Faith in Creation

[Mosquito]

Yes. I'll refer you to quantum fluctuations, Hawking Radiation, isotope decay, random biological mutation, and so on.

Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see.
What is unscientific is refusing to learn certain things because you fear they will <strike>challenge your world view</strike> have a corrupting effect on you.

Just because something seems random, doesn't mean that it is random. There may be fully deterministic/mechanistic processes underneath that we are just not familiar with, yet.

And this does not mean that goddidit or any other wooism is correct. It just means that our current understanding is a few levels short of perfect.

A wise man once said: "Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see." Sometimes the choice is not ours to make, we can only see what our eyes and instruments can detect. But we can continue improving our instruments and hopefully one day we can se what makes parts of the quantum world seem random.

Maybe these parts of the quantum world really are random, but until we've checked, and double-checked, it may still be mechanistic.

Many things have seemed random, until better knowledge was found. As we're still collecting knowledge, we may still learn a few things.


Mosquito

 

[Upchurch]

And this is merely evidence of what? Of how much "you" don't know?

No, this is the evidence you asked for shows that some things just happen.

Either that or, it's simply not true. If everything happened purely at random, then what purpose would the evidence serve? There would be no coherence to anything. And that's absurd.

The evidence servers the purpose for helping us understand our surroundings. If you refuse to learn certain things (as you have said that you do), you will never be in the position to determine whether or not something is true, or even absurd, simply because you lack the information to make that determination.

Ultimately, you are asking questions for which you are not interested in finding the answers.

 

[Upchurch]

Just because something seems random, doesn't mean that it is random. There may be fully deterministic/mechanistic processes underneath that we are just not familiar with, yet.

Entirely possible. The reliability of the scientific proccess is in it's ability to self-correct and continually improve.

The best information to date is that these events are random, so without theories/evidence to the contrary, it is incorrect to say that there is no evidence that some things "just happen". There is clearly some very strong evidence to this effect.

 

[rocketdodger]

This thread is hard for my brain to follow....

Is anyone actually defending faith in creation? I see you arguing back and forth but I don't understand about what.


The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.

In contrast a creationist must take almost everything on faith, which is a much bigger jump to make if you ask me. It seems like the difference between a scientist and a priest is that a scientist will admit what he doesn't know and tell you he is trying to find out about it.

 

[Mosquito]

Entirely possible. The reliability of the scientific proccess is in it's ability to self-correct and continually improve.

The best information to date is that these events are random, so without theories/evidence to the contrary, it is incorrect to say that there is no evidence that some things "just happen". There is clearly some very strong evidence to this effect.

True, it is just that "It's the will of God"/"goddidit" and "it's random" seems to have something in common...

If the idea is that these processes are truly random, why check? What can you possibly learn about something that is random?

While the evidence is going to the side of "random" I feel it is important that the searches goes for the "mechanistic" view. If for nothing else, than to fail miserably and establishing that this stuff is random and nothing further can be learned about it. (which sounds defeatist and depressing)

Mosquito - being deterministic

 

[Upchurch]

True, it is just that "It's the will of God"/"goddidit" and "it's random" seems to have something in common...

What?

If the idea is that these processes are truly random, why check? What can you possibly learn about something that is random?

Welcome to Chaos Theory, Statistics, and Quantum Mechanics! The answer to your question is: quite a bit, actually. Something can be random and still have patterns of behavior and predictiable-ish outcomes.

 

[Mosquito]

This thread is hard for my brain to follow....

This problem can be fixed. This board is full of members with so much brain that they can probably sell you some upgrades. There is in fact so much brains on this board that the laws of supply and demand means that you should be able to make a really good deal.

Is anyone actually defending faith in creation? I see you arguing back and forth but I don't understand about what.

On this board we ban creationists on sight. That is why you will never see any conflicting views here. In particular, you'll never see anybody defending creationism. Their posts will be deleted, if not sufficiently easily debunked.

