Science and Philosophy Club Rules OK!

[freckleonear]

To throw a different opinion in here, I believe in creation, i.e. the literal account in Genesis. I have a degree in science, and I personally find that science fits in perfectly with creationism. It all depends on how you interpret the evidence. In my opinion, if you choose to reject one part of the Bible then you cannot claim that the rest of it is true.

I would find this really interesting if you care to explain as I do find the LITERAL (as opposed to symbolic, metaphorical, spiritual, metaphysical or mystical) interpretation of the bible to be at loggerheads with science, but this could be because I feel many religious people, including Christians, attribute certain things to their own religion which aren't actually there sometimes?

I believe that God created the world in six literal 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. My reasons for this are that the hebrew word used means a literal day, each day was described as having an evening and a morning, the genealogies in Genesis date the world at about 6000 years old, and Jesus himself treated the Old Testament as a literal historical account. Additionally, creation taking millions of years would contradict the Bible's teaching on death and the fall.

Obviously such a view is extrememly unpopular with modern science, but I don't find it to be incompatible with the scientific evidence itself. I'll just give a couple of examples. The main scientific evidence pointing to an old-age earth is radiometric dating and geology, but the geological evidence could also be explained by a catastrophic global flood (Noah's flood) and radiometric dating methods have been shown to be extremely inaccurate (eg. diamonds and coal previously dated at millions of years were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old, also research has shown that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past).

So it all depends on how you choose to interpret the evidence. For example, most scientists discard dating results that give thousands of years rather than millions as anamolies simply because the result doesn't fall in the expected range. So far I personally haven't found a single piece of evolutionary evidence that could not also be explained from a young-age creationist viewpoint.

Just a note that although I do not believe in evolution, I do believe that there is clear scientific evidence for microevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are two very different things and microevolution fits in fine with the Genesis account of creation.

Hopefully I won't get flamed too much for stating what I believe, I am not trying to force my beliefs onto anyone else and just wanted to explain them a little as I was asked about it.

 

[redpoppy]

Thanks for elucidating. I don't agree or understand but I'm sure you've heard it all before and I don't particularly want to get into a debate over these things as they're really not THAT important.

As long as you're happy and fulfilled and don't hurt other people it's all good.

 

[Sarahkka]

To throw a different opinion in here, I believe in creation, i.e. the literal account in Genesis. I have a degree in science, and I personally find that science fits in perfectly with creationism. It all depends on how you interpret the evidence. In my opinion, if you choose to reject one part of the Bible then you cannot claim that the rest of it is true.

I would find this really interesting if you care to explain as I do find the LITERAL (as opposed to symbolic, metaphorical, spiritual, metaphysical or mystical) interpretation of the bible to be at loggerheads with science, but this could be because I feel many religious people, including Christians, attribute certain things to their own religion which aren't actually there sometimes?

I believe that God created the world in six literal 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. My reasons for this are that the hebrew word used means a literal day, each day was described as having an evening and a morning, the genealogies in Genesis date the world at about 6000 years old, and Jesus himself treated the Old Testament as a literal historical account. Additionally, creation taking millions of years would contradict the Bible's teaching on death and the fall.

Obviously such a view is extrememly unpopular with modern science, but I don't find it to be incompatible with the scientific evidence itself. I'll just give a couple of examples. The main scientific evidence pointing to an old-age earth is radiometric dating and geology, but the geological evidence could also be explained by a catastrophic global flood (Noah's flood) and radiometric dating methods have been shown to be extremely inaccurate (eg. diamonds and coal previously dated at millions of years were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old, also research has shown that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past).

So it all depends on how you choose to interpret the evidence. For example, most scientists discard dating results that give thousands of years rather than millions as anamolies simply because the result doesn't fall in the expected range. So far I personally haven't found a single piece of evolutionary evidence that could not also be explained from a young-age creationist viewpoint.

Just a note that although I do not believe in evolution, I do believe that there is clear scientific evidence for microevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are two very different things and microevolution fits in fine with the Genesis account of creation.

Hopefully I won't get flamed too much for stating what I believe, I am not trying to force my beliefs onto anyone else and just wanted to explain them a little as I was asked about it.

