Tamp&Puff member-recommended eBay sellers →  bobus  •  great estate-pipes  •  Judd  •  irishlefty  •  knobby  •  pipestud  •  shiny pipes  •  secondhandsmoker

Creation Museum

Friendly and intelligent discussion about politics and other controversial topics takes place here. No rules yet. Enter at your own risk. You must request to join "controversy" user group to use this forum.

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:52 pm

HowlinWolf wrote:Empirical evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be. By which I mean that the sharpest, deepest minds of all time from Ptolemy up thru Fred Hoyle are now considered a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment.

It follows that taking a derisive view of anything because it's based on more antiquated modes of thought, or is inconsistent with current empirical science, is either naively optimistic or perhaps disingenuous.

Everything scientists are saying today will eventually be discarded as being incorrect or incomplete. Given the pace of science we should live to see several take place, as it no longer takes 300 years to disprove things.


That's the thing about 'science' that I like. It's only as good as is currently available. So old theories are changed discarded etc when new evidence comes along.
I also like the belief differential between the sciences and religion
A religious persons has belief in deity X and it's mostly beyond question as they believe it to be true and final
Now a scientist comes along proposes a theory with data to back it up saying I've looked at this and believe the theory is sound. What he is saying is I've noticed this and believe it fits anyone care to work on it and further it or disprove it
Human and universe thinking and the difference between them.
Please note none of the above is meant to be disparaging to any religion whatsoever
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:56 pm

Creationists exist in the uk too. About twelve months ago some religious group knocked at my front door I do chat with them so......
The ages of the earth creation tests sent by god in the form of dinosaurs to weed out the weak minded individual (there words not mine) I like to think I held my own but they gave up when I asked if they didn't believe in the fossil record etc what had they filled there car with to get here
No answer just walked off
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby HowlinWolf » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:51 pm

The Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Upanishads or the Whateveryouwant were written centuries upon centuries ago and tell what Joseph Campbell called creation stories in a way that the people of the time could grasp. Their age and simplicity are not prima facie evidence that they are true OR untrue.

To take these ancient creation stories to task because they are not consistent with man’s current scientific understanding of the universe is kind of a cheap shot, particularly when the thinking person is confident that some key parts of this Wonderful Science s/he is using as "evidence" will be disproven in the future, near or otherwise.
It's a damned sweet gig when you can term the likely future bankruptcy of of your evidence as progress instead of having to say: what I say will someday be proven wrong. :lol: In most other situations that kind of thing just won't play.

(for instance: gravity isn't necessarily "true" anymore, nor is it necessarily "true" anymore that two things can't be in the same place at the same time nor can the same one thing be in two places at the same time. The cat in the box is dead and alive at the same time. Or neither. Both are equally true on some level. Or untrue. If that's so, then all bets on all tables at all locations are pretty much off, aren't they? The take-away being that there is no longer an expectation that things will be true forever. Unchanging truth/fact is an outmoded concept, even at the metaphysical or foundational physical level. )

99.999999% of the folks who believe that science proves or disproves something don’t have the slightest grasp of the math or theory involved, yet they still believe it.
How is that position qualitatively different than or intellectually superior to the ancient peoples’ The Big Guy In The Sky Told Me This But I Don’t Know WTF He Meant Or That's It's Even True -- But I Think I'd Better Believe It Just In Case?

Is today’s scientific creation story more complicated? Yes. Did it take more work to formulate today’s creation story? Yes. Is today’s creation story just as far off from the actual truth as the ancient creation stories? Yes.

Using science as an explanation for
or refutation of the existence of God
is strictly for the edification of yourself and those who agree with you. But note that Occam’s Razor applies.
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission.
User avatar
HowlinWolf
Plank Owner
Plank Owner
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Upstate/Central NY, USA

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:50 pm

HowlinWolf wrote:The Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Upanishads or the Whateveryouwant were written centuries upon centuries ago and tell what Joseph Campbell called creation stories in a way that the people of the time could grasp. Their age and simplicity are not prima facie evidence that they are true OR untrue.

