Re: Creationism: Science or Religion?
Nice post, but just so you know: You supported, not refuted. 
"So, it's defeat for you, is it? Someday I must meet a similar fate..."
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Creationism: Science or Religion?
Nice post, but just so you know: You supported, not refuted.
Yes, I supported DPS' underlying idea, but his statement of "Creationism in a Planetary sense i.e. Something created the Earth and all life on it, could be science since it simply requires an entity within our reality of greater technological capability" was what I found objectionable. The rarity of the Earth, and by that I mean a planet that contains water, is not evidence of alien conception. After all, who, then, created the aliens? Biologists despise these kinds of theories, and others, such as panspermia, since it avoids the main question of abiogenesis: How can life emerge from organic matter?
My opinion is that creationism is NOT science. Science is based upon empirical and/or mathematical EVIDENCE that can establish fact with irrefutable evidence. Religion and creationism is based upon FAITH, which by definition is not provable.
Creationism falls under theology. If they really want to make kids learn creationism in school, than make them take a theology class. But as far as I'm concerned, theology does not belong in biology.
What if, 4 billion years ago, a Galactic Overseer pulled over onto what would become Earth, for a shit?
Imagine that! All life as we know it came from one of Stefan's arse-bacteria.
What? If I understand the theory of evolution correctly it's possible.
No, your strawman has very little to do with the theory of evolution. It never attempts to explain the origin of life, just what happens to it once it exists.
Creationism is neither, in the definitive sense. It has been adopted as part of certain religious beliefs (namely Christianity) and is simply another meme in the meme-plex that is religion. It is definetely not a science or part of science. As many others have so astutely put it, science is the creation of theories based upon empirical, tangible evidence. There is not a shred of evidence to support creationism. It should not be taught in schools, except in theology classes, and it should be stressed that it isn't a valid scientific field because some people seem to think it is.
The idea I find most offensive coming from the Biblical creationists in particular, is their insistence that if science is wrong, then /their/ creation myth is de facto the correct version. Christians are not the only ones who have conceived of fairy tales about the Earth's conception and all of the animals within it, many other civilizations and cultures from history have their own spin on things, too. They never stop to think that perhaps one of those other "theories" could be more plausible, or even provable, simply that whatever the Bible says is true and correct in a 100% literal interpretation.
> Acolyte wrote:
> The idea I find most offensive coming from the Biblical creationists in particular, is their insistence that if science is wrong, then /their/ creation myth is de facto the correct version. Christians are not the only ones who have conceived of fairy tales about the Earth's conception and all of the animals within it, many other civilizations and cultures from history have their own spin on things, too. They never stop to think that perhaps one of those other "theories" could be more plausible, or even provable, simply that whatever the Bible says is true and correct in a 100% literal interpretation.
HAHA true. I like it. Just like I like talking snakes (which are in the bible), snakes with a pelvis, mutating viruses, bacteria etc that evolve as they get used to drugs which are over prescribed (would guess that those last few things are not in the bible).
Imperial Forum → Politics → Creationism: Science or Religion?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.