The Can of Worms called Creation and/or Evolution

[Gold Winger]

Ed, would the age of the Earth be equivalent to the "age of dirt"? I ask because my father-in-law is older than dirt, according to him, and he's only 84.

 

 

[evmori]

Could be GW!

 

Scientific method is only as good as the tools & available. As the tools get better, the information is more accurate.

 

We don't know how the earth was formed, so the version in the Bible is very possibly accurate.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, ANY magical story is "possibly accurate," because introducing magic permits all objections to be answered with "it's magic" or "god did it." It just isn't useful for finding out information.

[evmori]

Never mind Merlyn. You just don't or won't realize not everything can be explained! That takes faith!

[packsaddle]

Of course we can also look at this from the other end of the time scale. And based on biblical evidence, we have known scores of times when the end of the earth is supposed to happen. So far all of them have been wrong. Applying that test to biblical evidence doesn't say much for its accuracy.

But there is that pesky matter of the rapture of 1996. It seems that most of us missed that boat. Ed, face it - you're stuck here, left behind with the rest of us. Might as well enjoy it.

[Gold Winger]

" And based on biblical evidence, we have known scores of times when the end of the earth is supposed to happen.

[Beavah]

And based on biblical evidence, we have known scores of times when the end of the earth is supposed to happen. So far all of them have been wrong. Applying that test to biblical evidence doesn't say much for its accuracy.

 

Nah, that's the classic atheist false argument, eh?

 

"Look - there are people who came up with a religious theory based on religious evidence that turned out to be incorrect, therefore all religion is bunk!"

 

How many scientists over the years came up with scientific theories based on scientific evidence that turned out to be incorrect? Phlogiston, ether, bloodletting will help cure disease, and on and on... Even now, yeh can find scientists whose ideas are "out there." Does that mean that all science is bunk?

 

Yeh have to apply the same standards to both disciplines, eh? At least if you're honest. O'course, Merlyn's logical, scientific response to that is just to shout louder.

 

Now, if all da science folks have conceded that science can't address ethics, I'm wonderin' what they propose to help humans learn and grow in that way, eh?

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah, religion is 'bunk' when it makes unsupported statements. Wake me when religions agree on how many gods exist, ok?

 

Now, if all da science folks have conceded that science can't address ethics, I'm wonderin' what they propose to help humans learn and grow in that way, eh?

 

How about "ethics"?

[Gold Winger]

How do we know that the Earth hasn't ended and we're all just bits of data in a grand cosmic simulation of reality?

 

As for the rapture, it may have happened but there weren't enough qualified people to notice that they disappeared.

[Beavah]

Wake me when religions agree on how many gods exist, ok?

 

Yah, sure.

 

Wake me when scientists agree on how many mysterious, invisible, magic-at-a-distance forces exist, OK?

 

Or how many dimensions the universe actually has (3? 4? 5? 10? 11?).

 

Or how many "fundamental" particles there are.

 

Ain't it funny how similar da story is between electric, magnetic, and weak forces and the Christian notion of da Trinity? Three different, independent "aspects", one unified Force...

 

And then don't forget that by "science" you mean a Western, European cultural construct that you're claiming should replace all of da other ways of looking at the physical world that other non-white cultures have used historically. Your notion of "science" as being "correct" is a cultural imperialist one, eh? So yeh can't then turn around and say it's not OK for Judeo-Christianity to take the same approach. Your claim of "one Science" is no different from our claim of "one God."

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Wake me when scientists agree on how many mysterious, invisible, magic-at-a-distance forces exist, OK?

 

Zero, since "magic-at-a-distance" is not within the realm of science.

 

Now, if you'd like, science has figured out quite a lot about forces like gravity and electromagnetism to make useful predictions and invent things like computers. Are there any gods whose properties are agreed upon by all religions?

 

No.

 

And then don't forget that by "science" you mean a Western, European cultural construct that you're claiming should replace all of da other ways of looking at the physical world that other non-white cultures have used historically.

 

Funny, scientists exist all over the world in all kinds of cultures and political systems, and they all agree on e.g. the earth being roughly spherical. Doesn't sound like that's limited to white, western europeans.

 

Your notion of "science" as being "correct" is a cultural imperialist one, eh?

 

Boy, people here can't read well at all. Both you and Ed somehow get the idea that I think science is infallible when I've clearly stated it can easily be wrong, and being wrong is one of the main mechanisms how science improves. RELIGIONS pretend to be infallible, not science.

 

Having said that, it's due to science being wrong AND BEING CORRECTED that leads it to making useful models and predictions about the real world, and explains why science works the same in different cultures. Reality is the final arbiter.

 

Now, are you going to apologize for disparaging reading goat entrails, or do you think that's a bogus way to glean knowledge?

[packsaddle]

Beavah wrote, Nah, that's the classic atheist false argument, eh? "Look - there are people who came up with a religious theory based on religious evidence that turned out to be incorrect, therefore all religion is bunk!"

OK, I'm not sure who it is that you just quoted. Please identify. If an auto mechanic makes scores of attempts at a repair and continuously fails, is it a false argument to be suspicious of the accuracy of his understanding of the system? How about if we applied that to your doctor? Would you tend to doubt the doctor's understanding of medicine? For most of us the answer is, 'yes'. For those who agree with you, there is Theodoric of York. And perhaps scientology.

Actually losing some blood can help cure some ailments, at least in some men. But that aside, each failed idea that you can identify has been tested, found to fail, and subsequently corrected by...science. This self-critical and self-correcting aspect is a huge difference from religious faith which has no such mechanisms of test and correction.

Another thing I find ironic (but not good enough to go into my collection of delicious ironies) is that on one hand you seem to minimize science and then in the same paragraph you expect science to deliver a higher sense of ethics to the world. And if that's not ironic enough, by making that statement you imply that religion evidently has not been sufficiently up to the task, eh? To that I might agree.

[packsaddle]

OK guys, I'm outta here. Time to drive to the airport and fly away. For the next little while I'll be splashing in the waters on the nature island of the Caribbean. And I'll be thinking about all of you. OK, maybe not that much. But I'll hoist a few Kubulis for you. TTFN

[evmori]

Never said you thought science is infallible, Merlyn. But your scope is very narrow & you do seem unwilling to accept anything that science can't explain. Not everything can be explained.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, reading goat entrails can explain everything; the question is, why would anyone give such an explanation credibility?