To take these ancient creation stories to task because they are not consistent with man’s current scientific understanding of the universe is kind of a cheap shot, particularly when the thinking person is confident that some key parts of this Wonderful Science s/he is using as "evidence" will be disproven in the future, near or otherwise.
It's a damned sweet gig when you can term the future bankruptcy of of your evidence as progress instead of having to say: what I said was wrong. :lol: In most walks of life, that kind of thing just won't play.

(for instance: gravity isn't necessarily "true" anymore, nor is it necessarily "true" anymore that two things can't be in the same place at the same time nor can the same one thing be in two places at the same time. Or so they tell us these days. If that's so, then all bets on all tables at all locations are pretty much off, aren't they? The take-away being that everything's at least potentially true, except OC religion.)

99.999999% of the folks who believe that science proves or disproves something don’t have the slightest grasp of the math or theory involved, yet they still believe it.
How is that position qualitatively different than or intellectually superior to the ancient peoples’ The Big Guy In The Sky Told Me This But I Don’t Know WTF He Meant Or That's It's Even True -- But I Think I'd Better Believe It Just In Case?

Is today’s scientific creation story more complicated? Yes. Did it take more work to formulate today’s creation story? Yes. Is today’s creation story just as far off from the actual truth as the ancient creation stories? Yes.

Using science as an explanation for
or refutation of the existence of God
is strictly for the edification of yourself and those who agree with you. But note that Occam’s Razor applies.


occams razor there ids a term ive not heard in a while, back to the science though i find it rather endearing some of the best minds are trying to plod through data and theories just to further our understanding
gravity is true its discernible drop a brick on over your foot see what happens, that isnt to say what we think we know is fixed and will probably be subject to change at some point. two things cant bee in the same place ask Schrodingers cat, you cant have two states at once (im going back a good few years here so could be a bit off in the next bit. for two states to exist wasnt it the copenhagen principle? and i think it was Einstein who thought it a bit daft. at its simplest (back to occam :D ) its either where you can see it or you can see where its going(as in its speed)

as i said nothing against religion i appreciate it helps many people through life and may or may not be true for a given value of true the individual wishes to place on their belief.
Me im in the no idea camp tbh the more we look at things the more it seems we need to look to figure out what the hell we do know, subject to the same value of truth as above

the thing i cant grasp about religion is the whole gamut of them taking the jewish christian muslim version even at its most basic within those three branches then which one is correct, beyond that it gets messy. first up why did that religion only turn up fairly late on as opposed to some of the animistic versions?

please dont take any of this personally. im quite lonely when it comes to being able to discuss stuff like this with either side nowadays. im sadly in a place where if i use even simple words like mirth i get colleagues asking what am i on about.
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby HowlinWolf » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:13 pm

Hi noodle -

Thanks for the thought out response.

Occam's Razor can be taken in many ways and has many implications. The sense I was referring to goes something like this, probably not the best expression of it:

No matter how true a statement is, if it is not directly pertinent and applicable to advancing the premise, it is meaningless.

edit/p.s. I did at least a dozen edits to my post, it looks like some of them took place after you quoted me. For instance, I added a reference to the Absurd Angora concept, too.
I think most of these scientists are talking right out of their @$$ anymore.
For instance: observation and measurement compellingly suggest that most of the astrophysical calculations of the last century or so are about 80% inaccurate.
Oopsa daisy.
So to make the equations balance scientists invented Dark Matter and Dark Energy. What nerve! What gall!
No one has seen them, measured them, and they even say it's probably impossible to do so.
But they balance the equations.
That's a pretty punk move, if you ask me.
Last edited by HowlinWolf on Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission.
User avatar
HowlinWolf
Plank Owner
Plank Owner
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Upstate/Central NY, USA

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:27 pm

HowlinWolf wrote:Hi noodle -

Thanks for the thought out response.

