posted
Cincinnati's Creation Museum is soon to be a reality. This I have to see when completed. I haven't figured out the oxymoronic "creation science" bit since following God's "creation" idea is an act of faith and science...well, isn't. Now it is a museum! Too cool. I wonder if they will sell those little "fish eating Darwin" bumper stickers?
Only in the United States.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: following God's "creation" idea is an act of faith and science...well, isn't.
2 questions:
1 -- do you believe that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, as the theory of relativity states? 2 -- if so, why do you believe so? Have you done any experiments to determine if you can? Could it be said that your belief in this is an act of faith in science and the scientists?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I have done experiments that verify the speed of light is identical in all frames of reference, which combined with a little basic math does verify that nothing can travel at the speed of light (which is all relativity states; something can go faster than light without breaking relativity, its breaking through the light barrier that's the problem).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, agreed. It would be cool if it were more inclusive. I took an Evolution class in College and we spent a week on all the different creation stories from around the world. I am curious what their response will be when people ask about other creation stories?
mph, I don't know if anything can go faster than the speed of light. Physics ain't my bag. Why do you ask?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But fugu, you forget. Before the Fall, there was no death. Hence, the T. Rex was not a threat. After the Fall, the T-Rex became a threat only because death became a possibility. Beforehand, he was just as precious as a kitten.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, generally one makes a distinction between religious faith and a reasonable assumption that scientists tend to do science (that is, test hypotheses and reject those that don't fit) as we have observed them doing for hundreds of years. Also, people actually do reject science when they see or think they see counter-proofs. The nature of religious faith is there are no definitive counter-proofs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, generally one makes a distinction between religious faith and a reasonable assumption that scientists tend to do science (that is, test hypotheses and reject those that don't fit) as we have observed them doing for hundreds of years.
Religious faith is actually more similar to the faith people who have never done (and wouldn't understand how to do) the experiments themselves have in scientific theory. There is generally a distinction made between those, too.
However, people tend to draw distinctions all over the place. The fact that they are drawn does not mean the difference is significant, or meaningful.
quote:Also, people actually do reject science when they see or think they see counter-proofs. The nature of religious faith is there are no definitive counter-proofs.
...except for the existence of human and other life which, though some scientists believe is explainable through evolution, many creationists believe cannot be explained through evolution. Well, and the Bible and other religious documentation. And supposed personal experiences...
I suppose you could say these are not definitive. But, you could say any piece of evidence is not definitive... which is why any disputed theory is disputed rather than simply no longer a theory.
posted
Its cute how you misunderstand science, Tres.
In science, there are definitive counterproofs. There are no definitive counterproofs in religious belief. This comes about because science is a subset of reality that does not admit untestables. This does not mean that in reality as a whole the ideas of science are testable, but that in the domain of science the ideas of science are testable. Religion, OTOH, allows untestables, which makes it impossible to offer definitive counterproofs, as one can come up with an untestable rationalization for anything.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:...except for the existence of human and other life which, though some scientists believe is explainable through evolution, many creationists believe cannot be explained through evolution.
That's pretty disingenuous. Creationists can believe that it isn't explainable all they want, but a lot more than "some" scientists believe it to be explainable. There's more dissent on global warming than there is on evolution, and there's hardly any dissent on global warming. The scientific community doesn't really get much closer to consensus than this -- they may disagree about many particulars, but the premise is quite agreed upon.
quote: There's more dissent on global warming than there is on evolution, and there's hardly any dissent on global warming. The scientific community doesn't really get much closer to consensus than this -- they may disagree about many particulars, but the premise is quite agreed upon.
I disagree.
The "scientific community" that you read about is all in agreement because they refuse to publish any works that disagree with their point of view. So scientists who are pro-intelligent design are forced to publish through other venues, most of which are not recognized by the secular "scientific community" no matter how valid their points or their studies.
So you are only looking at one side of an issue -- of course it is going to seem overwhelming a clear-cut issue to you. You have never even bothered to explore the other point of view.
quote: The "scientific community" that you read about is all in agreement because they refuse to publish any works that disagree with their point of view
FG. This is a common claim of creationists, but I feel it is unmerited. Scientists worthy of the name try to consider alternate theories and explanations in their own work, and shold also consider alternate POVs if the POVs have explanatory power and logical rigour. A lot of creatism doesn't pass this test, particularly those who insist on a lifetime of earth of only a few thousand years despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a common claim of creationists, but I feel it is unmerited.
