What matters most for abandoning creationism: facts, or religious interpretation?

[arauca]

Look I don't disrespect other believes in science or spiritual. On the contrary . The problem in this forum is the attack thar is taking place against us believers a we are ridiculed for our position to believe in something not palpable, so wen a person is attacked we defend ourselves with a counterattack . In this case is the belief and both sides have a vulnerable position which is "believe". Do you think I don't believe in the lensing effect on galaxy, yes I do believe , I believe in that hydrogen atom is composed smaller particle like quarks and muons particle that might bind the quarks. I believe in what you believe in science . The problem I feel es that atheist are using science terminology and deduction to humiliate us.

 

[wegs]

Yes God is the source of everything. But what is God? What is this exploding and churning power that simultaneously creates and destroys? What is it? What is the source of consciousness? Is it just some chemicals in a petri dish? I really don't want to wrap my underwear around my ass really tight like Arfa Bran does; I don't want to put God in a box. The Christian version of God is easy for many people to understand, but is probably just a place-holder.

But let's get down to science since there are guttersnipes who think I don't know any, but are themselves ignorant of the subject. The big bang singularity gave birth to everything material in the universe, electrons, quarks, gluons, protons, all particles of the standard model. Even space-time itself was created. Over many seconds and minutes, the universe cooled and expanded ever larger at the speed of light. Over millions of years, nebulae formed. Their gravity attracted hydrogen and helium until stars were born. Stars create all of the elements of the periodic table. There just isn't time to write down everything I know about science. But there are lots of left over pieces like dark matter that don't appear to do anything. There are still questions about how the physics constants like the speed of light, gravitaitonal constant and Planck constant can remain so ... constant.

wegs,
I am getting this picture from atheists that Christianity is a guilt driven religion. I am not surpised that lots of people are looking for a way out of it. I also understand neuroscience thinks it can has the recipe for consciousness, as just a bunch of neurochemicals crossing the synaptic cleft, as vast networks of constantly changing inductances, etc, etc... If you want to believe that they have the recipe, than go get some peace of mind.

But the hole goes deeper.

Suppose you are right, why should God be relevant to science? Why does it behoove the science "community" to embrace the idea of a creator?

 

[Seattle]

Sorry solar . So is Mars , Venus, Mercury. How did Photosynthesis come about ? I think that is late in time or perhaps 3 billion year ago . Could that be that oxygen was here but in an oxide form ? How did carbon arrived and wen . I am not sure we have carbonateus material in the mantle . Were the volcano below water , How did the earth cooled off, was it doe to evaporation , was it due to tilt of the axis to establish cold region for freezing water to establish dry land , if the earth was covered with water and there are more question

I think those questions are known. How does the answer (regardless of the answer) argue for creationism?

 

[Mazulu]

Suppose you are right, why should God be relevant to science? Why do you feel it would behoove science to embrace the idea of a creator?

We're fighting over how much of reality science can actually account for. If it's just a mechanical existence through and through, then what is the point of being nice, polite or honorable. It was the ascended masters who told us human beings to lower hostility among one another. To reach out to higher planes of conscousnes. But if they don't exist, then why bother? Why don't we all just give into our lower animal nature, like Q does, and be sewer dwellers? Maybe you and other atheists don't like Christianity because of all the guilt. But don't start kicking other religions that try to raise up human consciousness into something respectable, something elegant and yes, something masterly.

 

[Seattle]

We're fighting over how much of reality science can actually account for. If it's just a mechanical existence through and through, then what is the point of being nice, polite or honorable. It was the ascended masters who told us human beings to lower hostility among one another. To reach out to higher planes of conscousnes. But if they don't exist, then why bother? Why don't we all just give into our lower animal nature, like Q does, and be sewer dwellers? Maybe you and other atheists don't like Christianity because of all the guilt. But don't start kicking other religions that try to raise up human consciousness into something respectable, something elegant and yes, something masterly.

Science is a tool to seek truth or to improve our knowledge. It does that well and I don't see why anyone would have an issue with that.

Religion in the way you seem to be using it is for man's spiritual enlightenment. To the extent that it does that ... great! You don't have to be religious however to be "nice, polite, and honorable". This forum is evidence of that.

There are plenty of theists who are polite and there are those who aren't polite. It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[wegs]

We're fighting over how much of reality science can actually account for. If it's just a mechanical existence through and through, then what is the point of being nice, polite or honorable. It was the ascended masters who told us human beings to lower hostility among one another. To reach out to higher planes of conscousnes. But if they don't exist, then why bother? Why don't we all just give into our lower animal nature, like Q does, and be sewer dwellers? Maybe you and other atheists don't like Christianity because of all the guilt. But don't start kicking other religions that try to raise up human consciousness into something respectable, something elegant and yes, something masterly.

