Biblical literalist defends creationism, new earth, and other "science" theories

[MongGrel]

There will be NO, I repeat NO, thinking outside the box....on that website. That kind of thinking could get you crucified.

Or beheaded in some places these days.

 

[IronWing]

What is meant by "free thinking protestant"?

It means the thoughts are free, having no value.

 

[alzan]

Wow, there's more spin in that linked article than in the powertrain of a red-lined Corvette.

"Historical science" - the new buzz phrase for the rationally-challenged. I guess Ken Ham is just piling layer upon layer to the sh*t sandwich that creationists are queuing up to chomp on. Jesus-lizards, men with their pet dinos (Flintstones, anyone?); and now in one corner the challenger Historical Science vs. the champion Observational Science.

Let's get ready to Rrruuumbbbllleee!

 

[OverVolt]

Thats not religions fault... thats just a crazy person. Derp!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your explanation is one of an infinite number of other explanations that all simplify to Big Bang theory.

Well there's a problem here. I'm not going to argue religion vs whatever, nor am I selecting you out for the typical "you are a dope" purpose, but for illustration of the following point. People have faith and belief in science more than they should. More precisely they speak in terms which present a theory as fact and in many ways that's a belief system.

Let's take the Big Bang. Popularly speaking, this is how the universe came about. That's not true. It's the most popular theory based on the understanding we currently have based on other theories and observation. Well... not so fast.

Here we have a competing theory which as far as I have been able to determine has no holes punched in it (pun intended). The advantage of this theory is that it automatically resolves some serious problems with the Big Bang. Here's a rather humorous statement of one.

"For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,"

Well that might explain some things

In short we have a competing theory which unless shown otherwise is superior in many aspects to the majority opinion. If anyone has more current information which refutes this I hope they'd bring me up to speed.

Now the most common reply to my contention about belief systems in science is "well the difference between religion and science is that science is not fixed and can change". No argument there. That is an important distinction, however I'm not talking about religion or science, but how humans respond to either system. It's about us, not what we've constructed.

And that brings me to some observations which I personally find interesting. Most people exhibit faith, but don't always recognize it as such. That data leans in a particular direction gives an increased probability of correctness, however our interpretation and reaction of what the science shows is open to very human interpretation and reaction. We are often True Believers in something, and while we sometimes deny it we all have it. How did the universe come about? The Big Bang of course. Well maybe not. Even science has saints an martyrs. For me, it's an interesting thing about our species. We commonly think about things, but not as much about how we think.

Oh, that noble Galileo thing is pretty old. Someone need to get rid of that myth.

 

[Paratus]

Well there's a problem here. I'm not going to argue religion vs whatever, nor am I selecting you out for the typical "you are a dope" purpose, but for illustration of the following point. People have faith and belief in science more than they should. More precisely they speak in terms which present a theory as fact and in many ways that's a belief system.

Let's take the Big Bang. Popularly speaking, this is how the universe came about. That's not true. It's the most popular theory based on the understanding we currently have based on other theories and observation. Well... not so fast.

Here we have a competing theory which as far as I have been able to determine has no holes punched in it (pun intended). The advantage of this theory is that it automatically resolves some serious problems with the Big Bang. Here's a rather humorous statement of one.

Well that might explain some things

In short we have a competing theory which unless shown otherwise is superior in many aspects to the majority opinion. If anyone has more current information which refutes this I hope they'd bring me up to speed.

Now the most common reply to my contention about belief systems in science is "well the difference between religion and science is that science is not fixed and can change". No argument there. That is an important distinction, however I'm not talking about religion or science, but how humans respond to either system. It's about us, not what we've constructed.

And that brings me to some observations which I personally find interesting. Most people exhibit faith, but don't always recognize it as such. That data leans in a particular direction gives an increased probability of correctness, however our interpretation and reaction of what the science shows is open to very human interpretation and reaction. We are often True Believers in something, and while we sometimes deny it we all have it. How did the universe come about? The Big Bang of course. Well maybe not. Even science has saints an martyrs. For me, it's an interesting thing about our species. We commonly think about things, but not as much about how we think.

Oh, that noble Galileo thing is pretty old. Someone need to get rid of that myth.

