Originally posted by josephw
🙂

You believe I believe, but really, I know I am choosing to believe the inspired Word of God. 😉

Many, many people of different faiths throughout the ages have
thought that. All as sincere as you.

And you think you have it right?

Statistically that is unlikely.

And logically it is highly improbable.

Originally posted by C Hess
He's saying, you have the choice to remain honest or remain creationist, because "there's still never been a single, verifiably accurate argument, of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution, or any other avenue of actual science" for that matter.

I'm from Sweden, and I understand him perfectly. Perhaps it's this creationist hea ...[text shortened]... ntelligent effort, I'd have to disagree. Your intelligent effort would be a nice change of pace.

I don't speak Swedish English. But I thought he was also saying there was no evidence for biological evolution, which I would agree with him. That was the part that did not make sense to me because I knew he was an evolutionist.

Originally posted by Dasa
Why do you think there is only one creation story..................

What???

Every religion has its Creation story - in part I believe the Creation Story
predates the religion. The story needed propping up so the religion was created.

Google "Creation Myth".

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your wall of text notwithstanding, here's a few musings which were not copied and pasted--- excepting, of course, quoting and dissecting your annotated work.

[b]ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."
Is observation the main criterion for science?
Can something be both religious and scientific?

Moreover, defense expert Professor ...[text shortened]... g for all the right reasons.
They're still wrong, but that doesn't make their opposition right.

I think you've got a few things backwards. Let's see if we can clear this up.

Religion essentially acts like a poison to scientific progress.

Now, now, calm down and let me explain this.

You seem to think that there's nothing wrong with mixing religion and science. But science is not merely a quest for knowledge. Science is a tool that we can use to not just better understand how the world around us works, but also find ways to better our natural condition. Science has consistently provided us with better technology, medicine, agriculture, and even allows us to better understand and deal with human behaviour and psychology. Why is religion like a poison to this method? Well, if we look at what happens everytime someone tries to invoke the supernatural in the scientific endevour, scientific progress invariably grinds to a halt. Take Newton for example. Undeniably one of the greatest scientists of all time. When he came up against the problem of unstable planetary orbits, he had reached the limits of what his math could explain - and he lacked data to help him understand it. What did he do? He ascribed this phenomenon (the fact that orbits appeared stable when they shouldn't be) to the mind of god, for if it doesn't make sense that orbits are stable, then surely only god being so perfect could hold them in stable orbit. At that moment, when he explained it with the god hypothesis, his scientific progress grinded to a halt. It was only a century later that Laplace pushed science further, by excluding the god hypothesis, showing that planetary orbits can be described mathematically over an extended period of time. No god or supernatural force needed. *

Every single time a scientist says: "I don't understand how this could have a natural explanation and so therefore it must have a supernatural explanation", (s)he immediately fail as a scientist. His/her explanations (on that specific problem) from that point on are unreliable, untestable and therefore unuseful in a practical sense.

Behe looked at the complexity of natural cells and thought to himself: "Wow, that's amazing! I don't see how that could be the result of a natural process". Sounds familiar?

He decided that certain features of biological life was irreducably complex, because he assumed that if you remove just one part of a given organ (or organell), the entire organ would be useless, and so couldn't have come about through a natural, gradual process. This irreducable complexity therefore, was a sign that some supernatural intelligence must have designed biological complexity. Sounds familiar?

When asked how come it appears that organisms from all over the world are related (as evolutionary theory predicts) when we look at DNA and the parts of different cells, he replies: "that's just how god did it". Sounds familiar?

Where Behe differs from Newton is that Newton lacked the necessary data to see the bigger picture. Behe has been presented with perfectly useful explanations as to how biological complexity can arise naturally, but he still rejects it, because he really, really, really wants to believe that god did it in six days, six thousand years ago, and scientific knowledge contradicts that claim. But how is creationism useful in a practical, scientific sense, if it ignores scientific evidence and scientifically useful explanations for that evidence? Well, it's not.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, evolutionary theory, being real science untainted by the god hypothesis, continues to inspire new and promising scientific research - epigenetics and ERV research to name two of the most interesting (in my opinion) - leading to new and better medicines, among other things.

Science and religion deal with two different aspects of human reality. Science deals with the natural, observable and testable reality, and is used to improve our physical well-being. Religion deals with spiritual matters, and could be useful to some. When religious claims about the natural world clashes with scientific discoveries, that's when religious zealots wish to muddy the waters of scientific knowledge, not realising that by doing so, they slow scientific progress down, eventually to a halt. We must always fight this impulse to trust our religious convictions over our scientific discoveries, because the former is simply not as useful as the latter.

-------

* 😵 Actually, I just realised I'm a bit confused about the details, as this link demonstrates:
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/universe/211420/the-perimeter-of-ignorance

But the gist of my argument still stands.

