Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is self contradicting. You still have a positive amount of energy. It is how that energy is transfered should be equal. This merely suggests that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It does not indicate that it equals 0. In fact if energy was 0 then there could be no action or reaction.

Because it is equal and opposite....the totality equals 0. A theory proposed by various accomplished physicists.You are merely showing that you are determined to regard anything I say as wrong.

 

[YmirGF]

....I will just keep on repeating, creationism validates both fact and opinion. In creationism a fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion, resulting in a copy / model of what is evidenced.

The fact that "the earth is round," is a copy of the actual earth to a world of words. The word "earth", represents the actual earth, in the world of words. And the word "round" represents the roundness of the actual earth, in the world of words. And ofcourse mathematics can in principle make exhaustive copies of things in nature, to the world of maths. Those are what facts are.

Keep up the good work, Mohammad, your brilliant analysis of these issues saves me hours of writing critiques on Islam. You really make things so easy. Alluha akbar, baby.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Because it is equal and opposite....the totality equals 0. A theory proposed by various accomplished physicists.You are merely showing that you are determined to regard anything I say as wrong.

No. I am determined to show you that you are incorrect about something that you don't seem to fully understand. If there is an action and equal but opposite reaction the resulting energy isn't "zero" its still the amount of energy expended. This isn't a convoluted issue where you are very close to being right. You are simply wrong. If there is no energy or if all energy was "0" then we wouldn't have had the big bang and all energy would not exist.

 

[YmirGF]

No. I am determined to show you that you are incorrect about something that you don't seem to fully understand. If there is an action and equal but opposite reaction the resulting energy isn't "zero" its still the amount of energy expended. This isn't a convoluted issue where you are very close to being right. You are simply wrong. If there is no energy or if all energy was "0" then we wouldn't have had the big bang and all energy would not exist.

Oh shush, it's so much more fun to watch him flail around...

 

[outhouse]

The fact that freedom is in fact real I get from my daily life.

Has nothing to do with the topic of creation.

How does freedom substantiate creationism?

 

[Shad]

Yes I told you at least 5 times that the existence of God is a matter of opinion according to creationism. But you just keep on pretending that the existence of God is asserted as a matter of fact in creationism.

Only that freedom is real and relevant, that things are chosen in the universe is asserted as fact in creationism, not the existence of God.

It is the particular most excellent benefit of creationism that it validates opinion in general, as distinct from fact. It validates the opinion that God exists, and it validates the opinion that God does not exist, it validates not making any opinion at all on whether or not God exists. Creationism has rules for how forming an opinion works.

- the conclusion must be chosen
- the conclusion must be about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does

Basically any statement which abides by those rules is a logically valid opinion according to creationism.

There are more rules that can be added, but many of those rules would be arbitrarily culturally bound.

This is the feature which makes creationism exceedingly more practical to materialism, because materialism provides no room for any opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful.

And because materialism provides no room for opinion, then opinions inevitably end up mingling in with facts, because in materialism opinions have nowhere else to go. And then you get bad facts, and bad opinions. Pseudoscientific social darwinism for example, where what is good and bad is both fact and opinion, a big mess.

Hence creationism is not falsifiable so is not science. You should looks up the the scientific methods is and how it functions hence why I have told you repeatedly that your opinions is moot as it is unproven. An opinion which matches fact is correct. One which one does not in incorrect. This is logic 101. Asserting something as fact does not make it a fact. Logic does not follow creationist opinions of what is valid or not. Making up your own self-authenticating rules within the concept you are arguing is nonsensical. Social Darwinism is long dead, you are attempting to use a concept which has been refuted for decades. Have any more dead horses you wish to beat to avoid your burden of proof?

It seems like is since you are unable to meet your burden of proof you just make up your own criteria as you go to self-valid your views. Hence your criteria is subjective which I can dismiss. All you are really talking about is dualism but do so poorly.

 

[Shad]

Most of your argument is comprised of axioms. Ideas which are taken as true but are not proven true. However for this reason one an reject an axiom. Axioms amount to assertions in most cases since people fail to understand the use of axioms. Opinions become axioms, assertions become axioms all while one ignores the function of an axiom. You need the axiom of creationism to support the axiom of God. You need the axiom of God to support cretionism. Both sides of the argument require another part to even support the concept. Thus you views end up become axiom A is supported by axiom B and so on. However simply putting it is assertion A supports assertion B, which again people are free to reject. Religious axioms are taught or part of indoctrination. The Piraha people for example have no axiom of God or supreme being, they have no concept of a such a being. Thus the axiom of God is proven wrong as an axiom is self-evident. Thus the concept of God become an assertion rather than an axiom. This renders both sides your arguments moot.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Keep up the good work, Mohammad, your brilliant analysis of these issues saves me hours of writing critiques on Islam. You really make things so easy. Alluha akbar, baby.

It is plainly obvious that the evolutionist movement is dominated, awash, by militant anti-religious, anti-freedom of opinion sort of people. The atheistic hordes.

I just don't understand how anybody religious can still associate themselves with the evolution movement.

I understand people caring about the facts of evolution, but isn't it obvious that supporting the evolutionist movement in practical effect means to not care about the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe?

Supporting evolution theory in practice means children and adults who have a whack view of the universe, in which the reality of freedom is not acknowledged. How is that in any really practical way providing people with a more accurate view of nature???

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Most of your argument is comprised of axioms. Ideas which are taken as true but are not proven true. However for this reason one an reject an axiom. Axioms amount to assertions in most cases since people fail to understand the use of axioms. Opinions become axioms, assertions become axioms all while one ignores the function of an axiom. You need the axiom of creationism to support the axiom of God. You need the axiom of God to support cretionism. Both sides of the argument require another part to even support the concept. Thus you views end up become axiom A is supported by axiom B and so on. However simply putting it is assertion A supports assertion B, which again people are free to reject. Religious axioms are taught or part of indoctrination. The Piraha people for example have no axiom of God or supreme being, they have no concept of a such a being. Thus the axiom of God is proven wrong as an axiom is self-evident. Thus the concept of God become an assertion rather than an axiom. This renders both sides your arguments moot.

Your whole complaint against creationism is based on the shortcomings of science in proving freedom is a reality.

In my book, when you have thrown out the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, then you have lost the argument. Then you are besides any reason, any reality, you are only just playing a mindgame.

For the rest, you misrepresent my argumentation a lot. You continuously pretend that creationism asserts it is a fact that God exists. No matter that you have been told more than 5 times already that the existence, or non-existence of God is categorically a matter of opinion in creationism. That sort of misrepresentation is typical evolutionist "fighting for the cause" regardless of honesty. I don't think you can be reasoned with.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Has northing to do with the topic of creation.

How does freedom substantiate creationism?

I already mentioned, certainly more than 20 times in this topic, that by choosing new things are created.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No. I am determined to show you that you are incorrect about something that you don't seem to fully understand. If there is an action and equal but opposite reaction the resulting energy isn't "zero" its still the amount of energy expended. This isn't a convoluted issue where you are very close to being right. You are simply wrong. If there is no energy or if all energy was "0" then we wouldn't have had the big bang and all energy would not exist.

Why don't you go write to those scientists then about how they are wrong about their ideas that the totality of the universe is nothing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

An opinion which matches fact is correct.

Saying this in response to my argumentation means that you assert that science can say what is good, loving and beautiful.

We can see lots of political regimes communist and nazi, stating as fact what is good and evil. We can see that this mixing fact with opinion is a real problem in society.

You have previously stated what is good, loving and beautiful is not a matter of science. But here you begin with saying an opinion is correct when it matches facts.

It means that the materialistic logic you use pushes you in the direction of arguing that what is good, loving and beatiful is a matter of fact. It is simply logical that from the point of view of materialism, photosynthesis is a matter of fact, dust on my table is a matter of fact, the knack in the plant is a matter of fact, every little thing.......everything is a matter of fact, including what is good, loving and beautiful. That is the direction of argument materialism logically pushes towards.

