Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

I Met a Creationist Who Loves Science


Creatr1x

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Just look around you.

Just take a breath and feel that energy. It came from somewhere, we might as well call it God.

That is an emotional response based on what you want to believe, it has nothing to do with the discoveries we have made, which refute the ideal of a creator. This is a natural Universe. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Sorry but I'm a bit thick.

That would be the definition, yes.

ZLHWRyey_HuftcknJHoGdww2Ur1AJbCTgTj2O3Xi

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

What is a "quantum vacum fluctuation" in connection with this "singularity"?

Differences in potential amongst the virtual particles constantly popping into and out of empty space, like so:

su3b600s24t36cool30actionSmall.gif

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

The simple truth is that there is a self evident energy that is animating you right now.

No, we generate the electricity our bodies use with tiny little ion pumps on your nervous system, and we burn fuel (food) for energy. 

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

This energy cannot just disappear, it must move on to somewhere else after death.

Yes, it dissipates as heat.

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Where does it go? And where did it come from?

It came from those little ion pumps in your nervous system and our bodies use that which converts it to heat. When we die, those ion pumps shut down and stop generating electricity, the remainder dissipates as heat until your body hits room temperature, then it takes on the temps of the surrounding environment and decays. 

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

God, Spirit, Love, Light, and Sound.... We have the answer..

You have the er..."Big Bang"  Lol..

QPJVE4BxWlBRNoGtg9ErQLvWycRfo6LwdqEZjrJM

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Er, no...  I think your find that God created man.

Mankind cannot just appear from nothing, God by Its very nature is the creator of all things. Lets get that much right.

Mankind is but a physical manifestation of Spirit. There is a whole lot more to us than this materialisic physical being.

And to imply that God is not valid is beyond rediculous.

Anyway, good luck with that sentiment.

CH 

This God of gaps is ridiculous.

Lightning can't appear from nothing, Zeus by his very nature throws them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

What caused the quantum vacuum fluctuation? 

As far as physicists have been able to tell thus far, there is no inherent "cause" for quantum fluctuations--they just happen. 

Quote

Where do the laws of quantum mechanics come from?

As a result of quantum mechanics being almost impossible to observe there have been mathematical models created to represent behaviour(s) of varying particles that act in congruence with how said particles are observed behaving. Conclusions are thus drawn from the behaviours accordingly (after extensive, repeated testing). As far as I know, anyway--I could be way off the mark.

Quote

There's more to this than a random fluke, if you ask me.

I woulddn't ask you, but since you've mentioned that there is more to this than being a random fluke... what if it was nothing more than just that--a random fluke? There has been no evidence to indicate otherwise, so why you would believe or want to believe otherwise baffles me. 

On another note, I have noticed that you choose to hold on to these beliefs no matter what evidence is presented to you. Why? Why do you feel it necessary to hold on to these beliefs? What purpose do they serve? If they bring comfort to you then by all means, continue to believe... but I don't think it's healthy. There is a word used to describe a "fixed, false belief or set of beliefs".

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

As far as physicists have been able to tell thus far, there is no inherent "cause" for quantum fluctuations--they just happen.

As far as physicists have been able to tell thus far, they simply don't know. That is the honest answer.

15 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

On another note, I have noticed that you choose to hold on to these beliefs no matter what evidence is presented to you. Why? Why do you feel it necessary to hold on to these beliefs? What purpose do they serve? If they bring comfort to you then by all means, continue to believe... but I don't think it's healthy. There is a word used to describe a "fixed, false belief or set of beliefs".

You have offered no evidence, only your opinion that the Universe is a one-off fluke. There is really no reason for me to accept it on a scientific basis, as my own reasoning and interpretation of the data - as well as that of several physicists I have read - does not lead to that conclusion.

I guess I'm simply not the type of person who is satisfied who answers such as ''it's just like that'' or ''it just happens because it happens''.

On that, I can also recommend you a very good book, by english physicist Paul Davies:

k8951.jpg

 

 

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

As far as physicists have been able to tell thus far, they simply don't know. That is the honest answer.

That is "mostly" right. We do not know which answer will  suffice, but there is much confidence that the models we have built will show us the answer eventually. 

The God concept is not one of those models. 

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

You have offered no evidence, only your opinion that the Universe is a one-off fluke.

No - links, not my opinion, evidence by people much smarter than I, and far beyond your own capabilities. I have explained how I read those links, that is all. 

