Can we talk religion here?

[Denny Crane]

I really want to respond, but I cannot in the short amount of time I have left in a way that's responsible. What I'd like to ask is this:

How is it that one can have "faith" in Evolution, or Global Warming, or the Big Bang, or the Plum Pudding Model of Electrons and call it "science", but as soon as someone take the view of 6-day Creation, it's debunked as "religious tenets" that non-Christians shouldn't be subject to? Look, if you have a chance and an open mind (from someone who's done some studying on the matter), check out this book at your local library if you can. It's old (1960, iirc), but many of the principles and questions still apply.
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Flood-John-C-Whitcomb/dp/0875523382

And a review (not mine):

This is one of the first contemporary books on the subject, possibly the book that started the modern creation movement, giving a scientific basis for the Genesis flood. This is not for those with short attention spans. Heavily footnoted and very comprehensive, it covers the gamut of science and creation, looking at the geological world of today in light of what we would expect to find after a global flood.

Dr Whitcomb conclusively demonstrates the scientific basis for the Genesis flood, casting strong doubts on the foundations of evolution. Evolutionists tend to discuss their theory more in philosophical terms than scientific. Dr. Whitcomb presents the Genesis flood from solid and current (as of 1960) scientific evidence.

Dr. Henry Morris, who died early this year, earned his doctorate in hydraulic engineering and was a respected educator and writer in his field. His book, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, was a standard in colleges for nearly forty years--quite a feat for an engineering textbook. I doubt the critics of this book can boast the same authority. Like most creationists, Dr Morris started out as an evolutionist/gradualist, only switching because creationism better explained the geological phenomena he observed.

It is indeed in need of updating, but is a starting point for understanding this subject. Radiocarbon dating is still inconclusive a half century later, and in fact needs other corroborating evidence for a date, and even has to be correlated regionally. It is based on three assumptions--the rate of decay has remained constant, the original content of the sample is known, and no contamination of the sample has occurred. Hydrology still fails to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon (if viewed as millions of years old). This geological formation is a mile-deep, winding river--impossible by our understanding of water action. Either it is a shallow and wide meandering stream or a straight, deep rushing river, but not both. The Colorado River could not have cut this canyon through solid rock. Drs Whitcomb and Morris give a scientific, not wishful or philosophical, explanation of its formation. For more myth-busting on the formation of the Grand Canyon, read Dr Walt Brown's In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition).

Unfortunately, the evidence will fall on deaf ears for the person unwilling to read this with an open mind, insisting that naturalism, itself based on unproven assumptions, is all there is. The more evolution accepts catastrophic causes, such as the Yucatan meteor theory, the more it is abandoning its gradualist foundation (and unwittingly supporting creationism) yet reluctant to admit it.

http://sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121850&highlight=contact

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

every sector of organized religion contradicts the other.

I believe in god and all, just not organized religion.

 

[barfo]

What I'd like to ask is this:

How is it that one can have "faith" in Evolution, or Global Warming, or the Big Bang, or the Plum Pudding Model of Electrons and call it "science", but as soon as someone take the view of 6-day Creation, it's debunked as "religious tenets" that non-Christians shouldn't be subject to?

Because science and religion are not the same thing.

Hydrology still fails to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon (if viewed as millions of years old). This geological formation is a mile-deep, winding river--impossible by our understanding of water action. Either it is a shallow and wide meandering stream or a straight, deep rushing river, but not both. The Colorado River could not have cut this canyon through solid rock.

If you want to believe that as a matter of faith, be my guest. But if you want to claim that as a scientific fact, then I'm afraid I'll have to say you are completely out to lunch.

barfo

 

[Chutney]

I really want to respond, but I cannot in the short amount of time I have left in a way that's responsible. What I'd like to ask is this:

How is it that one can have "faith" in Evolution, or Global Warming, or the Big Bang, or the Plum Pudding Model of Electrons and call it "science", but as soon as someone take the view of 6-day Creation, it's debunked as "religious tenets" that non-Christians shouldn't be subject to? Look, if you have a chance and an open mind (from someone who's done some studying on the matter), check out this book at your local library if you can. It's old (1960, iirc), but many of the principles and questions still apply.

It's simple really. People have faith in those things, because all of them are proposed as theories with the possibility of failure. The fact that they acknowledge their own potential fallibility is what makes them science. They don't box thinking into a single perspective and they promote any sort of discourse as long as it aims towards one fundamental goal: more accurate explanation.

Creationist beliefs may aim to explain as well, but they're entirely lacking that scientific aspect. There will never be a creationist who acknowledges that potential for failure in their theory. If another theory were to come along with a more accurate explanation, creationists wouldn't even entertain the idea of accepting it. As such, creationism isn't science because its main goal isn't more accurate explanation. Its only aim is to continually justify itself and make itself relevant.