This is a great thread and this site is about good respectful discussion and inclusion. I think you've made a great contribution to the debate. I don't agree with you, but I think you've expressed your beliefs really well.
My general feeling about the evolution/creationism debate is that, if we could all just agree that this planet and EVERYTHING on it is sacred and needs to be treated with the utmost care, then it's not that relevant how we got here. Just that we behave to this planet as we would to our newborns - respect, love, care.

 

[redpoppy]

I have to admit I am more into my theoretical physics than quantum, but OH laps it up. He did his entire MSc on light particles and lasers.

Yeah. I would SERIOUSLY LOVE to have your OH on speed dial, for those moments when I'm lying back trying to figure out the significance of the speed of light to something or other ....

I'm sure he'd find me stupid and annoying, which is why its best I do not befriend quantum physicists.

 

[Pyrrhic]

He's a member on BnB actually You could always post your burning physics questions on his profile wall. Username is enemy crab

 

[mkgs]

I often hear about how 50% of the US population (as shown in polls I suppose) think creationism is fact and Sarah Palin said she thought it and evolution should both be taught in school.

Wow! This is quite the statement. You have managed to improperly use the term evolution and imply that creationism is mearly a figment of US religion. Fact is, it takes the same amount of faith, if not more, to believe in evolution, as it does to believe in creationism.

I will take a leap and assume that you agree with me in the fact the we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. (If you do not agree with this, that is unfortunate and we will have to take the time to debate that later.) Now, agreeing that we exist, there are only two means by which we came into existance. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The bible says, "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth." Atheists beleive that matter is self-existing and not created.

Let's look at thermodynamics. I will borrow the words of John Clayton, as he explains it with simplicity. "Scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct."

(I have several other scientific proofs, energy sources that fuel the cosmos and what scientists call a singularity, but will not mention them due to length.)

Now that we have established proof in a begining, you might say, "Yes there was a begining, but that is where the Big Bang Theory fits in." Once again I will impose upon Clayton to explain. "If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position."


So, to sum up this post, it is not creationism that has a lack of scientific proof, but you, my friend. Please do not shut doors because of what popular science teaches. Popular science teaches us that we are a product of chance. Can you reallly look at a new born baby and say that he/ she is mearly the product of chance? No, we are the design and product of an intelligent God.




And by the way, I am also "science educated", work in a laboratory, and agree with Palin's position of teaching creationism in school.

 

[redpoppy]

I think the issue isn't about whether God exists or not. The issue is whether all scientific evidence can be sidelined because any religious or other non scientific text says so.

Even the most zealous scientific atheists have a tendency to admit that there MAY be a God or governing power or rule which may or may not have consciousness.

Religious texts can be beautiful, relevant, important and vital things but they are not undeniable truth without "faith".

And although science is not undeniable truth either, it is the honest search for it regardless of any other bias or input. I understand that people may deny the facts which heavily HEAVILY HEAVILY point us in the direction that the universe is billions of years old. But their belief is lead primarily by faith and not by the unbiased search for what is ACTUALLY going on out there. Scientists are not agents of any cause and they are not conspiring against us. They are people like you and I who are given facts and search for them. Whilst science and religion did not clash in whatever regard (evolution, history, etc) MANY sicentists were very religious (Newton being one of them) but when more and more evidence began to show the contradictions, you either had scientists who saw religion as a mystical and metaphorical guide or those that declined it.

If we teach creationism according to the Bible in schools (which I don't have a problem with so long as a CONTEXT is given) it MUST be taught alongside creationism according to the Quran, the Torah, The Hindu scriptures etc.

To say the bible is correct and all other religions are incorrect (without faith) is misleading and although such a theory may be taught in religious schools, teaching it without context of faith and other religions in a public (I mean it in the US sense) school where other children of other faiths are free to attend and mingle is in my opinion wrong UNLESS its taught as one of many religious ideas of creationism. And I suppose in a country like the USA which was built on the understanding of separation of church and state it seems very wrong.

I admit that I hate the new trends of almost witch-hunting those with religion or faith by the likes of Dawkins et al, (I'm sure they think its all very clever since it was the religious zealots doing the witch-hunting to begin with!) but I personally HAVE to ask people to draw a line between their private beliefs and those that they want to be instilled in the schooling system ESPECIALLY if they expect it to be considered a scientific fact when it simply isn't. God possibly creating the big bang is all well and good but God then trying to trick us by placing evidence which STRONGLY tells us ALL about our past, just to trick some of us, just seems REALLY unfair.

