9Likes
May 23rd, 2013, 05:54 AM
Hiya,
I'm doing a research assignment on this topic (I'm obviously against the idea of creation), although I can't think of my three key questions. I need one explanatory (e.g. what is the nature of the issue), one exploratory (e.g two sides), and one expositional (solutions/compromises). Any help would be great!!
Last edited by marnixR; May 24th, 2013 at 10:05 AM. Reason: OP restored
It may be helpful to know if you intend to address intelligent design as well, which is basically just creationism in disguise.
Sometimes when trying to figure out the question you can work backwards by giving the answer first. When you know what you want your answer to be you can mold your question to fit the answer. Kind of like playing Jeopardy.
Have a look at potholer54's youtube series on the topic. Good for picking up on communication strategies for getting into the core issues that creationists are so fond of. Again and again and again. Looking at his original presentations and comparing with the revised versions suitable for schools (language! tut, tut) is a nice tactic for comparing the very direct and his simply informative approaches.
On reflection, what exactly are you doing here? Looking at science communication or ... I can't think of anything else.
Well one compromise idea is that hardly anyone argues that we do not actually exist.
One idea: Accept the idea of Intelligent design and then derive the nature of the deity or dieties involved from a study of nature. Things to bring up: varicose veins and hemerrhoids, the mechanism of "live birth" as practiced by sharks, the Allegator's penis. (the conclusion I reached was that if ID were true the creators were multiple not one, were not very intelligent, were not particularly kind, good, or moral and may well have been actively mallevolent.
Evolution is difficult to observe in action due to the long time frame of biologic change, but creation is impossible to experimentally verify. No one has ever seen anything "poofed" into existance.
except flatulence.... though I guess its more pooted into existence.Originally Posted by Sealeaf
Well one compromise idea is that hardly anyone argues that we do not actually exist.
One idea: Accept the idea of Intelligent design and then derive the nature of the deity or dieties involved from a study of nature. Things to bring up: varicose veins and hemerrhoids, the mechanism of "live birth" as practiced by sharks, the Allegator's penis. (the conclusion I reached was that if ID were true the creators were multiple not one, were not very intelligent, were not particularly kind, good, or moral and may well have been actively mallevolent.
Evolution is difficult to observe in action due to the long time frame of biologic change, but creation is impossible to experimentally verify. No one has ever seen anything "poofed" into existance.
Why did you edit away the O.P.?
No kidding, it seemed like a perfectly reasonable OP.Why did you edit away the O.P.?
Phew - I thought you were all answering a post I couldn't see....Why did you edit away the O.P.?
How do you know that it's not just us two that can't see it?
3, dinkus.... or do I not count ?
Ah, but you responded to the O.P., showing that you had read it.3, dinkus.... or do I not count ?
But I can't see it now....Ah, but you responded to the O.P., showing that you had read it.3, dinkus.... or do I not count ?
They do say it will make you go blind...
They are both very similar... No life, poof, life. Created by the universe, suns, elements, etc., or in religious terms, the "gods" or "god".
Reality is that we don't know for sure how or where life on earth began. Could have been on earth, could have not been. Could have been random chance, on earth or beyond, or it could have been intelligent life that put it here. Who knows? There are multiple different possibilities that are plausible. Perhaps even a combination of possibilities will ultimately explain life on earth... Maybe it won't.
Last edited by gonzales56; May 24th, 2013 at 07:24 AM.
Sure thing: very similar.
Natural or supernatural.
I am not sure what you mean by super natural...Sure thing: very similar.Natural or supernatural.
1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
Nonsense.
Not science.
This also highlights the other flaw in the OP (not that I can remember what it said). The comparison shouldn't be creationism vs evolution but creationism vs abiogenesis. (Although that still leaves D's point that one is science and the other isn't; even they are both describing the same thing at some suitably high level of abstraction.)
Far from nonsense IMO ddyr.. The sun is still the sun if it is your god or not. Nothing super natural about the sun. Stars supplied and supply the building blocks for life on earth and our sun helps support and sustain our life on earth. Simply knowing how the sun or stars work, or what they are made out of, does not make the sun vanish, disappear or reduce its role or importance to life on earth. Understanding stars and the sun does not stop making stars and the sun objects worthy of praise, admiration or worship.
Last edited by gonzales56; May 24th, 2013 at 08:39 AM.
The sun is not a god.
Correct.Nothing super natural about the sun.
Ergo it's not a god, ergo a "religious" explanation is invalid.