You can add an empirical dimension to creationism all you want, but until it acknowledges its own potential failure it will never be true science and should never be taught in science classes.

 

[Minstrel]

Hydrology still fails to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon (if viewed as millions of years old). This geological formation is a mile-deep, winding river--impossible by our understanding of water action. Either it is a shallow and wide meandering stream or a straight, deep rushing river, but not both.

Or it is a huge, slow-moving glacier. Which, as I recall, is what is supposed to have carved out the Grand Canyon.

Also, two other points:

1. There's nothing about "water action" that refutes a deep, twisting river and "rushes." Narrow water ways rush faster than wider water ways, all else being equal. But there is another variable: pressure. With sufficient pressure, a wide (and/or deep) water way can rush fast.

2. A river doesn't have to rush fast to create erosion.

 

[MARIS61]

But I don't like people to tell me I can't practice them, or who persecute me when I rail against someone's perversion of them.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Bill Mahr would love this thread

 

[Denny Crane]

Or it is a huge, slow-moving glacier. Which, as I recall, is what is supposed to have carved out the Grand Canyon.

Also, two other points:

1. There's nothing about "water action" that refutes a deep, twisting river and "rushes." Narrow water ways rush faster than wider water ways, all else being equal. But there is another variable: pressure. With sufficient pressure, a wide (and/or deep) water way can rush fast.

2. A river doesn't have to rush fast to create erosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

Not formed by glacier.

 

[crowTrobot]

How is it that one can have "faith" in Evolution, or Global Warming, or the Big Bang, or the Plum Pudding Model of Electrons and call it "science"

science by definition does not involve faith. it uses empirical evidence & logic to judge the probability a theory is true. we have mountains of direct empirical evidence supporting evolution & the big bang. there is no scientific consenses on the causes of global warming. funny that you mention the plum pudding model, since it was just a theory that turned out to be contradicted by evidence, and now nobody believes it.

but as soon as someone take the view of 6-day Creation, it's debunked as "religious tenets" that non-Christians shouldn't be subject to?

it's debunked because it's contradicted by all evidence.

Look, if you have a chance and an open mind (from someone who's done some studying on the matter), check out this book at your local library if you can. It's old (1960, iirc), but many of the principles and questions still apply.

even if they were legitimate at the time (unlikely) i'm sure most of them DON'T still apply. there's been a HUGE amount of scientific progress in geology (and biology & anthropology) since 1960. there is zero chance a global flood could have occured. also the flood story in the bible is clearly plagiarized from the sumerian epic of gilgamesh which predates it but has nothing to do with the christian god. many christians these days (including the pope) have accepted that the first part of genesis must be "allegory". it could not have happened as literally described.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

[MARIS61]

1. There's nothing about "water action" that refutes a deep, twisting river and "rushes." Narrow water ways rush faster than wider water ways, all else being equal. But there is another variable: pressure. With sufficient pressure, a wide (and/or deep) water way can rush fast.

2. A river doesn't have to rush fast to create erosion.

Tell me about it. I live on the Little Deschutes.

Another huge variable in erosion is the type of soil, sand, stone or muck being eroded.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Denny Crane]

science by definition does not involve faith. it uses empirical evidence & logic to judge the probability a theory is true. we have mountains of direct empirical evidence supporting evolution & the big bang. there is no scientific consenses on the causes of global warming. funny that you mention the plum pudding model, since it was just a theory that turned out to be contradicted by evidence, and now nobody believes it.

I think you're wrong about science. Al Gore claims man-made global warming is true because of a consensus of scientists. Science is politics - e.g. scientific truth is truth because of a vote?

Astrobiology is science. Or is it. Explain how it is if you dare

Ask scientists if there's life elsewhere in the universe and they say with near certainty there is, yet there's not a shred of scientific evidence there is. It's a BELIEF that there is, almost religious in nature.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

 

[crowTrobot]

It's simple really. People have faith in those things, because all of them are proposed as theories with the possibility of failure. The fact that they acknowledge their own potential fallibility is what makes them science. They don't box thinking into a single perspective and they promote any sort of discourse as long as it aims towards one fundamental goal: more accurate explanation.

that is all true except for the word faith, which doesn't fit. people believe in evolution (for example) because they are compelled to do so by objective evidence. that is the OPPOSITE of faith, which is by definition belief without evidence.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Speaking of evolution...

If we came from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?

