Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Newbie Questions
by fairtrader. 12/05/23 14:22
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
4 registered members (AndrewAMD, Quad, soulman3, Ayumi), 675 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: AlbertoT] #147395
08/13/07 20:44
08/13/07 20:44
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline OP
Expert
NITRO777  Offline OP
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

Well I thought Creationism claims "scientific" reasons for rejecting evolution, and not only Christian faith?



Were you under the impression that evolutionists only became that way after they got their degree? The fact of the matter is that both Christians and non-Christians alike start with a bias, and then they accumulate evidence for their bias throughout their scientific careers. As evidenced by the many people on this forum who dont have relevant degrees, ..yet are so willing to have an opinion But you are right, we should always stick to the facts, numbers of people which believe one way or the other really dont change facts any.

As you know, Christians are the same as non-Christians in this respect, there are the majority which just accept what their leaders tell them, and there are the minority that want to investigate. Both Christians and non-Christians alike can show a tendency to study things, and they both can show a tendency to ignore facts.

Christianity itself would logically appeal to a "dumber" geographic because the central principles of hope for the suffering, the poor, and the mistreated. Unfortunately those who suffer the most among us are generally not as educated. However, this doesnt make them "dumb", if Newton or einstein were born in rural africa their intelligence might have been supressed by the more urgent need to survive

For example, in my many discussions with non-Christians I happen to know that most of them simply accepted whatever their high school biology said without question and without knowing even a fraction of the theory.


Quote:

Anyway there are many Christian scientists, who have no problems to be a Christian and an evolutionist scientist at the same time.



Right, and I dont think there is anything "damning" about belief in the theory of evolution I just know that the type of Christian which believes in a literal translation of the Bible is generally a creationist. I dont really know how someone could read the Bible otherwise, however, I try to keep open minded about evolution, like perhaps God guided evolution, or perhaps he just "wound the universe up" like a giant watch. I wouldnt rule out the possibility at all.


Quote:

As you said yourself Newton ,same as many other scientists beleived in God
The reason is that, at the time, the hypothesis of God was reasonable


I never agreed to whether Newton would have believed in the modern world or not, I only asserted that it would be pointless and worthless to speculate what he might have been, that would be all anectdotal evidence for which there would be no possible way for us to determine the validity. I would not bother with trying to figure out what Newton MIGHT HAVE BEEN, I only care about what he actually was. And he actually was a very passionate born again, fundamentalist creationist, who found his scientific ideas via the filter of harmonious order which he observed, (much like Keplers perspective) in addition to that, he was surrounded by people who disagreed with his ideas.

Quote:

Vice versa , there are more un-Christian than Christian scientists because there are more evolutionists scientists.


No. People do not become Christian or un_Christian because of science. If so then 99% of the people on this forum would be hopelessly non-catagorized because there are very few here who know the major points of evolutionary theory, and almost noone here can understand Einsteins theories, which certainly have relevance to universe' origins.

Therefore it is not by science that people choose whether God has created the heavens and earth. It IS by their own personal bias and/or their ability to accept blind interpretations of facts from "authorities" for no other reason than the fact that they are alleged authorities.

Most of the scientists and doctors I have talked to knew their position on God and creation well before they entered college.

So my original hypothesis is still valid. There are less Christian scientists simply because there are less literal Christians. It has nothing to do with facts or intelligence, it is simply a demographics game.

As a matter of fact the journey from hypothesis to theory is anything but orderly. What makes a hypothesis a theory? When 50% of the scientists agree? Or when all of the dissenters are gone? Its ridiculous that a theory is only true when it is accepted by the majority of scientist...

True science delegates every theory to a provisional, tentative, arguable status...nothing like the tautology and numbers game seen today.

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: NITRO777] #147396
08/13/07 21:04
08/13/07 21:04
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
inFusion Offline
User
inFusion  Offline
User

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
Well Nitro, it has been great fun seeing you twist and turn to avoid being "hit" by any argument brought up in this discussion

Quote:

because there are very few here who know the major points of evolutionary theory, and almost noone here can understand Einsteins theories, which certainly have relevance to universe' origins.




Do you know the major points of evolutionary theory? Do you understand Einsteins theories? I know you never claimed that you would, thats why I am asking you now.

