DISCUSSION: Creation of Man
-
Rather bio students' standard POV.Originally posted by Icemoon:I wonder what effect it has on those science students. Science students learn about evolution right?
-
Yeah.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Rather bio students' standard POV.
I attended the one last time; the speaker was a "scientist". When an authority speaks, you wonder what effects it has on those impressionable minds. -
i am sure atheist organised conferences also one sided....Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:These kind of conferences always have 1 sided views. -
It shouldn't when the agenda is science.Originally posted by Chin Eng:i am sure atheist organised conferences also one sided....
-
why not???Originally posted by Icemoon:It shouldn't when the agenda is science.
the reason for organising such conference is had always been, to promote ones own ideology/view, which is why these are normally one sided...
agenda is science??? sure, same as this conference here, they also say its science but with the assumption that Evolution theory is non-sciencific, so the same will probably be if its organised by Atheist, the assumption will be Creation theory is just fairy tale.
A truely balanced view will be something that is very rare to come by ... -
Actually Creation Scientists do not promote 'creation theory'. They know they can't, because no respectable scientist will pebble a scientific theory with non scientific stuffs, like God.Originally posted by vince69:why not???
the reason for organising such conference is had always been, to promote ones own ideology/view, which is why these are normally one sided...
agenda is science??? sure, same as this conference here, they also say its science but with the assumption that Evolution theory is non-sciencific, so the same will probably be if its organised by Atheist, the assumption will be Creation theory is just fairy tale.
A truely balanced view will be something that is very rare to come by ...
Instead they wrap their theory with science and call it just that - creation science.
This is the danger. Like what evolutionists always say, to accept creation science is to *overturn* many other branches of science, like paleontology, geology, astronomy etc.
A truly balanced view is easy to come by, 'cos both sides are discussing science. The problem is creation scientists do not dare to rise up to the challenge. -
Darn, Icemoon has said all I needed to say. What can I say?Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually Creation Scientists do not promote 'creation theory'. They know they can't, because no respectable scientist will pebble a scientific theory with non scientific stuffs, like God.
Instead they wrap their theory with science and call it just that - creation science.
This is the danger. Like what evolutionists always say, to accept creation science is to *overturn* many other branches of science, like paleontology, geology, astronomy etc.
A truly balanced view is easy to come by, 'cos both sides are discussing science. The problem is creation scientists do not dare to rise up to the challenge. -
you can tambah satu right?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Darn, Icemoon has said all I needed to say. What can I say?
-
Later, I add salt and vinegar..Originally posted by Icemoon:you can tambah satu right? -
Creation Scienctist tends to try to find evidence to debunk Evolution theory.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually Creation Scientists do not promote 'creation theory'. They know they can't, because no respectable scientist will pebble a scientific theory with non scientific stuffs, like God.
Instead they wrap their theory with science and call it just that - creation science.
This is the danger. Like what evolutionists always say, to accept creation science is to *overturn* many other branches of science, like paleontology, geology, astronomy etc.
A truly balanced view is easy to come by, 'cos both sides are discussing science. The problem is creation scientists do not dare to rise up to the challenge.
Evolution Scienctist have the pre-assumption that Creation theory have no place in Science.
A truly balanced view is not easy to come by, 'cos its not both sides are discussing science only, rather it can only happen only if both side can sit down and discuss without any preconception that the other is definitely wrong, without the preagenda to prove the other party wrong.
Without this pre-condition of being neutral, the end result will only be arguments not discussion. -
Indeed Creation theory has no place in science. Since when can you invoke God and miracles in science?!Originally posted by vince69:Creation Scienctist tends to try to find evidence to debunk Evolution theory.
Evolution Scienctist have the pre-assumption that Creation theory have no place in Science.
A truly balanced view is not easy to come by, 'cos its not both sides are discussing science only, rather it can only happen only if both side can sit down and discuss without any preconception that the other is definitely wrong, without the preagenda to prove the other party wrong.
Without this pre-condition of being neutral, the end result will only be arguments not discussion.
You can see who has the agenda here. I don't think there is a need to support evolution theory just 'cos it "disproves" the existence of God. There are theistic scientists who support evolution; there are atheistic scientists who support evolution; so what does this show? -
or rather, Science cannot explain God and Miracles...Originally posted by Icemoon:Indeed Creation theory has no place in science. Since when can you invoke God and miracles in science?!