 

[DaRizzle]

Ask scientists if there's life elsewhere in the universe and they say with near certainty there is, yet there's not a shred of scientific evidence there is. It's a BELIEF that there is, almost religious in nature.

Statistics say there should be other life out there. Billions of galaxies, billions of stars within those galaxies, billions of planets revolving around those billions of stars...and all it takes is one.

Its very egotistical to think we are the only living things in the entire universe. A more than educated guess would say there is life out there.

 

[crowTrobot]

I think you're wrong about science. Al Gore claims man-made global warming is true because of a consensus of scientists.

there is a consensus that we are excellerating global warming, but there is no consensus on how much. many scientists think most of the current warming trend is mostly just part of a normal cycle that we can do nothing about.

Science is politics - e.g. scientific truth is truth because of a vote?

it goes without saying that what the government decides is "scientific truth" is frequently different than actual truth. obviously governments don't work by the scientific method.

Astrobiology is science. Or is it. Explain how it is if you dare

anything you can test for is science.

Ask scientists if there's life elsewhere in the universe and they say with near certainty there is

this is just false. a few will tell you the probability is very high based on statistical analysis, but you won't find any that believe it in the sense of religious faith.

 

[Minstrel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

Not formed by glacier.

That's the original belief. I've been watching documentaries recently on the Science channel, and more and more scientists believe that glacial movement carved out the Grand Canyon. This is part of growing evidence that ice once extended across the Earth all the way to the tropics, which was previously not thought.

 

[crowTrobot]

Speaking of evolution...

If we came from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?

we didn't come from modern monkeys. modern apes and humans branched/evolved
from ape-like species that are long extinct.

 

[Minstrel]

Ask scientists if there's life elsewhere in the universe and they say with near certainty there is, yet there's not a shred of scientific evidence there is. It's a BELIEF that there is, almost religious in nature.

That's not science. That's an opinion by those scientists (which is not universal). There's a big difference in personal opinions by scientists and scientific beliefs.

 

[LittleAlex]

(If we can't, just let me know and I'll stop...don't want to get banned)

quote from Hasoos:

off the to of my head

Abortion
Stem Cell research
Prayer in School
Book Banning
Internet censorship
TV Censorship
Opposition to right to die
Teaching creationism in schools
Giving government grants to Faith based initiative groups

Don't know the religious background, so it makes it a little difficult to deal with specific issues, but I think the one thing that isn't happening is that Christian ideals are being forced down anyone's throat. In fact, over the last quarter-century, more and more "religious" freedoms were taken away in the name of "separation of church and state", in which most people (I will not surmise whether you are one or not) are completely off-base in their understanding.

Teaching "creationism" in schools may not be popular, but it has a lot less holes than the theory of "darwinism" does. If you have a chance, check out from the library a copy of "the Genesis Flood", which is pretty good about the scientific and engineering principles behind the biblical view of Creation. One of the sad things about the state of our education system is that other "religions" and "gods" have been set up in direct opposition to the God of the Bible/Torah/Koran in our society. Global Warming is, currently, an unfounded scientific principle that many use to attempt to explain phenomena in our world. It is no more proven than the Six Day Creation theory, yet many (who generally are liberal-progressive in their worldview, though I wouldn't just generally apply that moniker to all of them) seem to think that if you attempt to disprove Global Warming, you're a religious nut, an unscientific rube, or in the pockets of Big Oil. Should you attempt to introduce Six-Day Creation as a competing "theory" to the Theory of Evolution, it's blasphemous and cause for dismissal.
(just the first example.. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259844,00.html)

Prayer in school has been successfully removed by "progressives". Sex education is taught to kindergartners in California. Abortion has been legal for 30 years. Each of these has taken a value I hold dearly, and turned it into something that is illegal or perverse. How is that being forced down YOUR throat?

Suicide has been illegal since the birth of our country. Upholding that law is having "religion shoved down your throat?"

I don't know about censorship, other than I can watch just about anything on any channel of my television, and if it's not there, I can darn sure find it on the internet. I can't remember the last time a book was able to be banned from school curricula (though I'm sure one can be found), other than religious texts.

I don't know much about grants to faith-based religious groups, so I can't speak about that one, sorry.

I'll add some. Marriage has been changed into something it isn't. If you want to have a "civil union", cool beans. No problems with your freedom to pursue happiness. But I have a problem with those who illegally had a marriage performed (mayor of SF--I'm looking at you) when it was against the law, but it's not prosecuted because no one wants to tell a homosexual it's wrong to break the law. I would submit that that is having someone else's religion shoved down my throat, as an American who believes in laws.

"Progressive" judges who think that their bench is an excuse to promote their philosophy that man is generally good, and have no accountability in their sentencing, is something else shoved down my throat.

