Creationism--Proof ?

[rockytriton]

Originally Posted by questor

have you ever seen any type of evidence that would indicate to you that there is an Easter bunny? do you view the physical evidence of the mathmatical precision of the operation of the universe as proof there is no intelligent design ?

Actually, when I was a kid, on Easter. When I would wake up, these strange colored eggs would appear all over my lawn. I tried to think of some scientific explaination for it, but I just couldn't come up with any. Therefore, by proof of the inability to disprove: the Easter Bunny does exist. Now to find out if he had anything to do with the creation of the universe, hmm, I don't think I can disprove it, so it MUST be true!

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by questor

if your garage had scales and dragon droppings around it, and you heard noises, you may conclude a dragon was there, but you couldn't be sure until you investigated.

It is a reference to this: http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ejcosta...cle_dragon.htm

However, that is the point. There is no direct evidence of a creator, there are no scales, or droppings, or noises. It is most reasonable to thus conclude that there is no creator, thus creationism must be treated as being false.

[rockytriton]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

However, that is the point. There is no direct evidence of a creator, there are no scales, or droppings, or noises. It is most reasonable to thus conclude that there is no creator, thus creationism must be treated as being false.

If I hear voices in my head, does that count as evidnece?

[questor]

perhaps for some of you, your scientific methods Do prove the existence of the bunny.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

...There is no direct evidence of a creator, there are no scales, or droppings, or noises. ...

There is no evidence if a Creator (currently) supported by the scientific method. That is only a subset of alll evidence. It is, however, the subset that we discuss on this site.

Most folks would readily concede that love exists. It is not demonstrable by the scientific method either. But that is not a science topic.

[perfectWeakness129]

I propose a definition...

Religion: A structure of beliefs and convictions based upon a determined set of rules, regulations, or dogma that influances or sometimes dictates one's descision outside of his or her own logic.

I entered 'define: religion' in Google and found that all of its definitions required a supernatural being (god or diety) to complete the religion. We know this to rare as many existing religions don't even include diety(i.e. Buddahism), and most that do, don't even center on it/them(i.e. Hindu).

This definitions implies religion is not limited to a god, is not limitied to after-life ideals, or even good vs. evil, though many include these ideals in their cannon/systemology.

I would like to see if anyone finds fault in this definition before a go on to make any further point. Don't worry, I'm not setting anyone up for some cliche attack on Creationism or Evolution, but I think what I am getting at will level the playing field for this apples vs. oranges argument.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by perfectWeakness129

I would like to see if anyone finds fault in this definition before a go on to make any further point. Don't worry, I'm not setting anyone up for some cliche attack on Creationism or Evolution, but I think what I am getting at will level the playing field for this apples vs. oranges argument.

See Wikipedia's definition...

[alexander]

heh, so we should all switch to Flying Spagetti Monsterism, there is scientiffic data that links amount of pyrates to global warming (there's even a pie chart) and countless references to FSM in all kinds of places...

[daytonturner]

One of the big problems I see in several of the religion v. science threads is that there are a lot of people who do not know the difference between knowledge and belief.

This phenomenon is not exclusively owned by either group, although it seems to me that the science, or "knowledge," people have a tendency to believe that they know things which they only believe and consistently seem to suggest they do not believe anything other than knowledge. For the most part, religious people do understand that belief in that which is unproven is the basis of their faith. However they, too, sometimes tend to operate from a position of assumed fact where belief is the only basis for their acceptance of a concept.

Science, basically, is a process by which we gather facts and knowledge about our physical world in an attempt to explain what has happened and what will happen in our world. We do this in relation to a number of physical areas such as biologically, zoologically and chemically or even in social applications such as morality and legal systems as we look back at past civilizations. That stuff is all science -- knowledge.

Sometimes there are things which we cannot explain because we lack sufficient data and facts to clearly understand -- sometimes what took place or sometimes how it took place. So we take the observations we have made and draw conclusions through various forms of reasoning to attempt to find a reasonable explanation. We also use the observations we have made to attempt to predict what can or will happen if we artificially create a set of circumstances or if a set of circumstances should come to bear.

When scientists make such predictions they usually experiment to prove their predictions valid. At that point, they have temporarily left the world of science and, in a sense, entered the world of believe. They believe their calculations are correct and their experiment will successfully show they have made accurate deductions. However, until the experiment is successful, the scientist can only believe. Only after their experiment has proven or disproven their calculations, does the scientist return to the realm of knowledge.

It is unfortunate that some here attempt to trivialize religion by comparing it to the Easter Bunny. No rational person believes in the Easter Bunny and no one has ever successfully attempted to establish a religion with the Easter Bunny as its figure head. Such interjections into an intellectual discussion are not only majorly disingenuous, they are absolutely assine. It is the type of thing someone who has nothing relevant to post puts up to make himself look like a complete and total horse’s ass.

The next thing is that disbelief is actually a belief. Belief and disbelief are not opposites such as light and dark where dark is the absence of light. Disbelief is not the absence of belief, but rather a belief that the belief is inaccurate.

We do not know how the universe came into being or if it is, as some suggest, eternal having had no beginning and having no ending.

There is no more proof that the universe is eternal than there is proof that it had a beginning. Perhaps it is oversimplification but it appears there are only those two possibilities – either the universe is eternal or it had a beginning. If it is eternal, there is not much to discuss. If it had a beginning, which most people seem to believe – even science oriented people – then it appears there are only two explanations offered for that possibility. One element, which includes but is not restricted to, the religious people suggests that some extra-universal intelligence designed and created the universe. The other element suggest that it just happened, whether via “The Big Bang” or some other uncaused set of circumstances.

I do have a belief in one of those explanations and I am sure there are advocates for any of the other explanations. However, I am not aware of tangible, physical evidence which comes even close to proving one of these positions or which successfully debunks any of them.

My point is that we all “believe” what we believe based on our life experiences. If you believe differently from me, it is not because I am right and you are wrong – unless you believe in the Easter Bunny – but because we have had different life experiences or have placed greater importance on some aspect of that experience than the other person has.

I just find it interesting that some feel it is scholarly to investigate only two of these possibilities – an eternal universe or the “it just happened” theory. I fail to find them any more or less plausible or provable or scientific than the concept that some intelligence caused it to happen.

[daytonturner]

perfectWeakness has provided a perfect definition of religion. However, it does seem to exclude Christianity which is based on a personal relationship with a Diety and is based not on rules and regulations, but merely on belief and trust. So simple a child can do it; so complex it is impossible to comprehend.