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

There is really no reason for me to accept it on a scientific basis, as my own reasoning and interpretation of the data - as well as that of several physicists I have read - does not lead to that conclusion.

Because you are wrong, and refuse to accept that. The arguments you have posted are not yours, not even the Cryptic one you plagiarised and claimed as your own, which was actually Jacques Vallee's, your own wants draw the conclusions you desire. You deploy a religious method to achieve a religious answer, you have the answer you want, so you then seek out evidence to support it. 

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

I guess I'm simply not the type of person who is satisfied who answers such as ''it's just like that'' or ''it just happens because it happens''.

Nobody has to be, I have offered extensive explanations that have obviously gone over your head. If you do not fully understand the concepts, it is wrong of you to blame others for your shortcomings. I would believe that they were "your" conclusions if you could discuss them, but you never have you have just instead they are valid, even when shown not to be, you still canot sow why you this they are valid, you just post another Dust Jacket as you did below. 

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

On that, I can also recommend you a very good book, by english physicist Paul Davies:

k8951.jpg

 

Mods have told you that posting Dust Jackets is not a discussion.

I have told you it is not a discussion.

 

This is a joke, you do not know what is in that book. You have posted it twice before that I know of. You have never been able to tell anyone why it is worth reading, or what is in it. You are advertising, not offering information. It is just a diversion to cover for the fact that you have no such information as claimed, you just like to pretend it exists and post dust jackets. 

Go right ahead and tell us all why this book is valuable, how it refutes the current models, and why the theory should supersede current understandings.

Go right ahead, I double dog dare you. 

But you cannot can you? So how is it a good book when you either have not read it, or it was so boring you do not remember it? 

LINK - The Ambiguous Faith of Paul Davies

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note on Davies and the use of the word faith for both science and religion, as discussed in psyche's link, which I'll repeat here:

http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2008/07/ambiguous-faith-of-paul-davies.html

All arguments of any formality rest on premises which are taken as being true for the sake of the argument. Both religion and science offer arguments, and so both offer premises. This is inevitable.

Some religions and typical science differ in that some religions teach that their premises are really true. For example, the Abrahamics propose as actual facts that God exists, God occasionally speaks to some people, when God speaks he always tells the truth, etc.

Science does not typically offer its ever-provisional premises as strictly true. What science insists upon is that its premises are useful. For example, there is William Kingdon Clifford's formulation about scientific truth being not what can be ideally contemplated without error, but what can be acted upon without fear.

The difference between offering a premise as useful and offering a premise as true can be made rigorous, but the diference is pretty clear, I think. If so, then it is simply false that both religions and science depend on faith.

Some advocates of science do propose that their premises are in fact literally true. That's shakier ground, and is at least vulnerable to an accusation of faith-based reasoning.

Whether or not the accused successfully defends her premises depends on her skills. Regardless, that's her look out, not science's. Science rests on usefulness, and within the pursuit of usefulness science finds truth, or at least an approximation of the truth, to be often useful.

It is also easy to find "religious" arguments that acknowledge that popular religious premises may be untrue, but that holding them and acting according to them is useful to society or to the individual. That isn't faith, either.

What I conclude, then, is that a religious apologist accusing science as a whole of reliance on "faith" is flame-baiting. On the other hand, there are some apologists for science who are flammable, and who offer self-defeating, visibly faith-based denials that they (personally) ever rely on faith.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother with links and information though? No argument is required!

According to the post I rebutted, and the many quite like it, all we need is this:

 

God_070524021654357_wideweb__300x454.jpg

 

 

There we go, ID creationism and religion refuted in one dust jacket!!!! 

Do the most dust jackets win? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why bother with links and information though? No argument is required!

According to the post I rebutted, and the many quite like it, all we need is this:

 

God_070524021654357_wideweb__300x454.jpg

 

 

There we go, ID creationism and religion refuted in one dust jacket!!!! 

Do the most dust jackets win? 

How is this a scientific book? As interesting as it may be, Hitchens isn't a scientist either.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

How is this a scientific book? As interesting as it may be, Hitchens isn't a scientist either.

Books are not science - peer reviewed papers are, that is the point that has been zooming over your head at mach speed for a good 6 months now. These paperbacks are a springboard to knowledge. But, you have to read them to actually even stand on that board to begin with. You  do not seem to have from what I can tell of your posting and shameless advertising for ID authors. Is that your "real" agenda by any chance? 

We have seen your "Scientists" too haven't we? This is one of your choices, and a great description over at Wikipdedia!:

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American molecular biologist, author and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.[1] Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." 