I'll stop for now. </soapbox>

A few things with regards to your post above:

Evolution:
You are making an assumption about evolution that just isn't true. You assume that everyone who supports the theory of evolution blindly holds to a single interpretation. That just isn’t true. Though most scientists support the overall ideas of evolution, many have radically different ideas about how it came about. Creationism, on the other hand, really only has one way to go.

Prayer in school:
As many others have pointed out, only forced prayer has been removed from schools. Once upon a time school opened up with a prayer. At the school I went to (East Elementary in Tillamook, OR), that was happening up until the 4th grade. Folks got together to pray all the time from then on. It’s just that no one was forced to.

Suicide (or I like to call it, Death with Dignity):
The question is not that it is illegal. The question why the hell IS it illegal. One reason could very well be the idea that the Christian God frowns on people taking their own life. This would one case out of many where the morality from Christianity has found it’s way into our laws. Public Decency, Obscenity, Prostitution, Sodomy, Gay Marriage and Drug laws are other examples.

Book Banning:
This must be some sort of joke. You honestly believe that book banning doesn’t happen for anything other then religious texts. I recommend using Google.

Marriage:
It is true that marriage has changed in nature, just like everything else. It used to be that marriage was more of a business arrangement then an act of love. However, that didn’t ruin marriage, it just made it different. Once again, your argument that gay marriage is illegal doesn’t really address what was said. Why is it illegal?

Progressive Judges:
Judges on both sides of the aisle do this sort of thing. I can think of one story where a woman’s child was taken from her because she was a member of the Church of the Subgenius. The reason? She wasn’t providing a good moral foundation, while the father, a christian, would. This assumption on the part of many, that being christian makes you morally superior to non-christians is extremely pervasive in American society. Many, many family court cases are handled like the one above.


I will give you another of other examples where christian ideals are used:

In US Courts when you testify you are asked to swear in, which is an incantation where you put your hand on a Christian Bible and say you will not lie “so help me God”. For an Atheist like myself, this holds no meaning. Swearing on a McDonalds Happy Meal would mean as much to me. The President is sworn in a similar manner.

The christian influence in our society is ubiquitous. I can’t get away from it, ever. Our laws are based in christian morality. Hell, the prevailing sense of what is right and wrong outside of the law is heavily influenced by christianity. That is what the original poster was trying to get at.


You are making an assumption about evolution that just isn't true. You assume that everyone who supports the theory of evolution blindly holds to a single inturpretation

 

[Denny Crane]

there is a consensus that we are excellerating global warming, but there is no consensus on how much. many scientists think most of the current warming trend is mostly just part of a normal cycle that we can do nothing about.



it goes without saying that what the government decides is "scientific truth" is frequently different than actual truth. obviously governments don't work by the scientific method.



anything you can test for is science.



this is just false. a few will tell you the probability is very high based on statistical analysis, but you won't find any that believe it in the sense of religious faith.

Astrobiology is the study of biology of Extra Terrestrials, of which there are none. These "scientists" are govt. funded, and their task is to theorize what life forms might look like if we ever find them. May as well theorize what god looks like.

The probability argument is hogwash (that there is life elsewhere). While the numbers may be empirical, they do not point to any logical conclusions. It is no better than saying "there's a tree, God must have made it. There's lots of trees and that's empirical, too."

 

[LittleAlex]

Yeah...that's a common claim. It's known as Pascal's Wager.

The main flaw in the argument is that there is more than one religion. Believe in Christianity all you want...being wrong doesn't necessarily mean "no God." Being wrong could mean that Islam is correct and you've been following the wrong religion. Bad news.

So, really, the argument doesn't work. No matter what religious stance you take, you risk eternal damnation. So, you may as well believe what you want.

Another flaw in this wager is that it assumes that God is fundamentally good. What if, instead, your God has tricked you into following his rules just so he can enslave you in Heaven? In that case, it may not be worse to "burn in hell". It also doesn't give any value to your mortal life. What if I would enjoy my life so much being a non believer that it would balance out going to hell? This is consistent with the christian belief that this world is just some sort of waystation between being born and finally getting to go somewhere nice.

Given the overwhelming evidence I see in the World around me, I wouldn't assume God is all that great.

 

[Minstrel]

Astrobiology is the study of biology of Extra Terrestrials

That doesn't appear to be an accurate description of astrobiology. Here's the definition Wikipedia provides:

"Astrobiology (other terms have been exobiology, exopaleontology, and bioastronomy) is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe. This interdisciplinary field encompasses the search for habitable environments in our Solar System and habitable planets outside our Solar System, the search for evidence of prebiotic chemistry, life on Mars and other bodies in our Solar System, laboratory and field research into the origins and early evolution of life on Earth, and studies of the potential for life to adapt to challenges on Earth and in space.[2]"

Those seem like pretty legitimate avenues of scientific inquiry to me.

