Creationist Answer Please (page 5)

Big Dog

Daunt, is that really what typically goes on? It seems to me that belief in God and his works has always been based on faith rather than scientific method, with the exception of a few individuals it seems to me that most are willing ot concede there is no proof for God etc.

Daunt

The few creationist I see posing as successful scientists yes Big Dog. Most creationist seem to base it on faith, but to make the claim seem a little more scientific many of em are like what I have explained before. The few I've seen anyways. Generally almost all base it on faith though.

IronGland

Dr. Dolphin was lead researcher for the research lab at Stanford and was involved in developing much of the early space program.

Ok, would you allow him to repair your car or perform surgery on you or repair your home's foundation? He's a scientist after all....

Big Dog

Daunt, you and Tetra, Funky and others are doing a good thing here, it has helped me reframe the issue in my mind about what is really being argued ie. science, what it claims to know, what it doesn't, what the actual issues are.

I will simply repeat my plea that I made in another thread, when dealing with those that have not had the advantage of higher education, or that maybe are just not that bright, try to be a little gentle with them, its like coming out of the borg, it can be quite a jolt. Sometimes it has to be done in stages, come out of the borg, big first step, next is dismantle some of the fundie thinking they had and so on. I know it can be frustrating dealing with bible quoting fundies but as Little Toe put it so eloquently on another thread, try to remember there is a human being, no matter how misguided, on the other end of the cable.

tetrapod.sapien

I will simply repeat my plea that I made in another thread, when dealing with those that have not had the advantage of higher education, or that maybe are just not that bright, try to be a little gentle with them, its like coming out of the borg, it can be quite a jolt. Sometimes it has to be done in stages, come out of the borg, big first step, next is dismantle some of the fundie thinking they had and so on. I know it can be frustrating dealing with bible quoting fundies but as Little Toe put it so eloquently on another thread, try to remember there is a human being, no matter how misguided, on the other end of the cable.

so true Big Dog,

i apologize for any high handedness on my part in this thread or others.

TS

Daunt

I have to admit I am pretty hard on folks (Mostly Hibs) with these discussions. Talk to me about this 5 years ago and I would be huddled in a corner crying from all the facts I was getting eh. So ya I agree with you on that Big Dog. But it's hard not to accept a challenge now eh.

Big Dog

I said it before and I'll say it again, Tetra, Daunt, and the lot of ya are good eggs! I have learned more in the last couple of days reading these threads about evolution etc. than I have in years. Keep up the good work!

And Daunt, I hear you about rising to the challenge, I think everyone has subjects that they are passionate about that we have to be careful not to get too crazy over. You know what they say, nothing worse than a reformed (fill in the blank).

Cygnus

"[In a post-Darwinian utopia,] our own 'ordinary' consciousness may be unmasked as a shallow and uninteresting vehicle of malaise whose properties we were physiologically incapable of recognising 'from the inside'. At present, however, we lack the neural substrates of a capacity to set archaic consciousness in a pre- and post-Darwinian context. Or as Einstein says: 'What does the fish know of the sea in which it swims?'

Physical science, the scientific rationalist may freely go on to admit, has not yet definitively settled on the ultimate ontological furniture of the universe. There is plenty of theoretical and experimental work to be done investigating whether its ontological primitives are particles, fields, probability waves, loops, superstrings or whatever. The relationships between these primitives still tantalisingly awaits a complete and unified mathematical description as well. But whatever really exists e.g. macroscopic objects, itself supervenes on mind-independent configurations of these ontologically basic primitive entities, events or properties. Values, on the other hand, are merely mind-dependent subjective fictions. We don't read them off the world, but project them on to it."

http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon2.htm

Perhaps this (values and ethical concerns) is what our greatest expenditure of energy ought to be invested towards...

Shining One

Hi Skyman,
The universe had a beginning (according to measurements that can be observed). God cannot be observed except when He chooses to reveal Himself within the stream of time. Since God or 'First Cause' brought about the universe, He is transcendant and not subject to any limitations set my our reasoning or logic. He needs no beginning nor any end.
I am, from scripture is 'ego eime' and it means 'I exist'. This is the fact that needs to be accepted before any other proposition is valid. Logic cannot explain God, nor can it explain any claim that there is 'no God'.
Rex

DannyBloem

I am, from scripture is 'ego eime' and it means 'I exist'. This is the fact that needs to be accepted before any other proposition is valid. Logic cannot explain God, nor can it explain any claim that there is 'no God'

Science can not prove that there is a God,
Science can not prove that there is no god.

So, why keep trying....

What science can prove is that if can't take the bible literary.
Science can prove that we do not need a god to explain most of the things (maybe all).
Science can prove that many of the claims hold by creationists are not valid.

In the future, there will probably always be a hiding place for God, a dark corner that science can't explain yet.

but science will be able to explain more about space and time in the future, maybe more about consiousness and the working of our brain. Will find more effidence of out past.
Maybe be able to crate life, without god.
etc.

Creationist Answer Please

Share this