Originally posted by RJHinds
...I thought he was also saying there was no evidence for biological evolution...

Well, you thought wrong.

Originally posted by josephw
This thread has got to be the strangest I've ever seen!

JW, let's go back to the year 1000 and suppose christianity held sway up to this present day.

What do you think the state of science would be if creationism was the only thing taught in schools? Do you think we would have discovered DNA? Made microscopes powerful enough to see individual atoms and viruses? Do you think we would have walked on the moon?

Just where do you think science would be today if it was held in the prison of creationism?

Originally posted by josephw
This thread has got to be the strangest I've ever seen!

Here's another nice smack-down from AronRa. In fact, I recommend you look at the entire series. 14th foundational falsehood of creationism (part 2):

http://tinyurl.com/nspv8at

Originally posted by C Hess
Here's another nice smack-down from AronRa. In fact, I recommend you look at the entire series. 14th foundational falsehood of creationism (part 2):

http://tinyurl.com/nspv8at

Totally agree with Aron Ra Ra Ra! One thing I don't see people pointing out, that I have pointed out many times, creationist video's could care less about advancement of science as much as they try to say how much they believe in science except and only except where it collides with creationism. That is not news but here is my take:

They are not interested in proving their points.

They are MOST interested in gaining political support for their views so if they can't win in a science debate (which they NEVER will) they can win if they gain enough political support to Iranize their state and have this bastion of creationism where of course they will quickly fall behind the rest of the world in science, especially making new medicines from the study of evolution and DNA.

This will be fine with them as long as their cherished falsehoods are maintained.

Those videos are not anti science so much as political tracts to capture weak minds, weak minds and strong minds have only one vote each so in the voting booth, a majority of weak minds wins. Strong minds are ALWAYS in the minority so those creationist asssholes depend on that to gain support.

BTW, Aron Ra has his own site:

http://www.aronra.com/

There is also this, the secular council:

http://secularglobalinstitute.org/

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://secularglobalinstitute.org/

Excellent link! In it I found a link to a speech by A.C. Grayling (among other goodies). He's one of my favourite intellectuals. Always a kind and mild demeanor, even in the face of the most obnoxious denialists. A true humanist.

Thanks for indirectly reminding me of him.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The fact is, I support Jones' ruling on this one.
The creationists (or better: the literalists) have gotten it wrong for all the right reasons.
They're still wrong, but that doesn't make their opposition right.

Thank you for calling them what they are. Literalists.

They continue to believe God's explanation to ancient man over 3500 years ago (written by one of those men! ) as the only way it could have happened.

I wonder how they would explain a Saturn V rocket going to the moon to the average man of 3500 years ago. Perhaps coming up with "Ezekiel's Wheel"?

I myself, am a Creationist. Meaning I believe that Creation (actual creation, aka the "Big Bang", not the version of it in Genesis) and Cosmology and Evolution and the Ascent of Man are all in the Hand of God and are all part of His plan. That doesn't mean I think it all took only 6000 years or that Evolution is a lie. So please do not tar me with the same brush you use to laugh at the YEC's.

Call them what they are: Literalists. Those whose weak faith tells them God could not possibly have done it any other way than how He described it to man of 3500 years ago.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Thank you for calling them what they are. Literalists.

They continue to believe God's explanation to ancient man over 3500 years ago as the only way it could have happened.

I wonder how they would explain a Saturn V rocket going to the moon to the average man of 3500 years ago. Perhaps coming up with "Ezekiel's Wheel"?

I myself, am a Creationist. ...[text shortened]... could not possibly have done it any other way than how He described it to man of 3500 years ago.

I guess the word's been hijacked. So, would it be correct to say that in your flavour of creationism, science reveals how god did/does it, and that scripture is more about why?

Originally posted by C Hess
Science and religion deal with two different aspects of human reality. Science deals with the natural, observable and testable reality, and is used to improve our physical well-being. Religion deals with spiritual matters, and could be useful to some. When religious claims about the natural world clashes with scientific discoveries, that's when religious zeal ...[text shortened]... tions over our scientific discoveries, because the former is simply not as useful as the latter.

I've said many times, Science answers the How? while Religion answers the Why? And they each answer their own question expertly.

This is why putting ALL your eggs into one basket is not enough. They each have their place. But each one also fails spectacularly when asked to explain the other's question. Science cannot answer the Why? as Religion cannot answer the How?

Simple enough. Case closed.

Originally posted by C Hess
I guess the word's been hijacked. So, would it be correct to say that in your flavour of creationism, science reveals how god did/does it, and that scripture is more about why?

Yes, I just answered this in another post. 😀

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, I just answered this in another post. 😀

🙂

I have no problem with this form of creationism. Case closed, indeed.