Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Cypress]

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?

Darwinian evolution would not be plausible as a theory if we did not have evidence of an ancient earth.

Modern astronomy and cosmology would not be possible without the concept of deep time on earth and in the solar system.

Applied science and engineering are fine.


Some of us, including most scientists involved in core research are interested in the deep questions of ultimate reality, regardless of whether or not they result in better technology - aka, dark matter, the multiverse, the Higgs boson, abiogenesis, exoplanetary science, etc.

 

[Darth Omar]

Darwinian evolution would not be plausible as a theory if we did not have evidence of an ancient earth.

Modern astronomy and cosmology would not be possible without the concept of deep time on earth and in the solar system.

Applied science and engineering are fine.


Some of us, including most scientists involved in core research are interested in the deep questions of ultimate reality, regardless of whether or not they result in better technology - aka, dark matter, the multiverse, the Higgs boson, abiogenesis, exoplanetary science, etc.

Darwinian evolution isn’t terribly important from the standpoint of human advancements that came from science. It takes considerable faith to accept abiogenesis. Multiverse *hypothesis* is a way of getting around the apparent beginning to the universe.

 

[Nordberg]

and you too will someday.

Easy to have no faith when you don't need it.
As you draw that last breath, remember , theres something waiting for you on the other side, better come with us.

it will be like it was before you were born. Do you remember what that was like?

 

[Nordberg]

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.

So wrong again. Where do you get your crazy ideas? Here is the scientific method, all 7 steps.https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scientific-method-steps

 

[Matt Dillon]

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.

How does the age of the earth matter all that much to geologists or astronomists?

A rock is still a rock and space is still space.

It matters a fuckton to evolutionists, who are not really scientists.

They're more like psuedo-scientific God deniers.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

Agreed. Dating things, be it Earth, our solar system or our galaxy, an important part to understanding it.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure. That's why I already told you that I don't particularly care if someone is a creationist. Some people think the son of a supernatural deity was birthed on Earth through Immaculate Conception. Religious people believe a lot of stupid shit, but you're spinning your wheels because my problem is with anti-intellectualis, not creationists.

So you have a problem with yourself. Gotit.

 

[Into the Night]

On balance, I think there could be an overall net benefit of religious tradition and spirituality to human psychology and the human sociological condition.

The fact that spiritual practices have been with us for at least fifty thousand years suggests it is something imbued in our DNA perhaps.

On the flipside, there are a lot of downsides to some aspects of religion.

...such as?

 

[Into the Night]

Murder and rape have been around for a long time. No reason to oppose that, either.

If you try to murder and rape and get yourself damaged in the process by someone defending themselves, you earned it.

 

[Into the Night]

Probably true. Religion, like lots of things, is probably a great thing that humans corrupted.

...such as?

 

[Into the Night]

Seriously?

Now that I've finished rolling my eyes, "A philosophic doctrine that assigns reason or intellect a subordinate place in the scheme of things and questions or denies the ability of the intellect to comprehend the true nature of things ... Anything that celebrates feeling over thought, intuition over logic, action over contemplation, results over means, experience over tradition and order tends toward anti-intellectualism."

That's a good enough definition for me.

So that makes you an anti-intellectual, by your own definition.

 

[Darth Omar]

Religion is such a broad category you can only make some very general statements about it.

Then there is ‘the religion’ and the abuse of the religion. It’s hard to find anything bad about the NT for example. Even most non believers concede Jesus was an excellent moral teacher. But then there are some Christians, and yeah.

But overall I think most people would agree that the net benefits of religion in a society outweigh the negatives.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't know that. Our perception is only human.

Perception (and any observation with it) is unique to each human, since that stimuli must be interpreted by us using our own personal model of how we figure the universe works.

 

[Into the Night]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_in_Christianity

False authority fallacy. True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/102585284

Undoutedly, radiometric dating was used.

How do you know it's accurate?

 

[Into the Night]

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

You are describing a religion. Circular argument.

Science does not have a 'standard practice'. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories...no more...no less.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

The time Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden is unknown.

https://hbu.edu/museums/dunham-bibl...of-the-years-and-times-from-adam-unto-christ/

It is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.

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.

The time Adam and Eve left the Garden is unknown.

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

Math with random numbers only produces random numbers.

 

[BidenPresident]

Math with random numbers only produces random numbers.

Wrong. Randomness can be quantified.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Science is not 'practices'. It is not technology. It is not engineering. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

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

Science isn't a proof of any kind. There is no 'truth' in science. No theory can ever be proven True. There is no level of certainty in science. You have not yet defined 'reality'. Buzzword fallacy.

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

Not a whit. Science has no theories about past unobserved events, and does not depend on them.

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.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It is a nonscientific theory, and a religion.
Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. it is not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened.

 

[Into the Night]

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

We are concentrated matter and energy? Then what was the Big Bang?