Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

Their brains were the same as ours yet it took that long to make any significant advancements lol? Doesn’t add up somehow.

Why is it so important to some people that other people are creationists?

Because people that subscribe to the theory of Abiogenesis figure that THEIRS is the only True Religion.

 

[Diesel]

Sarcasm escapes you, apparently lol.

Not in person, but in writing, with a stranger, about a topic that isn't particularly "funny" it sometimes can.

 

[Diesel]

I would not compare rape and murder to religious ritual, ceremonial practice, meditation, prayer.

I wouldn't either, but BidenPresident is about to snark you with some kind of nonsense.

 

[Into the Night]

Because it's not true.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). It is not possible to prove any circular either True nor False.

I don't particularly care.

Apparently you do.

Creationism has an especially religious foundation,

The Theory of Creation is a religion, yes. So is the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution.

but it's just another example of the anti-intellectualism that has gripped fundamentalists

You just committed a circular argument fallacy. That in and of itself is fundamentalism.

and so-called conservatives.

What do conservatives have to do with any particular theory or religion?

To some people, including me, it is disheartening to see masses of people who have no appreciation for human progress

Please describe what you mean by 'human progress'.

and the lessons of the Enlightenment.

Please describe this 'Enlightenment'.

 

[Into the Night]

It must come down to the agricultural revolution in the late Neolithic.

For 290 thousand years we were hunter gathers, constantly on the move.

The transition to a sedentary, agricultural lifestyle presumably freed humans up to sit around and start inventing new tools and technologies.

How do you know this? Were you there?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I would not compare rape and murder to religious ritual, ceremonial practice, meditation, prayer.

Agreed. This despite the fact that some cultures did practice human sacrifice......kinda like Bill Clinton did when he sent our troops to Bosnia.

Some people are condemning religion based on narrow views just like racists do when discussing other social problems. They are looking at the subject seeking only the negative views and rarely, much less fairly, recognize the positive views regardless of the subject at hand.

In this case, religion and science grew together; religion first, science second. Now, science should overtake religions when disagreement exists, but it hasn't due to a few groups of fundamentalists who would rather destroy than admit their fundamentalism is flawed.

 

[Cypress]

How do you know this? Were you there?

Inference by inductive logic is standard practice in science, and only scientific illiterates are oblivious to this.

 

[Into the Night]

Which is something I think we all learned in our first introduction to world history and human civilization. Presumably most creationists passed those quizzes, but somewhere along the line they decided that history, science, and education are all fake or evil.

Why would subscribing to the Theory of Creation make history fake or evil?
Why would subscribing to the Theory of Creation have anything to do with science. The Theory of Creation is not falsifiable. Neither is the Theory of Evolution nor the Theory of Abiogenesis.
Why is education fake or evil?

 

[Cypress]

Same here. In fact, I think all of those texts are fascinating. Well, parts of each of them are a drag, I suppose. (The Book of Numbers bores me to tears.) I just (and I assume you feel similarly) cannot take the leap into considering any of them "divine". We're taught to read carefully and think critically in literature classes. We sit behind desks and debate The Scarlet Letter and Of Mice and Men. Then religious people get their hands on whatever their preferred book is and act like there can only be one correct interpretation. Thousands of pages and no room for disagreement. It doesn't make any sense.

Agreed. This despite the fact that some cultures did practice human sacrifice......kinda like Bill Clinton did when he sent our troops to Bosnia.

Some people are condemning religion based on narrow views just like racists do when discussing other social problems. They are looking at the subject seeking only the negative views and rarely, much less fairly, recognize the positive views regardless of the subject at hand.

In this case, religion and science grew together; religion first, science second. Now, second should overtake religions when disagreement exists, but it hasn't due to a few groups of fundamentalists who would rather destroy than admit their fundamentalism is flawed.

I like the way your and Diesel's brains work.

 

[Into the Night]

Conservatives learn at their institutions of higher education, e.g. Creation Science Museum, that humans frolicked with dinosaurs; that fossils are animals which died in the great flood: that the earth is 6000 years old.

The Theory of Creation has no date.
Assuming dinosaurs once existed, why would humans frolick with them?
Fossils are images of animals or plants in stone. That's all. Fossils are still being made today. Why would a Great Flood be necessary? What about fossils of fish, that can swim?

The age of Earth is unknown.

 

[Into the Night]

The argument that creationists/Republicans

What about creationist Democrats?

always cling to is that if there is any scientific uncertainty, or if science does not yet have a well tested and verified answer- well the uncertainty just supposedly proves there is a Christian God.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has no theory about the existence or non-existence of any god or gods. Science is agnostic. It simply doesn't go there.
It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

If you believe in a god, it is by the very nature of a circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'.
If you believe in multiple gods, it is by faith.
If you believe in that no god or gods exist, it is by faith.

