Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

The problem with YEC is that they won't accept the Scientific Method, and then point out the strengths of said method and present them as flaws. Further more, they won't accept any evidence that isn't testable right now.

Science has had some crazy hypotheses which although came under quite a bit fire at first, eventually became accepted because the results of testing these hypotheses supported their claims. Einstein did not want to accept Quantum Theory, but repeated tests kept showing results in what the theory predicted. Some hypotheses can't be tested in the lab. Instead we have to search out for evidence among the stars, or in our own Earth though fossils.

For what Science tells us now, we 1) Have Theories based on what we know. BUT! 2) Be willing to change those theories based on new observations and evidence. AND 3) Accept that mistakes happen, verify, verify, verify. Maybe that fossil is a fake, maybe the experiment was compromised and the results are skewed. Follow these and we can keep building on our knowledge, and learn more about universe.

Now the YEC will look at new observations and evidence, see Science build a better model and go, "Hey, they just changed the model. That means the last model was wrong! How do you know this model isn't wrong too? Therefore, you can't accept it, and therefore mine is just as right!" This is one of the prime arguments, that since Science makes mistakes, or as it finds new data, refines its theories, that you can't trust what its telling you, at least as far as knowing about the past.

Which leads into the other popular argument, "Since nobody was there to see it and record it, how do we know the laws of physics worked the same then as now." Seriously, that's their argument. Nobody was around to record the speed of light way back then, so at some point in the past it could have been much much much faster so now that its slowed down all those stars look to be billions of light years away. Because at some point the speed of light slowed down and stopped slowing. And you can't prove this by their logic, because nobody was there to observe this, and you can't disprove it either by their logic. Its very neat and tidy.

So you have a group, with a hypothesis, that by their own logic you can't test or find evidence for its support. They request to put it up there with Theories that we have tested and found evidence for their support. There is a very simple answer for this request.

No.

They have an amazing claim that at one point in history, the laws and theories we observe now were not the same in the past. Until they can find evidence or proof for this claim, rather than attacking the methods of Science itself and claiming that as its proof, they can stay the hell off Cosmos.

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

No.

You can still be a scientist who believes in creationism.

Mad World:

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

No.

You can still be a scientist who believes in creationism.

You'll just be REALLY BAD at your job.

Creationism is fundamentally a religious belief, not a scientific one. No matter how many Christian scientists try to find evidence to support it, their belief ultimately stems from the Bible first and not because of an unbiased hypothesis and therefore you cannot call it a scientific belief.

Since it is not a scientific belief it doesn't make sense to cover it on a show about science as if it were one. If someone were to create another show that was about religious beliefs THEN it would seem appropriate. However, that's not what Cosmos is and not what it should become.

Yeah, that aint going to happen. Especially when they spout around patently false claims about things like evolution. Then again, they managed to go as far as to ban word "Evolution" in schools in some states, so lets not underestimate those fanatics.

Yeah, we can discuss creationism in science show when you write some science into your bible (you are rewriting it as you see fit anyway every few hundred years).

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

No. Creationism Scientist would be. Creationist Scientist is not. That is because a person can be both Creationist and, say, a language scientist. There are many different types of sciences and not all collide with earth history.

Sniper Team 4:
When did evolution become fact? No, seriously, can someone tell me when? When I was still in school, all the way up through college, evolution was still referred to as a theory. Then is seemed like one day theory was dropped and evolution became fact. I'm curious when that happened, or was my city just slow to catch on?

Not sure when you were in school, but A LOT has happened in the field. from the replicated evolution jumps of bacterial to minor evolution observed in many mammals. Not to mention if our schools are anything to go by, the books there were already otudated by the time they taught us (10 years ago for me).

Nooners:
Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

because there is absolutely no proof of that, but rather contradiction: if god set the rules what rules does god abide by?
Granted your presented stance is much more sane than most of what we see but it is still groundless.

BanicRhys:

The universe is infinitely more complex than we give it credit for, the limits of our knowledge are defined by the limits of our ability to comprehend, the one and only thing that I cannot believe is possible is that the human race has reached the pinnicle of comprehension.

Note: I'm in no way saying that I believe that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago by a singular god that incarnated into the form of a man named Jesus roughly 2000 years ago etc etc etc etc etc... I'm just saying, that for all we know, it's not compeltely outside the realm of possiblity that a higher intelligence had a hand in humanity's/the universe's creation.

We can't just blanketly rule out points of view because they seem outlandish.

The problem is, it isn't SCIENCE. If you want to prove or argue something in Science, you NEED evidence to support your claims - you can't just go 'I think Gravity is actually just me thinking really hard to stay on the ground' without research and experiment results that back up your claim. This evidence is also often peer reviewed and result from repeatable experiments so that your claims can be proven valid - helps stop people going 'I totally have evidence!' when they don't actually have any evidence, you know?