I was brought up in a religious household and I LOVE that I have that. I LOVE the religious and spiritual part of my life (although, it is, admittedly not that dogmatic) and I sometimes meet atheists or agnostics who seem hell bent on just PROVING that all belief is rubbish and that will NEVER experience certain elements of life and personal experience which are so enriching and so beautiful and also which remove a whole system of context for looking at life due to the adamant belief that it is somehow inherently evil or wrong or stupid. It is very limiting in my eyes.

But, at the same time, I meet religious people who don't realise that we are born into this world knowing nothing and belief is true and strong and can be amazing but will never take that fact away. Most people born in India are Hindus, most people born in Thailand are Buddhists, most people born in Saudi are Muslim. Most people born in Italy are Catholic and most people born in America are Christian. Think about it.

 

[Neecee]

Wow, this is a deep discussion. I believe in creation. That's my contribution.

 

[moomin_troll]

I often hear about how 50% of the US population (as shown in polls I suppose) think creationism is fact and Sarah Palin said she thought it and evolution should both be taught in school.

Wow! This is quite the statement. You have managed to improperly use the term evolution and imply that creationism is mearly a figment of US religion. Fact is, it takes the same amount of faith, if not more, to believe in evolution, as it does to believe in creationism.

I will take a leap and assume that you agree with me in the fact the we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. (If you do not agree with this, that is unfortunate and we will have to take the time to debate that later.) Now, agreeing that we exist, there are only two means by which we came into existance. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The bible says, "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth." Atheists beleive that matter is self-existing and not created.

Let's look at thermodynamics. I will borrow the words of John Clayton, as he explains it with simplicity. "Scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct."

(I have several other scientific proofs, energy sources that fuel the cosmos and what scientists call a singularity, but will not mention them due to length.)

Now that we have established proof in a begining, you might say, "Yes there was a begining, but that is where the Big Bang Theory fits in." Once again I will impose upon Clayton to explain. "If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position."


So, to sum up this post, it is not creationism that has a lack of scientific proof, but you, my friend. Please do not shut doors because of what popular science teaches. Popular science teaches us that we are a product of chance. Can you reallly look at a new born baby and say that he/ she is mearly the product of chance? No, we are the design and product of an intelligent God.




And by the way, I am also "science educated", work in a laboratory, and agree with Palin's position of teaching creationism in school.

im confused as to why my name is on the quote ur replying to as i didnt make it hahah

 

[Tiff]

Wow, this is a deep discussion. I believe in creation. That's my contribution.

Very similar to my contribution, is that I am on the fence about creation vs evolution.

I like the idea of faith (hence creation) but am skeptical (hence evolution). Yep, lots of insight from me!

 

[redpoppy]

Wow, this is a deep discussion. I believe in creation. That's my contribution.

Very similar to my contribution, is that I am on the fence about creation vs evolution.

I like the idea of faith (hence creation) but am skeptical (hence evolution). Yep, lots of insight from me!

you remind me of a scene from one of my favourite films. (roman holiday)

 

[Pyrrhic]

I am loving the debate in this thread. Really nice to see some well thought out arguments on both sides

 

[moomin_troll]

yes i agree with u raf i cant stand debates where it gets nasty n people get hurt feeling but this is balanced at actualy interesting to read both sides, even tho we dont all agree

 

[Pyrrhic]

Now that we have established proof in a begining, you might say, "Yes there was a begining, but that is where the Big Bang Theory fits in." Once again I will impose upon Clayton to explain. "If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position."

I totally agree with the above. In all the many religions across the world, it is a subscribed 'truth' that God created the Heavens and the Earth. The bible speaks of creation as an input of ordered energy, whereas science deems it an explosive bang. There is no reason why these two seemingly different events are not one and the same.

I would recommend Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ as one of many excellent resources on this subject. He was a confirmed atheist who used his unbiased, journalistic methods to see if God, the Bible and Jesus Christ were authentic. He made the journey from atheism to Christianity after weighing all the evidence in an unbiased manner.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Chris...9307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250607354&sr=8-1

 

[marley2580]

Well, I'll come clean and say that I'm an athiest and do not believe in creationism. I totally respect people's views regarding how the universe was created but I do not believe that creationism should be taught outside of RE. I don't have a problem with people teaching that science doesn't KNOW exactly how the universe was created and that there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think that the viewpoints should be in a scientific context rather than a religious one (if you get what I mean).