The Church of No God is no different from any other religion. Like any other religion, there are fundamentalists.

 

[Into the Night]

No. I'm not sure how you got that impression. My problem is with anti-intellectualism, which is what I clearly said. The scientific method works. That was one of the most important outcomes of the Enlightenment. Science lifted humanity out of the Medieval Age and increased life expectancy and quality of life almost universally. To spit in the face of that legacy is tragic.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Theories of science existed during all ages of recorded history, even as far back as ancient Greece.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The Theory of Creation has no date.
Assuming dinosaurs once existed, why would humans frolick with them?
Fossils are images of animals or plants in stone. That's all. Fossils are still being made today. Why would a Great Flood be necessary? What about fossils of fish, that can swim?

The age of Earth is unknown.

The time Adam and Eve exited the Garden can be dated in the Bible. About 6000 years. Before that it could have been millions of years if one believes such a story.

https://hbu.edu/museums/dunham-bibl...of-the-years-and-times-from-adam-unto-christ/
Then the whole sum and number of years from the beginning of the world unto the present year of our Lord God 1801, are 5775 years, six months, and the said odd ten days.

He shows his math....which is a lot more than I've seen you ever do, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

That sort of is the entire purpose of god, isn't it? To explain

Any theory is an explanatory argument. That's true of scientific theories and nonscientific theories.

what we don't understand

Science forms theories on observations we don't understand, then seeks to understand them.

so we can maintain a hope that everything can ultimately be understood?

No. An infinite universe can never be fully understood.

Otherwise we're doomed to exist in a universe that is beyond comprehension, which would be a terribly frustrating experience.

Feeling frustrated? Your problem. I simply accept the universe as it is. I don't need to understand the whole of it. I am not frustrated. I need no god or gods to do that.

That in and of itself is not entirely irrational, but to continue to give god reign over subjects that science has explained is foolish at best.

You do realize, don't you, that Galileo, Kepler, DeCartes, and many other scientists are or were devout Christians?

 

[Into the Night]

The scientific method works best in real time. I can’t think of single advancement that couldn’t/wouldn’t have occurred had creationists been running the experiments. IOW, as a practical matter, it doesn’t matter if you think man was created 6,000 years or evolved over millions in terms of *practicing* science.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Apparently you too have forgotten the number of scientists, including Galileo, Kepler, and DesCartes are or were devoutly Christian.

 

[Darth Omar]

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Apparently you too have forgotten the number of scientists, including Galileo, Kepler, and DesCartes are or were devoutly Christian.

I actually knew that and you left a few out, but thanks.

[Responded to the wrong person]

 

[Cypress]

The scientific method works best in real time. I can’t think of single advancement that couldn’t/wouldn’t have occurred had creationists been running the experiments. IOW, as a practical matter, it doesn’t matter if you think man was created 6,000 years or evolved over millions in terms of *practicing* science.

Science is not just a set of practices for the benefit of technological advancement.

The intent of science is to discover the truth, or to at least establish a level of certainty which approximates objective reality.

From the perspective of science, it matters whether the earth is 6000 years old or not.

Having a good estimate of the age of the earth also has practical effects on other scientific questions, ranging from evolution, to geology, to astronomy.

 

[BidenPresident]

Then perhaps you could describe this something that the Universe came out of, assuming the Big Bang theory.

that is what the big bang is. Concentrated matter and energy. And that is what we are to this day.

 

[Darth Omar]

Science is not just a set of practices for the benefit of technological advancement.

The intent of science is to discover the truth, or to at least establish a level of certainty which approximates objective reality.

From the perspective of science, it matters whether the earth is 6000 years old or not.

Having a good estimate of the age of the earth also has practical effects on other scientific questions, ranging from evolution, to geology, to astronomy.

I was talking about advancements that benefited humanity in practical ways.

I’ll give you geology, I think [for all I know creationists have their own way of explaining it], but I don’t see where the rest applies. I know for example that antibiotic resistance in microbes is easily explained in terms of micro-evolution.

I also have enough practical experience with human anatomy to say it matters, exactly squat, if the knee [for example] is a product of adaptation over millions of years or was designed 6 thousand years. In terms of treatment, you go about it the same way. The whole question is totally irrelevant.

Computer tech and etc: again it doesn’t matter. It’s why I asked the question several posts ago: why does anyone care if other people believe whatever they choose to believe about it?

 

[BidenPresident]

I would not compare rape and murder to religious ritual, ceremonial practice, meditation, prayer.

No, but both are equally natural. As to your argument.