Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    02 Apr '09 09:14 / 1 edit
    I would like to argue that creationism has some value.

    I would even argue that the universe is only a few thousand years old.

    My argument is based on perception and information processing.

    Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed.

    edit. I would also argue that creationists are a bunch of inbred morons
    who only represent their cause by their sheer lack of understanding.
  2. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    02 Apr '09 10:39
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jhfwt/Did_Darwin_Kill_God/
  3. 02 Apr '09 12:09
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    I would like to argue that creationism has some value.

    I would even argue that the universe is only a few thousand years old.

    My argument is based on perception and information processing.

    Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed.

    edit. I would also argue that creationists are a bunch of inbred morons
    who only represent their cause by their sheer lack of understanding.
    ….My argument is based on perception and information processing.

    Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed.
    ..…


    Can you elaborate on that “argument” -I have no idea what you mean. What does “Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed” mean? -if I take that statement literally then it appears to make no sense to me.

    + Shouldn’t this thread be in the spirituality forum? -this isn’t about evolution itself but rather the conflict (and whether there really should be a ‘conflict’ ) between evolution and religion.
  4. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    02 Apr '09 14:23
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]….My argument is based on perception and information processing.

    Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed.
    ..…


    Can you elaborate on that “argument” -I have no idea what you mean. What does “Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed” mean? -if I take that statement literally then it appears to make no se ...[text shortened]... ct (and whether there really should be a ‘conflict’ ) between evolution and religion.[/b]
    I think this is a variant on the notion that you need conscious observers to collapse the universes wave-function - until that has happened the universe doesn´t really exist. It is total hogwash.
  5. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    02 Apr '09 17:12
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I think this is a variant on the notion that you need conscious observers to collapse the universes wave-function - until that has happened the universe doesn´t really exist. It is total hogwash.
    It's actually more of a play on language.

    Hogwash I think is good though.
  6. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    02 Apr '09 17:14 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]….My argument is based on perception and information processing.

    Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed.
    ..…


    Can you elaborate on that “argument” -I have no idea what you mean. What does “Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed” mean? -if I take that statement literally then it appears to make no se ...[text shortened]... ct (and whether there really should be a ‘conflict’ ) between evolution and religion.[/b]
    As above.
    I'm interested in the etymology of 'God'.

    ediit. The link I have provided was a darn good attempt by Christians to get
    their foot back in the door but it was failing in one thing. 'Language'.

    The language of Christianity was not addressed which is what made it possible for this
    dog's dinner to walk through the BBC's doors. It also made my stomach hurt.
  7. 13 May '09 04:56
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]….My argument is based on perception and information processing.

    Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed.
    ..…


    Can you elaborate on that “argument” -I have no idea what you mean. What does “Before information processing occur3d. 'Nothing' existed” mean? -if I take that statement literally then it appears to make no se ...[text shortened]... ct (and whether there really should be a ‘conflict’ ) between evolution and religion.[/b]
    "creationist" and "christians" are very broad terms,lumping together a huge group of people.when you say "creationist" I believe you are referring to "christian fundamentalist".ones who spout the literal (24 hr.) 6 day creation theory.there are many christians ,I would say more,who believe in "design"( a big difference) and do not hang on every word written in english in1611 translated from ancient text written in hebrew.Science and belief in a Creator of sorts can co-exist,I believe
  8. 13 May '09 05:19
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Science and belief in a Creator of sorts can co-exist,I believe
    Coexist? Yes.
    Mix? No.
  9. 13 May '09 05:31
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Coexist? Yes.
    Mix? No.
    notice I said a Creator,not religion.so for clarity,are you stating there is no room in science for the belief in some sort of supreme being,force, power, entity, God,gods, Source, whatever tag you put on it, or any thing similar ? A true scientist would have to be an atheist?
  10. 14 May '09 04:32
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    notice I said a Creator,not religion.so for clarity,are you stating there is no room in science for the belief in some sort of supreme being,force, power, entity, God,gods, Source, whatever tag you put on it, or any thing similar ? A true scientist would have to be an atheist?
    I have no problem with science people believing in their god.
    I have no problem with christian people trusting science.

    But I do have problems with people who thinks that religious phenomena can be proven scientifically. I do have problems when they bring up science to back their religious views.

    The most basic part of the christian (and moslem, and jewish) belief is the exisistance of god himself. When his existance can be proven scientifically, then I will change my mind. (Gosh, there is no consensus definition of 'god' even...)

    When an outcome of an scientific experiment can be altered by prayers, then I will change my mind.

    But until then I am certain of my thesis, that: Religion and Science cannot ever mix!
  11. 14 May '09 05:28
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I have no problem with science people believing in their god.
    I have no problem with christian people trusting science.

    But I do have problems with people who thinks that religious phenomena can be proven scientifically. I do have problems when they bring up science to back their religious views.

    The most basic part of the christian (and moslem, an ...[text shortened]... mind.

    But until then I am certain of my thesis, that: Religion and Science cannot ever mix!
    ok I respect that. Well said.
  12. 01 Jul '09 00:25
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I have no problem with science people believing in their god.
    I have no problem with christian people trusting science.

    But I do have problems with people who thinks that religious phenomena can be proven scientifically. I do have problems when they bring up science to back their religious views.

    The most basic part of the christian (and moslem, an ...[text shortened]... mind.

    But until then I am certain of my thesis, that: Religion and Science cannot ever mix!
    How about scientific observation explaining creation? It isn't something that can be tested, but we can observe fossil records.
  13. 01 Jul '09 00:31
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    How about scientific observation explaining creation? It isn't something that can be tested, but we can observe fossil records.
    If it can't be tested, is it scientific?
  14. 01 Jul '09 08:36
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    If it can't be tested, is it scientific?
    Of course. There are plenty of things man can never test. Does that take it out of the realm of science. No it doesn't. The scientific method is a set of rules to prove things.
  15. 01 Jul '09 08:42
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    How about scientific observation explaining creation? It isn't something that can be tested, but we can observe fossil records.
    By creation you mean by some supernatural being? Or do you mean specifically by the christian god?

    If yes on any of these qeustions, then it's much simpler to prove the existance of this creator. It's very easy to set up an experiment and see the outcome. This has been done, with various methods, with no positive confirmation.

    But if by 'creation' you mean the spontanous creation of the Universe 'according' to the BigBang theory, then we talk about 'creation' from different angles.

    Religion cannot ever be dealt with scientifically.