Actually, this question worries me, didn't you check the membership agreement when you signed up? Especially the parts about "declaration of faith in Science, Evilution and our most holy God Darwin"?

I suggest that you read up on that, and also check the long list of web-sites you are not allowed to link to or reference while discussing on these boards. I will not mention them here, for I value my access to these boards.

The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.

In contrast a creationist must take almost everything on faith, which is a much bigger jump to make if you ask me. It seems like the difference between a scientist and a priest is that a scientist will admit what he doesn't know and tell you he is trying to find out about it.

This is correct. This is how you see it. Your view is, however, wrong.

Science requires faith in that that which has worked will continue to work, and that which has not worked will not start working. Then it searches for things that work, and in the process it finds a lot of things that don't work.

Creationism requires faith in that that which has worked will continue to work if it supports the religion and fail if it undermines it, and that which has not worked will work if it is needed for religion and will not work if not needed. Also, it requires that the followers are not actually curious and checks anything.


The difference between a scientist and a priest is not that a priest can't tell you he don't know. It is that a scientist will try to find out the right answer, and a priest will forbid any search into that which may limit his powerbase (just about anything), and quite possibly demand that any messenger of bad news are wiped out.


Mosquito - not being totally honest, am I?

 

[triadboy]

The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.

Scientists don't deal in 'faith'.

Faith is belief that DOES NOT rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Science rests on logical proof or material evidence.

 

[Upchurch]

On this board we ban creationists on sight. That is why you will never see any conflicting views here. In particular, you'll never see anybody defending creationism. Their posts will be deleted, if not sufficiently easily debunked.

Actually, this question worries me, didn't you check the membership agreement when you signed up? Especially the parts about "declaration of faith in Science, Evilution and our most holy God Darwin"?

I suggest that you read up on that, and also check the long list of web-sites you are not allowed to link to or reference while discussing on these boards. I will not mention them here, for I value my access to these boards.

{snip}

Mosquito - not being totally honest, am I?

This will teach me to read an entire post before jumping to conclusions.

 

[rocketdodger]

Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

 

[Mosquito]

What?
Welcome to Chaos Theory, Statistics, and Quantum Mechanics! The answer to your question is: quite a bit, actually. Something can be random and still have patterns of behavior and predictiable-ish outcomes.

It's just that something that actually is random, as opposed to just complex or chaotic (chaos is NOT random, it is purely deterministic) is something I have a hard time understanding that we can learn something about. It becomes very similar to "the will of God", which is something else we may be unable to learn anything about and thus it limits the will to search. Searching for further answers becomes futile.

Bu I may have a wrong idea as to what we're talking about, in effect what is "random"?

A loaded die has a pattern of behaviour (a favoured side), is it actually random?

A fair die is random (at least for practical purposes), does it have patterns of behaviour?

I'm missing something, and may have to resort to buying some surplus brain-modules.


Mosquito

 

[Mosquito]

Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

I see, yes, we have a slightly differing idea about what "faith" means. In effect, you seem to put all different types of "faith" in one basket. This may be fine in everyday conversation, but it does fail on these forums because it fails to differentiate between the different types of "faith".

I have "faith" that if I drop something, it will fall towards the Earth. Some people have "faith" that if they say some magic words, the Creator of the universe and most powerful being possible will come running to do their bidding. Nevermind what plan this Creator supposedly have.

One of these "faith"s is based on seeing what works and going with that, the other is based on whishing something was true.

As you can see, there is a difference between having faith in what has been, and still can be, shown to work and having faith in what (in many cases) have been shown not to work or which cannot possibly work or at best may have worked, once upon a time.

One of these faiths is rational, the other is irrational.


Mosquito - trying to be rational


ETA: Or you can go by triadboy's definition, that works too.

 

[Mosquito]

This will teach me to read an entire post before jumping to conclusions.

