What?! Are you a Creationist?
We are not all the same and some people choose to believe that there is a God, some believe that we descended from Apes, and there's the big bang theory. Of course none of us are any the wiser
Why is faith afforded such protection? Well to broaden that, if you were to lock people up for believing that there were higher powers than them responsible for the creation of the human race, you would also come down on those who react on 'gut instinct' and making decisions because it 'feels right'. We are not cold calculated products of science, so many things we do are out of instinct and cannot be explained. why do people do random acts of bravery when the odds on survival are low?
I, like many people, accept the evidence that apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor (not that we are descended from apes) but if some other theory is proposed that is backed up with more convincing had data then I’ll change my mind.
The big bang theory is a different matter as I don’t understand the physics behind it but I do accept the work of the many thousands of scientists who support the theory because they understand it and the rationale behind it.
Both are theories, based on evidence. Neither are proposed as universal truths without any scientific evidence to back them up.
What?! Are you a Creationist?
On the latter point, there's plenty of research and evidence to back up the processes behind actions and behaviour, though the conclusion tends to be we're predictably irrational. I often act on gut instinct even though I consider myself generally rational. It's nothing to do with faith, just part of my evolution.
However, you don't answer the question. Why am I protected under law for being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc, but not a Scientologist? The point is valid in that if you protect one set of beliefs you must protect them all, yet that's not the case.
We are not all the same and some people choose to believe that there is a God, some believe that we descended from Apes, and there's the big bang theory.
I only have a vague understanding of the physics behind the big bang theory but I do understand that the theory has been developed over decades and that it is based on scientific theory and logical deduction and that it is open to critical review.It is interesting though that you say that you do accept the work of scientists because they understand it even though you don't, are you putting your faith in their work by any chance?
You say that as if it diminished them in some way. A scientific theory, once proposed, will be attacked by other scientists all over the world some of whom will spend their life trying to pick holes in it. A scientific theory that withstands that sort of review is a remarkable thing.Theories based on evidence are just that, theories.
actually, MrMan, those, who don't want believe in Adam and Eve, don't believe in humans having descended from apes either - they believe that apes and humans had common ancestors - there is a slight difference between those two.
the thesis that we descended from apes was a deliberate anti-darwinist misinterpretation which wanted to belittle and mock darwin's theory of evolution of species. and the big bang theory isn't such a nonsense either - still better than believing in someone creating the universe in 7 days.
I only have a vague understanding of the physics behind the big bang theory but I do understand that the theory has been developed over decades and that it is based on scientific theory and logical deduction and that it is open to critical review.
You say that as if it diminished them in some way. A scientific theory, once proposed, will be attacked by other scientists all over the world some of whom will spend their life trying to pick holes in it. A scientific theory that withstands that sort of review is a remarkable thing.
Creationism is not a theory since it is not based on any scientific information. It is based on nothing more than 3000 year old tribal writings. Its proponents argue in its favour by looking at the gaps in evolutionary theory rather than the mountain of information supporting it.
It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that evolution and creationism are in any way comparable as robust theories. Evolution is based on observed fact and deduced theories which, in many cases, have later been backed up by conclusive fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to back up creationism.I didn't say that the big bang theory was nonsense, i just said people have different beliefs, why you believe one unconfirmed theory over another is up to the individual.
Read a few books! Start with junior cert level biology.Apes and humans had common ancestors, so where did they come from? Where did the first ancestor come from?
Evolutionary theory is what links many known facts into a holistic proposition. What you say above is akin to saying that because we cannot conclusively prove that time is not a constant there could be a fairy city under the Rock of Cashel.But has a scientific theory given us a definitive answer? For me to prove that you are wrong is not enough to make me right, it just means that until someone proves their theory is fact we are all still clueless.
As far as theories go, they are both as bad as each other.It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that evolution and creationism are in any way comparable as robust theories. Evolution is based on observed fact and deduced theories which, in many cases, have later been backed up by conclusive fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to back up creationism.
What happened prior to the Big Bang, before space and time existed? First there was nothing, and then it exploded.Well.. where's the evidence for Gods existence? There doesn't really seem to be any at all.
First there was nothing, and then it exploded.
Rubbish. There is well documented evidence of evolution all around us. It has been observed and documented in plants and animals. There is a fossil record of animals that are now extinct which can be shown to demonstrate a progressive adaptation of changing environments.As far as theories go, they are both as bad as each other.
Evolution isn't based on experiments that can be recreated. Any empirical evidence is questionable, and is not back up by 'conclusive fact'.
If time isn’t a constant (as proposed by Einstein) then there was no time before the big bang.What happened prior to the Big Bang, before space and time existed? First there was nothing, and then it exploded.
Has someone sat watching a plant or an animal evolve? did they then successfully repeat the experiment? That's how empirical scientific theory is formed. Everything from colliding particles to dropping weights off the tower of Pisa is done in this fashion. Experiments that can be repeated and observed.Rubbish. There is well documented evidence of evolution all around us. It has been observed and documented in plants and animals.
That's why I put 'before space and time existed'. It just adds to the enigma.If time isn’t a constant (as proposed by Einstein) then there was no time before the big bang
Creationism isn't just Bible Creationism. There's also evolutionary Creationism and probably a whole lot more.There is not one piece of evidence anywhere that backs up creationism. In fact there is a mountain of evidence that disputes the events outlines in the various conflicting creation stories in the bible.
Yes, the evolution of the Peppered Moth over the last 200 year has been observed and studied in detail.Has someone sat watching a plant or an animal evolve?
Not all scientific theory (or fact) is deducted by repeatable experiment. It is often based on observation. For example plate tectonics is accepted as fact despite the fact that scientists have not moved any tectonic plates in laboratories. The existence of black holes is also accepted as a fact by most people despite the fact that they have not been recreated in labs either.did they then successfully repeat the experiment? That's how empirical scientific theory is formed. Everything from colliding particles to dropping weights off the tower of Pisa is done in this fashion. Experiments that can be repeated and observed.
Yes, the celestial teapot and the giant spaghetti monster cannot be disproved either. The same applies to fairies, pixies or goblins. Is it reasonable to suggest that they are in fact real just because it cannot be proven that they are not? I would rather say that until one single piece of evidence supporting creationism is proposed it cannot be given any scientific value.Creationism isn't just Bible Creationism. There's also evolutionary Creationism and probably a whole lot more.
Why don't you post something that disproves Creationism?
The existence of black holes is also accepted as a fact by most people despite the fact that they have not been recreated in labs either.
Yes and yes.Can we break it down to this?
1. Do you completely denounce all forms of Creationism.
2. Do you believe Evolution to be true?
Only by the kind of people who believe in creationism.(BTW, plate tectonics isn't accepted as fact, it's still a theory)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?