Nor does it make it a god. (And worshipping the sun is pretty pointless).Stars supplied and supply the building blocks for life on earth and our sun helps support and sustain our life on earth. Simply knowing how the sun or stars work, or what they are made out of, does not make the sun vanish, disappear or reduce its role or importance to life on earth or the universe. Understanding stars and the sun does not stop making the sun an object worthy of praise, admiration or worship.
Therefore: no similarity.
And that's the thing. One is still asking and attempting to answer the same exact questions. Because of that, one has to have a beginning, a journey and ultimately an end. No matter who asks or who answers, they are all going to be the same questions and similar answers.This also highlights the other flaw in the OP (not that I can remember what it said
Not really. One will involve chemistry and physics, the other will invoke magic.
Ddyr, you don't get to define what a god is or isn't for other people. They do not need to be mistical, they do not need to be beyond the laws in the universe. Again, praising or worshipping something for what it does or what it has done is not, IMO, nonsense. We are also getting off topic. The point is simple. We don't know how life on earth was started/created, nor always effected, and there are still many viable and realistic possibilities left to explain it.
I know some love to insult and belittle people but, magic is not real, so how can someone invoke it? LolNot really. One will involve chemistry and physics, the other will invoke magic.
Yes, they do.
A God is supernatural or divine- Period.
You're the one trying to redefine Gods, here. Even if someone uses the Sun to represent the divine being, that is irrelevant to their belief in the divine being.
It is what creationists do. Ask them, I don't know.
Since the op deleted his post and the thread has evolved into a debate over creationism and evolution, not the original expressed purpose of the op, which was simply asking for resources and advice on how to structure a research paper, maybe this thread should be moved.
It's not about biology and probably never was. It seems now that it could go to philosophy or scientific study of religion or probably where it will ultimately end up, the trash can, since that's were the tit for tat i know you are but what am I arguments over improvable concepts usually end up.
Last edited by seagypsy; May 24th, 2013 at 04:33 PM. Reason: involved should have been evolved- stoopid stoopid stoopid seagypsy
So if we define "god" as meaning electron orbitals then we can say that chemistry is a divine miracle.
And if we define "god" as meaning metabolism then my body is a temple.
And if I define "god" to mean "a nice knock-down argument" then I am Humpty-Dumpty.
Strange, I truly do feel bad for those that are blinded by their hatreds. An honest education and a basic understanding that religions attempt to answer questions and solve problems, and not ignore them, would serve many well.It is what creationists do. Ask them, I don't know.
Like prejudice and extreme judgmentalism such as observed in fundamentalist religion?
Religion is not honest with education.
They do not seek answers except answers that Glorify God.
They do not seek honest answers, they seek "answers" that validate their beliefs.
They do not seek resolution to problems, they seek their beliefs be enforced on all others.
Change every word in your post that says "religion" to "scientific method" and your post would make sense. Since you didn't do that- what you just posted was the opposite of reality.
What hatred? Unlike some on this forum (
However, creationism is not science and denies science. It is therefore wrong (*). This has nothing to do with religion.
(*) I mean in the true/false sense, rather than morally. But when it tries to interfere with teaching, etc. then it is on dodgy moral ground as well.
You need to understand that all acts, actions and miracles, if they occur, can sooner or later be explained. Don't let hatred or a lack of understanding or comprehension get in your way here. Religion might call something a miracle but, when asked how are why, viable and possible answers will come, and sooner or later the answer will be found. A scientist might call something unknown, a singularity, and they will hypothesis, viable and possible answers will come, and sooner or later the answer will be found.... The point is, the words or wording does not have to confuse you, or mess with you, so much.So if we define "god" as meaning electron orbitals then we can say that chemistry is a divine miracle.And if we define "god" as meaning metabolism then my body is a temple.And if I define "god" to mean "a nice knock-down argument" then I am Humpty-Dumpty.
I don't think Strange has ever ignored that, nor has he ever expressed any hatred for believers. He simply describes religion as he sees it, just as you describe atheists as you see them. Neither description may be perfectly accurate but none of the words he used implied hatred at all.Strange, I truly do feel bad for those that are blinded by their hatreds. An honest education and a basic understanding that religions attempt to answer questions and solve problems, and not ignore them, would serve many well.It is what creationists do. Ask them, I don't know.
If anything you took insult where none was necessary. Magic does not necessarily have to be taken negatively. Look at all the Harry Potter fans. but magic, like god, can be defined by anyone just about any way they like. Some people refer to emotions as magic. Some people refer to psychological manipulation as magic. Scientists tend to refer to anything of supernatural/outside scientific description of reality to be magic. If you took offense to that, that was your choice.
Do you think Walt Disney was a monster for creating a theme park that embraces the concept of magic in order to entertain people, especially children.