Happy to be of help


Mosquito (proud)

 

[Kitty Chan]

Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

Mosquito you may have a point on differing views of the word faith but rocketdodger wins second behind bearguin for the best answer to the original question.

Creation says God started it all and set it in motion
Darwin says it started and got set in motion

The original comment was commenting that both are not proved beyond the shadow of doubt, and neither can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

The comment is saying there is more that makes sense about creation then for evolution. Because evolution is still working it out what exactly happened. Whereas God said how it happened.

THEN the other debates can start but this is what the ORIGINAL COMMENT was about.

If SkepticJ wanted the answer this is it. Doesnt mean it has to be agreed, its just the answer.



(And btw before Im flamed about what started God the answer is nothing started God, He said I am the begining and the end. He always is, so He has no start or end. As well, agree or not thats the answer. )

 

[c4ts]

For some reason, the Creationists assume that because they live in their own little world, everyone else must do the same.

 

[Kitty Chan]

For some reason, the Creationists assume that because they live in their own little world, everyone else must do the same.

Noo you dont have to but you are more than welcome.

Can always use more cats!

 

[Iacchus]

evidence servers the purpose for helping us understand our surroundings. If you refuse to learn certain things (as you have said that you do), you will never be in the position to determine whether or not something is true, or even absurd, simply because you lack the information to make that determination.

Ultimately, you are asking questions for which you are not interested in finding the answers.

In the beginning, there was total incoherence. And then, for some strange reason, it became evidently clear. Is this not the theory you subscribe to? Hmm ...

 

[Upchurch]

In the beginning, there was total incoherence. And then, for some strange reason, it became evidently clear. Is this not the theory you subscribe to? Hmm ...

Who, me? No, I'm not familiar with this theory.

 

[Mosquito]

Mosquito you may have a point on differing views of the word faith but rocketdodger wins second behind bearguin for the best answer to the original question.

Creation says God started it all and set it in motion
Darwin says it started and got set in motion

The original comment was commenting that both are not proved beyond the shadow of doubt, and neither can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

The comment is saying there is more that makes sense about creation then for evolution. Because evolution is still working it out what exactly happened. Whereas God said how it happened.

THEN the other debates can start but this is what the ORIGINAL COMMENT was about.

If SkepticJ wanted the answer this is it. Doesnt mean it has to be agreed, its just the answer.



(And btw before Im flamed about what started God the answer is nothing started God, He said I am the begining and the end. He always is, so He has no start or end. As well, agree or not thats the answer. )

I am not going to comment on who's winning this thread, but...

What you're saying about Creation and Darwin is basically indistinguishable, unless The Committee For Making A Really Big Mess comes clear and explains what they did.

Creation does NOT make more sense than evolution, it used to, a couple of centuries ago, but it doesn't anymore. No version of creation does. (I assume you are talking about the "Southern Baptist USA only, possibly actually only your local church"-version of creation). There are a whole lot of very different creation myths out there, and none of them seem to fit the data... Though several seem to claim they do, and do so better than everything else.

Evolution is not working out what happened. Scientists are working out what happened.

God did NOT say how it happened, God has, wisely, kept his mouth shut so as to avoid embarrassment.

Mosquito - My god is bigger than yours!

ETA: OK, so your location is Canada, my mistake, but I think the rest of my ramblings still hold.

Edit: Some punctuation and typo.

 

[Mid]

Re: Re: Re: Faith in Creation

No... it boils down to:

"It's more comfortable for me to continue believing in what I was taught all my life, instead of looking at things that may force me to question those beliefs."

Not quite the same thing...

I think this could be the case with the majority of fundamentalists, but not all of them; as I would assume that at least some people who come from none creationist families actually choose a fundamentalist religious belief, for whatever strange reasons. Although obviously in this case there would be a psychological element for rejecting the evidence of evolution in favour of the biblical story, in that the rejection could be there to reinforce their chosen beliefs.