You can see who has the agenda here. I don't think there is a need to support evolution theory just 'cos it "disproves" the existence of God. There are theistic scientists who support evolution; there are atheistic scientists who support evolution; so what does this show?
For example; Miracles itself in its definition means something that is beyond explaination. If science can be invoke to explain it, then in this act, its not a miracle any more, does it?
Similarily, if science can define God, then is He still God? in this case, won't science itself had became God?
I do not profess to know everything, in fact I know very little of this universe and the wonders within it. But I do know one thing, which is, without an open mind and a sincere heart, there can be no meaningful discussion. -
Just out of curiosity, if you were to be a research scientist to study the origin of Men, which theory would you subscribe? why?Originally posted by Icemoon:Indeed Creation theory has no place in science. Since when can you invoke God and miracles in science?!
You can see who has the agenda here. I don't think there is a need to support evolution theory just 'cos it "disproves" the existence of God. There are theistic scientists who support evolution; there are atheistic scientists who support evolution; so what does this show?
* I would chose Evolution.....
why? if not evolution, what else? Creation? imagine the entire thesis in one sentence "In the begining, there is God, He spoke and all things were created." The End.
...............after this... end of research .... ....
-
That is not even a scientific theory.Originally posted by vince69:Just out of curiosity, if you were to be a research scientist to study the origin of Men, which theory would you subscribe? why?
* I would chose Evolution.....
why? if not evolution, what else? Creation? imagine the entire thesis in one sentence "In the begining, there is God, He spoke and all things were created." The End.
...............after this... end of research .... ....
The research scientist will be fired 'cos he has contributed nothing to his scientific field. He just paraphrased the bible isn't it? -
Whoa. vince and Ice have said almost everything I wanted to say. Creationists are essentially fundamentalists who wrap themselves thinly in the veil they call "Science" (sarcasm is meant). It's embarrassing to see how some Christians choose to conduct themselves in areas where they should know better. Science in itself is no way to deal with the existence of God, or whether He performed His miracles this way, or another way.
To be honest, I've been hanging out in the "Religion" section in the library for quite a bit, and there are actually some well-argued and substantial scientific arguments that reconcile Creation (on the scale of the Universe; humans aren't covered in the research paper I read) and science. The whole concept of space-time is really intriguing. -
So if more and more things get explained by science, then there will be less miracles isn't it?Originally posted by vince69:or rather, Science cannot explain God and Miracles...
For example; Miracles itself in its definition means something that is beyond explaination. If science can be invoke to explain it, then in this act, its not a miracle any more, does it?
Similarily, if science can define God, then is He still God? in this case, won't science itself had became God?
I do not profess to know everything, in fact I know very little of this universe and the wonders within it. But I do know one thing, which is, without an open mind and a sincere heart, there can be no meaningful discussion.
Science cannot define God, however science can point to a god.
Open mind? Christians are not known to have an open mind. You see, the mention of creation not happening in 7 days but billion of years scare the hell out of them. When did they ever try to have a meaningful discussion? They impose their science on the state like religious dogma that's all.
I find it amusing Christians can accuse Jews of following the Torah to the letter. Yet the same Christians are also guilty of following the Bible to the letter when it comes to matters of creation. -
Yah lor .. it is amazing why some Christians think unless you believe in their creation science, it is illogical to believe in the bible and God.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:To be honest, I've been hanging out in the "Religion" section in the library for quite a bit, and there are actually some well-argued and substantial scientific arguments that reconcile Creation (on the scale of the Universe; humans aren't covered in the research paper I read) and science. The whole concept of space-time is really intriguing.
Not only space-time, but also those what-the-hell superstring and latest research in physics. -
ah... he will be fired not because of paraphased the bible, its because, there is really nothing fanciful to write about, there is not much descriptions (everything can be cramp into 1 chapter), there is no excitement, no exploration, there is absolutely nothing new to write about.Originally posted by Icemoon:That is not even a scientific theory.
