AudioDad is offline AudioDad Post #21  November 23,2010, 4:44pm
AudioDad's Avatar

...has left the building

Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 800

See profile

meri75 wrote :
Good point.

Do you think it is possible that all Scientific publications have their own agenda/belief and this is what shapes their conclusions with the discoveries, evidence and experiments which they choose to publish?
I know of no actual scientific journals or publications that require their contributors or members to swear to a creed or set of preconceived conclusions. The Creation Research Society, for example, requires its members to adhere to a statement of belief both for membership and to publish in its journal, Creation Research Society Quarterly. The statement of belief is as follows:

  • The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
  • All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
  • The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
  • We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Science doesn't start with a conclusion then force the data/evidence to fit that conclusion. The various creationist organizations do just that - start with a conclusion (God did it all) then either force the evidence to fit that conclusion or look for ways to poke holes in the various scientific disciplines that support origins and evolution. Seldom, if ever, do they actually do their own research or experimentation. It is most assuredly not science.


Even creationist luminaries like Duane Gish, Henry Morris and Richard Elmendorf have openly admitted that creationism is fundamentally a religious belief and has no scientific basis whatsoever. Having said all that, scientists are humans like all of us and are not immune to error, prejudice, egos or agendas. Regardless, what distinguishes creationism from the scientific method is that scientists are actively testing their own theories and hypotheses via observation, experimentation and falsification. Creationism, on the other hand, is essentially a religious belief that has remained unchanged for the better part of 5000 years. The early Hebrews "borrowed" most of their creation mythology from the ancient Sumerians. The early Christian church basically hitched its wagon to those mythologies which are the very same ones offered up in all creationist societies and literature.
Last edited by AudioDad; November 23,2010 at 4:47pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
AudioDad is offline AudioDad Post #22  November 23,2010, 5:08pm
AudioDad's Avatar

...has left the building

Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 800

See profile

meri75 wrote :
Whichever version of creation you accept.


Surely you're not trying to be evasive, Meri? That's not like you at all. You don't strike me as the biblical inerrantist type so it's probably a wash anyway. My own take on it is that if one posits the Genesis account of creation as the true way humans and the universe came to be, one should realize there are two conflicting accounts, not to mention a variety of other problems that don't square with a scientific explanation of origins.

wrote :
I have never taken part in a discussion (rather than a proper debate) where it has not finished with me being told that my views are silly because I believe in God and evolution proves there is no God.


The intellectually honest scientists working in the various scientific disciplines supporting evolution would not claim that their work proves there is no God or gods. Those who have an axe to grind may indeed make such a claim, however, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of deity. Science works to discover what is, not what we as humans think should be. Regardless, I don't think your views are silly. I was once a creationist but my own views have since.....evolved (sorry, bad pun).


wrote :
I would imagine that those who believe in evolution and/or the big bang theory have had a similar experience, except that their lack of faith in God was pointed out to them as being their reasoning flaw. Yes/No?


Quite so, yes.
 
  Reply With Quote
j0hn8andy is offline j0hn8andy Post #23  November 23,2010, 9:59pm
j0hn8andy's Avatar

.....yes, she.....Sweeps past softly, without a sigh.....

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2009

California

Posts: 5,104

See profile

meri75 wrote :
Do you believe it may be possible though, that Scientists would find it annoying to have their theories dismissed due to theology ... when the Scientist does not accept that theology personally?
I know you asked this question of somebody else, but may I answer?

Yes, I do think the Scientist might be annoyed...

...same as the person who believes in God might be annoyed when somebody who doesn't...dismisses their beliefs as so much hogwash, created thousands of years ago, of little to no value...since our world has evolved so much since then.

No one should be dismissed; it's discourteous, disrespectful, and does nothing to further discussion.

JMHO, of course...FWIW.

j8a
Last edited by j0hn8andy; November 23,2010 at 10:01pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
hankscorpio is offline hankscorpio Post #24  November 24,2010, 6:57am

Isn't afraid to tell you what he thinks of you.

Veteran

Joined: Jan 2010

Posts: 1,198

See profile

j0hn8andy wrote :
No one should be dismissed; it's discourteous, disrespectful, and does nothing to further discussion.
I have to disagree here.

Doing anything except for dismissing and excluding those who have at best illogical beliefs is at best pandering and in most cases simply devolving a discussion into an irrational argument. (since the basis of illogical beliefs are irrational their attempts at discussion only turn the group toward dealing with the irrational - a problem compounded by the fact that those with irrational beliefs usually only entrench themselves more strongly as the arguments exposing their fallacies grow convincing)

To put it simply, you cannot have a rational discussion or rational science when someone is operating from a basis of irrationality.
 
