Page 12 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 334

Thread: Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

  1. Top | #111
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,930
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,876
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by ideologyhunter View Post
    At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."
    Or from "I don't know how it happened" to "a powerful alien engineer did it, so I don't know how it happened [but that a Mind might have done it gives me solace]".

    The maneuver doesn't seem to only be about explaining things. The pay-off is the solace, not the explanatory power.

  2. Top | #112
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by ideologyhunter View Post
    Back in 2009, when this site was called freeratio, a member who went by jonJ posted this, on the topic of needing a god to understand the universe:

    More generally, how can postulating a mysterious unknowable intangible extra-terrestrial being of infinite power actually explain anything? At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."

    I was going to paraphrase his thought in my own little post, but he said it with such precision that he deserves the attribution.
    The reason I think I'm probably in a simulation has nothing to do with evolution - it is partly due to Elon Musk's reasoning and many personal experiences like receiving a sealed upside down Bible within days of reading another upside down for the first time (to try and annoy God to get him to poison me - to use that as evidence that the hospital is trying to poison me)



    It was a cheap but deluxe 2011 NIV with colour maps and a dictionary, and red text for Jesus' words. Some of the red is much lighter than others (a second issue). And John 7:53-8:11 is in black italics - meaning that Jesus didn't say it. The section says:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...53&version=NIV
    [The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

    It is right before the text - not just in the footnotes.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+5%3A7-8&version=NIV
    Some Fundies would have a problem with 1 John 5:7-8 in the 2011 NIV... unlike the KJV it doesn't fit the trinity which the NIV footnote says "not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century".

    The regular and large print Bibles at my church (see post #62) are all 2011 NIV Bibles as well so they have that note about John 7:53-8:11 as well - even though the church is very conservative and doesn't allow the ordination of women, etc.

    Though like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". For me I think it would usually be seen to be coincidences - including those two songs that caused me to stop gassing myself.

  3. Top | #113
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,932
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,838
    Rep Power
    81
    Pattern recognition sometimes works against us. Percival Lowell, for instance, saw canals on mars (not only him). The more he looked, the more canals he saw.

  4. Top | #114
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    144
    Archived
    890
    Total Posts
    1,034
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    The reason I think I'm probably in a simulation has nothing to do with evolution - it is partly due to Elon Musk's reasoning and many personal experiences like receiving a sealed upside down Bible within days of reading another upside down for the first time (to try and annoy God to get him to poison me - to use that as evidence that the hospital is trying to poison me)
    ...
    Yikes!

  5. Top | #115
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Pattern recognition sometimes works against us. Percival Lowell, for instance, saw canals on mars (not only him). The more he looked, the more canals he saw.
    So they thought that things that looked like canals were canals.... a more severe example of finding non-existent patterns is from A Beautiful Mind:



    (go to 57 seconds in)

  6. Top | #116
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,932
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,838
    Rep Power
    81
    Seeing patterns where patterns don't actually exist can be somewhat problematic.

  7. Top | #117
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Seeing patterns where patterns don't actually exist can be somewhat problematic.
    The technical term seems to be "Apophenia"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

  8. Top | #118
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    21,143
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,643
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?
    Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
    It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

    An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.

  9. Top | #119
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,852
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,891
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?
    Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
    It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

    An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.
    A creationist or someone into woo or magic or supernature or some other "untestable" claim might say to a scientist, "I believe in a god and god is something that cannot be tested for." The dispassionate scientist might likely respond, "That's interesting. How do you suppose we can test your claim using the scientific method?"

    I don't think religion or woo or supernature of magic or any such claimed phenomenon is anti-science. But certainly many of the people who believe in these things are very, very anti-science. And that makes scientific sense and can be explored using the scientific method by simply testing for scientific literacy in an adherent.

    I would feel quite threatened and be afraid of something as powerful and revealing as scientific progress if I didn't understand it. It would be as if people were speaking in a different language, one that I cannot even begin to understand, let alone use to communicate. And that's how science is for many people.

  10. Top | #120
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,442
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    4,241
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist
    ....I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.
    Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.
    My belief is that an intelligent force started with some life forms (like chameleons and butterflies and flowers) and then generated a plausible evolutionary history for the DNA (and geology, etc). So it appears that evolution was naturalistic and happened over millions of years. Though I think our current simulation server has only been explicitly simulating our world for a relatively short amount of time. The idea may be dopey but perhaps some of the specifics are quite original....
    What you believe is not important (except perhaps to you). What you can demonstrate through evidence and reason is important. Simply repeating what you believe, instead of what you can actually support with evidence and reason, is not going to convince anyone. It is merely preaching.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •