1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists/ IDers:

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by nonbeliever_92, Mar 6, 2010.

  1. nonbeliever_92

    nonbeliever_92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,286
    Ratings:
    +105
    Please define for me, in your own words, what science is and how would creationism/Intelligent Design fit into that category. Furthermore, please explain to me why you think it should be taught in school (if you think that at all).
     
  2. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    You know you won't get any logical answers.
     
  3. nonbeliever_92

    nonbeliever_92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,286
    Ratings:
    +105
    You can't say that.
     
  4. Man of Faith

    Man of Faith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +89
    To me science is the study of the natural world and what is observed. The natural world and what is observed could have been created by an intelligent being, nobody can verify that or prove it wrong. How the natural would and what is observed got here should be reserved for the philosophy class. Science cannot observe the big bang, the beginning of life, and evolution via common descent so it is philosophy and should be in the philosophy class along with creation.
     
  5. tumbleweed41

    tumbleweed41 Resident Liberal Hippie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    20,463
    Ratings:
    +1,335
    Basic, but true.
    Also true.
    Fortunately for the advancement of science, not true.
    Science can and does observe the results of, and tests the verifiability of, natural results of past occurrences.
    By your reasoning, the only thing that is "real" is what is observed by yourself, all else is philosophy.
     
  6. Super Saiya Jinn

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    62
    Ratings:
    +9
    Not a complete answer, but right.

    You are right, although i don't see how you can say such a thing when you just said above, that things need to be observable, and you just conjured an intelligent being out of thin air with no "observable" evidence or proof. You just shot yourself in the foot buddy.

    I thought what is observed should be left to the Sciences????

    Common descent has been proven by "observable" DNA and fossil evidence, so still belongs in the Science class. Magical fairies and the such however, have never been observed or proven, so can remain in philosophy, or religious studies class.
     
    #6 Super Saiya Jinn, Mar 8, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2010
  7. RomCat

    RomCat Active Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Messages:
    409
    Ratings:
    +24
    Science ends at the moment of creation. It can
    go no further than to stipulate that the material
    world came into existence in an instant.
     
  8. ShakeZula

    ShakeZula The Master Shake

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Ratings:
    +14
    If science ends at the moment of creation, how did it begin before creation? You're not making any sense but no doubt you think you sound incredibly deep.

    -S-
     
  9. johnhanks

    johnhanks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,653
    Ratings:
    +171
    In fact we can observe evolution by common descent, in the form of the finely graded stages of speciation we can see taking place in animal and plant populations all over the world.

    But let's, for the moment, pretend that you are right and that evolution cannot be observed. Well, science cannot observe the earth orbiting the sun, either; but we can observe the world as we find it and deduce that what we observe is overwhelmingly consistent with such an orbit, and inconsistent with rival theories; and so it is with evolution. In both cases what is being practised is science, not philosophy in its modern meaning.
     
  10. tumbleweed41

    tumbleweed41 Resident Liberal Hippie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    20,463
    Ratings:
    +1,335
    Or to be more precise.
    Science, at this time, can only speculate on what, if anything, existed before time/space emerged from the rapid cooling of the Big Bang.
     
  11. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    I have to agree with this.




    Creationism can exist with science. However, it has be approached from a logical (or call it semi-logical) perspective. If one believes the Bible to be 100% literal, and take that creation story to be true, then a logical approach has not been approached for the simple reason that that creation story is easily disproven. For instance, it simply did not happen long enough ago. Second, we know that human life did not originate in Iraq (where the Garden of Eden would be located). There is no such garden. Etc.

    However, if one takes the Genesis story metaphorically, then it becomes possible to reconcile evolution and creationism.

    I personally believe in both. I believe that God always was and he started the general motion of all things to come. Basically, he created the building blocks for the universe, and set it into motion, and then sat back to watch what happened. That goes beyond what evolution explains, but it eventually relates once we see the Earth formed and evolution to begin.

    I accept evolution to be a fact though, and I see no reason that a creationist has to deny the fact of evolution. It usually relies on a logical fallacy (basically either or), that could be overcome by a little knowledge. Personally, I like to believe what Richard Dawkins states, those who don't believe in evolution are either ignorant, or idiots.
     
  12. Man of Faith

    Man of Faith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +89
    I am saying that nobody can observe the big bang, not the results of the big bang. The results of the big bang is the nature and things we observe that science can study, how it happened, either big bang or creation is philosophy.
     
  13. Man of Faith

    Man of Faith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +89
    If it is speculation it isn't science.
     
  14. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,992
    Ratings:
    +505
    That is not true. Science does involve speculation, which is then tested and researched.
     
  15. tumbleweed41

    tumbleweed41 Resident Liberal Hippie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    20,463
    Ratings:
    +1,335
    I am going to go with creation as the philosophy. And the Big Bang as a scientific model based on observable evidence.
     
  16. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,236
    Ratings:
    +9,048
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Wouldn't it be more accurate to say science began at the moment of creation? Without a creation to observe and test, how can there be science?
     
  17. Man of Faith

    Man of Faith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +89
    Science follows the scientific method, speculation isn't part of it. Now a hypothesis from something we observe is, but not speculation.
     
  18. tumbleweed41

    tumbleweed41 Resident Liberal Hippie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    20,463
    Ratings:
    +1,335
    I am so glad you are here to educate all the worlds scientists what the "real" scientific process is.
    In fact, to help you educate the scientific community as a whole, I am going to provide you with links to Scientific Journals so that you can submit your true Scientific Methods to them.


     
  19. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,589
    Ratings:
    +4,138
    Which is why no scientist will ever state that anything known about the period before the big bang (if there was such a time as "before" the big bang) is anything more than speculation.

    What's more, all hypotheses start as speculation.
     
  20. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,119
    Ratings:
    +6,344
Loading...