Religious Discussion [Enter at ye own Peril]

[ermen]

10 years ago at least, the Cambrian explosion presented difficulties to evolutionists. I do not know what the current thinking is.

But that aside, assuming the fossil record is true, and that carbon dating is all representative. I have an alternate observation. Imagine a Creator putting signs out there to deceive people. To disguise His existence so He cannot be found by traditional scientific inquiry.

Obviously that hypothesis is non-scientific in the traditional sense that it cannot be falsified. But I am not bounded in my professional or personal life by the limits of scientific method or consensus today. So take it as you will.

 

[TheRealTMA]

10 years ago at least, the Cambrian explosion presented difficulties to evolutionists. I do not know what the current thinking is.

But that aside, assuming the fossil record is true, and that carbon dating is all representative. I have an alternate observation. Imagine a Creator putting signs out there to deceive people. To disguise His existence so He cannot be found by traditional scientific inquiry.

Obviously that hypothesis is non-scientific in the traditional sense that it cannot be falsified. But I am not bounded in my professional or personal life by the limits of scientific method or consensus today. So take it as you will.

Well, there you go. Why not 'Her'?

Ps: The Cambrian explosion doesn't present difficulties but opportunities.

 

[jb747]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

The other thing that makes me wonder is the universe is 14 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion years old yet recorded human history is only 6,000 years old.

This comment strikes me as being a bit like 'It was in the last place I looked"....of course it was. Humans haven't been around all that long.

It took us a while to work out how to record stuff...and we're just a blip on history. How long did the dinosaurs last? I assume they weren't buried as part of the build of a theme park.

Actually, if you want to go for a creator, then perhaps a programmer is the best choice. Doesn't the granularity of reality fit nicely with our reality being a program?

What a fun thread. Anyway, I believe that next time I go flying, if I screw up, bad things will happen. That's probably even provable.....

 

[ermen]

Well, there you go. Why not 'Her'?

I knew someone would have raised said that (but it is an irrelevant point though - at least for atheists )

 

[jb747]

Religion is, of course, separate from the issue of churches. But, in the case of Christianity (which I was raised under), I do wonder why JC wasn't sent down now. We have mass media. The internet. It would have been no trouble getting his message out. Surely this was foreseen.

 

[LadyC]

But that aside, assuming the fossil record is true, and that carbon dating is all representative. I have an alternate observation. Imagine a Creator putting signs out there to deceive people. To disguise His existence so He cannot be found by traditional scientific inquiry.

Your comment reminded me of a funny Bill Hicks sketch about dinosaurs and how their fossils were put on the earth to test fundamental Christians faith.

 

[theblank]

I do wonder why JC wasn't sent down now. We have mass media. The internet. It would have been no trouble getting his message out. Surely this was foreseen.

That makes a lot of sense, but if you really followed the logic of your proposition, it will be even better in 5 years time and 1000 times better in 20 years time. In fact getting the message out to the whole world gets coughulatively better by time, so it will always be a better time *later*. Surely the best time to send Jesus down, would have been the a combination of the best AND earliest time?

The period of "Pax Romana" was an era of peace and stability in the Roman Empire that lasted 200 years, and also when it was at its largest by size and population. A person could travel freely across the empire and there was a common language. By 30 AD Pax Romana had been established for about 50 years, This presented an absolutely perfect opportunity to spread a new message throughout the modern world, there was never a better time before this.

 

[JohnK]

So a bit like religion, then?

Exactly my point. Neither are fact.

Actually, if you want to go for a creator, then perhaps a programmer is the best choice. Doesn't the granularity of reality fit nicely with our reality being a program?

Good point. Virtual reality is another of my theories of our present life.

Note use of word "present".

 

[defurax]

I'm always amazed how human-centric most people are when it comes to "life" on earth. Plants and bacteria were alive well before humans "showed up" on earth (in my case through evolution since I share so many genes with primitive bacteria...but maybe some people here were created and delivered here 6000 years ago ).

I also think a big problem in this silly debate comparing evolution to creationism is that people use the word "believe" when they shouldn't. The scientific method as its name implies is a method, there is no need to believe in a method. Religion is NOT a method to acquire knowledge through experimentation and involves a lot of "beliefs".

I aways try to tell my colleagues to try and stop using the word believe when debating scientific results/findings and instead use proper terms when putting in questions published findings (e.g artefacts, flawed data, lack of statistical power, etc.).

For anyone interested in learning more about epistemology (the theory of knowledge) there are some good books out there (although many are very dry and technical).

 

[TheRealTMA]

Exactly my point. Neither are fact.


Good point. Virtual reality is another of my theories of our present life.

Note use of word "present".

No. Rather like a poor debater whose lost the argument, instead of addressing and debating the failures in your original comments with quantitative arguments, you are trying to distract with other red herrings.

You can't go to the multiverse theory if you don't start with a Big Bang theory. It's called mathematics, it doesn't come from mystical 'beliefs'.