Well let me address a couple of things. If you are suggesting I have faith in the theory of the Big Bang I don't think accurately describes my thoughts on the matter. I trust that it's currently the best and simplest explanation for our observations of the universe.

Which was actually what my point was in the post you quoted. Our observations suggest certain things about the universe. Our theories currently accurately describe these observations with a few exceptions. Now I can posit an infinite number of hypotheses that say the universe is exactly the way we describe it except for this thing, (invisible, all powerful, infinite in someway) that I believe in but can't be measured and doesn't change any observations must be true. Those hypothesis don't change the prevailing theory one iota and can be ignored. Much like 1 + 1 + 0(X^2+5X+2) =2 is just 1+1=2 no matter how much I argue X must be in the equation.

I will freely admit to having trust in the scientific process however. I have that trust because of its long history of providing verifiable answers and self-correcting when answers were wrong. So it would wrong to call what I have for the process as faith.

Lastly, I was just reading the Scientific American article on the Big Bang being the holographic boundary of a 4D star implosion. They have some interesting hypotheses and observations, but still some more data to rectify with their analysis before it can modify current theory. Assuming it can I'll trust it because it's gone through the process I trust.

 

[Exophase]

That is an important distinction, however I'm not talking about religion or science, but how humans respond to either system. It's about us, not what we've constructed.

The thing is, few people have much of a real emotional attachment to the details of what happened during the first few seconds (or less) of the universe's formation. But people can have a real stake in their religious texts. The details of say, Genesis are very significant theologically, and if you start questioning parts of the Bible you break down the narrative that the whole Bible is trustworthy and authoritative. Which starts to call the entire belief system into question. People are very, very invested in this belief system. Not only is much of their time spent and decisions made in the context of this belief system, but they've built up an entire eternity of personal benefit around it.

Bottom line, for a certain quite large group of people there is a huge incentive to be biased towards religion and cling to it being right that goes beyond simply not being comfortable with information that contradicts your current knowledge base.

 

[Retro Rob]

I will freely admit to having trust in the scientific process however. I have that trust because of its long history of providing verifiable answers and self-correcting when answers were wrong. So it would wrong to call what I have for the process as faith.

Well, I think faith is sprinkled to a greater or lesser degree on everything in the human world. After all, no matter how robust a process is, we cannot possibly know all of the answers, so by that we need faith to some degree.

 

[networkman]

WOW, you make up a whole lot of shit to support a whole lot of made up shit. How the fuck do you function in todays world with such ignorance raging through your cranium?

Or did someone tell you this load of BS, and you are too stupid to see how deep the BS is?

Wow.. just wow. You resort to personal attacks and name calling, while providing nothing to the conversation. And I'm supposedly the one who can't function in today's world?? Pathetic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you are suggesting I have faith in the theory of the Big Bang I don't think accurately describes my thoughts on the matter.

Which is why I said I wasn't selecting you out.

The thing is, few people have much of a real emotional attachment to the details of what happened during the first few seconds (or less) of the universe's formation. But people can have a real stake in their religious texts.

No they don't have an emotional attachment to the beginning of the universe, but they do have an investment about their opinions whether their understanding warrants it or not. Many accept that the Big Bang is valid not because they have a good grounding in the subject but because of social pressure to accept it as true. Being a gadfly and poking at the edges of things I was at a luncheon composed of scientists, none of which were cosmologists BTW, and casually dropped a tidbit suggesting that perhaps the Big Bang wasn't how the universe came about. You would have thought I blasphemed the Holy Spirit at a fundamentalist prayer meeting. Note that I was very careful in my choice of wording. A reasonable answer might have been "perhaps, but it's the theory which best fits our current understanding". Nope. The emotional reaction displayed was quite different. I don't know if you have had much interaction with academia and the research community, but I can say without any fear of contradiction that every human emotion and irrationality is displayed. There's even an entire social hierarchy as to what constitutes "good" science and it's a serious problem. Prestige often outweighs academic merit. Getting into Nature for example doesn't mean you are better at science than someone who did not. What it does mean is that you've pushed all the right buttons necessary to pass the standards and you can bet not all of them are based on absolute standards of quality. Some people and their work is believed in more than others. There's faith at work here. Finally people are looking into the system and trying to analyze and correct, but it's a very difficult thing indeed. You can look it up, no need to believe me

Anyway the point is that there is a distinct difference between science as an ideal and how it sometimes plays out. Continental drift would be a good example.