Occam's Razor can be taken in many ways and has many implications. The sense I was referring to goes something like this, probably not the best expression of it:

No matter how true a statement is, if it is not directly pertinent and applicable to advancing the premise, it is meaningless.


looks like one has some reading to do. any good occam pieces you would care to share?
i was planning on abbots flat land in the next few days but it looks like im putting that off now :D
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:27 pm

HowlinWolf wrote:Hi noodle -

Thanks for the thought out response.

Occam's Razor can be taken in many ways and has many implications. The sense I was referring to goes something like this, probably not the best expression of it:

No matter how true a statement is, if it is not directly pertinent and applicable to advancing the premise, it is meaningless.


looks like one has some reading to do. any good occam pieces you would care to share?
i was planning on abbots flat land in the next few days but it looks like im putting that off now :D
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby HowlinWolf » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:40 pm

noodle wrote:any good occam pieces you would care to share?


Usually Occam's Razor is summed up as "simple explanations are better." Which I guess is supposed to be witty, since that definition is itself simple.

Anyway, I like this quote from William S. Burroughs:

Do I hear muttering about a personal razor and some bush league short con artist who is known to have invented The Bill? Wouldn't You? The razor belonged to a man named Occam and he was not a scar collector. Ludwig Wittgenstein _Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus_: ``If a proposition is NOT NECESSARY is it MEANINGLESS and approaching MEANING ZERO.''
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/ehn/Web/release/testimony.html
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission.
User avatar
HowlinWolf
Plank Owner
Plank Owner
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Upstate/Central NY, USA

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:50 pm

HowlinWolf wrote:
noodle wrote:any good occam pieces you would care to share?


Usually Occam's Razor is summed up as "simple explanations are better." Which I guess is supposed to be witty, since that definition is itself simple.

Anyway, I like this quote from William S. Burroughs:

Do I hear muttering about a personal razor and some bush league short con artist who is known to have invented The Bill? Wouldn't You? The razor belonged to a man named Occam and he was not a scar collector. Ludwig Wittgenstein _Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus_: ``If a proposition is NOT NECESSARY is it MEANINGLESS and approaching MEANING ZERO.''
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/ehn/Web/release/testimony.html


rather interesting, i quite like the hydraulic jack quote at the end

"no matter how you jerk the handle result is always the same for given co-ordinates"
it kind of sums this whole subject up
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby HowlinWolf » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:50 pm

I subjected this post to a few edits after you had already quoted it, too.

HowlinWolf wrote:Hi noodle -

Thanks for the thought out response.

Occam's Razor can be taken in many ways and has many implications. The sense I was referring to goes something like this, probably not the best expression of it:

No matter how true a statement is, if it is not directly pertinent and applicable to advancing the premise, it is meaningless.

edit/p.s. I did at least a dozen edits to my post, it looks like some of them took place after you quoted me. For instance, I added a reference to the Absurd Angora concept, too.
I think most of these scientists are talking right out of their @$$ anymore.
For instance: observation and measurement compellingly suggest that most of the astrophysical calculations of the last century or so are about 80% inaccurate.
Oopsa daisy.
So to make the equations balance scientists invented Dark Matter and Dark Energy. What nerve! What gall!
No one has seen them, measured them, and they even say it's probably impossible to do so.
But they balance the equations.
That's a pretty punk move, if you ask me.
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission.
User avatar
HowlinWolf
Plank Owner
Plank Owner
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Upstate/Central NY, USA

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:09 pm

HowlinWolf wrote:Hi noodle -

Thanks for the thought out response.

Occam's Razor can be taken in many ways and has many implications. The sense I was referring to goes something like this, probably not the best expression of it:

No matter how true a statement is, if it is not directly pertinent and applicable to advancing the premise, it is meaningless.

edit/p.s. I did at least a dozen edits to my post, it looks like some of them took place after you quoted me. For instance, I added a reference to the Absurd Angora concept, too.
I think most of these scientists are talking right out of their @$$ anymore.
For instance: observation and measurement compellingly suggest that most of the astrophysical calculations of the last century or so are about 80% inaccurate.
Oopsa daisy.
So to make the equations balance scientists invented Dark Matter and Dark Energy. What nerve! What gall!
No one has seen them, measured them, and they even say it's probably impossible to do so.
But they balance the equations.
That's a pretty punk move, if you ask me.