Creationist theories are just... well, as said, not science. They have no evidence, no research, no repeatable experiments to prove the validity of their claim - they're quite literally people going 'Well, I believe God created everything, therefore it happened!'. Current Creationist 'science' is incompatible with regular science since it's not even REMOTELY similar to the standard scientific method.

I would like to point out too, that Science doesn't actually disprove or oppose the idea of an intelligence that set everything in motion (Not saying a God, since that gets religion all up in everything and that can be challenged with 'Which God?') - it's just AT THIS CURRENT POINT IN TIME THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A GUIDING INTELLIGENCE TO THE UNIVERSE. IF evidence comes around that can be proven both TRUE and VALID, then Science would be all over it.

But there isn't, and people claiming that they have evidence of a guiding intelligence have nothing but their own BELIEF to go off of, which doesn't support Theories (or even bloody Hypothesis) at all.

In short: Science isn't ruling out points of view due to their outlandish nature, they're ruling them out BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.

People neeeed to hear the creation theory that the world is on the back of a giant turtle, and the one where we were the children of a volcano godess.

The problem with religion is that they need to work backwards with every step forwards science takes to jusify their beliefs....

They were sure the earth was flat, and on pillars because it says so in a book. They were sure disease and natural disasters was divine punishment from a god because that's how god worked in a book. They were sure earth was the center of everything because its creation was so important in a book. They were sure earth was the only world.

Everything about religion explaining anything related to reality is firing an arrow and painting a target around it; new interpretations suddenly come up.

Sniper Team 4:
When did evolution become fact? No, seriously, can someone tell me when? When I was still in school, all the way up through college, evolution was still referred to as a theory. Then is seemed like one day theory was dropped and evolution became fact. I'm curious when that happened, or was my city just slow to catch on?

Gravity is a theory too you know.

IceStar100:

Sofus:
I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

ALL HAIL THE OTTER GOD MAY HIS ENIMES BE SMASHED AGINST A STOMIC LIKE A MUSSTLE!

Side bar: It's sad when even Christion think this is stupid.

It is but a test... I pray that his holy Otternes finds me worthy. Now if you will excuse me, I have to find a lake with fresh water and build a sacrificial dam.

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Damn you, as someone else said, I was about to say that it sounds like an oxymoron!

Saw a documentary where a creationist "scientist" was asked what he'd do if there was proof against his religious beliefs and he answered that he'd disregard that and assume that it's the human's faulty perception that sees something contradicting to his beliefs.

No scientist ever would disregard results that repeated themselves, even if they contradicted previous knowledge! That is how new knowledge is gained!

Scientist: "It's said by some that the earth is only 6000 years old" *checks earth age by dating rocks* "Huh, seems to be a wee bit older than that, and these dino fossils which also date in the millions support that"

Creationist: "Earth is 6000 years old" *Scientist points to gealogical dating* "Pah! You must've done something wrong!" *Scientist points to dino fossils* "You must've dated them wrong and they probably died out 5000 years or so ago" *Creationist continues to disregard that some human civilisations are older than that and that they have no records of dinos and the fact that some fossils are found way down in the ground*

And those creationists who say that thermodynamics disprove the evolution theory have no idea what thermodynamics is to begin with. And correct me if I'm worng but creationism seems very USA centric, haven't heard about it here in the EU.

Rhykker:
We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

<_<

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, you added 3 extra letters, but essentially you're right.

Sniper Team 4:
When did evolution become fact?

Technically it's ALWAYS been a fact, whether we were aware or not. Scientific theories are the most rigorously tested and proven sets of information that mankind has. Scientific theories should not be confused with the generic usage of "theory".

The only real difference between a Scientific Law and a Scientific Theory is that a Law is simple enough for our understanding of it to be considered complete. A Theory is considered incomplete....much in the way that a sword might be in the process of having its blade honed.

For instance - the Theory of Gravity is NOT a guess. We are all unanimously aware of the factual nature of gravity. However, we do not know all of the science, and do not understand all of the mechanisms that causes gravity to function the way it does.
Likewise with evolution. Evolution is absolutely proven, and even repeatedly observed in laboratories. It is, however, extremely complicated, and the details of HOW all of the bits work have not yet been nailed down.

Compare it to an ancient Greek finding a digital watch. CLEARLY the watch factually exists and definitely tells time, and he's even opened it up and seen the intricate circuitry inside it that he knows must be what makes it function, but he has yet to figure out the how and why of the the way the circuitry functions.

BanicRhys:
So much ignorance in this thread.

You didn't have to bring it all with you. It's not one of those "bring enough to share with the whole class" things.

Abomination:
Science is not democracy.

Bingo.

Smiley Face:

Neta:
Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

That would be pretty awesome. "In the beginning, there was a great egg. After a time, it hatched, and the great sun god Ra emerged. Ra then sat down and masturbated the universe into existence." Or how Odin and his brothers killed their father and used his bones to make the world (I think there was some kind of celestial cow involved, somehow, can't quite recall).