 

[sandorski]

Which is why I said I wasn't selecting you out.

No they don't have an emotional attachment to the beginning of the universe, but they do have an investment about their opinions and how well grounded they are does not change human nature. Many accept that the Big Bang is valid not because they have a good grounding in the subject but because of social pressure to accept it as true. Being a gadfly and poking at the edges of things I was at a luncheon composed of scientists, none of which were cosmologists BTW, and casually dropped a tidbit suggesting that perhaps the Big Bang wasn't how the universe came about. You would have thought I blasphemed the Holy Spirit at a fundamentalist prayer meeting. Note that I was very careful in my choice of wording. A reasonable answer might have been "perhaps, but it's the theory which best fits our current understanding". Nope. The emotional reaction displayed was quite different. I don't know if you have had much interaction with academia and the research community, but I can say without any fear of contradiction that every human emotion and irrationality is displayed. There's even an entire social hierarchy as to what constitutes "good" science and it's a serious problem. Prestige often outweighs academic merit. Getting into Nature for example doesn't mean you are better at science than someone who did not. What it does mean is that you've pushed all the right buttons necessary to pass the standards and you can bet not all of them are based on absolute standards of quality. Some people and their work is believed in more than others. There's faith at work here. Finally people are looking into the system and trying to analyze and correct, but it's a very difficult thing indeed. You can look it up, no need to believe me

Anyway the point is that there is a distinct difference between science as an ideal and how it sometimes plays out. Continental drift would be a good example.

Scientists understand how Science works. You will have to forgive them for trusting the process that repeatedly proves itself as being trustworthy.

 

[Matt1970]

The thing is, few people have much of a real emotional attachment to the details of what happened during the first few seconds (or less) of the universe's formation. But people can have a real stake in their religious texts. The details of say, Genesis are very significant theologically, and if you start questioning parts of the Bible you break down the narrative that the whole Bible is trustworthy and authoritative. Which starts to call the entire belief system into question. People are very, very invested in this belief system. Not only is much of their time spent and decisions made in the context of this belief system, but they've built up an entire eternity of personal benefit around it.

Bottom line, for a certain quite large group of people there is a huge incentive to be biased towards religion and cling to it being right that goes beyond simply not being comfortable with information that contradicts your current knowledge base.

Which is why I don't put a lot of 'faith' into the bible itself. There were only a handful of people deciding what did and didn't get included.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I will freely admit to having trust in the scientific process however. I have that trust because of its long history of providing verifiable answers and self-correcting when answers were wrong. So it would wrong to call what I have for the process as faith.

Back to your point. It's perfectly reasonable to have faith in a process which has consistently performed as expected. We all have faith and beliefs and they are absolutely necessary to function. Right now I'm more interested in an analysis of behaviors associated with science and interactions between people about it, and an example would be the commonly expressed sentiment that someone cannot hold religious and scientific views simultaneously. Of course they can and do. These things aren't mutually exclusive although some try to portray them as such, in effect subjecting others to "purity" tests. This is more about social hierarchies and dominance with science and religion being subjects to use. But then isn't what this forum is largely about once you peel back the layers of interaction?

 

[sandorski]

Back to your point. It's perfectly reasonable to have faith in a process which has consistently performed as expected. We all have faith and beliefs and they are absolutely necessary to function. Right now I'm more interested in an analysis of behaviors associated with science and interactions between people about it, and an example would be the commonly expressed sentiment that someone cannot hold religious and scientific views simultaneously. Of course they can and do. These things aren't mutually exclusive although some try to portray them as such, in effect subjecting others to "purity" tests. This is more about social hierarchies and dominance with science and religion being subjects to use. But then isn't what this forum is largely about once you peel back the layers of interaction?

You keep using the word "Faith", when what you mean is "Trust". Religious "Faith" is a form of Trust, but it is not the same as Trust.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Scientists understand how Science works. You will have to forgive them for trusting the process that repeatedly proves itself as being trustworthy.

I understand how science works. I don't need to forgive myself therefore I needn't forgive them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You keep using the word "Faith", when what you mean is "Trust". Religious "Faith" is a form of Trust, but it is not the same as Trust.