LINK - Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

Not the best choice there I would have thought, but anyway....., 

Quote

But no we don't need more information, since we pretty much know on which feet New atheists stand.

None at all needed!

And we do not know where the God Squad stands after 2,000 years of preaching? 

You have Davies Dust Cover up there, here is a WHOLE PAPERBACK!!

TruthSeeker Style refutation, right here, this means you have no argument, you post dust covers, here is a photo of the entire paperback, consider yourself refuted!! It is after all, what you seem to think constitutes an argument, well there is the entire book, beats your single page dust cover!!

Who cares what is in it, as long as you get that dust jacket posted, we are all good right? That is your modus operandi after all, illustrated time and again. 

What do you expect other than for me to accommodate you? I cannot keep having both your conversation and mine to explain what is in the Dust Covers you post, and then why the ideas are incorrect, and where they went wrong according to the people who came up with the theories those authors do not understand, as you say nothing about what is in them. And I can only deduce from your inability to describe their contents are not having even read them! So in your own style of debate, you are now refuted. God is a Delusion, this Dust Cover says so...... :P 

richard_dawkins_book.jpg

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Books are not science - peer reviewed papers are, that is the point that has been zooming over your head at mach speed for a good 6 months now. These paperbacks are a springboard to knowledge. But, you have to read them to actually even stand on that board to begin with. You  do not seem to have from what I can tell of your posting and shameless advertising for ID authors. Is that your "real" agenda by any chance?

Science book [Wikipedia link]

Unless you have relevant scientific training, reading peer reviewed papers isn't going to be an easy task, especially for physics.

That's why we have science books written for the larger audience. You and me.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

TruthSeeker Style refutation, right here, this means you have no argument, you post dust covers, here is a photo of the entire paperback, consider yourself refuted!! It is after all, what you seem to think constitutes an argument, well there is the entire book, beats your single page dust cover!!

We have argued time and time again. We are no closer to an agreement. That's OK but radical atheism simply isn't compelling to me.

One of the primary reasons I provide science book titles, links and YT videos of scientists such as Paul Davies, Francis Collins ect. who argue for the God theory is to show without any possible doubt that not all good men of science are on your side. Far from that. Many thinks that the scientific data actually doesn't match the new atheist worldview.  And that is what you have immense difficulty to come to grips with.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

From your Link:

Not to be confused with Academic book.

A science book is a work of nonfiction, usually written by a scientist, researcher, or professor like Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time), or sometimes by a non-scientist such as Bill Bryson (A Short History of Nearly Everything). Usually these books are written for a wide audience presumed to have a general education rather than a specifically scientific training, as opposed to the very narrow audience that a scientific paper would have, and are therefore referred to as popular science.

Popular science (also pop-science or popsci) is interpretation of science intended for a general audience. While science journalism focuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is more broad-ranging. It may be written by professional science journalists or by scientists themselves. It is presented in many forms, including books, film and television documentaries, magazine articles, and web pages.

Like I say, a general interpretation aimed at the layman, not science, a springboard to science. That is why any clown like Eben Alexander can write a paperback, call it "fact" and have people buy it, but if Lawrence Krauss writes a paper, it has to be peer reviewed by other scientists. 

Papers are where the books come from they are the original source, which is why I use them to rebut the paperbacks your promote. 

Quote

We have argued time and time again. We are no closer to an agreement. That's OK but radical atheism simply isn't compelling to me.

No, we have not argued this time and again, you have posted Dust Jackets and made a few appeals to authority via ID whackos like Wells mentioned above. As I have stated, I have been having both your discussion and mine, as you do not seem to be aware of the contents of any dust jacket your promote, I cannot think of a single post where you have described the contents of the Dust Jackets you have posted in the absence of evidence, you have not been able to discuss their theories or tell me why any of those Dust Jackets is worth picking up, so I tell you what is in them, and where the author of the theory being discussed shows where these fellows went wrong with them. If you're authors were legitimate and credible, and if you knew what was in those Dust Jackets, then you could rebut those points legitimately, but you are unable to do so. Why is more than obvious. 

You do not even understand your favoured solution, you do not understand New Atheism, and why it is valid because you do not want to. The central underlying theme that surfaces from time to time in your posts is that you need to feel special to the most important being in the Universe. That is not valid criteria for God's existence. 