Since you say, no one can define god for everyone else, if someone decided I was god, would you argue against them, or simply say. Well gee, I guess I can't argue that since god can be anything you want it to be, so if you say so, she must be.
Or would you disqualify me as a god based on some preexisting notion of what the word "god" means?
Possibly, if we use the scientific method.
Where do you get this weird idea from? Are you projecting your own personal problems onto others, or something?Don't let hatred
I was simply pointing out (in a light-hearted way) that the word "god" has a well understood definition and it makes no sense for you to try to use it to mean "the sun". Assigning your own arbitrary definitions to words does not aid communication.
That's not what religion is but, I understand why you feel compelled to beat those type of drums against them the way you do.Like prejudice and extreme judgmentalism such as observed in fundamentalist religion?Religion is not honest with education.They do not seek answers except answers that Glorify God.They do not seek honest answers, they seek "answers" that validate their beliefs.They do not seek resolution to problems, they seek their beliefs be enforced on all others.Change every word in your post that says "religion" to "scientific method" and your post would make sense. Since you didn't do that- what you just posted was the opposite of reality.
I agree.
And if you'd bothered to actually look you'd have noted that the definition wasn't mine.
What rubbish.They do not need to be mistical
Except that religious "explanations" are neither viable nor realistic.We don't know how life on earth was started/created, nor always effected, and there are still many viable and realistic possibilities left to explain it.
Yes, it is. Take a look at I.D. being lobbied to be taught as a supposed "alternative" to evolution in schools.
Take a look at religious lobbying against freedom because they hate or are prejudiced against homosexuals. Examine how religion was used to justify racism.
What answers are provided by religion that have any bearing or basis in reality?
That is what religion is. Your denials change nothing.
That is what some religions are. There are a few that don't tend to do that. but they aren't wide spread or even widely known. However, here in the USA, the dominant religions being various forms of Abrahamic monotheism is being used as a tool by a loud aggressive few of its members for justifying hatred and interference with honest education. However, there is no way of knowing if the less hostile practitioners of other religions would not be just as forceful in their ideologies if their numbers were high enough to create a major movement. (in this case I am referring to those who adhere to ancient pagan beliefs, such as Wicca)Yes, it is. Take a look at I.D. being lobbied to be taught as a supposed "alternative" to evolution in schools.
Take a look at religious lobbying against freedom because they hate or are prejudiced against homosexuals. Examine how religion was used to justify racism.
What answers are provided by religion that have any bearing or basis in reality?
That is what religion is. Your denials change nothing.
You appear to be suffering from a great deal of misunderstanding.
If a miracle occurs then the religious "explanation would be "goddidit".
By definition there can be no scientific explanation for a miracle, so you're wrong to conflate the word "miracle" with the scientific terms "unknown" or "singularity".
No, the real point is that YOU shouldn't get confused over actual meanings.The point is, the words or wording does not have to confuse you, or mess with you, so much.
Sea, I surely do not take offense to the attacks on religion or religious beliefs. I understand why people do it. Many religious people ignorantly do it concerning science. It's highly ignorant and ape-like on both sides when it occurs but, and again, I do not take offense to it.
Unless it's an informed attack.
E.g. NF's.
Gross generalisations (yours) in no way make those attacks ignorant or ape-like.
Ddyr, I am not sure what religions you have been exposed to or have studied but, I have never ran a cross one that left anything at "god did it". There is always the what, how and why asked, and those answered are sought, scientifically.You appear to be suffering from a great deal of misunderstanding.If a miracle occurs then the religious "explanation would be "goddidit".By definition there can be no scientific explanation for a miracle, so you're wrong to conflate the word "miracle" with the scientific terms "unknown" or "singularity".No, the real point is that YOU shouldn't get confused over actual meanings.The point is, the words or wording does not have to confuse you, or mess with you, so much.
Do you think accusing Strange and others of "hate" wasn't a qualifier in your post above?
I can see you accusing me of it. But even then, I dislike fundamentalist mainstream religion; I don't hate religious people. I do find many of them annoying... But that is not hatred.
What rubbish: at the bottom all religions have "goddidit" as the main "reason/ cause".
And religions are anything but scientific.
O.P. has been restored and we're off topic.