This is why religion never really tempted me - I grew up around children from various religious backgrounds, and by the time I was old enough to start thinking about that stuff for myself, I'd been reading ancient mythologies for fun. Even when existential crises did come knocking, what god am I supposed to believe in? I still know more about Greek mythology than I do about what's in the Bible.

(FTR, the cow's name is Aušumbla. Aušumbla is the primeval cow that created/freed Odin's grandfather, Bśri, by licking him out of the ice of Ginnungagap, the primordial void.)

Yessir.
In an existential crisis, I recommend turning to the ways of the great Lady, Athena.

Real or not, adhering to the path of knowledge, wisdom, justice, civilization, craftsmanship, heroics, strategy, and defense...it's pretty hard to go wrong.
There's a reason Athena is so often venerated in institutes of science as a respected symbol. The same reasons why the founders of the USA patterned their monuments after Greek temples, and their government after ancient Greece's democracy. They were icons of powerful ideas.
These men came from countries that were predominantly Christian, and were founding a new country that was predominantly full of Christians. These men, the brightest of their time, were however classically educated, with Latin and Greek as cornerstones in their education. They built monuments not in reflection of Christianity, but in the reflection of the temples of Greco-Roman Pantheon, the Parthenon and its lesser relatives.

In fact, America itself is hilariously oblivious to our veneration of the Greco-Roman gods.
- Dike(AKA Justitia), the Greco-Roman Goddess Of Justice, presides over courts all across the country as blind Lady Justice.
- Libertas, the Roman Goddess Of Liberty, reigns as both Columbia (the namesake of the District Of Columbia AKA Washington D.C.), and as the single greatest icon of the United States - The Statue Of Liberty.
- Nike(AKA Victoria), the Greco-Roman Goddess Of Victory, is the namesake of a HUGE shoe company, and the basis for every archetypal Christian angel.
- Medical institutions are symbolized by the Rod Of Aesclepius.
- The Christian "God" himself is merely a rebranding of Zeus himself. Hell, Old Testament God even acts just like Zeus. Jesus is essentially just another demigod, and basically Athena's little brother - much like her, except a pacifist.
- Etc. That barely scratches the surfaces of America's Greco-Roman pantheon.

So, when in existential crisis, it might not hurt to turn to the ways of Athena, the most honored of the Greek gods. The Athenians grew to be one of the greatest and most enlightened peoples in history by looking to her for guidance.
She may not exist, but that doesn't mean looking to her principles can't serve as a guide in troubled times.
Cherish knowledge, seek wisdom, advance society, protect the weak, be heroic, invent, create, fight if you have to defend, and fight smart.
To me it's no wonder so many halls of science and institutions of learning honor Athena as a symbol.

As much as I am Atheistic/Agnostic, I'll also call myself a disciple of Athena.
*shrug*

coil:

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
- Tommy Lee Jones, Men In Black

Probably one of my favorite movie quotes ever.

-

-

So yea, if Cosmos addresses Creationist BS, I'm going to complain about the fact that they skipped over the way Arceus, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Groudon, Kyogre, and Rayquaza created the world together.

And how they skipped over the Titanomachy and Gigantomachy.

And they totally skipped the melting of the ice around Ymir, and the sprouting of Yggdrasil.

*eyeroll*

-

Ultimately, I have no problem admitting some sort of deity COULD exist. Beyond the realms of what science has been able to explain there lies an unknown, and it is impossible to rule out the possibility of a deity or deities existing in that beyond. Perhaps they set in motion the events of the Big Bang. Ultimately, there's no way to prove one way or the other.
What IS certain, is that the Christian God makes almost NO sense as a concept. I'll not wade several college semesters deep into the history of philosophy here on The Escapist, but I WILL note that some of the greatest minds in history have dissected all of the reasons an all-powerful "God" that cares -at all- about us, and interferes with us, is a nonsensical notion.

But the fact remains, when we get down to pedantic brass tacks, anyone who claims to be a true Atheist is as much an idiot as a Creationist is.
Agnostic, fine.
Agnostic Theist, fine.
Agnostic Atheist, fine.

Claiming to be a true Atheist - i.e. that you truly KNOW there is no such thing as a deity - is folly. You cannot definitively KNOW. It is utterly impossible. It's as much folly as claiming belief in Creationism, or any other idea disproved by science.
It's fine to be an Agnostic Atheist - to THINK, and FEEL very sure that there are no gods, just as long as you acknowledge that you do not actually KNOW that which is impossible to know.

I think that's an important thing to keep in mind when debating from the Atheist point of view. We're here opposing falsehoods and nonsense, not championing the "truth" of things that cannot be proven.

VanQ:
You use me as a point in your case without knowing me.