Quote:

As a matter of fact the journey from hypothesis to theory is anything but orderly. What makes a hypothesis a theory? When 50% of the scientists agree? Or when all of the dissenters are gone? Its ridiculous that a theory is only true when it is accepted by the majority of scientist...

True science delegates every theory to a provisional, tentative, arguable status...nothing like the tautology and numbers game seen today.




Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you want to validate the creationist world view as a scientific theory that is equal to the Theorie of Evolution. If not then I am sorry, but if so, then I have to disagree.
The act of creation like it literarily is described in the bible has been disproven by the discovering of ancient fossiles of dinosaurs. Following the 7-Day creation of the world and all life no dinosaur fossiles would exist.
Creationists however try to avoid this rather solid argument by claiming that god would have put this "fake" fossiles there to be found by humans.
Introducing God, a beeing that acts on its own behalf and whos actions are rather random (from a scientific point of view) disqualifies a theorie from beeing scientific.
With God anything can be true or untrue. A real scientific theorie should know no exceptions.
It is as if i was to say: "There is no gravity" "But why did that apple just fall down then?" "Ah well, God must have thought it would be better for the apple to fall to earth, so he made it fall - oh look the bird over there is flying, see, there is no gravity"
Or: "There is no gravity .. except SOMETIMES (and it is not possible to tell when and when not), if God WANTS it to be there (and you never know when he wants it to be there and when not)...."

... don't you realize what a backstep this is??

Last edited by inFusion; 08/13/07 21:26.

"Wer nicht mit der Zeit geht, muss mit der Zeit gehen" - Bernd Stromberg
----
www.kihaki.de/reincarnation
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: inFusion] #147397
08/13/07 21:36
08/13/07 21:36
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659
San Francisco
JetpackMonkey Offline
Serious User
JetpackMonkey  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659
San Francisco
Don't these people believe in elementary physics?

Creationism defies all kinds of science in manifold ways. If you claim that the world was created, what, 6000 years ago, then you have to admit that radio-carbon dating which identifies substances older than 6K years as nonsense.

So, creationists chuck physics out the window.

And geology.

And anthropology.

And ancient literature.

And archaeology.

Whoop! Out the window, it's all wrong!

Or is it that it is easier for ignorant people unwilling/afraid/unable to invest the hard work of examining reality to simply believe in magical stories? Is it a quick way for them to feel like they've got all the answers, to put themselves above brainy and intimidating academic and scholarly types, to dismiss all the complicated systems that they cannot understand and hide their ignorance?

Gee if only those scientists and biologists would just become born again, they too could have their brains washed of reality and liberated from the scientific method. Everything would be so much easier.

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: JetpackMonkey] #147398
08/13/07 23:21
08/13/07 23:21
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,305
Damocles Offline
Expert
Damocles  Offline
Expert

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,305
The theological / creationist method of "prove" is easy:

in contrast to scientific reasoning, where you have to state a theory
that you have to proove, and! that needs to be falsifiable (there needs to be
a way to bring counterarguments, that could disprove the theory)

the theological argumentation is simple:

You start from a view that cant be falsified (there is a god, and god obviousely cant be disproven
- wich scientificly is not a proove, as it is not falsifiable)

Then you argument against the scientific theories, wich are naturally falsifiable.
But the theories are not falsified by correct counterproves, but simply
"disproved" by arguing that parts of the theory are not fully shown/proved.
(since alsmost no theory can be proved by recorded arguments along all its way,
as there is simply not all records available)

Also only theories that contradict in their outcome the theological view are attacked.
If there is enough evidence (like the earth really beeing a sphere), then the next theories are
attacked.

If there are no logical counterarguments, the scientific theories are simply ignored, and
adressed as "godless"

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: Damocles] #147399
08/14/07 01:59
08/14/07 01:59
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline OP
Expert
NITRO777  Offline OP
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis


Quote:

The theological / creationist method of "prove" is easy:



Quote:

but I think you want to validate the creationist world view as a scientific theory that is equal to the Theorie of Evolution.


You guys are definitely misunderstanding my purposes, personally, you might be talking about other creationists or whatever, I really have no idea what "every creationist" might think, but I can tell you with finality that I myself really do not strive to prove creation as a scientific theory... because I dont think it can be proved. period.

