Are there any Creationists out there?

[Marty_d]

I love the Carl Sagan novel "Contact" (and the movie starring Jodie Foster wasn't bad either).

 

 

[willedoo]

AND if there are advanced civilizations out there, where are their tourists?

Good point. We always tend to think there's some more advanced civilizations out there flying around in their flying saucers. It's possible, but it's also possible that we are the most advanced in the universe. Some might be living like cave men, and others just about to discover gunpowder and taxes. We might be the leaders in civilization. Maybe we're just suffering from too much Hollywood and some sort of cultural cringe with this idea that others are naturally more advanced than us.

 

 

[willedoo]

That's why I scoff at UFO sightings - in the extremely remote chance that any advanced aliens live close enough to visit, they're still not going to do it in what looks like a space-going version of a Jab 170.

Marty, I don't exactly scoff at the sightings. But given the documentaries on the subject, why would any sane aliens fly or time warp all that way just to kidnap and beam up John Boy in his F Truck, perform anal probes and other medical experiments, and then release him in a confused and dishevelled state in a cornfield and then just piss off back to where they came from. It defies human logic.

 

Putting the shoe on the other foot, why would the human race spend thousands of years developing technology to time travel somewhere just to check out some funny looking aliens. It all makes for great movies and entertainment, but that's about the extent of it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Any thing is almost possible. Our small imagination cannot cope with universe type situations. Crossing the Nullarbor is still a big deal especially if you are walking. WE are of THIS planet, developed to suit over a really long time from materials and conditions that are widely variable. No two humans are the same except some twins come close. If this show was re run the outcome would not be the same even though the ingredients and environment might seem similar. A perfect paddock won't produce a horse no matter how long you wait. If life is found somewhere (and I feel it will) chances of it being like us are infinitely unlikely. We have faults of design that has just come with the package as part of the circumstances of how we evolved. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

UFO sightings have dropped to just about zero since phones started having cameras built in. Before UFO's it was sightings of a religious nature that were all the go. No phone-cameras in those days either.

 

But isn't the universe of the creationists tiny and pathetic compared to the universe we know from science. The comparison is like a modern ocean ship compared to a dugout canoe. Good evidence, say I, that the writers of genesis were just ignorant ancient tribesmen. But at least they had the excuse of not knowing better.

 

 

[facthunter]

The anti science movement is worrying. Deliberately choosing to be ignorant yet using the products of science when it suites them. of course not all STUFF is worth having . I'm talking of the knowledge, which is fascinating and priceless. We live in a unique time of missed opportunity unfortunately. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Human LOGIC . Is that like military intelligence in any way?. Nev

 

 

[Geoff13]

Human LOGIC . Is that like military intelligence in any way?. Nev

Earthling Logic is the reason that aliens fly right past us without stopping.

 

 

[octave]

Firstly let me just say that I did not post this question nor would I. I don't particularly have a problem with what anyone believes. I can only speak for myself but I mostly criticise ideas and not people. You can not prove the absence of a creator. You can however provide strong evidence for the age and size of the universe the age of the earth etc.

 

I pretty much always post links to supporting evidence and whilst I have no problem with anyone disputing the evidence it would be more impressive if it came with an explanation of how a particular study or paper is wrong.

 

Not sure what you mean by "atheistic cronyism" could you explain?

 

But it appears that is not to be. All the burbling so far herein has been based on previous, irrelevant conclusions that do not follow through with any evidence.

Again check out my links and then feel free to disagree but again I would say it is always more impressive to highlight what it is you think is false.

 

Proofs that no party can either confirm or deny but those segments often taken as fact by those easily confused by the fantasy or credo of badge worthy personnel

I guess you are criticising peer review? When I go to my GP he/she may prescribe medication for me. I do not take it because I have absolute faith in my GP but I do have faith in the system of peer review studies and also epidemiological studies. This does not mean that the science of medicine never gets it wrong. Scientists do not usually use the word fact in relation to science. Science can only strive the give the answer that fits the available evidence at the time given the current analytical methods.

 

People often talk about belief in evolution. I do not "believe" in evolution but rather I accept that the evidence from many different fields supports the theory. I would be excited and fascinated if say fossils were found deposited out of order (in terms of age).

 

Now fellas, instead of rushing into print with the usual; ah f…! these are the scientific facts! Give me the undoubtable proof of your seemingly infinite scientific wisdom.