If you asked me "What would it take to change your mind?" I would answer "Evidence."
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

And in turn you use me, my family, two-thirds of my friends, etc. etc. as examples without knowing us. Now, I can't speak for them, but if science could create life from nothing or definitively answer any of the "we still don't know how this happened" questions that religion holds up as proof that God exists then I would reconsider my stance. In short, I'm like you, stop generalizing a group as big as "religious".

OT (I'm so gonna get flamed for this): No, Creationism Science should stay off science shows because it's a religious belief, not a scientific theory. I'm a Christian and I hate it when religion interferes with science because I see science as a way of understanding God as well as the universe (multiverse theory and a non-linear view of time help explain away that whole free will vs predetermination "problem"). Now if scientific facts start contradicting my religion I'll start re-evaluating my stance, but until then... I've never understood why people think of science and religion as separate, opposing viewpoints. Why couldn't God have created everything to run in a logical, scientific way?

Ieyke:

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, you added 3 extra letters, but essentially you're right.

Ha! I found the glaring flaw in your argument that negates everything you have to say. He actually added FOUR extra letters, because if you remove the "oxy" then you no longer require the "n" in "an". What are you, some kind of an moron?

(Never mind me. I've been enjoying the thread but everything I have to say has been stated so eloquently by so many people that I thought I'd just mess around. Really interesting post.)

kael013:

VanQ:
You use me as a point in your case without knowing me.

If you asked me "What would it take to change your mind?" I would answer "Evidence."
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

And in turn you use me, my family, two-thirds of my friends, etc. etc. as examples without knowing us. Now, I can't speak for them, but if science could create life from nothing or definitively answer any of the "we still don't know how this happened" questions that religion holds up as proof that God exists then I would reconsider my stance. In short, I'm like you, stop generalizing a group as big as "religious".

OT (I'm so gonna get flamed for this): No, Creationism Science should stay off science shows because it's a religious belief, not a scientific theory. I'm a Christian and I hate it when religion interferes with science because I see science as a way of understanding God as well as the universe (now if scientific facts start contradicting my religion I'll start re-evaluating my stance, but until then...). I've never understood why people think of science and religion as separate, opposing viewpoints. Why couldn't God have created everything to run in a logical, scientific way?

"'we still don't know how this happened' questions that religion holds up as proof that God exists" ARE NOT proof or evidence of any sort. They just fundamentally aren't. At all.
That point HAS TO be understood.
A lack of explanation is not license to imaginatively reinvent reality and declare the invented explanation as the truth just because no evidence of an actual explanation has been found to disprove it.
That's not how logic works.
It's just bad thinking.
That HAS TO be understood.

Thinking that MAYBE, PERHAPS a god could fill in the blanks in the unknown is fine. But do NOT misunderstand your lack of knowledge as PROOF or evidence of anything. Because it's not.

Science and religion ARE separate things. They're two separate ways of approaching the universe. That said, you're right, in a sense. They're NOT necessarily incompatible. RELIGIONS (meaning all the notable ones that currently exist) ARE incompatible with science (and philosophical logic), because science invalidates all of them. But that's not to say that -A- religion couldn't hypothetically be invented or modified to mesh with science.
There's really nothing at all wrong with the idea that, for instance, maybe the Big Bang was sparked by a god. And that all of the events set in motion by the Big Bang lead to life on Earth, and subsequently lead to the creation of humans, and that therefore that deity would, technically and very circuitously, be the creator of humans.

Branindain:

Ieyke:

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, you added 3 extra letters, but essentially you're right.

Ha! I found the glaring flaw in your argument that negates everything you have to say. He actually added FOUR extra letters, because if you remove the "oxy" then you no longer require the "n" in "an". What are you, some kind of an moron?

(Never mind me. I've been enjoying the thread but everything I have to say has been stated so eloquently by so many people that I thought I'd just mess around. Really interesting post.)

;)
You caught it! Well done.
The "n" did give me pause...
:P


no, you already had years of "air time".

and we lost a lot in the process by listening to your dumb shit.

also you are wasting 120 million dollars by building a replica of noahs ark.
image
http://www.inquisitr.com/1156554/noahs-ark-encounter-museum-costs-120-million-are-creationists-wasting-kentuckys-money/

Nooners:
Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

Because that would be a reasonable and open-minded approach to both faith and science, and we can't be having that because of, uh.... JEE-ZUS! FREEDUHRM! THE SECOND AMENDMENT! STATES RIGHTS! 'MURICA FUCK YEEEAAAHHH!!!

image

(My advice? The next time those inbred southern Hick States ask to secede, let them as soon as possible. That way, rational people of all faiths can get on a lot better.)

Ieyke:

Rhykker:
We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

<_<

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, you added 3 extra letters, but essentially you're right.

Sniper Team 4:
When did evolution become fact?

Technically it's ALWAYS been a fact, whether we were aware or not. Scientific theories are the most rigorously tested and proven sets of information that mankind has. Scientific theories should not be confused with the generic usage of "theory".

