|
2 registered members (TipmyPip, izorro),
556
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: fastlane69]
#145724
08/06/07 13:54
08/06/07 13:54
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010 analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
What would be the negative proofs for evolution?  I think that if you search you will discover that current evolutionary theory has obscured any real path to falsification of macro-evolution also. Quote:
In any serious science project, we have a set of proofs that if completed prove that our theory is wrong. So for example if we don't find the Higgs, then the entire mathematical structure of the standard model is wrong... no debates... no blind trust... wrong is wrong.
Your talking about hard science, biology and paleontolgy are soft sciences(although there are population geneticists and other sciences involved which use math). Macro-evolution cannot be tested in the same way that physicists test their theories and there really is no standard model in evolutionary theory.
Quote:
lack of any negative proofs.
I also would hesitate to use the word "any", there are a multitude of things that could help prove creation wrong:
1)life could be created in the lab 2)life could be found on other planets 3)we could observe macro-evolution in the lab. (Which should be thoroughly possible given the reproduction rate and short lifespans of bacteria combined with our ability to subject them to any simulated environmental changes) 4)the missing links could be found. In order to have the amount of fully functional creature species which we have today we should be able to find exponentially more of these half-functional fossil remains. For macro-evolution to be true, we should see so many more of these creatures because macro-evolution would need tons and tons of experimentations before it found functionality.
But time will tell. If we really understood dna like we want to some day then perhaps we can more or less engineer mutations in the lab which would cause macro trans-species changes. Then when we can cause a kind of "guided evolution" in the lab, we would then probably be closer to falsifying creation.
But I think just by looking at this whole issue objectively you can see that there really are so many different sciences involved and so many different theories that it would be difficult to nail down one thing that is going to "falsify God" or "falsify creation" 
There is a lot that exists in physics right now that seem to promote a God. Things like the Big Bang itslef speak of a beginning to the universe, if the universe had a beginning, then we are the product of an effect, every effect needs a cause...
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, that could be against the idea of a beginning..
My overall point is that I agree with you mostly, that given man's current level of technology, there is no way to falsify the ENTIRE body of information which promotes a God and creation, but science is working towards ways to falsify parts of it.
But I would also encourage you to look at some of the theories which support evolution and decide if they have any negative proofs also, I think you might be amazed at the lack of falsibility for that "theory" also.
As for young earth creationists I also agree that there is no way to find negative proofs there, I myself am an "old earth creationist", but I still keep an open mind about the theory, as I also try to keep an open mind towards the theory of evolution. In my mind the theory of evolution does not mean that God doesnt exist, or effect my Christianity in any way, yet I am unable to rationalize the theory of evolution.
Like Isaac Newton, everywhere I look I see design and creation, this is instinctual for me personally.
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: NITRO777]
#145725
08/06/07 16:15
08/06/07 16:15
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
"falsify God" or "falsify creation
Quote:
There is a lot that exists in physics right now that seem to promote
It's this confrontational approach to religion and science that disturbs me. They are NOT mutually exclusive which means that proving one does not invalidate the other. Physics has and always will be very spiritual for as we find more about the universe around us, we find more wonders and more questions and for me that quest for answers IS the quest for god. The Creation Museum left me with the impression that the quest for answers is the quest away from god and I don't agree.
Quote:
technology, there is no way to falsify the ENTIRE body of information which promotes a God and creation, but science is working towards ways to falsify parts
Again my only bone of contention is a theory that states the Earth and Universe are 4000 years old and not the 15 billion that Hubble, the COBE probe, Geology, and other sciences say it is. And to do so because a book says so is against my grain for, while I know that book means the world to the religious, to everyon else it is just a book and thus cannot be used as proof of anything!
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: fastlane69]
#145726
08/06/07 21:11
08/06/07 21:11
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010 analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
And to do so because a book says so is against my grain for, while I know that book means the world to the religious, to everyon else it is just a book and thus cannot be used as proof of anything!
Well so then I guess I am safe to assume that you dont believe a God would use a book to communicate His thoughts to the world? Or maybe you dont think that a God would want to communicate His thoughts at all? Or that He wouldnt use people at all as the vessels of His Word?
My personal opinion is that a Supreme being would want to reach everyone, children and scientists alike. Both the poor and rich, the powerful and weak, etc etc, so therefore a book would be a great way to do so.