I don't care for your condescending and accusatory tone so I'll leave you be. :m:

 

[wegs]

Science is a tool to seek truth or to improve our knowledge. It does that well and I don't see why anyone would have an issue with that.

Religion in the way you seem to be using it is for man's spiritual enlightenment. To the extent that it does that ... great! You don't have to be religious however to be "nice, polite, and honorable". This forum is evidence of that.

There are plenty of theists who are polite and there are those who aren't polite. It has nothing to do with religion.

This.
Nicely said.

 

[Mazulu]

I don't care for your condescending and accusatory tone so I'll leave you be. :m:

How was I accusatory or condescing? I didn't mean to be. But your tone is oddly familiar, and refreshing. How odd.

OK wegs, you didn't like it that I said that you kick other religions around, is that it? If you don't, then it doesn't apply.

 

[Mazulu]

Science is a tool to seek truth or to improve our knowledge. It does that well and I don't see why anyone would have an issue with that.

Religion in the way you seem to be using it is for man's spiritual enlightenment. To the extent that it does that ... great! You don't have to be religious however to be "nice, polite, and honorable". This forum is evidence of that.

There are plenty of theists who are polite and there are those who aren't polite. It has nothing to do with religion.

Great! Why don't you put that on your tombstone, in really small letters.

 

[Seattle]

Great! Why don't you put that on your tombstone, in really small letters.

What's with the obsession of what will be on one's tombstone?

 

[Mazulu]

What's with the obsession of what will be on one's tombstone?

Somewhere in one of the threads, other people were saying what they wanted on their tombstone.

 

[Seattle]

Somewhere in one of the threads, other people were saying what they wanted on their tombstone.

Ah! At that point I don't care Maybe that would work "Here lies a man who does not care!"

 

[Mazulu]

Ah! At that point I don't care Maybe that would work "Here lies a man who does not care!"

My tombstone is going to say: entrance to the afterlife. Atheists meet downstairs.

 

[Mazulu]

 

[arauca]

I think those questions are known. How does the answer (regardless of the answer) argue for creationism?

Great If it is known or you know it please post or post a reference . But don't wave hands I pointed things specific . or don't point yourself as been clever.

 

[gmilam]

If it's just a mechanical existence through and through, then what is the point of being nice, polite or honorable.

Because life is easier for all concerned if we just try to get along. Duh!

 

[(Q)]

Yes, sometimes science and religion do conflict; like a freeway with opposite running lanes that overlap. Like two paradigms that are colliding.

No, science and religion do not conflict. Science is about reality, religion is about fantasy. No "paradigm" collisions.

Followers of religions on the other hand are often scientifically illiterate, like yourself, for example, and are compelled to say silly things like that because they are so desperate to defend their faith in light of reality.

 

[(Q)]

I have used this example on other occasions.

We have all had dreams, which are a very common natural output of the brain. Within these dreams there are many details. Although dreams and dream details are a very common human experience and are observed all the time, we can't prove any of these dream details in a way that is consistent with the scientific method. This is real enough, due to billions of data points, yet these details lie beyond the range of the scientific method. You cannot directly observe dreams from the outside, nor can you reproduce the exact details in another lab. Science would conclude dream details are not subject to proof. There is no scientific proof, so they don't exist, right?

That is an entirely false premise and a fallacy. People who actually understand what dreams are and how they are initiated in our brains do not make those claims.

I like science and was trained in applied science, but I also figured out this divide beyond which science can't go.. The faithless have a real tough time there, because science lacks the philosophical permissions. It is biased by the divide. I am not insulting science but only showing where science breaks down and needs an update for science to proceed over the divide. I like to hurdle back and forth and will use the customs practiced on each side of the divide. Sometimes I forget and reverse these.

It's funny how so many believers claim to have been "trained in applied science" or claim to have degrees in science, yet they are completely incapable of demonstrating anything remotely concerned with their alleged education. :roflmao:

 

[arauca]

That is an entirely false premise and a fallacy. People who actually understand what dreams are and how they are initiated in our brains do not make those claims.



It's funny how so many believers claim to have been "trained in applied science" or claim to have degrees in science, yet they are completely incapable of demonstrating anything remotely concerned with their alleged education. :roflmao:

Again what is your line of work beside accusing but don't have any thing positive to offer.

 

[spidergoat]

My tombstone is going to say: entrance to the afterlife. Atheists meet downstairs.

I'm sure that sort of thing works for religious cowards. But not for us.