The only real difference between a Scientific Law and a Scientific Theory is that a Law is simple enough for our understanding of it to be considered complete. A Theory is considered incomplete....much in the way that a sword might be in the process of having its blade honed.

For instance - the Theory of Gravity is NOT a guess. We are all unanimously aware of the factual nature of gravity. However, we do not know all of the science, and do not understand all of the mechanisms that causes gravity to function the way it does.
Likewise with evolution. Evolution is absolutely proven, and even repeatedly observed in laboratories. It is, however, extremely complicated, and the details of HOW all of the bits work have not yet been nailed down.

Compare it to an ancient Greek finding a digital watch. CLEARLY the watch factually exists and definitely tells time, and he's even opened it up and seen the intricate circuitry inside it that he knows must be what makes it function, but he has yet to figure out the how and why of the the way the circuitry functions.

BanicRhys:
So much ignorance in this thread.

You didn't have to bring it all with you. It's not one of those "bring enough to share with the whole class" things.

Abomination:
Science is not democracy.

Bingo.

Smiley Face:

Neta:
Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

That would be pretty awesome. "In the beginning, there was a great egg. After a time, it hatched, and the great sun god Ra emerged. Ra then sat down and masturbated the universe into existence." Or how Odin and his brothers killed their father and used his bones to make the world (I think there was some kind of celestial cow involved, somehow, can't quite recall).

This is why religion never really tempted me - I grew up around children from various religious backgrounds, and by the time I was old enough to start thinking about that stuff for myself, I'd been reading ancient mythologies for fun. Even when existential crises did come knocking, what god am I supposed to believe in? I still know more about Greek mythology than I do about what's in the Bible.

(FTR, the cow's name is Aušumbla. Aušumbla is the primeval cow that created/freed Odin's grandfather, Bśri, by licking him out of the ice of Ginnungagap, the primordial void.)

Yessir.
In an existential crisis, I recommend turning to the ways of the great Lady, Athena.

Real or not, adhering to the path of knowledge, wisdom, justice, civilization, craftsmanship, heroics, strategy, and defense...it's pretty hard to go wrong.
There's a reason Athena is so often venerated in institutes of science as a respected symbol. The same reasons why the founders of the USA patterned their monuments after Greek temples, and their government after ancient Greece's democracy. They were icons of powerful ideas.
These men came from countries that were predominantly Christian, and were founding a new country that was predominantly full of Christians. These men, the brightest of their time, were however classically educated, with Latin and Greek as cornerstones in their education. They built monuments not in reflection of Christianity, but in the reflection of the temples of Greco-Roman Pantheon, the Parthenon and its lesser relatives.

In fact, America itself is hilariously oblivious to our veneration of the Greco-Roman gods.
- Dike(AKA Justitia), the Greco-Roman Goddess Of Justice, presides over courts all across the country as blind Lady Justice.
- Libertas, the Roman Goddess Of Liberty, reigns as both Columbia (the namesake of the District Of Columbia AKA Wasigton D.C.), and as the single greatest icon of the United States - The Statue Of Liberty.
- Nike(AKA Victoria), the Greco-Roman Goddess Of Victory, is the namesake of a HUGE shoe company, and the basis for every archetypal Christian angel.
- Medical institutions are symbolized by the Rod Of Aesclepius.
- The Christian "God" himself is merely a rebranding of Zeus himself. Hell, Old Testament God even acts just like Zeus. Jesus is essentially just another demigod, and basically Athena's little brother - much like her, except a pacifist.
- Etc. That barely scratches the surfaces of America's Greco-Roman pantheon.

So, when in existential crisis, it might not hurt to turn to the ways of Athena, the most honored of the Greek gods. The Athenians grew to be one of the greatest and most enlightened peoples in history by looking to her for guidance.
She may not exist, but that doesn't mean looking to her principles can't serve as a guide in troubled times.
Cherish knowledge, seek wisdom, advance society, protect the weak, be heroic, invent, create, fight if you have to defend, and fight smart.
To me it's no wonder so many halls of science and institutions of learning honor Athena as a symbol.

As much as I am Atheistic/Agnostic, I'll also call myself a disciple of Athena.
*shrug*

coil:

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
- Tommy Lee Jones, Men In Black

Probably one of my favorite movie quotes ever.

-

-

So yea, if Cosmos addresses Creationist BS, I'm going to complain about the fact that they skipped over the way Arceus, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Groudon, Kyogre, and Rayquaza created the world together.

And how they skipped over the Titanomachy and Gigantomachy.

And they totally skipped the melting of the ice around Ymir, and the sprouting of Yggdrasil.

*eyeroll*

-

Ultimately, I have no problem admitting some sort of deity COULD exist. Beyond the realms of what science has been able to explain there lies an unknown, and it is impossible to rule out the possibility of a deity or deities existing in that beyond. Perhaps they set in motion the events of the Big Bang. Ultimately, there's no way to prove one way or the other.
What IS certain, is that the Christian God makes almost NO sense as a concept. I'll not wade several college semesters deep into the history of philosophy here on The Escapist, but I WILL note that some of the greatest minds in history have dissected all of the reasons an all-powerful "God" that cares -at all- about us, and interferes with us, is a nonsensical notion.