Quote

One of the primary reason I provide science book titles, links and YT videos of scientists such as Paul Davies, Francis Collins who argue for the God theory is to show without any possible doubt that not all good man of science are on your side. Far from that. Many thinks that the scientific data doesn't match the new atheist worldview.  And that is what you have immense difficulty to come to grips with.

Then you have failed. 

For a start, you need to know what these men are actually using as arguments, it is plainly obvious that you do not. I can tell you when to go to a certain time stamp on the videos I offer, what theories a book or paper holds and why it is the best solution, or how we come to these conclusions. You cannot do any of that. 

This is why these men stand apart and write paperbacks instead of Peer Reviewed Papers on these subjects. They are the reason peer review exists - to keep science honest. 

I have nothing to come to grips with, you have no idea how the structure works. If you did, you would not argue that a peer reviewed paper is trumped by a paperback novel. 

Here you go - Davies showcases several rather oddball theories, many of them God of the Gaps variants, which is the most compelling and why - in your words? Are you capable of even that much mr. expert in people he knows nothing about?

Come, on show us in your own views how these combined authors make a serious impact on today's predictive models. Give me your best personal argument on how these theories complement each other to offer something as convincing as the natural models that exist right now. I double Dog dare you - AGAIN. And what physics and cosmology lectures posited God as a possible again? I didn't catch where we can see that serious alternative theory being presented to an academic audience? Did I miss that, or ..... nope, looks like you did not post that either, ..... I am shocked!! What a surprise!! 

 

Here you go, your ID claims refuted yet again!! Truth Seeker Style!!

 

41HY2K2756L.jpg

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

TS_

Quote

One of the primary reasons I provide science book titles, links and YT videos of scientists such as Paul Davies, Francis Collins ect. who argue for the God theory is to show without any possible doubt that not all good men of science are on your side. Far from that. Many thinks that the scientific data actually doesn't match the new atheist worldview.  And that is what you have immense difficulty to come to grips with.

You are, of course, correct. Science works whether the scientist believes in it or not. It is inevitable that there will be people of scientitfic achievement who believe absurdities outside of work.

That only shows that science isn't a totalitarian cult-like brainwashing scheme. Consider the point conceded. There is no need to present evidence of what is inevitable; dust jackets are not discussable evidence anyway. Hence the objection.

I'll also give you a point that doctrinaire atheists won't. Science has nothing reliable to say about religious teaching as such. Science and faith need not conflict.

Nevertheless, some ideas espoused solely for religious reasons and some ideas justified by reason do conflict. For example, what the thread title mentions, creationism. There is conflict, even though there need not be.

On those points, you, TS_, would do well to choose which side you are on, and argue for that. Preferably, you would offer your own arguments, not somebody else's edited to decorate a book cover.

Edited by eight bits
quote box quizzical
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22 September 2016 at 10:43 AM, Rlyeh said:

This God of gaps is ridiculous.

Lightning can't appear from nothing, Zeus by his very nature throws them.

Lightning cant appear from nothing, and neither can Life.

Please think about this for one moment.

Love.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Lightning cant appear from nothing, and neither can Life.

Please think about this for one moment.

Love.

 

You could've saved yourself the trouble if you already done that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/14/2016 at 2:38 AM, Creatr1x said:

So, I sat down to lunch and eventually passed into discussion with a man sitting next to me about biology. As someone who loves biology, it was a stimulating conversation. It took a turn however, when he mentioned his theory about humans killing off the dinosaurs. Several theories screaming creationism followed. I think it was a good conversation to have, to gain different perspective, although I do not support creationism. Many of the founding fathers of modern biology were actually creationists. I just find this part of my day so interesting, because many say creationism is killing science (which I agree to some extent). Yet, we have individuals like this young man I met, who I believe will be a great addition to the scientific world. Thoughts?

It's the "scientists" who let their religious beliefs bias their work that are really the belief based "pseudo scientists" (aka "creation science"). I read an interview with a scientist (also a creationist) who bemoaned that "creation science" had made it more difficult for her work to be accepted in certain ways. Though she wasn't a biblical literalist and her beliefs didn't seem to bias her at all. Seemed like a good scientist and to her it didn't matter what science found. She loved it because she thought it helped her better understand god, which she believed was ultimately behind it all.

I don't really understand such blind faith but if it doesn't bias people's work, no big deal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A baby falls from a third story window, bounces of the grass.

God's work

Thousands of children die form bad drining water suffering disentry and cholera

God moves in mysterious ways. 

It is just not an answer. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.