  Reply With Quote
AudioDad is offline AudioDad Post #25  November 24,2010, 10:01am
AudioDad's Avatar

...has left the building

Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 800

See profile

j0hn8andy wrote :
I know you asked this question of somebody else, but may I answer?

Yes, I do think the Scientist might be annoyed...

...same as the person who believes in God might be annoyed when somebody who doesn't...dismisses their beliefs as so much hogwash, created thousands of years ago, of little to no value...since our world has evolved so much since then.

No one should be dismissed; it's discourteous, disrespectful, and does nothing to further discussion.

JMHO, of course...FWIW.
I'm guessing this was probably aimed at me (if not, apologies). I'm not dismissing anyone's beliefs as hogwash. The context of the discussion is a scientific look at creationism as defined in the Christian bible. My assertion is not that the Genesis accounts of origins and creation are hogwash. Rather, my assertion is that these accounts are not based on scientific research and are instead based on religious beliefs. I'd have absolutely no problem with a discussion of creationism in public school classrooms if it were presented along side the creation stories of other religions - a comparative study of religions if you like. In fact, I think everyone - believers and non believers alike - would benefit from such an approach.

It's very simple. Creationism is not science, as even some of its leading proponents have openly admitted. Its practitioners make no inquiries of nature, perform none of their own original experiments or research and don't even try to propose a methodology by which their own claims can be tested.
 
  Reply With Quote
j0hn8andy is offline j0hn8andy Post #26  November 24,2010, 9:18pm
j0hn8andy's Avatar

.....yes, she.....Sweeps past softly, without a sigh.....

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2009

California

Posts: 5,104

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
I'm guessing this was probably aimed at me (if not, apologies).
I'm guessing...I'm going to have to accept those apologies...and offer some of my own (but not for the reason you would think)

I haven't seen you before (that I recall) and I'm not familiar with your posts...so I wouldn't "aim" anything your way. I'm just smart enough to want to know who I'm dealing with...before I get myself in trouble.

Now, my apologies...when I'm unfamiliar with a person, and their posts are lengthy...I'm afraid I...skip them. I did read your shorter ones, and one or two bullet points...and, of course, the one where you quoted me.

I will try to pay more attention to you in the future.

Now, Hank, here:

hankscorpio wrote :
I have to disagree here.
I am just familiar enough with to know when he "dismisses" me...I got off easy!

Now, I'm afraid you boys are just getting in way over my head, with all your big words...you're leaving me behind in this discussion. I never was any good at science. But since I've been dismissed...I'm not going to worry my pretty little head about it.

j8a
Last edited by j0hn8andy; November 24,2010 at 9:24pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
meri75 is offline meri75 Post #27  November 25,2010, 12:00pm
meri75's Avatar

really wants a double dissolution in 2011!

Power Poster

Joined: Mar 2009

Australia

Posts: 5,112

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
I know of no actual scientific journals or publications that require their contributors or members to swear to a creed or set of preconceived conclusions. The Creation Research Society, for example, requires its members to adhere to a statement of belief both for membership and to publish in its journal, Creation Research Society Quarterly. The statement of belief is as follows:
Apologies, I snipped out the faith statements you had put in .. what I was interested in finding out is whether or not you believe that all Scientists, regardless of the basis of their belief, approach Science through their own bias? I think it is great that the Creation Research Society provide their faith statements - the reader is left in no doubt as to what they believe.

I think it is true that those who believe in evolution, or any of the other creation stories - for example, the Aussie Aborigines have three different (albeit with similarities) creation stories; necessarily approach science through a filter. The filter being what the person believes about our origins. I would therefore, expect that person to find that the data supports his/her theory.

AudioDad wrote :
Science doesn't start with a conclusion then force the data/evidence to fit that conclusion. The various creationist organizations do just that - start with a conclusion (God did it all) then either force the evidence to fit that conclusion or look for ways to poke holes in the various scientific disciplines that support origins and evolution. Seldom, if ever, do they actually do their own research or experimentation. It is most assuredly not science.
The same could be argued for those presenting information which they believe proves other creation forms. In fact, Darwin did this quite well with incomplete data; yet despite the advances we have in Science, his flawed conclusions are still taught as scientific fact in place of creation. Now, this makes it very hard for me to take other scientists seriously who quote something of Darwin's and then explain how what they've found supports evolution. The whole big beaks and little beaks ... Darwin did not tag those finches until he returned to Britain ... a scientist who made this oversight today with a theory and then tried to present his/her findings as accurate would be dismissed. Yet, Darwin's theory of evolution is still taught as scientific fact in the school classroom today. I find this very interesting.