Without comparison otherwise, it is also a common claim of UFO enthusiasts, Holocaust deniers, and crystal healers.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
this museum is right in my back yard! (well, not that close, but about a 20 minute drive). Its right next to the CVG airport, and about a month ago, after arriving back at the airport, i stopped by. One of the phd's there gave me a FULL tour of the whole building. It is simply AMAZING! They really are doing first rate work, and i know there are a ton of 'not so credible' creation science groups, but I believe answers in genesis to be the most credible one, they have a whole team of scientists that specialize in a full sprectrum of subjects. I wish i could go in to all of the stuff that will be discussed in the museum, but it is soo much information. All i can say is, its great, and if youre ever in the neighborhood, when its complete, to stop by and see for yourself.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While AIG is better than most, they're hardly good. FOr a logical gem from an AIG newsletter:
quote:Is evolution really sun worship?
Part of the evolutionist’s religion is that energy from the sun—acting on a primeval soup millions of years ago—caused the first life-forms to emerge. Thus, they believe that the sun really gave birth to living things. They are really giving glory to the sun’s energy for life.
Down through the ages, culture after culture has worshipped the sun. If you recall, the Israelites were warned not to worship the sun like the pagan nations around them.
There is a difference between worshiping something, and claiming it is part of the mechanism for the begining of life, even if evolutionary theories agreed on it, which they don't.
There is also lava vents and comit strikes and other sources of energy that some scientists claim may have helped convert random chemicals into protiens and life.
This argument that, "Since they think the Sun was responsible for life, they are all heathen sun worshippers, and God told us to avoid them right here in the bible" is the type of over generalization and confrontation creating bad logic that makes people who come at this subject with an open mind cringe at the idea of supporting creationists.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same people who think a "day" has to be a specific 24 hour period (instead of merely signifying a unit of time) are usually the same people who believe the Bible was written in the King's english.
posted
What is difficult in the discussion of Evolution is the stakes. For a creationist who is also a Biblical literalist, their entire faith hangs in the balance. If Evolution is at all true, the foundations for their beliefs is shattered and if that is wrong, what about the rest of the book? For someone who finds Evolution to make sense (as a whole...I doubt many people know the different mechanisms that are constantly argued, etc.) if we found that gradual evolution was now in the lead of sudden evolution well...they will probably be able to sleep at night.
I love the Sun worship statement. Too funny. That site or one linked to it also had a "scientific" explanation on how Noah's ark really could have worked. See, God said "kinds of animals" not "species of animals" so those that shake their head thinking "no way could Noah get every species of animal on board" can be rest assured that not every species of canine was on board, simply one pair of dogs met God's will (from this I guess would come wolves, foxes, all dog breeds, etc.).
The fact that genetics shows that it takes significantly more than two of each species to survive more than a generation seems to be beyond them. So not only is Evolution on the stand, basic genetics are being questioned, too. Yowza.
I didn't realize that the museum was completed. The website makes it look like it isn't finished yet.
posted
Well, actually, you could in principle have a species descend from a single breeding pair. There is, I believe, some evidence that cheetahs are all descended from a single set of siblings, some twenty thousand years ago.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted this thread kind of tongue in cheek, obviously, but the bigger stake for science is pretty significant. There is a giant push to get "intelligent design" taught along side of Evolution and in some places, somewhere in Penn at least, this is the law.
What will be the long term effect on classrooms if this becomes the norm for science education? I mean, this is literally old school...like centuries-old school. When any scientific theory comes up hard against a literal interpretation of a translated text 2 centuries old will kids have to constantly have to deal with insecure religious folks before moving on? The fields of genetics, evolutionary biology, geology, sociology, history and so on are constantly at odds with religion, in particular the Christian faiths (do Apache's, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. challenge scientific theory like this?). Can kids have a serious discussion about Jesus of Nazareth in historical context? Can kids study geology and the ages of rocks (not the Rock of Ages...to turn a phrase from "Inherit the Wind") without fear that someone who has a shaky grasp of their religion will come pounding through the figurative door with a court order to not teach earth being older than 10,000 years? Pretty frightening stuff.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Creationist always remind me of that stand up comic who had the line "someone came into my house and stole all my furniture and replaced it with exact duplicates."