Substitute trust if you like but in this context it's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Retro Rob]

You keep using the word "Faith", when what you mean is "Trust". Religious "Faith" is a form of Trust, but it is not the same as Trust.

You're splitting hairs, here.

 

[sandorski]

Substitute trust if you like but in this context it's a distinction without a difference.

You're splitting hairs, here.

No and No. Religious "Faith" is Trust in something for which there is No Evidence. Trust in Science(and many other things) is based on Evidence.

 

[Retro Rob]

Substitute trust if you like but in this context it's a distinction without a difference.

Agree.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No and No. Religious "Faith" is Trust in something for which there is No Evidence. Trust in Science(and many other things) is based on Evidence.

I know you are anti-religion and are compelled to push science. That is completely irrelevant to anything I've been discussing, but then I understand the difference between a thing and how a thing may be perceived. You seem to have this purist view, this ideal vision. What is science? It's a screwdriver, a hammer, a band saw. Do you not know this?

 

[sandorski]

I know you are anti-religion and are compelled to push science. That is completely irrelevant to anything I've been discussing, but then I understand the difference between a thing and how a thing may be perceived. You seem to have this purist view, this ideal vision. What is science? It's a screwdriver, a hammer, a band saw. Do you not know this?

You are attempting to equivocate the word Faith. At least be honest with yourself.

 

[Matt1970]

You keep using the word "Faith", when what you mean is "Trust". Religious "Faith" is a form of Trust, but it is not the same as Trust.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are attempting to equivocate the word Faith. At least be honest with yourself.

In the sense I use it I am being honest. It is you who are drawing conclusions based on information you do not have and that's hardly a scientific approach. People including scientists do form opinions and weigh things based on their beliefs and have faith in them, and at times it's not rational. That you reject the human component I've been discussing makes no difference. If I say "I have faith in that person" or "I have trust" there's no difference. Even then yes, there are egos and personalities involved in science which will forcefully argue for or against something for a variety of reasons and not always on rational grounds.

You seem to think human tendencies are voided by the use of a tool, and that's far from the case. Otherwise we would have a meritocracy in place and the application of the tool of science would outweigh all other considerations.

Wrong.

Science is an organized process by which things which may be known are made accessible. It is nothing more. It is not immune to imperfect application. It is not immune to prejudice, abuse, misunderstanding, or the emotional and irrational quality in belief after the evidence suggests other alternatives. These are people doing things with all the imperfections inherent in the species. So is the saw wrong? Does the saw believe or have faith? Of course not, but again I understand the difference between the tool and it's application. There's no more to it. There's no insidious agenda. I'm not interested in the game of P&N. You understand or not. You accept or not. It does not change the reality of the real world in an applied sense.

 

[sandorski]

In the sense I use it I am being honest. It is you who are drawing conclusions based on information you do not have and that's hardly a scientific approach. People including scientists do form opinions and weigh things based on their beliefs and have faith in them, and at times it's not rational. That you reject the human component I've been discussing makes no difference. If I say "I have faith in that person" or "I have trust" there's no difference. Even then yes, there are egos and personalities involved in science which will forcefully argue for or against something for a variety of reasons and not always on rational grounds.

You seem to think human tendencies are voided by the use of a tool, and that's far from the case. Otherwise we would have a meritocracy in place and the application of the tool of science would outweigh all other considerations.

Wrong.

Science is an organized process by which things which may be known are made accessible. It is nothing more. It is not immune to imperfect application. It is not immune to prejudice, abuse, misunderstanding, or the emotional and irrational quality in belief after the evidence suggests other alternatives. These are people doing things with all the imperfections inherent in the species. So is the saw wrong? Does the saw believe or have faith? Of course not, but again I understand the difference between the tool and it's application. There's no more to it. There's no insidious agenda. I'm not interested in the game of P&N. You understand or not. You accept or not. It does not change the reality of the real world in an applied sense.

Scientists are imperfect, the Scientific Method avoids those Imperfections. When the Method is applied to an issue, the resulting conclusions are the best we have. This has been shown repeatedly and trusting them is not the equivalent of Religious Faith.

 

[Retro Rob]

Scientists are imperfect.

So the method has inherent imperfections, or scientific conclusions would never need correcting.

Stop avoiding this.