You argue towards it what is good and evil being a fact. But then completely separate from your materialism you have a value which says that it is wrong to make what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact, so then you correct yourself.

But in practical reality this still means that your values are hollowed out by materialism. And it is shown in history that this is a real problem. How come you would be better at distinguising facts from opinion than tens of millions of nazi Germans, and communist Sovjets? Why should anybody trust you about that?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is plainly obvious that the evolutionist movement is dominated, awash, by militant anti-religious, anti-freedom of opinion sort of people. The atheistic hordes.

Actually, that is really not true. Basically it is a legend created out of fear.

A shame, really.

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand people caring about the facts of evolution, but isn't it obvious that supporting the evolutionist movement in practical effect means to not care about the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe?

No. It is neither obvious, nor true.

Supporting evolution theory in practice means children and adults who have a whack view of the universe, in which the reality of freedom is not acknowledged. How is that in any really practical way providing people with a more accurate view of nature???

I don't know what you think evolution is, but I figure it is not a very accurate perception.

 

[gnostic]

What is so truly weird is that he seems like a fairly intelligent chap. The hypnotic hold of delusion is a frightening thing.

I think "weird" is an understatement, but "delusion" is pretty much spot-on.

I have never so many logical fallacies and circular reasonings in one thread, by one person. It's absolutely staggering.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Now you are getting it that there is a fact side and an opinion side to creationism, the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and the opinion what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

There is no "fact side" to creationism other than the fact that believers believe it is factual. Beyond that there is no way to apply the assertion of creationism to the natural world or the universe beyond.

Again, if you are interested in science which proves freedom is real I could give you some pointers. But my acceptance of the fact that freedom is real is not based on that science, it is based on the direct knowledge of freedom in my daily life.

Frankly i care little about the science which establishes freedom is a reality, though I support it. What's important to me is the general view that there is a spiritual domain which chooses over the material domain. That we can have opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful. And have faith in God ofcourse!

Again...freedom is a subjective concept. What one considers freedom another may consider bondage.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Again...freedom is a subjective concept.

...and this is rational?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is the fact part of creationism, that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, as I have been telling you many times. The creator part is a matter of opinion, so it would be a strawman to ask for evidence about it, because it is asserted just like an opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful.

It makes no sense that "creation" is fact but the "creator" is opinion. If the two can't be linked together with verifiable evidence then both are sounding quite similar to a "null hypothesis"....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It seems to me you are saying an opinion is an inferior form of a fact. But this is wrong because it can never become a fact what is good, loving and beautiful. It will always remain a matter of opinion, you will always have to choose the answer, no matter how much evidence you have available

You're mixing up a bunch of fields of study here and I think that is your confusion. In the realm of science opinion only goes but so far. Scientific Facts are different that scientific opinion. The opinion, as it relates to science, has to adhere to a method of testing, verifying or falsifying by way of collecting data that reaches a conclusion. Co-mingling subjective terms such as (freedom, choice, good, loving, beautiful...etc) is not science. These might be terms and subjects for philosophy but have little to no application in science.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

An opinion is the result of choosing about what it is that chooses. It's as simple a logic as 1+1=2, it is obvious and plainly right.

It shows that there is a spiritual domain, which chooses over the material domain.

Anybody who does not choose in stating an opinion, is phony. Is calculating rather than choosing. And this is what I see happening in modern society. Under the influence of evolution theory, they begin to conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, just as natural selection sorts out the fittest organism. It seems appealing to sort out the best result, who could object to what is best? But it is very quickly shown that people who do this lack spirit, lack emotion, spontaneity. And people become crazy in calculating absolutely everything, really crazy. There is peace in acknowledging the spirit which chooses, as a matter of opinion.

This isn't what evolution is and it seems you don't understand the basics here.....