If God would do something this ridicules then they might be right. Jehovah you prankster!
posted
KoM, very interesting. Never heard of that. Must have worked out for all animals, including humans, then (since I assume Noah and his family were all that survived the flood, right? Have to re-read my science...I mean religious texts once again). I would love a link on the Cheetah thing but in my little experience with genetics you inbreed two parents and their children you are going to have one messed up little crew...until they all die of some horrible recessive trait genetic syndrome, that is.
posted
The genesis account says Noah took sets of seven of most species, not just two. So the two parent thing isn't necessarily a problem...
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What confuses me about biblical literalism is that there seems to be nobody who truly takes the bible literally. Passages like "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" are interpreted metaphorically. Why? Why don't any biblical literalists call for self mutilation as a way of dealing with sins? "If you would be perfect, sell all you have and give it to the poor and come follow me." Jesus does not seem to be speaking metaphorically there at all. Why isn't that taken literally by biblical literalists? Why do they still have so much stuff?
When I've asked about those passages (which are direct statements of Christ, which I would think would have more authority than stuff in the Old Testament), people tell me what they've been taught those passages actually mean, giving a non-literal interpretation. Then they still insist that other passages (even in the old testament) be taken literally. Do biblical literalists not see this as an inconsistency in their own methods?
posted
AK, it seems strange, but it does make a certain amount of sense. From what I understand, biblical literalists believe that the Bible is a true historical account. Thus, when the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old, it must be true. Further, when the Bible says that Jesus said "If you would be perfect, sell all you have and give it to the poor and come follow me.", etc, he must have said it. But believing for certain that he said those words doesn't mean believing he meant the words to be taken literally.
The difference, I think, is that it is much easier to take strange histories literally than it is to take difficult advice. But it's not an exactly parallel situation, so you can't expect to change too many minds with this argument.
-----
KoM:
quote:Well, actually, you could in principle have a species descend from a single breeding pair. There is, I believe, some evidence that cheetahs are all descended from a single set of siblings, some twenty thousand years ago.
All cheetahs being descended from a single set of siblings does not necessarily imply that they were generated from a single breeding pair. Not saying it's impossible -- I haven't seen the original article. There have certainly been many Adams and Eves (humans who are the ancestors of all living humans), and recent evidence points to surprisingly recent Adams. (I'd include a link, but I'm lazy.) But I think the general consensus in the scientific community is that there was no single generating pair of humans. (Then again, we all know what the general consensus of the scientific community is worth. )
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Also, I would definitely say most creationists aren't used to scientific thinking, or else they'd stop saying you can't add genetic material to things (not all do this, but most). That's done in many classrooms a year in every college campus in the US (and most high schools, too), and the only possible conclusion I can come to is that people who say its not possible have spent essentially no time thinking about science at all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I decided it was unfair and removed it apparently a few seconds after Dag had the same thought and decided to share. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Eve had only three sons, where’d Cain find his wife?
quote:Does anyone know how this happened? I'm really curious to know.
Just because certain offspring are mentioned doesn't mean that other offspring weren't. Eve is called "mother of all living" - thus, Cain and Seth's original wives most likely were from Eve as well. Lack of proof isn't proof of lack Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the cheetahs, no link, sorry. I read an article in New Scientist a few years ago. I know a species can be descended from a set of siblings without being descended only from those siblings; but, if memory serves, this article claimed that the cheetah population was at one point precisely three individuals, which were siblings. It went on to suggest that this is why cheetahs are so easy to wipe out, being all quite closely related, with the associated problems.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:1 -- do you believe that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, as the theory of relativity states? 2 -- if so, why do you believe so? Have you done any experiments to determine if you can? Could it be said that your belief in this is an act of faith in science and the scientists?
The same theory tells us that time slows down as you approach the speed of light, and this has been observed with atomic clocks. Oh, and atomic explosions, also the same theory. These seems like pretty spectacular corroborations if you ask me.
quote:So scientists who are pro-intelligent design are forced to publish through other venues, most of which are not recognized by the secular "scientific community" no matter how valid their points or their studies.
Then you should be able to list for me several examples of ID results being submitted to and rejected by scientific journals .
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In science, there are definitive counterproofs. There are no definitive counterproofs in religious belief. This comes about because science is a subset of reality that does not admit untestables.
Fugu, There are 'definitive' counterproofs, at least insofar as proof can be found of anything, for both religion and science. For instance, some religions said the world was flat and were definitively proven wrong, in my view. (Even these, though, might be called not definitive by some because there seems to be an alternative explanation for any piece of evidence, even it resorts to saying we are dreaming it, or God is fooling us, or something bizarre to that effect.)