You know, something I have heard often is that my faith is a crutch which I adhere to rather than face the truth. The truth being that there is no God and that's why the Genesis account of creation is fallacy. Then there is usually about here, a few insults about my intelligence, or lack thereof rather! But if I try to point out that this argument works in reverse also - that is, that the person's belief in evolution is a crutch they use to support their thought that there is no God and would not be able to face the truth - that God does exist; usually real rage is then directed my way. Interesting. I wonder why this is so?

AudioDad wrote :
Even creationist luminaries like Duane Gish, Henry Morris and Richard Elmendorf have openly admitted that creationism is fundamentally a religious belief and has no scientific basis whatsoever. Having said all that, scientists are humans like all of us and are not immune to error, prejudice, egos or agendas. Regardless, what distinguishes creationism from the scientific method is that scientists are actively testing their own theories and hypotheses via observation, experimentation and falsification. Creationism, on the other hand, is essentially a religious belief that has remained unchanged for the better part of 5000 years. The early Hebrews "borrowed" most of their creation mythology from the ancient Sumerians. The early Christian church basically hitched its wagon to those mythologies which are the very same ones offered up in all creationist societies and literature.
Why do you believe that scientists favouring the Genesis account of creation are not carrying out their own tests? In some of the publications I have read, they are not only doing this, but also duplicating the tests by scientists supporting evolution and finding some interesting results. Or would it be more accurate for me to ask if you believe that scientists believing in creation are incapable of carrying out honest scientific experiments and publishing the evidence because of their beliefs? (It's okay, I'm not trying to bait you - I'm just confused as to why you seem to be happy to accept non-creation belief science as being carried out, but not vice versa?)
 
  Reply With Quote
unclepierre59 is offline unclepierre59 Post #28  November 26,2010, 3:56am
unclepierre59's Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Nov 2010

burwood east,melbourne

Posts: 1

See profile

ah yes an interesting conundrum; which highlights the importance of faith based beliefs to the faithful,
which by their nature do not require empiral data or evidence to adhere to per se
....it is faith which allows them to trancend or defy such scientific evidence and requires you without fear or favor to adhere to the belief that for example the world is only 5000 years old if you are a moslem,
.....or that Jonah really did live in a whale,
or that when a buddhist dies and he has achieved a lot spiritually he will leave behind jewel like relics after the cremation of their body and that these very same relics will defy the laws of physics by disappearing and reappearing spontaneously..
...As one who follows as best he can, buddhist teachings
i agree with our first teacher,that one of the last qualities one drops before enlightenment are VIEWS AND OPINIONS which we so vehemently cling to,
to the extent that some are even willing to die for these aforementioned beliefs.....
Attatchment to any thoughts,rituals etc. are fine and very useful at the beginning to provide a sound structure to build you practice on....,
,ultimately all of these are a useful foundations to build apon;
.
.... just as the body is only a vessel you use to cross to the other side,
one doesn't continue to carry a boat on their backs when they have finished negotiating all the bodies of water they intend to cross..so to with the habitual practices and rituals you began with these finally can be let go off when your goals are reached..may you all be well and happy, and the fruits of your spiritual efforts;,{in whatever form they take };
bring you liberation of the mind
and an end to anger,hatred and delusion...with metta unclepierre59
 
  Reply With Quote
meri75 is offline meri75 Post #29  November 26,2010, 1:48pm
meri75's Avatar

really wants a double dissolution in 2011!

Power Poster

Joined: Mar 2009

Australia

Posts: 5,112

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
[/color][/font][/size]

Surely you're not trying to be evasive, Meri? That's not like you at all. You don't strike me as the biblical inerrantist type so it's probably a wash anyway. My own take on it is that if one posits the Genesis account of creation as the true way humans and the universe came to be, one should realize there are two conflicting accounts, not to mention a variety of other problems that don't square with a scientific explanation of origins.
You're dead on that I sit squarely in the camp of Biblical inerrancy.

I was trying to use the word 'creation' in a general sense, rather than specifically the Genesis account of creation.

The Bible doesn't attempt to explain the science behind creation. What do you mean by 'two conflicting accounts'? The first part where man was created on the sixth day, and then later when Eve was created? Or something else?

Perhaps the reason the variety of other problems don't square with a scientific explanation of origins; is due the possibility that we have a wrong scientific explanation, an incomplete scientific explanation, or perhaps as yet, no scientific explanation?