I can not give you proof of my "undoubtable" of my infinite scientific knowledge because I don't have that and I don't believe I have ever asserted that. I consider myself reasonabley well read but I still consult an expert about my health, I may do some of my own research and canvas other experts however I do not have the knowledge or training to diagnose and prescribe for myself.

 

May I humbly suggest you begin with the philosophical scientific premis of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent (Modus tollens) rather than the normal illusionary acceptance of science without confirmation.

I am not sure exactly which science you are applying this to but if we consider Einsteins theory of relativity which proved mathematically that time flows at different rates dependant on the observers relative speed. At the time this could not be measured but the maths was pretty solid. During Einsteins lifetime this was never physically "confirmed". Now not only has it been confirmed but we use it ever day when we switch on our GPS. Yay science.

 

Scientific method works, it does not necessarily have instant and comforting answers but does gradually wind it's way towards truth. It's great strength is that it is driven by trying to know more today than we knew yesterday.

 

Mark if people quoting scientific studies annoys you, you surely must absolutely livid when people quote the bible, are these not stories without confirmation? They are certainly contradictory.

 

So what if red shift does not indicate an expanding universe? What if there was no cosmic inflation or big bang, so what? just means we keep gathering evidence until we can come up with a theory that better describes the evidence.

 

Mark, I just would like to preface this next bit with the disclaimer that I do not presume to know what you believe so I am not addressing this to you.

 

I don't really understand why SOME religious folk are so determined to disprove the current cosmology. A favourite game of mine when having this argument is to say "wait, your right, there must be a god, praise be to allah" the point being that even if they could prove that there is a cosmic architect, it tells you nothing of the nature of this creator.

 

If cosmology is bollocks and if it turns out that there was a cosmic architect then my question would be so what? It does not really change the way I live my life.I can think of no reason such an architect would be so fragile that my non belief could be such an issue for he/she/it.

 

Anyway I really don't care what others believe as long it does not interfere with education or the right of people to live their lives as they see fit as long.

 

Cheers

 

Octave

 

 

[octave]

all religious study (theism) if/when using fair comparisons, will lead only to the one source;

Could expand on this? I am not sure exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that all theism leads to the conclusion that there is a god? Not trying to be a pain, I just don't want to misunderstand your point.

 

however, as to the non belief of your own being

umm have I suggested I do not believe in my own being, I do believe in my own being, again I am not quite sure what you are saying here.

 

Incidentally, you claim atheism, but did you ever study theism

It depends on what you mean by study. I consider myself to be reasonably well read but certainly I have not formally studied theism but then I haven't studied homeopathy either but this does not mean I am not sceptical of its efficacy. I also have not studied the paranormal. I have studied physics though.

 

 

[Bruce]

Mark, are you a creationist or not? I prefer geography as my science in this argument, and I say that the biblical "firmament" is completely disproved and you can verify this yourself if you get in a plane.

 

Now I admit that the bronze-age tribesmen who wrote genesis did not have access to a plane ... so they got it wrong, understandably. What is hard for me to understand is how some people claim that those tribesmen were correct in every detail.. this is what I mean by a creationist.

 

 

[robinsm]

remember, when god made man she was only joking...lol

 

 

[facthunter]

MAN made god in his own image. That's why god has so many flaws, and needs to be worshipped with all thy heart and all thy mind or you won't get anywhere but eternal damnation. Pretty strong sales proposition. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep Nev, here's the deal...

 

Give us your money and obedience now and you will live like a millionaire forever after you are dead.

 

Otherwise eternal torture.

 

Not a bad deal huh

 

 

[octave]

No Bruce not a creationist in your terminology... as it would appear. You could categorise me as a broad realist though.

Mark you posts are quite enigmatic, it is quite hard to get a handle on what you do believe or accept, of course what you believe is a private matter but it does make it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. When you say that you are "not a creationist" in your (Bruce's) terminology, what do you mean?

 

I am quite happy to say that I believe it is unlikely that the universe was created by a supernatural being and if it was I do not believe that this being requires any kind of worship. I most certainly do not believe in any kind of eternal afterlife.