I had formal education on 7 major religions of the world and the abrahamic faiths pretty much all leave it at, goddidit. questioning god is seen as heresy. This is per the actual texts, not as per modern loose interpretations of barely practicing faithers who practice out of habit more so than actual faith. however, if you speak to the pastors of churches you will find that a good majority of them are against the idea of questioning miracles or acts of god. Insurance companies are also quick to say "God did it" if it will get them out of paying a claim when they don't cover acts of god.Ddyr, I am not sure what religions you have been exposed to or have studied but, I have never ran a cross one that left anything at "god did it". There is always the what, how and why asked, and those answered are sought, scientifically.You appear to be suffering from a great deal of misunderstanding.If a miracle occurs then the religious "explanation would be "goddidit".By definition there can be no scientific explanation for a miracle, so you're wrong to conflate the word "miracle" with the scientific terms "unknown" or "singularity".No, the real point is that YOU shouldn't get confused over actual meanings.The point is, the words or wording does not have to confuse you, or mess with you, so much.
One Chinese person informing another Chinese person about a Tibetan might be your definition of informed but, it's my defintion of two likely ignorant Chinese people.Unless it's an informed attack.E.g. NF's.Gross generalisations (yours) in no way make those attacks ignorant or ape-like.
And just in case we forget, or it gets disappeared again...
I remember now, I was confused by the "three key questions" part of this. Is this a common approach to essay structure? (I haven't come across it before but the following description sounds reasonable).
You are assuming that NF's experience and exposure to religion is limited to only what other atheists tell him. Has it crossed your mind that some of us Atheists used to be deeply involved in ministry ourselves?One Chinese person informing another Chinese person about a Tibetan might be your definition of informed but, it's my defintion of two likely ignorant Chinese people.Unless it's an informed attack.E.g. NF's.Gross generalisations (yours) in no way make those attacks ignorant or ape-like.
I was a Bible study teacher for 5 years. Grew up in a deeply religious family. And as I mentioned before, studied religion formally. I also converted from Christianity to Islam at one point before losing faith all together. And I did have some exposure to some pagan beliefs through friends who were various types of Wiccan and/or Druidic enthusiasts (they preferred being called enthusiasts).
Stupid "argument".
I use a dictionary to confirm my definitions.
Address my points, try to avoid specious "comparisons".
Thanks to marnixR for restoring the OP.
Concerning religions, you have multiple different creation beliefs, theories and hypothesis. It really depends on what you want to do.
It is pretty clear what "creationism" means; it does not refer to arbitrary religious theories. It is very specifically a result of Biblical literalism.
If the OP had meant something more general, I'm sure they would have referred to "creation myths" or something similar.
evolution is creationism is evolution is creationism is evolution is creationism is evolution is creationism is ... ................
We are created by our shared coevolutionary biom which then evolves through our creativity.
The primordial "GOD" was most likely a cyanobacterium.
I hope that this clears up any residual ambiguity!
On that basis, it was more likely a self sustaining complex of chemical reactions, possibly obtaining energy from free protons in hydrothermal vents.
Can't use the Vedas? Those don't count as religious views or beliefs on creationism? Can't look at any other religion but Judaism?
I have always liked this religious belief concerning creation...
Vedas 10:129
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen? Whence this creation has arisen- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not - the One who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only He knows or perhaps He does not know.
In other words there is no belief espoused with regard to creation in the Vedas.
That's the biggest load of hooey I've ever read. All it says is, "Who the hell knows?!" Only it says it in the longest and most drawn out spurting possible.
I don't need religion for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk
Let me get this right. First you attack religion, claiming they declare god or gods created it all, and attack them for asking questions where god is going to be their answer, and when religion states that the universe was here before all "gods", that "gods" didn't create it, and that they do not know, you attack them for asking the tough questions without bias or ignorant motives? Lol
Keep in mind, this type of scientific approach, these type of questions, were being proposed and pondered by a religion thousands and thousands of years ago, when just 100s of years ago many scientific thinkers thought the world was the center of the universe, and flat, and they thought things like humans could not travel faster than 20 miles per hour or so without dying. Lol
Look, you can't deny that the long run on "who knows' IS a bit absurd. Either way, saying "who knows?" over and over is not asking questions nor is it an investigation.
You've got one fundie over here declaring Godidit and another guy over there shrugging his shoulders.
Not quite on par with the scientific method- that.
Provide evidence for this assertion. This is the same old tired claim repeated by fundies and cranks and you've been here long enough to know better.
Scientists did not make such claims- ignorant laymen made these claims.
Scientists followed the scientific method. Philosophers and alchemists did not.
You really should learn to read.
Religion is either "goddidit" or "Not a clue".
Wrong.Keep in mind, this type of scientific approach, these type of questions, were being proposed and pondered by a religion thousands and thousands of years ago
There is NO "scientific approach" from religions.
Pure unsupported crap.when just 100s of years ago many scientific thinkers thought the world was the center of the universe, and flat, and they thought things like humans could not travel faster than 20 miles per hour or so without dying.