 

[crowTrobot]

Astrobiology is the study of biology of Extra Terrestrials, of which there are none. These "scientists" are govt. funded, and their task is to theorize what life forms might look like if we ever find them. May as well theorize what god looks like.

The probability argument is hogwash (that there is life elsewhere). While the numbers may be empirical, they do not point to any logical conclusions. It is no better than saying "there's a tree, God must have made it. There's lots of trees and that's empirical, too."

sounds like you're arguing what government should and shouldn't be funding, not what is or isn't scientific consensus. a lot of scientists would agree with what you say. just like a lot of physicists consider string theory a waste of research time because they think it's more likely than not to end up being intrinsically untestable.

 

[Denny Crane]

That doesn't appear to be an accurate description of astrobiology. Here's the definition Wikipedia provides:

"Astrobiology (other terms have been exobiology, exopaleontology, and bioastronomy) is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe. This interdisciplinary field encompasses the search for habitable environments in our Solar System and habitable planets outside our Solar System, the search for evidence of prebiotic chemistry, life on Mars and other bodies in our Solar System, laboratory and field research into the origins and early evolution of life on Earth, and studies of the potential for life to adapt to challenges on Earth and in space.[2]"

Those seem like pretty legitimate avenues of scientific inquiry to me.

Astrobiology makes use of physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, molecular biology, ecology, planetary science and geology, as well as philosophy to speculate about the nature of possible life on other worlds and help us to recognize biospheres that might be quite different from our own.<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4]</sup> However, it should be noted that astrobiology concerns itself with an interpretation of existing scientific data; that is, given more detailed and reliable data from other parts of the Universe, the roots of astrobiology itself —biology, physics, chemistry— may have their theoretical bases challenged. Much speculation is entertained in the field to give context, and astrobiology concerns itself primarily with hypotheses that fit firmly into existing scientific theories.

In other words, they are doing nothing more than playing god - guessing at what life outside of Earth (which isn't at all proven to exist) would look like. They go to the extremes of making 3D models of life forms that have no relationship to any existing life (life made in their own image/imagination).

It's not science.

Plain old biology and geology are sufficient to look for fossils in places we can only send robots.

 

[Denny Crane]

sounds like you're arguing what government should and shouldn't be funding, not what is or isn't scientific consensus. a lot of scientists would agree with what you say. just like a lot of physicists consider string theory a waste of research time because they think it's more likely than not to end up being intrinsically untestable.

I actually do believe in Science and have little interest in religious explanations. What I'm arguing is that Science needs to be Science and not "something else" - that something else being political (vote/consensus) or belief based (there's so many stars, there must be life), or mob mentality (findings that go against the accepted wisdom are ridiculed), or the pursuit of funding.

 

[crowTrobot]

That's the original belief. I've been watching documentaries recently on the Science channel, and more and more scientists believe that glacial movement carved out the Grand Canyon. This is part of growing evidence that ice once extended across the Earth all the way to the tropics, which was previously not thought.

i'm guessing that's a fringe theory that the science channel thought would make a good show.

i think most agree the canyon was formed by combination of uplift of the continental plate and erosion by water, both gradually by the river and supplimented by several huge flash floods created when natural lava dams broke (so in a sense large floods were partially responsible for the canyon, just not a global flood).

 

[Minstrel]

In other words, they are doing nothing more than playing god - guessing at what life outside of Earth (which isn't at all proven to exist) would look like.

Your "in other words" doesn't really describe the blurb you quoted.

Astrobiology does a number of things; one of those things is to speculate what alien life forms would look like based on everything we know about science and what we know about the make-ups of others planets.

That speculation isn't science, no. But it is based in science and serves a useful purpose...as our data grows, we can formulate better understandings of what we types of things we might expect to find. It's not random speculation. For example, they have concepts of what types of life would flourish in a gas giant...which is based on what we know of the composition of gas giants and our understandings of biochemistry and physics, how such a life form would sustain itself and what kinds of structures would be needed to do that.

The other things that astrobiologists do (which I quoted) are scientific in nature, not speculative.

 

[barfo]

I actually do believe in Science and have little interest in religious explanations. What I'm arguing is that Science needs to be Science and not "something else" - that something else being political (vote/consensus) or belief based (there's so many stars, there must be life), or mob mentality (findings that go against the accepted wisdom are ridiculed), or the pursuit of funding.

Can't argue with that.

barfo