Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineOldWoodSpecter
waiting
Male

Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
Re: creation science [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #5582098 - 05/02/06 04:54 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Huehuecoyotl said:
"assuming the idea of creationism is true"

I never assume.




there is no thought without assumption

When you think about what do you currently have in your fridge without looking in it, you have to assume that you still have your fridge, that someone didn't steal it etc.
When you think about how atoms work, you have to assume they exist.
etc.


--------------------
I descend upon your earth from the skies
I command your very souls you unbelievers
Bring before me what is mine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
Re: creation science [Re: Veritas]
    #5582106 - 05/02/06 04:55 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I wish I had caught that, but my pun was unintentional...


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: creation science [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5582881 - 05/02/06 08:06 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Somewhere I heard about a new discovery, that huge amounts of water are stored somewhere in the upper athmosphere.

There are about 10 grams of water per cubic meter of air, on average. This is a lot of water compared to a swimming pool, but it's a drop compared to the ocean.

Condensing ALL the water out of the air would raise sea level less than a meter.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: creation science [Re: OldWoodSpecter]
    #5582890 - 05/02/06 08:08 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

assuming the idea of creationism is true, wouldn't you want to build a science around it to describe it, analise it?

Hell yes!

And the moment the very first, tiny, micro-scrap of evidence supporting it turns up, I'll be the first to support its study. Until then, Creation (non)Science is the Flying Spaghetti Monster by another name.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinequillini
one meanmotorscooter
Male

Registered: 04/18/06
Posts: 255
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: creation science [Re: OldWoodSpecter]
    #5582899 - 05/02/06 08:10 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

OldWoodSpecter said:
Quote:

Huehuecoyotl said:
"assuming the idea of creationism is true"

I never assume.




there is no thought without assumption

When you think about what do you currently have in your fridge without looking in it, you have to assume that you still have your fridge, that someone didn't steal it etc.
When you think about how atoms work, you have to assume they exist.
etc.




Assumptions are made on the basis of probability, unless one believes in magic (Christians). For example, I assume my fridge is still there and everything is as I left it because, all things considered, that is most likely (though not necessarily) the case. If I come home and find my door has been busted open, all assumptions about the contents of my place are called into question. Most likely, a burglar isn't going to raid my fridge, but obviously my place in general got raided, so I then assume that everything has been tampered with until an inventory check proves otherwise. Such an inventory check would involve looking into the fridge.

We assume atoms to exist because, of all the phenomena we have observed, the model of the atom is the simplest, most consistent explanation we have. Furthermore, the model of the atom can be used to predict phenomena that has not yet been observed. That such predictions turn out to be accurate (atom bomb detonation) is testament to the accuracy of the model.

Assuming creationism to be true (not the philosophical notion of order among chaos, but specifically the biblical intelligent design model) involves assuming the absolute truth of the bible. Intelligent design takes all of its cues from the bible, and goes out of its way to conform to a literal interpretation of it. It is convoluded, far from comprehensive (the bible never mentions other planets, or even other continents), has zero predictive ability, and is not falsifiable. One can only conclude that if the bible makes some claim that runs contrary to everything we know about the world around us, then the bible is most likely wrong (granted this is an assumption, but like I said, all we can go on is probability). Furthermore, the bible is an ancient text among many ancient texts. To use it as a basis for a scientific model is arbitrary.

The theory of evolution has itself evolved, and one could say it is still flawed. But to say it is just as flawed as intelligent design is absurd.


--------------------
No; truth, being alive, was not halfway between anything. It was only to be found by continuous excursions into either realm, and though proportion is the final secret, to espouse it at the outset is to insure sterility.

Only connect...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefearfect
Registered: 01/15/04
Posts: 1,845
Loc: Flag
Re: creation science [Re: quillini]
    #5584184 - 05/02/06 11:53 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

the debate at UTexas a few weeks ago with Dr. Paul Nelson of Biola University, (a christian college) who supported intelligent design, was really interesting. We had a panel of UT professors along with Dr. Nelson's counter-debater. Nelson had been trying his hardest to leave God, especially the christian god, out of the debate. During the time where the panel got to ask Nelson questions, he was accused that intelligent design is not a theory and is founded on a non scientific belief in god. Nelson responded "When have I said anything about god?". At the same time, behind him his screensaver came up over his powerpoint presentation revealing the scrolling marquee "Nature is God's art".

The whole auditorium cracked up.

Anyway, the debate revealed how little science is involved in intelligent design. I was concluded on both sides that since there is yet to be any evidence and absolutely no scientific general theory, that it should absolutely not be taught in schools in place of or even beside evolution.

There are a few theories being developed by the people at Biola, but they deal with why evolution couldn't have happened more than being able to stand in its own feet.

The theories mentioned by nelson were the irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity.

I can go into more detail if anyone cares about these theories, but generally they are very abstract and very hard to prove anything.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )
top 5,371 54 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* I want to debate a "creation scientist".
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )
Phluck 16,415 232 12/01/04 04:26 PM
by Diploid
* Bush Wants Kids Taught 'Intelligent Design' In Biology Class
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
DiploidM 14,158 102 08/10/05 12:54 AM
by MushmanTheManic
* Fairness in Science Ravus 851 12 08/10/05 05:32 PM
by Ravus
* Intelligent Design
( 1 2 all )
djd586 3,245 22 12/18/03 03:32 PM
by fireworks_god
* The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate
( 1 2 3 all )
Divided_Sky 4,985 42 10/06/05 05:05 PM
by dr0mni
* How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
dr0mni 11,879 103 05/17/09 02:49 AM
by Darwinian
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )
BleedingSickness 6,076 42 10/07/02 02:00 PM
by Zahid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,383 topic views. 0 members, 14 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.