But the fact remains, when we get down to pedantic brass tacks, anyone who claims to be a true Atheist is as much an idiot as a Creationist.
Agnostic, fine.
Agnostic Theist, fine.
Agnostic Atheist, fine.

Claiming to be a true Atheist - i.e. that you truly KNOW there is no such thing as a deity - is folly. You cannot definitively KNOW. It is utterly impossible. It's as much folly as claiming belief in Creationism, or any other idea disproved by science.
It's fine to be an Agnostic Atheist - to THINK, and FEEL very sure that there are no gods, just as long as you acknowledge that you do not actually KNOW that which is impossible to know.

I think that's an important thing to keep in mind when debating from the Atheist point of view. We're here opposing falsehoods and nonsense, not championing the "truth" of things that cannot be proven.

Not to bring down your rather splendid post, but isn't atheism merely the lack of belief in a god? I was pretty sure that to dub yourself an atheist all you had to do was to actively deny the existence of a god. As in you do not have to know, but you distinctively present a lack faith and deny the existence of god(s).

I'm not going to discuss the obvious, but to be honest, I'd love a scientific look at the history and evolution of the creationism myth.
Like, they could explore it's origins, it's changes throughout history, and how it influenced and was influenced by other religions. It's a better topic than ancient aliens, anyways.

BanicRhys:
People have always thought they've "known" what the sun is etc etc etc.

The universe is infinitely more complex than we give it credit for, the limits of our knowledge are defined by the limits of our ability to comprehend, the one and only thing that I cannot believe is possible is that the human race has reached the pinnicle of comprehension.

Note: I'm in no way saying that I believe that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago by a singular god that incarnated into the form of a man named Jesus roughly 2000 years ago etc etc etc etc etc... I'm just saying, that for all we know, it's not compeltely outside the realm of possiblity that a higher intelligence had a hand in humanity's/the universe's creation.

We can't just blanketly rule out points of view because they seem outlandish.

Yes we don't know everything about anything. But just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that any explanation is valid.

Believing in something objectively wrong like Young Earth Creationism is intellectual poison. If for no other reason than it is a retardant for knowledge and progress. If you think you 'know' the truth, why look for a more correct model than the current one?

An outlandish point of view is not ruled out for it being outlandish. Although it can take a depressingly long time for incorrect ideas to be fully excised (phlogiston), thanks to scientists still being human, it does happen, as long as the evidence is there to back it up.

For the latter point, Sagan had something to say about this in the original Cosmos.

Madkipz:
Not to bring down your rather splendid post, but isn't atheism merely the lack of belief in a god? I was pretty sure that to dub yourself an atheist all you had to do was to actively deny the existence of a god. As in you do not have to know, but you distinctively present a lack faith and deny the existence of god(s).

Denying, yes.
But to deny something is to declare it untrue, rather than to simply claim that you do not believe it to be true.
The difference between denying you murdered someone and saying you don't THINK you murdered them.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known."

As I said, this is in pedantic terms, regarding the precise definitions rather than the loose ones.

Redhawkmillenium:

Rhykker:
Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

It'd be nice if you could do the same, Escapist.

What did they say in that quote that was disrespectful to somebody's religious views?

rhizhim:

also you are wasting 120 million dollars by building a replica of noahs ark.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1156554/noahs-ark-encounter-museum-costs-120-million-are-creationists-wasting-kentuckys-money/

The Noah's ark encounter willl be created as part of a creationist theme park and is said to cost over $120 million, but some are already saying Kentucky has better uses for the money.

For example, the Huffington Post compiled a list of alternatives, which include feeding hungry children, donating to cancer research, investing into the Kentucky education system, saving abused animals, and combating illegal drugs. These alternatives did have good justifications, since Kentucky suffers from the highest cancer death rate in the US, has one in four children supposedly going hungry, spends relatively little on schools, has the worst animal protection laws of all the states, and is currently suffering from a dramatic increase in heroin overdoses.

Huh, that's interesting. I wonder what the bible would say about this....

"Jesus said to him, "if you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven" -Matthew, 19:21

"And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" -Matthew 19:23-24

"Then the Righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed the, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King [God] will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my Bretheren you did it for me" -Matthew 25:37-41

"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.
"Blessed are you who that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied"
-Luke 6:20-21

"Woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
"Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger"
-Luke 6:24-25

"Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" -Luke 6:30

""But as Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the inkeeper saying, 'take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back' Which of these three, do you think proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "the one who showed mercy on him." And Jesus said to him "Go and do likewise." -Luke 10:33-37

"But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind and you will be plessed because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the Just."" -Luke 15:13-14

"And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" [...] And when Jesus heart it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me". -Luke 19:18-19, 22-23

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you" John 14:34

Oh, but silly me. I'm sure the people building "Noah's Ark" know far more about Christianity than I do.

