious good choices or unconscious bad choices. It's all just a movie so why not enjoy all the comings and goings. Sit back and enjoy the show. There really is no one doing it. That's the good news.

reply to post by filosophia

You say you have control, but how can that be? Can you stop breathing, can you say when it is you are going to die, can you tell me what your next thought will be? It is so cute when this is believed so strongly.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I can not do all of those things but I believe it is within man's power. His spiritual power. I can do many things, but that is not for me to share with you, you must find your own powers.

reply to post by filosophia


Can you control the words you are reading, or the people you know?
The best we can do is watch and know there is nothing to control, it makes it easier if we have first checked to see that we can not in fact control anything. We might then consider that if it is the case for us, that there's no one controlling us, from inside, then it might be the same for others. Forgiveness and compassion are the result.

There is no one in control, it is just love.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


if there is no control, why does it have to be love? Why not hate? Or just nothing? The problem is I do know I am in control, so I can not give this up. I know it is a temporary control, but control nonetheless. I do know that samadhi is a state where it is like there is no control, a perfect peace, but even then you can return from it and regain control. Basically, if you don't think you can control your hand then there's not much I can do for you.

I can give up control, at that point stop doing anything, but I still choose to give up control, just as you choose to see.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Does Science/Evolution prove Intelligent Design/Religion Wrong?

This whole argument is basically like picking on the retard guy at school.
Do you know what a spider-goat is?
How about a GMO crop is it intelligent design?

So from the scientific side there can be no debate. Intelligent design is now a fact of science.

Can science prove that outside (intelligent design) influence did not happen on earth?
If evolution proves intelligent design false then can intelligent design prove evolution false?

No, its like picking on the retarded guy at school because science will always be the most accepted correct view and religion will always be stuck in dogma.

This should not be a search for who is right but a search for the truth.

I seek the truth and will use science to feed my body and religion to feed my soul and will not look for one to do the others job.

When I see dogma I will call it dogma no matter if it is science dogma (cold blooded dinosaurs or evolution) or religious dogma (pope is gods voice on earth).

One for the records is the big bang theory. Its both!

Calling it dogma is not saying true or false, but saying without facts, just belief, is dogma not truth.

Class! Class! Class! SHUT UP! Please quit picking on the retarded guy he may just be a gift from god and will solve the mysteries of the universe. (but first we would have to listen to what he has to say)

Deny Ignorance

But in the end the only mind you can change is your own.

If we're back to "where did the universe come from if there is no creator?" I'd suggest people go read "The Grand Design" a nice light Stephen Hawking book explaining just this.

The universe sprang from nothing. The big bag is NOT religion disguised as science like some know-it-alls claim. The big bang doesn't rule out the possibility of a 'god' but it also doesn't rely on a creator for the universe to be here. Quantum physics pretty much sums it up when talking about particles.

A particle, lets say a photon, doesn't take a path from point A to B as we'd be accustomed to in the larger world. It takes ALL possible paths, including some that interfere with itself.

Why this universe? Because every and all possible universes also existed, this just happens to be the one we're in. Why the apparent miracles of science that, if changed minutely, would remove the ability for life? Because every possible combination exists, or existed at a time.

Science, quantum physics, and the big bang, are merely steps in our growing understanding. Hell, we could be completely wrong about the big bang. This doesn't change the fact that with current models, predictions can be made and tested, and so far, pass the test. Religion and creationism holds none of these options. You can't test them. You can't evolve or upgrade them. It's dogma.

I really suggest you guys read that book, it's fascinating for one, and simplified so even I feel like i understand it.

reply to post by filosophia


I use the word love because that is the word used to describe what it feels like, but i could use the word home, contentment or peace. Knowing that all is taken care of would not evoke the word hate as a description. Y
You can not give up control, because there is no one in control.
Seeing can not stop.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


there is "something" in control otherwise it could very well be hate as opposed to love, that something is the Self.

reply to post by filosophia


That is the only thing (the self), so where are you in all of this. The self is love. But you are not the controller. The you you talk about who thinks it can control your hand is in fact not in control. There is nothing separate so there are no individuals with free will. There are no individuals.
One universe.
It is all being. All being being done, by no one.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by DrChuck

 

"and then there macro-evolution, where monkeys are men and vice versa"

...what? macroevolution includes changes that occur over such a vast period of time that, by the time the changes are complete, the resulting organism is so different from its predecessors that it is considered a new species. Monkeys are not men and men are not monkeys, and there aren't any serious scientists or researchers who would make that claim. The monkeys around today are in no way the creatures we evolved from. We have our own evolutionary path, we used to be humans, now we are different looking humans with bigger brains. It's really a simple concept, just on a grand scale. I don't see why people are so quick to dismiss macroevolution with "I ain't no goldurn monkey!" Is that what you're saying?

