Creationism vs Naturalism

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Perhaps, who knows. It seems overbearingly likely though that they did not have anything resembling organised religion though, living in too small a group for that to develop.

Gobekli Tepe, seems to suggest otherwise (apart from fire). It was a megalithic temple seemingly built by hunter gatherers, but then carefully covered over when the people started the first recorded agriculture (it is from the region where all domestic wheat originates- if i remember properly).
Good article in this months Fortean Times (not online yet though).
Here's a wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

Originally posted by amannion
I hate to put myself in situations where I feel like I'm not in control. I know we do that all the time of course, but still, I always try to be in control of myself and my life as much as possible.
The notion of a god is the ultimate removal of control.
Obviously most people - including many of my friends and family - don't agree, but there you have it. ...[text shortened]... elieve something else.
But to attempt to have it taught as science is an outrage.

Thankyou for being candid!

I too am exstremely independant, and try to be in complete control of myself and my enviroment, like, as you say, everyone else.

You said, ' the notion of a god is the ultimate removal of control.' How is that? Do you mean that one loses free will?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Science attempts to develop workable theories. Creationism aims to refute those theories but aside from some generic 'god did it' does not bother to present their own theories.

You mean to say that 'god did it' cannot be regarded as a theory for why a certain phenomena happened which has no other coherent explanation?[/b]

Not a scientific theory, no.

Originally posted by josephw
This thead is for those of you that are familiar with the history of this debate as it has and is being debated within the scientific community for the last 100 years or so. I am not a scientist. But it seems to me that the argument is basically about wether or not life began with a creater or by chance and necessity.

When scientists argue for Creationism, they are not doing so as scientists. Hence, it is misleading to say that this debate, such as it is, is happening among scientists. It's akin to the English faculty debating the math curriculum.

Originally posted by london nick
Gobekli Tepe, seems to suggest otherwise (apart from fire). It was a megalithic temple seemingly built by hunter gatherers, but then carefully covered over when the people started the first recorded agriculture (it is from the region where all domestic wheat originates- if i remember properly).
Good article in this months Fortean Times (not online yet though).
Here's a wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

Agriculture dates to about 2000 years before that.


[edit; thanks for the link though]

Fire was not invented. Various techniques for starting or maintaining a fire have been invented at various times in various places and so have various uses for fire. The first step of course is one of acceptability or lack of fear which is more of a cultural thing than an invention.

Agriculture also has multiple origins.

I suspect that most societies in the past had a fairly high level of mysticism as it is a natural product of human intelligence. I suspect that some animals have certain amounts of it, but failure to communicate such concepts stops us from knowing the details.
Humans have a very sophisticated pattern matching system in their brains and notice patterns even when they are caused by random processes. It is also a natural tendency to try to ascertain the cause of those patterns. Magic and mysticism are generally a method whereby a person basically says "I can see a pattern, I don't know the cause, so I will give the cause a name and try to find out or guess some of its properties." If the pattern appears (to the human) to show signs of intelligent input then it is normal to guess that the cause is intelligent.
With modern science we have been able to show that many patterns that the average person would think requires intelligence, come about via natural processes. As a result, with better education, and a larger knowledge base we should expect humans to get less and less mystic.

Originally posted by amannion
Not a scientific theory, no.

Tell that to Einstein, Newton, and all the rest you find on this list...

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

Originally posted by dj2becker
Tell that to Einstein, Newton, and all the rest you find on this list...

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

I couldn't find them on the list. However I think they would agree with amannion and so should most of the people on the list (or they should have their doctorates withdrawn.)

Originally posted by dj2becker
Tell that to Einstein, Newton, and all the rest you find on this list...

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

Neither of them were on the list.

However, "Goddunit" can never be a scientific theory since,
(a) it cannot be tested
(b) it has no predictive power
(c) it is not parsimonious, in that it relies on a HUGE assumption

Originally posted by dj2becker
Tell that to Einstein, Newton, and all the rest you find on this list...

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

The fact that a scientist believes something, does not make it a scientific theory. It doesn't even mean that the scientist thinks its a scientific theory. Do you have any evidence that any of the people on the list you linked to claim that "Goddunit" is a scientific theory?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I couldn't find them on the list. However I think they would agree with amannion and so should most of the people on the list (or they should have their doctorates withdrawn.)

Einstein and Newton were both theists.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Neither of them were on the list.

However, "Goddunit" can never be a scientific theory since,
(a) it cannot be tested
(b) it has no predictive power
(c) it is not parsimonious, in that it relies on a HUGE assumption

(a) it cannot be tested

And the fact that the Big Bang did occur is tested how exactly?

(b) it has no predictive power

Creation has countless accurate predictions and you know it.

(c) it is not parsimonious, in that it relies on a HUGE assumption

Such as?

And what about all the HUGE assumptions made by the TOE?

Originally posted by dj2becker
And the fact that the Big Bang did occur is tested how exactly?

There are many tests which I am sure you can read up on. One of the more famous ones is the microwave background radiation.

Creation has countless accurate predictions and you know it.
I don't know of any predictions, please tell. All I have ever heard from creationists is criticism of evolution. I have never heard of any actual evidence for creationism. (The Bible does not count as scientific evidence)

And what about all the HUGE assumptions made by the TOE?
Please give one assumption made by the TOE.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Einstein and Newton were both theists.

So what?
It might surprise you perhaps to discover that there are people out there who believe in god but don't support the idiocy that is creationism.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b](a) it cannot be tested

And the fact that the Big Bang did occur is tested how exactly?

(b) it has no predictive power

Creation has countless accurate predictions and you know it.

(c) it is not parsimonious, in that it relies on a HUGE assumption

Such as?

And what about all the HUGE assumptions made by the TOE?[/b]

By TOE do you mean Theory of Everything which is the standard usage of the term, or do you mean Theory of Evolution?
If you mean Theory of Evolution, why are you bringing that up in a discussion about the origins of the universe? The two are completely unrelated.
If you mean Theory of Everything, can you mention some of the assumptions?

Testing and predictions are likely to cross over. The power of any useful theory is in its ability to be able to make predictions that can be tested - even if retrospectively.
The cosmic microwave background radiation is a case in point. It was discovered accidentally in the 60s. It could be explained by referring to the Big Bang model of the formation of the universe. It couldn't be explained at that time using any alternative models.
That doesn't of course make the big bang theory true.
But then, no scientific model or theory can really be described as true.
What we can say though is that it works better than any others because it can explain what is observed.
I don't know how the genesis creation model/theory (if you want to call it that) explains the microwave background. Can you tell me?