I dont think God really wanted to create a technical manual, but simply rendered His discourse on creation with a couple of chapters. It is clear from reading the Bible, if you believe that it is God's message to people as I do, that God is much more interested in people dynamics than He is in science.
I guess my point is that it would seem very unbalanced and distorted if God reserved the knowledge of His existence to those who understood physical laws and math proofs, because in doing so He would have excluded 99% of the world, and would be entrusting the stewardship of his knowledge to scientists alone.In this case scientists alone would be the "preists of God" and simple childlike wonder found in the eyes of any child who sees the wonder of God by looking at a leaf or frog would be null and void.
It is instinctual for us to believe in God as children, so therefore that instinct, as all instinct,would have planted by the supreme Being in creation.
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: fastlane69]
#145727
08/06/07 21:16
08/06/07 21:16
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010 analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
And to do so because a book says so is against my grain for
The Bible doesnt say that the earth is 6000 years old,(calculated through the geneologoes as you had said) that is only the young earth creationist viewpoint. The Bible DOES say that Adam was created 6000 years ago, but that doesnt necessarily mean that the earth was created the same time as Adam.
The Bible says that "In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth" It doesnt say when that beginning actually was. You can read it for yourslef, it is the first verse of the first chapter. The beginning could very well have been 15 billion years ago.
Quote:
The Creation Museum left me with the impression that the quest for answers is the quest away from god and I don't agree.
I definitely agree with you here, there is no reason to see them as mutually exclusive, I have always tried to see the world with open eyes.
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: fastlane69]
#145728
08/06/07 21:50
08/06/07 21:50
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
It's this confrontational approach to religion and science that disturbs me. They are NOT mutually exclusive which means that proving one does not invalidate the other.
Of course they are. Religion, in any organized or systematized form, is wholely incompatible with empiricism. The simple fact that religious beliefs are not based on experience and experiment demonstrates this.
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#145729
08/06/07 23:18
08/06/07 23:18
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Nitro: I realize the Young Earth creationists are in the small, small minority and they don't represent mainstream christian belief... that is why this museum is a bit insidious for it gives the wrong imprssion about religion and about the state of kentucky![
quote]The simple fact that religious beliefs are not based on experience and experiment demonstrates this.
Religion beliefs are most assuradly based on experience, albeit for the most part in the form of local, personal experiences rather than global, sharable experiences. In fact, religious experiences are the one constant of all religions. The sense of touching a higher power, the spiritual feeling of wholeness, the altered state of conciousness through meditation... every spiritual philosophy shares this whether they attribute it to A god, several gods, or some ephemeral higher power. Science says it's chemical (and there have been some new interesting studies in this area); Religion says it's spiritual. Either way these experiences forms the cornerstone of the "proof" of a higher power.
And Religion also has experiements. For example: The hypothesis are that if I pray, I will get what I want. The procedure is going to church praying every night or whatever. The data is whether the effect you wanted happened or not. Remember that an experiement is not getting the result you want but following a set procedue to get results. The difference between scientific experiements and religious ones is that no matter what the outcome, to a religiously devout person, the result is always -- if my prayer is answered, it valiates my belief in god; if it's not, it still validates my belief in god in that god determines granting you the prayer is not right for you -- while science is bereft of any such morality and an end result, expected or unexpected, what you wanted or not, is just that: only a result upon which to build new hypothesis. Therefore to me, the only real difference between science and religion is in the repeatability and standardization of the experimental results. These are lacking in Religion and form the cornerstone of Science.
But all that aside, the pursuit of religion does not need to mean the rejection of science or vice-versa; it is in this sense that I state they are not mutually exclusive.
Nitro: I realize the Young Earth creationists are in the small, small minority and they don't represent mainstream christian belief... that is why this museum is a bit insidious for it gives the wrong imprssion about religion and about the state of kentucky!
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: fastlane69]
#145730
08/07/07 08:06
08/07/07 08:06
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967 Frankfurt
jcl

Chief Engineer
|

Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
|
Old Earth creationists are a small minority, not Young Earth creationists. In the poll on this forum YECs outnumber OECs 12:1. This is also consistent with the number of YEC websites compared with OEC websites. Only in the public, OEC are the more visible group due to their attempts to influence the US education system.
I don't think that you can apply scientific standards, like falsification and experience, to religion. Science and religion only have in common that both provide a world view. But the scientific world view is motivated by the search for truth, while the religious world view has many personal motivations, like redemption from guilt, hope of divine help, or an afterlife. Therefore it's logical that both views must be different because their focus is different. Most modern religions however - apart from OEC and YEC - construct their world view in a way that it's not falsifiable by science.
Even when you believe in a religious world view that appears falsifiable, like the YEC world view, you can choose just to ignore any falsifications. I think the more educated YECs, like Ken Ham who built the Creation Museum with the money he got from his followers, are well aware that their 6000 years belief is bunk by scientific standards. But this does not matter because religion is motivated differently.
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: NITRO777]
#145731
08/07/07 08:29
08/07/07 08:29
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I would rather look at facts and references rather than names, degrees, and rhetoric.
I rather believe facts proposed by people that know what they are talking about, not some guy with an idea without proof of anything, let alone proof of at least sóme credibility. Off course, having a degree on itself doesn't mean a thing just yet, but most of the time people talk about things they do not really understand.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: jcl]
#145732
08/07/07 12:35
08/07/07 12:35
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010 analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
In the poll on this forum YECs outnumber OECs 12:1
Is that supposed to be some type of "empirical data"?
Quote:
This is also consistent with the number of YEC websites compared with OEC websites. Only in the public, OEC are the more visible group due to their attempts to influence the US education system.
I also dont think I would take these casual observations as any sort of facts.
Quote:
I don't think that you can apply scientific standards, like falsification and experience,
I thought fastlane's point about religious experience was valid. People of all religious backgrounds experience God or a spiritual awakening, I dont think this word of mouth data from 75% of the world's population ought to be discounted.
Quote:
like Ken Ham who built the Creation Museum with the money he got from his followers, are well aware that their 6000 years belief is bunk by scientific standards
Once again, no proof, just your judgement of another person based on no knowledge of that person's intentions at all.
I suppose someone could just simply say that you are "well aware that your beliefs are bunk." Because where evolution is concerned, I really havent seen much more from you other than insults, opinions, rhetoric, and bias. It is clear that you are definitely not motivated by the "truth" as you claim to be.
Quote:
but most of the time people talk about things they do not really understand.
yes that seems to be the case, thats why attempts to stay on track with known facts is useful.
|
|
|
Re: The Creation Museum
[Re: jcl]
#145733
08/07/07 16:33
08/07/07 16:33
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
But the scientific world view is motivated by the search for truth, while the religious world view has many personal motivations, like redemption from guilt, hope of divine help, or an afterlife.
And so the time-suk begins! 
My point is that they both search for truth. A spiritual truth is just as personally valid as a scientific one is globally valid. If I pray to cure my cancer and it goes away, it is my truth that my prayer caused cancer to go away. What will science say to that? Only that it can't be due to prayer but honestly, we don't know why it went away. This is hardly a scientific truth and thus the personal truth of prayer remains and is strengthend.
Besides, I have a more spiritual view of religion than you seem to espouse. I am agnostic and believe is "some" higher power but not because I feel less guilty or I need help... but because of my experiences and experiments that have led me to that conclusion. I don't expect anyone else to share my viewpoint which is why I accept this as a personal truth and don't need to evangelize or spread any good word. Perhaps we are saying the same thing since I believe your focus is on mainstream organized religions and not spiritual philosophies in general?
Quote:
Therefore it's logical that both views must be different because their focus is different.
I agree completely... they are searching for different things. But just because Biology studies living matter and Physics studies non-living matter doesn't mean that they both don't use the same scientific methods for their investigation. That's what I'm saying about religion and science, they both use experiments and experience eventhough they are interpreted differently. This is why I say that you shouldn't use scientific style investigation for religion... that is to say that your results are reproducable and verfiable... but you can still use experiments and experiences to form your (personal) spiritual worldview.
Quote:
different. Most modern religions however - apart from OEC and YEC - construct their world view in a way that it's not falsifiable [...] Even when you believe in a religious world view that appears falsifiable, like the YEC world view, you can choose just to ignore any falsifications
Bingo! That's the crux of my "prayer" example above. The fundamental difference between science and religion is what you do with the falsifications:
Science accept falsifications and uses them to modify their worldview... Religion also accept falsifications but use it to strengthen their worldview.
If I may: Science is dynamic; Spirituality is dynamic; Religion is static.
|
|
|
|