 

 

[Bryon]

I believe in my creator being, but my creation stories tell me of evolution

 

 

[facthunter]

With energy and matter being interchangeable and superdense centres of collapsed stars existing, it would appear that it's all mostly space. Light passes through quite a few substances. X rays through even more. and other cosmic rays as well. Hydrogen being the initial elemental substance and more the complex (heavier) elements forming in supernova's. There's certainly been a mind numbing amount of energy about at times (and still is). I don't see room for a hairy fairy it the sky in all of this. The "known" universe is so big. was it all there just for a few educated apes on a flat firmament to wonder at as their eyes were augmented by telescopes and brainpower by computers? Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Just recently there was an announcement that scientists had just managed to research further back into the big bang. I am wondering if they get right back to the start, what was there before that? Before the big bang there must have been something or are we to believe that matter just suddenly occurred?

 

Personally I am happy to let others wonder about it and I will stay dumb and happy.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't like to put people in boxes. It diminishes them, and I don't like it done to me for the same reason. Many only regurgitate other's ideas. Can be unproductive. You might as well read the latest McGraw-Hill stuff or whatever is the flavour now, yourself, rather than listen to them. I don't trust what is printed much It's only a some humans latest thing but we know FA really about a lot of things, Most things, actually even though we have come a long way in the last 500 years or so we are only scratching the surface of what's out there. I reached the limit of my brain long ago, but I realise what I don't know is vast. You can live without having all the answers though I don't think our ancestors would have liked that in a hostile environment. It would pay to be able to anticipate the risks and cope with them. More chance to survive which seems to be a very strong instinct all throughout your life but not realistic in science. Most thing's I've achieved, which is not a lot, have been done the hard way and I'm here because of a fair amount of luck..Nev

 

 

[octave]

that there are a lot of folk that preach and quote science, but are hard pushed to put it all into a reality.

Not exactly sure what you mean but what is wrong with quoting science? or for that matter history or geography or any other area of human knowledge??? Of course there is something wrong with deliberately misquoting science (or any other field of knowledge) Certainly I have quoted anything that is scientifically inaccurate I would hope that you could alert me because i am always up for learning.

 

I would swear on a stack of science manuals there are more than just a few herein that appear to think there is a yesterday… and indeed even a tomorrow; that actually exists beyond the mere point of reference.

Please can you explain exactly what this means I do not understand your point, i have shown this post to 4 other people and they don't understand it either, perhaps we are all thick but could you reword that a child would understand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

I have accepted what I call the "scientific method" as a good process most of my life which has several stages in is process involving a hypothesis a theory and a law such as those of Newton re forces due motion and inertia . Science is subject to charlatans and pseudo science occasionally but those who do this should end up being exposed if the methods used were suspect, leading to erroneous and misleading conclusions. Scientists accept peer review and question their own works as part of the process if they are done without deception and based on correct/acceptable logic and repeatable processes. These are my words and somewhat clumsy no doubt but science is not the same as belief. People who have challenged science often have used some of the questions scientists ask of them selves and others as proof that there is no or little agreement when that is not the case. Often Vested Interests deliberately wanting to muddy the waters, challenging the existence of any concensus. Another example is the suggestion of scientists expressing certain views to keep their jobs. That would be a certain way to lose credibility in the game. Astrology is not science nor is intelligent design as two examples. Oft quoted is "you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts" and there is scant regard for truth in certain circles as it would get in the way of profit and the gaining of power or control of followers.

 

In the CSIRO diet some years back the sponsorship of the Cattlemans or some Beef Industry sponsors was considered to possibly compromise the recommendations re the high protein "Red Meat" content in that diet, quite understandably whether it did or not prejudice the science in that situation. Dairy farmers similarly are not likely to welcome assertions of the existence of sensitivity to lactose intolerance either.. nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

My interp of what Mark Skid wrote is that time is subjective. The present is a construct of the observer. The present of someone 1000 years ago, or the present of a dinosaur, are just as real as my present today. An observer outside of time would see them all as equal. Past and future mean something to me, but not to the universe. None of that suggests there is a divine being.

 

 

[robinsm]

So, no warranty I guess?

 

 

[Marty_d]

In the CSIRO diet some years back the sponsorship of the Cattlemans or some Beef Industry sponsors was considered to possibly compromise the recommendations re the high protein "Red Meat" content in that diet, quite understandably whether it did or not prejudice the science in that situation.

There may have been some conflict of interest, but from a personal perspective the CSIRO diet worked for me once (a few years ago - I've crept back up again!) But yes at the time I actually increased my meat consumption on the diet.

 

 

[facthunter]

Older persons may lose muscle Mass with weight loss so the higher protein was justified on that basis, I understand. Nev