I will gladly post links but first, lets not act like not knowing and stating such is hogwash. If it is, by all means tell me that science knows all the correct answers to these questions.. And please post them all. Lol
To act, state or assume that these cultures and people did not use scientific methods to advance themselves, their societies and their religious understandings and beliefs is also highly ignorant. These were highly eductated and very scientifically advanced cultures (for their time) whom were religious civilizations.
No one said it was.
Oh, straw man again.If it is, by all means tell me that science knows the all the correct answers to these questions.. And please post them all. Lol
Science is working on the questions.
Me not knowing the answer to a question does not automatically validate a religious belief as therefor correct.
A man comes to me with a haunting story and asks how I explain it if it wasn't a ghost.
I say, "I do not know. I was not there."
To him, that proves ghosts did it.
It's still hogwash.
Neverfly, and the creation passage states just that. God or gods did not create the universe, and we don't know how it was created. They did not say a ghost did it.
You start with a question, an abservation, see the end result, and figure out all the stuff inbetween. Some hypothesis/beliefs will be wrong but, you keep looking for the correct answer. Religions evolve and solve things that way as well.
No, they simply said, Maybe God did that, maybe God didn't. The implication being that there is a God, at all.
There is no mention in it, whatsoever, of any model to explain what happened. It is not like science. There is no investigation in it. You said that they seek answers... There was no answer sought in that. It did not help your case any.
And all religions use or count on the same methods to work on answers as well. Some slower than others and some faster than others but, they use scientific methods. They build, they ingineer, they farm, they study the sky, they sail, they build economies, they build armies, they go to war, they practice medicine, chemistry, they invent, etc...No one said it was.Oh, straw man again.Science is working on the questions.If it is, by all means tell me that science knows the all the correct answers to these questions.. And please post them all. Lol
It actually states that god or gods did not create the universe. And simple men and women were seen as and called "gods". Asking questions is seeking answers. Look, you can hold onto your hatreds and beliefs, I was just trying to help you out a bit.No, they simply said, Maybe God did that, maybe God didn't. The implication being that there is a God, at all.There is no mention in it, whatsoever, of any model to explain what happened. It is not like science. There is no investigation in it. You said that they seek answers... There was no answer sought in that. It did not help your case any.
Wrong again.
The fact that some people who hold a religion do those things does not mean that the religions themselves actually do so.
Thought that statement odd. It's quintessentially a religious view in its own right. Science resoundingly tells us that many things cannot be explained because either there is no evidence for their actually happening, or if they did too much of the evidence surrounding their circumstance is gone--at best we can do is develop an approximate idea of what might have happened based on patterns observed in similar phenomena if available. And to make things worse lots of religions illogically assign a purpose--yikes.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 24th, 2013 at 01:03 PM.
As far as I know, it is primarily a Judeo-Christian thing. You still seem to be confusing creation myths and creationism. Thel atter has a very specific meaning, confirmed by its use in conjunction with evolution (which it directly contradicts and denies - which other creation stories, including some Christian ones, may not).
Can you point to a single practical invention that was developed from "applied theology"?
Reading through this again, it's rather obvious this isn't a biology or science thread. Moved to general.
With the loss of the O.P., can't claim what the thread turned into... but the original intent seems to have been sort of a homework question.
Mormons believe that God is simply using higher science.Yes, they do.
A God is supernatural or divine- Period.
You're the one trying to redefine Gods, here. Even if someone uses the Sun to represent the divine being, that is irrelevant to their belief in the divine being.
It has different definitions in different religious systems. In the monotheist system(s) "god" is infinity knowledgeable, infinity powerful, and benevolent.
However, the word "god" clearly meant something else entirely to the ancient Greeks, who's god Zeus was certainly not all powerful, all knowing, or necessarily benevolent.
Non-monotheistic religions tend to be more willing to accept they don't know everything.In other words there is no belief espoused with regard to creation in the Vedas.
You appear to be suffering from a great deal of misunderstanding.
If a miracle occurs then the religious "explanation would be "goddidit".
By definition there can be no scientific explanation for a miracle, so you're wrong to conflate the word "miracle" with the scientific terms "unknown" or "singularity".
Yeah. To be more specific: if something happens that would conflict with the current scientific model:
-A scientist would check to make sure it wasn't a fluke, and then attempt to revise the current model.
-A fanatical monotheist, on the other hand, will immediately assign "god" as the cause for it.
-A moderate monotheist may go either direction, but enjoys entertaining the possibility that they may have finally found proof of "god"'s existence.
Mormons...All About Mormons "Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum" on Vimeo
Yeah, not the best example you could give.
In all of modern history,how many times have a supernatural event been proved to happen?
| « Gravity | Rocket Launch » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