At the same time, there are many things that fall under "science" that are untestable. This is in a large part because science doesn't really restrict itself to the subset of reality you are referring to, although it is supposed to. For instance, there is nothing testable about the theory that life evolved, because you cannot test the truth of claims about the past. (The past may have not even ever really existed as far as we know. Or the laws may have radically changed for no known reason at any point.) Thus, if science were being strict, they would call the larger theory of evolution not the domain of science, and stick only to the claim that life is evolving in the present, which is more testable. That's not how science actually operates, however, and thus it allows in many untestable ideas.
There is usually not much trouble with truly testable scientific claims that contradict religion. This is because, if something is actually testable, religion cannot easily flat out deny the results of that test. But when something is not directly testable, like the larger theory of evolution, it is debatable.
quote:This is a common claim of creationists, but I feel it is unmerited. Scientists worthy of the name try to consider alternate theories and explanations in their own work, and shold also consider alternate POVs if the POVs have explanatory power and logical rigour.
See "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn for a contraversial but very popular and non-creationist argument against this. Kuhn argues that history illustrates that science attempts primarily to make facts fit into their POV, rather than consider alternatve POVs, except in rare situations (the "crisis").
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that in the domain of science questions about the past are falsifiable. If you claim Stephen King never wrote a book with a dragon in it, and I produce a book which has considerable evidence it was written by King and happens to include a dragon, that event is scientifically falsified, even if in a more general worldview it is not strictly falsifiable.
Now, Science doesn't admit that any beliefs about the past can be proved true (as that's just silly), but in the domain of Science they can certainly be proven false.
Thing is, what a scientist means by proof and what you mean by proof are two very different things. In an absolute sense I can't prove anything except that "I" perceive. I can't prove rain is wet, I can't prove fire is hot, I can't prove the earth is round, heck, I can't even prove that those things exist. But that's a rather useless stringency of proof in almost any instance (though I am slowly working on a fascinating paper working purely with the only provable thing -- the instantaneous perception).
So science doesn't admit that as being the standard of proof in its domain, they pick another standard. And by that standard, theories about past events are falsifiable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because certain offspring are mentioned doesn't mean that other offspring weren't. Eve is called "mother of all living" - thus, Cain and Seth's original wives most likely were from Eve as well. Lack of proof isn't proof of lack
I don't mean to be mean, but sometimes I wish people would just READ the bible. The proof of your assumption is here... Genesis 5:4...
quote: And the days of Adam after he had begotten seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters
The funny thing about evolution and God is that neither one ultimately proves that the other is falacy. The fact that many creationists claim that evolution is impossible is in great part plain old stubborn Puritanism. I have no objections to evolution among animals. I do have some problems with evolution among humans, mostly because I've seen a number of holes in it. This is mostly due to the fact that I am not properly educated in the subject. All I have to go on is my own theories following lines of logic based on what I HAVE learned about evolution. I'm not going to post much of an argument on the subject here. I'm only going to mention the fact that Science works outside of religion because religion has shunned it, and the acceptance of religion, EDIT: to some scientists, prohibits the explaination of how things happen, which is important to know. If creationists would realize this, they'd realize that God's a heck of a lot smarter than they give him credit for being. For an all powerful being, it wouldn't take much to just say, "Exist" and the universe creates itself in a big poof. It takes a lot more intellect and power to make things happen naturally according to laws. Saying that God said it and it was is not giving enough credit to God in my book. I think science is doing a lot of good in trying to explain the laws that govern our universe. But I also believe in God. So why is everyone arguing over who is right? What if both sides are partly right?
[ December 09, 2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you'll find (as I have, and it only makes sense given that the vast majority of Americans are Christian) that most people who think evolution occurs "believe" in what is known as theistic evolution. That is, they believe God is the reason for evolution, in the same way that God is the reason for the heavens and the earth.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So science doesn't admit that as being the standard of proof in its domain, they pick another standard. And by that standard, theories about past events are falsifiable.
You can't pick what counts as proof. I can't say, for instance, that "well, my opinion may not prove something in reality, but for me my opinion counts as proof, so X is proven." If this were true then everything religious would be falsifiable too, because they use different standards for "proof" which can, in fact, prove their beliefs.
Proof is whatever actually is proof in reality. What's falsifiable is whatever is falsifiable in reality. Whether science "admits" it or not does not change that fact. The standard of proof is what it is whether any of us like it or not.
And if there is something called "scientifically falsified" that is different from "actually falsified in reality" then we can safely say scientific falsification is not actually falsification.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