 

[TheRealTMA]

I knew someone would have raised said that (but it is an irrelevant point though - at least for atheists )

Well why use it? Forget the obvious debating point and provide peer reviewed evidence for your Cambrian views.

 

[theblank]

So is gravity. I'm guessing that you don't believe in gravity either?t

That is not a logical rebuttal, Gravity is observable, testable and repeatable in the present. If you do not agree, please allow me to demonstrate by holding a brick over your head...

 

[ermen]

Well why use it? Forget the obvious debating point and provide peer reviewed evidence for your Cambrian views.

Why should I? I am not part of the scientific community, and have zero research interest in evolutionary biology, or even in working within the constraints of the current "scientific method". And i dont take the scientific consensus as gospel. But as an aside, you are saying though that the Cambrian explosion never presented difficulties to the theory of evolution? You tell me. All i have to do is to produce a peer reviewed paper in any journal to the contrary and your statement above is falsified.

The more pertinent is what happens after you die? Is there anything after death? Which obviously cannot be answered within the scientific framework.

 

[ermen]

On the issue of the observation of God, I subscribe to the Heisenberg observor princirple - the more you try to measure / observe, the more you can't.

 

[RooFlyer]

Sorry to interrupt this conversation. But:

Just because one holds a PHD in whatever does not make one right.
<snip>.

No, but if its in a relevant field, it makes the PhD holder's comments and observations a hellavalot more respectable and coherent than your average AFFer.

<snip>
And on the "creationism versus I don't know what the alternative is (non-creationism? evolution?)". I will only take a contrary view seriously if someone can give me a coherent explanation on the origins of life (not the origins of cough sapiens.... but life). How did in-organic matter become organic? Even by logical induction going backwards, a creation be definition needs a creator.
<snip>.

Are you after a coherent explanation here, or in general? Its a topic that lends itself to something for serious than a Frequent Flyer blog, so if you really want a good explanation, go to a library, or go to a Uni or similar, enrol, and do a bit of reading and study. But if that doesn't appeal, perhaps respect those who have studied it and can put forward informed propositions.

There are others here who could follow a similar path - if they actually wanted some information.


Folks, none of these concepts are simple. Radiometric dating of rocks just by itself needs a year or two of physics to properly grasp and for the student to be able to derive the technique for themselves. To understand the basis for the theory of evolution isn't a matter of reading about Charles Darwin on Wikipedia.

Not everyone has the time, ability (or, these days, money) to undertake the amount of study to properly understand and assimilate all this stuff.

But it is just plain ignorant if you don't understand, or worse, you don't understand and then don't take the trouble to do some basic reading on the topic and then say you doubt or don't believe or nay-say something.

Personally, I haven't studied art or Egyptian history to know for certain myself that da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa nor that the Egyptians built the pyramids. But at my level, I'm happy for those qualified to tell me so, and I don't need to postulate that the painting or the pyramids were just 'created' one day ex nihilo.

Yes, that idea does sound silly, doesn't it? But its all too familiar in this thread.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Why should I? I am not part of the scientific community, and have zero research interest in evolutionary biology, or even in working within the constraints of the current "scientific method". And i dont take the scientific consensus as gospel. But as an aside, you are saying though that the Cambrian explosion never presented difficulties to the theory of evolution? You tell me. All i have to do is to produce a peer reviewed paper in any journal to the contrary and your statement above is falsified.

The more pertinent is what happens after you die? Is there anything after death? Which obviously cannot be answered within the scientific framework.

More red herrings.
So where's the paper?

 

[TomVexille]

That is not a logical rebuttal, Gravity is observable, testable and repeatable in the present. If you do not agree, please allow me to demonstrate by holding a brick over your head...

It's not meant to be. It's meant to point out the deficiencies of the proposed position that theories are obviously not factual. If you can't tell I believe in the theory of gravity. As for your proposed experiment, you're welcome to hold one over my head, but I would baulk at you releasing said brick

 

[jb747]

That makes a lot of sense, but if you really followed the logic of your proposition, it will be even better in 5 years time and 1000 times better in 20 years time. In fact getting the message out to the whole world gets coughulatively better by time, so it will always be a better time *later*.

Not if they're using the NBN...

 

[moa999]

Not if they're using the NBN...

Mixing politics and religion... Dangerous

 

[theblank]

It's not meant to be. It's meant to point out the deficiencies of the proposed position that theories are obviously not factual.

except that he did not propose that 'scientific theories' are not factual.

The word theory has 3 different meanings, can sometimes be ambiguous, but its obvious which one is referred to by the context.
Everyone knows what he meant by "its just a theory". he did not say "it's just a scientific theory"

That the commonly used phrase Big Bang theory (probably due to TV show) has the word theory in it does provide an easy opportunity for some to play semantics with, and its about 100% predictable that the first comeback will be about gravity, even though Gravity itself is not a scientific theory.