The research scientist will be fired 'cos he has contributed nothing to his scientific field. He just paraphrased the bible isn't it?
imagine a one sentence or a one chapter thesis.... sure get F one. because, not enough to write papers.
in fact, Creation (christian perspective) can be further cramp into 4 words...
"God Spoke, its done".
maybe creation scientist are rare... cause most of them failed their thesis..... errr... Professor... really nothing more to write leh, how to come out with a 100,000 words thesis...
-
yah lor... and you forgot I am insane one meh... or was it bo chap...Originally posted by Icemoon:So if more and more things get explained by science, then there will be less miracles isn't it?
Science cannot define God, however science can point to a god.
Open mind? Christians are not known to have an open mind. You see, the mention of creation not happening in 7 days but billion of years scare the hell out of them. When did they ever try to have a meaningful discussion? They impose their science on the state like religious dogma that's all.
I find it amusing Christians can accuse Jews of following the Torah to the letter. Yet the same Christians are also guilty of following the Bible to the letter when it comes to matters of creation.
hmmm... interesting hur...
one interesting question... not related to topic, but somewhat along your line of discussion here, regarding this billion of years thing... how was it determined that creation was created billion if years and not million of years? I don;t think carbon dating is the tool, right? cause there is a limitation on how long the period it can measured, just cannot remember how they did the dating part. sorry...
oh... I won;t be suprised that some if not most Jews do follow the Torah to the letter, to them the Torah is their way of living, it defines their identity ,,etc and hence very important to them... (which puts christians to shame, especially bochap ones like me) -
...i support evolution.... up to a point. of course it all depends on how we define "evolution".Originally posted by Icemoon:Indeed Creation theory has no place in science. Since when can you invoke God and miracles in science?!
You can see who has the agenda here. I don't think there is a need to support evolution theory just 'cos it "disproves" the existence of God. There are theistic scientists who support evolution; there are atheistic scientists who support evolution; so what does this show?
i don't see scientific arguments as disproving the creation according to Genesis. to me, the sequence of creation recorded in Genesis underlines the fact that there is a higher power at work. if anything, science, to me, proves that there is a God. -
Sorry folks. Been away a little, buried under a mountain of work. I've resurfaced! Woot.
I'm up for going to the talk thingy.
I'll post more tonight~ -
There is something called 'creation theory'. There is something called 'creation science'.Originally posted by vince69:ah... he will be fired not because of paraphased the bible, its because, there is really nothing fanciful to write about, there is not much descriptions (everything can be cramp into 1 chapter), there is no excitement, no exploration, there is absolutely nothing new to write about.
imagine a one sentence or a one chapter thesis.... sure get F one. because, not enough to write papers.
in fact, Creation (christian perspective) can be further cramp into 4 words...
"God Spoke, its done".
maybe creation scientist are rare... cause most of them failed their thesis..... errr... Professor... really nothing more to write leh, how to come out with a 100,000 words thesis...
The former you can preach in church. Oh well, who doesn't preach that in church?
The latter is what gets into scientific discussion.
It is not that they have nothing to write, but that they see NO NEED to write. Scientists research the unknown to find out more, to confirm or disprove their theory. "Creation scientists" research to ground their belief in the creation theory, and to prove the regular scientists wrong. Is it any wonder there is no progress in creation science? -
There are other kinds of dating more suitable for longer periods of time, like potassium-argon.Originally posted by vince69:one interesting question... not related to topic, but somewhat along your line of discussion here, regarding this billion of years thing... how was it determined that creation was created billion if years and not million of years? I don;t think carbon dating is the tool, right? cause there is a limitation on how long the period it can measured, just cannot remember how they did the dating part. sorry...
oh... I won;t be suprised that some if not most Jews do follow the Torah to the letter, to them the Torah is their way of living, it defines their identity ,,etc and hence very important to them... (which puts christians to shame, especially bochap ones like me)
The irony is while Jews follow Torah to the letter, they did not start this thing called creation science. Jewish tradition (both orthodox and mystical) allows for an old earth and universe. So they have no problems accepting modern science with its implication of old earth/universe. -
Icemoon is 1 person argumentative poster.... No need for my salt and vinegar.
-
You can still tambah satu.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Icemoon is 1 person argumentative poster.... No need for my salt and vinegar.