true but it wasnt that long ago anti matter was thought of in the same way as cold dark matter
now we use it and even take it for granted
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby HowlinWolf » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:23 pm

Which comes back to my point about how sketchy it is to use man's understanding of things as factual evidence of anything. Time and again it's been demonstrated how (to be kind) transitory the "facts" tend to be.
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission.
User avatar
HowlinWolf
Plank Owner
Plank Owner
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Upstate/Central NY, USA

Re: Creation Museum

Postby HowlinWolf » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:24 pm

Which comes back to my point about how sketchy it is to use man's understanding of things as factual evidence of anything. Time and again it's been demonstrated how (to be kind) transitory the "facts" tend to be.

The equations and the theories are evidence for all sorts of conclusions until some inconvenient new objective fact happens along that proves that the equations and the theories were shit, if you'll pardon my putting it so bluntly.

As stated a number of days ago, even physical reality is far more complicated than man will ever be able to figure out, but it gives man a good way of exercising the brain God gave him to try and figure out how God put it all together, pathetic though man's theories and ideas are. 8-)
Last edited by HowlinWolf on Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission.
User avatar
HowlinWolf
Plank Owner
Plank Owner
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Upstate/Central NY, USA

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:29 pm

HowlinWolf wrote:Which comes back to my point about how sketchy it is to use man's understanding of things as factual evidence of anything. Time and again it's been demonstrated how (to be kind) transitory the "facts" tend to be.

but thats the wrong way around, we used anti matter as a theoretical substance in much the same way cdm is now. we now though use antimatter in a fairly everyday item first one of the top of my head is a pet scanner which uses positrons
in this case the pursuit of knowledge has produced a tangible result
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby HowlinWolf » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:35 pm

I added more to the post again, but not anything that changed it in a substantial way.

I'm kind of out of ideas and energy for the time being anyway.
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission.
User avatar
HowlinWolf
Plank Owner
Plank Owner
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Upstate/Central NY, USA

Re: Creation Museum

Postby bearded1 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:56 pm

Science and religion both suffer from the same ailment as market research...truth is always skewed in favor of who is paying for it.
-Paul
User avatar
bearded1
 
Posts: 2038
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:32 am

Re: Creation Museum

Postby Dodger » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:32 pm

I do not know why Creationists are upset with science .
The Bible states that God said "Let there be light " and there was light .
Astronomers mostly believe in the Big Bang Theory .
In my opinion they mean the same .
Dodger
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 6972
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Bristol UK

Re: Creation Museum

Postby HowlinWolf » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:07 pm

Dodger wrote:I do not know why Creationists are upset with science .
The Bible states that God said "Let there be light " and there was light .
Astronomers mostly believe in the Big Bang Theory .
In my opinion they mean the same .


Add "but it's way more complicated than that, more complicated than we'll ever figure out" and that's where I'm coming from.
Thanks, Dodger.
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission.
User avatar
HowlinWolf
Plank Owner
Plank Owner
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Upstate/Central NY, USA

Re: Creation Museum

Postby noodle » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:22 pm

ok general question it may be a bit long winded
currently both science and creation systems point to the same origin one moment that life arose from not going into the details but science involves dna and evolution tracked back, its why we (all life as we are currenly aware of) share dna, creation has multiple systems depending on your belief set
what happens if a seperate set of life is found? ie something on earth or other body that has a significantly different 'gentic' set up?
in real life im known as john woods
User avatar
noodle
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Location: st helens

Re: Creation Museum

Postby bearded1 » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:47 pm

Dodger wrote:I do not know why Creationists are upset with science .
The Bible states that God said "Let there be light " and there was light .
Astronomers mostly believe in the Big Bang Theory .
In my opinion they mean the same .


I'd agree.
-Paul
User avatar
bearded1
 
Posts: 2038
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:32 am

PreviousNext

Return to Master Debators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron