|
Wissenschaft und Schöpfung / Science and Creation
#68771
03/31/06 13:27
03/31/06 13:27
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982 Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
This thread is for followers of Creationism or Intelligent Design to explain their position.
However, the discussion shall take place with scientific arguments only. I think there will never be an agreement about whether the bible contradicts evolution and the Big Bang, or not. So, no "bible" arguments please.
Also, it does not matter for the discussion how many or how few scientists take Creationism seriously. So, please no "mainstream science" arguments either.
And, for obvious reasons, please refrain from "ad hominem" arguments in this thread.
This thread shall be just about what we can derive from observations in nature.
I'm opening the discussion with a little poll about the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and the becoming of life.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68774
03/31/06 14:37
03/31/06 14:37
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,959 US
Grimber
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,959
US
|
i think one of the important aspects to deal with between science and creation is in dating methodologies. http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/radiodte.htmthis artical here discusses that very subject of radio isotope dating methods and creationist arguments against the results of such methods. ( as well as many places where creationists have shot themselves in the foot in thier own arguments)
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Grimber]
#68775
03/31/06 15:08
03/31/06 15:08
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
No, I do not know what drives creationists, but I would be interested to learn it. I know many religious people but not a single creationist. I've opened another thread for continuing this discussion in a more orderly way.
There is really one chain of reasoning, and here it is:
a) They believe that evolution and an ancient earth goes against the literal biblical story of creation (it does).
b) They reason that if the Bible is wrong on that score, it may be wrong on all scores.
c) if the Bible is wrong, then there is no God, no Jesus, and no immortality in Heaven. Man dies and that's it. To many people this is unacceptable, and would cause insanity.
This is why poeple argue against evolutionary theory...it takes away their hope, the meaning in their lives.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68778
03/31/06 17:28
03/31/06 17:28
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Maybe. But this thread is not about belief because you can not discuss or argue about belief. It's about _scientific_ arguments of creationism. Young earth creationists claim, for instance, that an earth age of 6000 years is more likely than 4.5 billion years - let's hear their reasons.
You may not have been asking what I think are their reasons, but it's the truth regardless.
They dont have any scientific reasons. Their argument is purely emotional. The psuedoscience arguments they do come up with are transparent, and not worth taking your time to look at.
The simple fact is, they say the Earth is 6000 years old becasue that's what Archbishop Usher said, because he calculated it from the Biblical generation lists.
They have no scientific basis for their beliefs, they just pretend there is.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#68779
03/31/06 19:01
03/31/06 19:01
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
c) if the Bible is wrong, then there is no God, no Jesus, and no immortality in Heaven. Man dies and that's it. To many people this is unacceptable, and would cause insanity.
This is why poeple argue against evolutionary theory...it takes away their hope, the meaning in their lives.
It's fine to argue against Creationism, but the above seems like a backbone argument that's really getting old.
For one thing its prideful. Some people are weak, some would go insane, but I wouldn't, I'm above that foolishness. But for a human with a limited existence, what is to be gained by giving up hope in an afterlife? Either the person wants to make themselves miserable, or they're just priding themselves.
But the main thing is that people do not see an afterlife as the meaning of their lives. Although the majority of Americans say they believe in an afterlife, how much does the average American even think or care about the future? Look at the meager retirements and savings. Average savings in the US was actually negative last year. People really just want to have fun in the moment. And since the Bible has plenty of rules against seemingly fun stuff, most people would rather all of it not be true. It's easier just to hang it all. People don't want the idea of judgement or of not being in control of their lives. The idea of there being a hell and from that a moral accountability could easily "takes away the fun in their lives."
So my point is really just that their are as many reasons to be emotionally opposed to the idea of an afterlife as an idea of emptiness. And since one approach requires a lot more discipline and hardship (not to mention now ridicule), I think the average human now greatly favors one over the other...
Sorry this was totally emotional and not scientific, but then neither was the original post.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
#68780
03/31/06 21:50
03/31/06 21:50
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
? I was just explaining why people are against evolutionary theory, not why you should or shouldnt believe in an afterlife. The point is, that certain poeple are unimaginative, and have difficulty dealing with uncertainty.
They are literal-minded. The Catholic Church for instance, has long since embraced scientific evolution, because they are able to realize that bible cant be taken literally. if you take EVERYTHING in the bible literally, you run into all sorts of problems. First of all, it has many contradiction inherent in the text.
I'm sick of going on and on about this .. In all seriousness, I think most of the problems we face with creationists are about ignorance, and poor critical thinking. This is probably due to lack of education, unimaginative parents and childhood peers/teachers, and a general anti-intellectualism in the United States in particular.
I suppose there is no point in arguing about this on an internet forum, where half the poeple are lunatics. I just cant help myself, because it reflects a wider problem in America. There is a sort of retrograde madness afflicting many poeple here. They have a serious agenda, which is attempting to eliminate good science from education, to restrict people's individual rights (such as the right to have an abortion), to destroy the barrier of seperation of church and state, and so on.
Perhaps there is no more point in trying to reason with them, or educate them. It may be that there will need to be laws put in place that will finally end some this. Perhaps certain actions will have to be taken in the future, such as deprogramming, closing churches, shutting down TV evangelists, freezing accounts for large "mega-ministries", revoking broadcast licenses for religious TV stations, radio, etc.
|
|
|
|