 

[cillybean83]

I am always open to hearing what others think and believe and I'm not one to shove my religious beliefs down anyones throat. I live in the US and while a statistic of 50% believing in creationism sounds high overall, I would definately say that at LEAST 50% of people in my area believe in creationism. I'm from the south (Tennessee) and I live in what's called the "Bible Belt" of the US. Most people in my area are southern baptists (as am I) and we believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God, that the men who wrote the Bible were divinely inspired to do so, and that everything you could ever need can be found within the Bible. The answers to where we come from, but more importantly, the answers to where we are going when this life is over. I believe that God created the world in 7 days, that God sent a great flood that covered the world, that God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, that Jonah was swallowed by a fish, and that the only way to heaven in through the Lord Jesus Christ and believing that He loved each and every one of us so much that He suffered and died on the cross to give us an escape from hell. No one has to agree with me, and I hope no one is mad at me for stating my beliefs, but if you think about it, how could I NOT share my beliefs with people I care about, both in my personal life and my internet life if I really truly believed that that's the only way to heaven. I would never want to keep that information to myself if I thought it would help others. Take it for what it's worth to you and your life! If anyone wants to talk further about it or discuss anything, feel free to message me! I hope no one is mad at me!!

 

[tasha41]

I am always open to hearing what others think and believe and I'm not one to shove my religious beliefs down anyones throat. I live in the US and while a statistic of 50% believing in creationism sounds high overall, I would definately say that at LEAST 50% of people in my area believe in creationism. I'm from the south (Tennessee) and I live in what's called the "Bible Belt" of the US. Most people in my area are southern baptists (as am I) and we believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God, that the men who wrote the Bible were divinely inspired to do so, and that everything you could ever need can be found within the Bible. The answers to where we come from, but more importantly, the answers to where we are going when this life is over. I believe that God created the world in 7 days, that God sent a great flood that covered the world, that God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, that Jonah was swallowed by a fish, and that the only way to heaven in through the Lord Jesus Christ and believing that He loved each and every one of us so much that He suffered and died on the cross to give us an escape from hell. No one has to agree with me, and I hope no one is mad at me for stating my beliefs, but if you think about it, how could I NOT share my beliefs with people I care about, both in my personal life and my internet life if I really truly believed that that's the only way to heaven. I would never want to keep that information to myself if I thought it would help others. Take it for what it's worth to you and your life! If anyone wants to talk further about it or discuss anything, feel free to message me! I hope no one is mad at me!!

Agree

 

[redpoppy]

I totally agree with the above. In all the many religions across the world, it is a subscribed 'truth' that God created the Heavens and the Earth. The bible speaks of creation as an input of ordered energy, whereas science deems it an explosive bang. There is no reason why these two seemingly different events are not one and the same.

I would recommend Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ as one of many excellent resources on this subject. He was a confirmed atheist who used his unbiased, journalistic methods to see if God, the Bible and Jesus Christ were authentic. He made the journey from atheism to Christianity after weighing all the evidence in an unbiased manner.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Chris...9307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250607354&sr=8-1

I LOVE reading reviews to books like that. Click on five, three and one stars and enjoy the nature of the human condition. Its amazing how people love things that confirm their view and hate things that oppose it.

 

[freckleonear]

Regarding the teaching of creationism in schools, despite believing in creation myself I would have to agree that it belongs more in RE lessons than science lessons simply because you would then have to teach theories of origins from other religions as well.

I do however think that the theory of intelligent design should be taught alongside the theory of evolution. It is rooted strongly in science (based mainly around the principle of irreducible complexity), backed by many prominent and respected scientists, but without being affiliated with any one religion. I think that by teaching schoolchildren to examine different arguments, it would actually improve their critical thinking skills and engage them far more in the learning process, rather than spoonfeeding them the most popular theory and expecting them to just learn it.

For me at least, that's what made science so exciting; examining evidence, comparing different theories, testing hypotheses. The idea of just learning facts to recite back in an exam paper doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

[mkgs]

Sorry for the error!