I think creationism is a bit of a misnomer. Ever seen 2001 A Space Odyssey. When I first heard the term "creationist" I thought it meant someone who believes or think the universes had sentient influence. The idea and concept that god created the universe isn't really that bad nor does in actually contradict the scientific method. However a creationist is associated more with religions beliefs rather then just an idea that evolution might have some deliberate programing to it.

Don't creationists have entire radio frequencies/TV channels to put their own views forward already? Ones that don't allow a counter view to be put forward?

Not rhetorical, I'm not american so I don't know, I just assumed it to be the case.

If that is indeed true, then it's a bit fucking cheeky to ask "The enemy" on their regular, every day, based-on-observable-and-demonstrable-fact science shows to host creationism viewpoints or act like what they talk about on such a show isn't backed up by an entire disciplines research.

Me? yeah, I buy into the science version of it all. For all I care, you can believe we all got shat out by a giant space amoeba if you want, just don't demand I even pretend I believe your crazy ass beliefs.

Also

Magmarock:
I think creationism is a bit of a misnomer. Ever seen 2001 A Space Odyssey. When I first heard the term "creationist" I thought it meant someone who believes or think the universes had sentient influence. The idea and concept that god created the universe isn't really that bad nor does in actually contradict the scientific method. However a creationist is associated more with religions beliefs rather then just an idea that evolution might have some deliberate programing to it.

Yeah, that's a fair point. The issue is with the insistence is the bible is 100% truth. I'm sure allot of religious folks figure that god made the universe millions of years ago, but the ones causing all this kerfuffle seem to believe that the version of events that has the world as younger than 1000 year's, and are asking people to act like that makes any fucking sense.

really... calling creationism a "science"
Believe creationism if you wish but stop pretending it's science. creationism is about faith; not scientific evidence.

Goliath100:
There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypothesis".

I'm pretty sure in order for something to be hypothesis it first has to testable according the scientific definition. calling creationism conjecture might work a bit better or you could just call it a belief.

Whether you believe it or not, there is more than enough evidence to disprove, Mr Faulkner. I take it this guy didn't watch the Bill Nye Vs Ken Ham debate.

Anyways, I can understand that they want to have some representation, but when there is nothing scientific worth talking about when it comes to these "theories." It kinda sounds like they're just looking for some support among their piers - understandable, but they have to realize that in the wake of scientific development, religious theories aren't relevant in science anymore. Tough pill to swallow, but it's true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having beliefs of any kind as long as they don't infringe upon other people; that said, when we're talking about science and fact, creationism, a new earth and any sort of afterlife isn't provable and for 2 of those we have proof to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, I think these guys need to understand that big claims require lots of proof.

Neta:

Mad World:

Ninmecu:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

No.

You can still be a scientist who believes in creationism.

You'll just be REALLY BAD at your job.

It's only possible through massive amounts of denial. How else could one believe in something like creationism and yet overwhelming evidence against it is what one has learned and encounters on a daily basis, as well as having as a job to find more and more evidence that contradicts it?

Religion and science are completely opposed concepts, like light and dark, good and evil, life and death, and always have been. This is true even though religious people were responsible for the creation of the scientific method to begin with, though that's solely because everybody and his mother were religious back then, so they were the only ones who could have made it if it was ever going to be. As science has expanded our understanding of the universe, religions of all types have been proven false time and time again in every way, and yet somehow there are people that still believe in them.

How about this, when a independent unbiased scientist comes forth with repeatable, accurate scientific proof that the universe was built over the course of 6 days by a omnipotent being that could only be described as a god and that evolution isn't possible, then you can have creationism featured in a show about scientific fact and evidence

I dunno, I think they covered the fact that religion is as an institution entirely opposed to science pretty well with the brief historical discussion of the guy that got burned as a heretic for not even science, just incorporating basic empiricism into his mystical outlook.

Covering more examples of Christianity (still) being anti-science would probably be wandering a bit off topic, and also kinda redundant. And it's also considered impolite to remind the Christians that institutionally they're all still anti-science, since due to the dominance of secular philosophy the last few centuries many of them are individually pretty much in favor.

Sniper Team 4:
When did evolution become fact? No, seriously, can someone tell me when? When I was still in school, all the way up through college, evolution was still referred to as a theory. Then is seemed like one day theory was dropped and evolution became fact. I'm curious when that happened, or was my city just slow to catch on?

The "theory of evolution" is the collected set of analysis attempting to _explain_ the phenomenon of evolution. Evolution the phenomenon is something that's been observed directly under laboratory conditions numerous times.