My point is this, to study biology and some other issues surrounding the theories of origins.

I will tell you my belief is that there is a God who created all matter and life, but this is not something I try to work out in a scientific way. My belief in God stems purely from my belief that what the Bible says is true, quite simply, I believe what it says as if someone I trusted was telling me.


Anyway, what is my view of evolution? I rather prefer my critical view of it, because critical thinking simply opens up the greatest avenues for questioning, insight, and interest for me personally.

I also dont see strong evidence for the theory, in almost any area.

So Im not trying to prove anything, the least of all would be creation, I hope you can understand that, ...maybe I should write a FAQ or something, either people dont seem to hear me, they are not listening, ignoring, or talking about someone else,..I dont know, but I am definitely not trying to prove creation. End of story.

Quote:

Is it a quick way for them to feel like they've got all the answers,




Its not a competition between creation VS. evolution, there is no match between either of them in my view, there is certainly not enough evidence for either one, ..that is if you look as every area. Of course I will never be able to know every area of every fact or discovery, however that is why we look at new things all the time. I would never get to the point where I just think I know it all. But I like anyone else love to be right, and I try to at least make sure I have my facts straight.

Quote:

to put themselves above brainy and intimidating academic and scholarly types


yeah ok, now I know you are talking about someone else...

Quote:

unwilling/afraid/unable to invest the hard work of examining reality to simply believe in magical stories?


Personally I have worked hard at understanding nature and "reality",...there has been nothing "simple" about believing in God for me.

Quote:

If there are no logical counterarguments, the scientific theories are simply ignored, and
adressed as "godless"



If I have ignored anything please let me know, its possible, but not intentional.

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: NITRO777] #147400
08/14/07 10:09
08/14/07 10:09
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Quote:




I will tell you my belief is that there is a God who created all matter and life, but this is not something I try to work out in a scientific way. My belief in God stems purely from my belief that what the Bible says is true, quite simply, I believe what it says as if someone I trusted was telling me.








In principle I agree with you that we can not expect to prove "Creation" in a scientific way
However its hard for me to beleive that God have diffused every where evidences or at least clues, if you prefer, against the " Creation "
What for ? To test our faith ?

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: AlbertoT] #147401
08/14/07 12:28
08/14/07 12:28
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline OP
Expert
NITRO777  Offline OP
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

However its hard for me to beleive that God have diffused every where evidences or at least clues, if you prefer, against the " Creation "
What for ? To test our faith ?



I may not be able to prove creation in a scientific way, and I would not reject specific evidences or clues against creation, what specifically are you talking about? I see possible evidences against YEC through radiocarbon testing and starlight, but what about OEC?

There is much more evidence against evolution than there is against creation. It actually takes more faith to blindly believe evolution in spite of the inaccuracies compared to blindly believing in a creator.

Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: NITRO777] #147402
08/14/07 14:34
08/14/07 14:34
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank Offline
Senior Expert
Machinery_Frank  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Quote:

There is much more evidence against evolution than there is against creation.




This is a pure assuption and not true.


Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: Machinery_Frank] #147403
08/14/07 15:28
08/14/07 15:28
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
inFusion Offline
User
inFusion  Offline
User

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
Quote:

There is much more evidence against evolution than there is against creation.




Would you give us some of these arguments please?


"Wer nicht mit der Zeit geht, muss mit der Zeit gehen" - Bernd Stromberg
----
www.kihaki.de/reincarnation
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism [Re: inFusion] #147404
08/14/07 16:16
08/14/07 16:16
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline OP
Expert
NITRO777  Offline OP
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

Would you give us some of these arguments please?


I will start with just one arguement, there is no need to complicate things too much by giving 'some' of these arguments.

The first argument I would give which proves the ToE wrong is genetic entropy, or genomic degeneration. The fact that mutation rates are too high and too destructive.

This fact alone makes not only evolution impossible, but creates a situation where all living things are actually de-volving.(which incidently fits the creation model)

If you know the ToE at all, you know that in order for a microbes->man theory to be correct, mutation combined with natural selection is the only way for new information to be added to the gene pool.

In other words, in order for creatures to adapt to their environments they need an existing gene pool. Mutation in concert with natural selection is what ToE needs to populate the gene pool.

Essentially genetic entropy would falsify the entire ToE.

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1