Oh yes, I understand all of the little details of Darwins speculations. But really? The common ancestor as monkeys? It is the environment that the species adapts and evolves too, natural selection favors the organism that is best suited for the environment. The last I check humans and monkeys still live in the same environment, so why are both species which is supposedly from the same ancestor in additional to the same environment so different?

There is absolutely no evidence that we have been "evolved", apart from some random remains found that can be explained a plethora of different ways. It is PURE speculation, nothing more, it is based on faith just as religion is. Which is why I don't consider either schools of thought(Creationism & Evolution) the whole truth.

reply to post by DrChuck


The environment and the 'evolving' species are not separate. It is not the one who is best that survives, like a competition, the species who survives is a winner. Apple trees apple, the apple doesn't have to evolve to suit the tree.

'Freedom
Unless you are free to do something, it makes no sense for your conscience to tell you to do or not to do it.
‘Should implies can.’
‘Morality implies freedom.’
If you are not free to choose to act in a way that reflects your wishes and intentions, then you cannot be blamed for what happens, since praise and blame – and the whole array of moral arguments that stem from them – are based on the assumption that individuals are free to choose how they act, and to take responsibility for what they do."
www.mel-thompson.co.uk... notes/Conscience.pdf

"C.S. Lewis, a former atheist, plainly says, ‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts-i.e. of materialism and astronomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’ 1

The Moral Argument for C.S. Lewis is as follows:

1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.

3.) Therefore, God exists.

Now this is a logical reason, since 3 follows necessarily if premises 1 and 2 are true. Premise 2 seems intuitively obvious to most people. Mass murdering is unequivocally, objectively wrong. Killing innocent children, torturing animals, have dog fights…all for fun is objectively wrong. That is it is wrong for most of humanity, everywhere. These morals exist worldwide as universal morals. Now if anyone denies premise 2, they don’t need an argument, they need help.

The evolutionary explanation strips morality from humans and reduces it to mere descriptions of animal behavior or conduct, a simple physiochemical reaction of the brain’s cognitive functions. Darwinist can only explain past conduct…past behavior. It cannot inform or predict a human’s future behavior. It only serves to reduce morality to mere descriptions of behavior, which involve both motive and intent. Both of these behaviors are nonphysical elements that can not, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian sense. So where do morals come from? Why do they seem to apply only to human beings? Are they the product of chance? What world view makes sense out of morality? Why are babies born with what developmental psychologist’s call an intrinsic compassion (one baby cry’s in the nursery, and the others join in).
Moral laws suggest a moral lawgiver, one who communicates through higher, moral laws. Fore example, most people would not murder someone. They deem this to be morally wrong. He expects His imperatives to be obeyed or certain consequences occur. Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard pointed out that a person could not have anything on his conscience if God did not exist. Morality is grounded in our hunger for justice. We desire for a day when all wrongs are made right, when innocent suffering is finally redeemed, and when the un-caught guilty are finally punished. This also explains our own personal sense of dread. We feel guilty because we are guilty and most people seem to sense that we might have to answer for our own crimes."
www.ministrymaker.com...
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

3 Do not have any other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13 You shall not kill/murder.

14 You shall not commit adultery.

15 You shall not steal.

16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:2-17

'The two Jesus says cover all 10. By loving God, you’re obeying the first 5. By loving your neighbor, including enemies, you covering the last 5."

(If Mankind Would Do What's Right, Then Everyone Would Truly Be Living Peace)

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by DrChuck

 

The environment and the 'evolving' species are not separate. It is not the one who is best that survives, like a competition, the species who survives is a winner. Apple trees apple, the apple doesn't have to evolve to suit the tree.

Your gonna have to elaborate on what you said, I couldn't understand any of it. Apples doesn't have to evolve to suit the tree? Are you saying that the tree is an micro-environment where apples can evolve? I thought the apples phenotype depended on the trees genotype. Or maybe its just a real bad analogy.

Actually it is a competition. Competition for the environments resources, competition for a partner for reproduction, and the ones that are best at both will continue its line.

Originally posted by Ubeen
Does Science/Evolution prove Intelligent Design/Religion Wrong?

Let's take a look at the various combinations of concepts you're trying to superglue together here to see if we can extract some sense from them.

"Intelligent design" claims to be science. It's predictions, such as irreducible complexity, are refuted by scientific evidence. Yes, science proves "intelligent design" wrong. Evolution claims to be science. It's predictions, such as the common ancestry of humans and the great apes, are supported by scientific evidence. That doesn't mean that evolution proves "intelligent design" is wrong, science does. Can science prove religion wrong? I would argue that this can only happen in cases where religion makes testable claims.

This whole argument is basically like picking on the retard guy at school.
Do you know what a spider-goat is?
How about a GMO crop is it intelligent design?

So from the scientific side there can be no debate. Intelligent design is now a fact of science.

So you're conflating genetic engineering with the neo-creationist concept of intelligent design? Those are two different concepts. Also, you're trying to use infinite regression as an argument - that because we can do it, it must have been done to us. Infinite regression arguments are doomed to failure.

Can science prove that outside (intelligent design) influence did not happen on earth?

Yes. Every single testable prediction made by "intelligent design" has been shown to be false.

If evolution proves intelligent design false then can intelligent design prove evolution false?

Evolution doesn't prove "intelligent design" false. Scientific evidence does. Similarly, "intelligent design" cannot prove evolution false. Only scientific evidence can.

No, its like picking on the retarded guy at school because science will always be the most accepted correct view and religion will always be stuck in dogma.

Which is exactly why the inventors of "intelligent design" invented it - as a means to try and move creationism into the science class. And it has failed miserably.

I seek the truth and will use science to feed my body and religion to feed my soul and will not look for one to do the others job.

I would never suggest that someone should try to use science to find meaning or purpose in life. In fact, I don't know any other scientists (and I'm actually in a building with nearly one hundred of them as I type this) that would. So why do others constantly try to force religion-based pseudo-science into classrooms or try to claim that the account of creation in Genesis is scientifically accurate?

When I see dogma I will call it dogma no matter if it is science dogma (cold blooded dinosaurs or evolution) or religious dogma (pope is gods voice on earth).

Is it dogma if it's supported by objective evidence?

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

you are making a religion out of your science if you believe in evolution. You ask what practical applications come from creationism, what practical applications come from evolution? How does evolving from a monkey supposed to make me gain some type of insight as to why I'm alive? It makes no sense. The argument of evolution is: look a bunch of fossils that somehow show animals evolve over time, a beak here, a claw here, a hand here, it makes absolutely no sense on a logical level: a man must come from a man and a woman, not a monkey, not a man and a monkey, not a woman and an alien, it must come from a man and a woman, meaning the "template" (DNA) of a man and woman must exist eternally, but of course we have already illustrated how you have a hard time with that word: eternity.

Gradual change we can believe in? As if it is hard to believe in millions of years of evolution, how about an eternity? Can you believe in that?

You obviously have no understanding of evolutionary theory, that "argument" of evolution is not an argument at all, it's actually "fact" where as your religion has been proven wrong time and time again, both in historical accuracy and with contradictions within the source material.

It's funny you bring up logic...what kind of a man believes that 2000 years ago a carpenter...given supernatural powers was sent by a even more powerful supernatural being to die for the inhabitants of a planet.

What kind of man, disregards FACT to believe in something which solely requires faith.

It's not a logical kind of man. Thats for sure.

Your really summed up your understanding when you started stating that humans came from "Monkeys"....are you that ignorant, or do you seek arguments like this without ever picking up a book?

I bet you think that if evolution were true...why arnt monkeys evolving into humans RIGHT NOW!?

Read a bit. for all our sakes. and not just the Bible.

Originally posted by Crutchley29
It's funny you bring up logic...what kind of a man believes that 2000 years ago a carpenter...given supernatural powers was sent by a even more powerful supernatural being to die for the inhabitants of a planet.

Also funny that Jesus could turn water into wine; yet, he needed a tool kit to build a table. I suppose carpentry isn't a divine power, huh?

Factual Science explains how God works.


It's that simple.



Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I always find it interesting concerning the logic of those who say creationism, or the idea of intelligent design is impossible or lunacy.

We look at a painting and have no problems believing that it was created by an artist. We look at a building and have no problem believing it was constructed by a contractor. We watch a plane fly up above us and have no problems believing it was designed by an engineer.

Yet, we look at the complexity of the universe, we observe the miracle of birth and procreation....we ee the intricate detail of even the simplest of cells, and we try to convince ourselves that it all just started on its own.

You tell me what's more crazy, to believe that everything that is just "happened" or that some where somehow, an intelligence beyond our understanding (remember the human brain is limited in its ability to grasp the big picture),that something or someone started all this and did so intentionally.