So... "species change in a manner that makes them more suited to their environment over multi-generational time-scales" is a _fact_, a simple observed thing that is unarguably true. That this stems primarily from semi-random mutations caused by defects in the DNA transcription process and the resulting statistical reproductive advantage of the organisms expressing the more environment-suitable phenotype is part of the _theory_, aka the explanation for why we think the observed factual phenomenon is the case.

(Edit: the prefix "a" used as negation is a greek-rooted prefix that means "not" or "without". The guy that seems to think it equates to "anti-" up-thread may have missed one too many english classes, "atheist" encompasses anyone that doesn't believe in or worship/rely on a deity, regardless of their epistemological stance on whether gnosis is a thing or not.)

Pretending to have something to contribute to the debate is the great confidence trick of the creation 'science' movement. Where are the journals showing us the advancements in the creation theories backed up by evidence? Where are the real world gains of their discoveries and advancements? Where is the actual science?

Evolution, unlike God, does not give a shit if you believe in it or not. It's like Thermodynamics. You can believe that a heat engine does not work but the practical gains we use in society every day are irrefutable proof. It's the same with evolution. Genetics is the glaring example. The diagnosis and treatment of genetic disease, advancements in crop technology.

To deny evolution is to deny that DNA evidence is valid, to deny that selective breeding can improve horses and racing stock since this is the same mechanism that leads to speciation, to deny all the discoveries about biology and reproduction that have been made since the 19th century. I don't think these people realize that to attack one aspect they feel uncomfortable with they also have to attack a web of interconnected evidence and practical uses spanning decades eventually leading to the wholesale denial of any scientific discoveries since and even sometimes including antiquity.

There is no science there. They see the willingness to accept new evidence and the use of the word "Thoery" as weakness. A theory is the most certain thing science can have. Science is not arrogant enough to say it knows anything completely as things always get refined. This isn't uncertainty. All it means is that as time goes on we get MORE certain of things we already have a massive wealth of evidence for across all scientific fields.

Evolutionary theory is fact because it demonstrably works in the real world and we have practical applications for it we already use. Saying that it could be wrong is like saying that the principles that underlie how a computer works could be wrong; if they were wrong your computer wouldn't work. The evidence is in how things actually function.

Read Richard Dawkins' God Delusion; he quite clearly sets out just how utterly implausible the idea of 'creation' is.

Spacemonkey430:

Chessrook44:
See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face. Case in point, this: (Quote snipped for length)

Yeah the way I see it, we've explained many things. Nebulas, the structure of the Earth, physics, evolution, the history of quite a bit of the universe, most of what we can see...

God and Religion takes hold in those places where Science doesn't. Where facts are unavailable, and we can only go on what we believe. Did God initiate the Big Bang, or was it something else? Did life form from a random collection of materials, did it fall from an Asteroid, or did some higher intelligence, be it Aliens or God, form it from nothing? Do the beautiful nebulas in space form from random accretions of dust and radiation, or is some gigantic being sculpting it into form like some great artist? Well OK that last one is likely the former but you see my point.

Chessrook44:
God and Religion takes hold in those places where Science doesn't.

And therein lies the problem. Science is willing to accept that it might be wrong, that it has holes, that there are things it can't yet explain. God and religion end up becoming a slather of wallpaper paste, thrown over the top, seeping into all the cracks and refusing to budge. As the science expands, so the religious argument gets more and more squeezed until it cracks apart.

Why? Because it won't move. Science has advanced in the last 1500 years, but religion is still exactly where it was. And the more clear it becomes that they're fundamentally incompatible, the more of a problem it turns out to be.

Am I the only one to have laughed at Commander Obvious' post? Why was he warned for that? :/

OT: I'm not surprised that Creationist views won't be entertained on such a show.

Goliath100:
There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypothesis".

Actually the reason Creationism is a joke is that much like the theism that spawned it. It has taken a stance that is anti-science.

How so? How do you disprove it?

See any scientific theory or hypothesis must be testable in someway and to be tested it must have some conditions for proof and disproof. A scientist who comes up with a hypothesis generally has already stated that which can disprove is. I think A = B... thusly I have devised a Test. if Test is C A=B if Test is !C A!=B. You can pretty much separate religion from science by simply asking the person exposing it. How would you disprove it?

Creationism like religion can never be proven false. There is only one outcome creationists will accept. The creator reveals himself and proves them right. Anything else they will simply state. 'It just hasn't happened yet'. Theists would do well to remember that not surprisingly if applied to other areas.. we cannot prove the existence of god to be false.. but by the sam logic you can prove the existence of the tooth fairy or easter bunny or Puff the Magic Dragon rfalse either. Creationists and theists are happy to leave it at ' We can't prove it but we can't disprove it either'. Scientists... hate that... they want to know they are either right or wrong. They will test their hypothesis as much as their current understanding allows they will ask those with greater understanding to test them.

BigTuk:
Snip

Because you are the 3rd person saying this: "...AT BEST be call a "hypothesis"."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here