AudioDad wrote :
The intellectually honest scientists working in the various scientific disciplines supporting evolution would not claim that their work proves there is no God or gods. Those who have an axe to grind may indeed make such a claim, however, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of deity. Science works to discover what is, not what we as humans think should be. Regardless, I don't think your views are silly. I was once a creationist but my own views have since.....evolved (sorry, bad pun).
LOL - that's okay. And I agree entirely. And this is where I have difficulty believing the validity of some science put forward as fact. I have confusion as to why an experiment (or experiments, I don't really care about the number), which supports an hypothesis is readily accepted as fact that is what actually happened then. What I see is that is what happened now.
Last edited by meri75; November 30,2010 at 11:18pm. Reason: Another typo...
 
  Reply With Quote
meri75 is offline meri75 Post #30  November 26,2010, 2:25pm
meri75's Avatar

really wants a double dissolution in 2011!

Power Poster

Joined: Mar 2009

Australia

Posts: 5,112

See profile

j0hn8andy wrote :
I know you asked this question of somebody else, but may I answer?

Yes, I do think the Scientist might be annoyed...

...same as the person who believes in God might be annoyed when somebody who doesn't...dismisses their beliefs as so much hogwash, created thousands of years ago, of little to no value...since our world has evolved so much since then.

No one should be dismissed; it's discourteous, disrespectful, and does nothing to further discussion.

JMHO, of course...FWIW.

j8a
I agree.

hankscorpio wrote :
I have to disagree here.

Doing anything except for dismissing and excluding those who have at best illogical beliefs is at best pandering and in most cases simply devolving a discussion into an irrational argument. (since the basis of illogical beliefs are irrational their attempts at discussion only turn the group toward dealing with the irrational - a problem compounded by the fact that those with irrational beliefs usually only entrench themselves more strongly as the arguments exposing their fallacies grow convincing)

To put it simply, you cannot have a rational discussion or rational science when someone is operating from a basis of irrationality.
I think I understand what you're saying.

But the interesting thing to me is that the belief is not illogical to those who hold it. We're none of us all-knowing. I don't believe that I can say to those with differing views that their beliefs are illogical; nor they regarding mine. Then what you end up with is: intolerance.

Not all people are skilled communicators - I do okay, but it's not a particular skill. And this is seen here on EHA as I often find I have to expand on what I originally wrote or re-write because my intention was not clear. My inability to clearly express my thoughts and beliefs would probably present as illogical and irrational to someone who either didn't comprehend my viewpiont, or wrote me off as unintelligent. Has happened, although fortunately, not often.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« What if anything "tests" your faith? | Religion & Spirituality | Which is more important what we know or what we don’t know? »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Creation verses Evolution: 'top 10 myths' blocked me! Im_ok_ur_ok Christian Singles 7 August 5,2010 7:48am
Is God the same as Love? WeDesignOurLives Intelligent Conversation 73 November 11,2009 6:07pm
DennisWisconsin THX11386 Atheists, Humorists, and Science 43 October 25,2009 6:20am
Honouring God's creation .... Ourselves coeuri Christian Singles 9 September 17,2009 8:47pm
Science, religion and personality types awol71 Atheists, Humorists, and Science 19 July 27,2009 1:54pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Excellent, thank you. I think I will leave out the first part, I think it is unnecessary information to give him. I'm not interested in putting myself out there like that and it might be a little ... ” –  generallyyou

Join the “Ending a friendship” discussion

“Alfred Hitchcock - 18 Steven Spielberg - 62 *notice what?” –  dmi

Join the “War of the Directors” discussion

“ I would be "certain people" :P The issue isn't a deal-breaker, but a very strong factor preference-wise, for me.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “How much does race play in your dating someone?” discussion

“Love Texas Hold'em!.. I'm thinking of trying another tournament this summer...not sure yet though.. Never entered a tournament before, outside of online ones. Personally I prefer to play with ... ” –  Freezepop

Join the “Favorite Card Game” discussion

“Make that 3! I also had a crush on Donny Osmond. I think I still have a record or two of his. Suzie ” –  legend29

Join the “Robin Gibbs Dead at 62...How Deep is Your Love?” discussion

“Oh, my revised profile can be seen in the forum in the section where you can ask for a profile review. Suzanne” –  SuzanneScorpio

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“Just remember, everything that you are feeling and/or are capable of he is as well. If he wanted to reach you, he could. Right now he knows that you are hurting, and that this is not what you ... ” –  lynntlb78

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“ Yohio. And the shortened form (Anya) is nice too.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “Where is Becky?!?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:30am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0