Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Religion / Philosophy
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 06-03-2011, 09:10 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
A theory is a proposed explanation - that's all. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the validity of either, because that's a different thread. They're both theories.

Sorry, no cute pictures
Let us discuss "fact" and "theory". A fact is: "This rock is sitting on a log". It is an observation. There is no argument to be had, no proof to be made - it's a fact.

A theory is "Someone set this rock on this log". Another theory is "God miracled this rock onto this log". Another theory is "This rock grew out of this log".

One of the traits of a valid theory is "falsifiability". A valid theory will suggest the means for its own disproof.

"If it can be shown that nobody could have approached this log at the time the rock first came to sit on the log, the theory 'someone set this rock on this log' is false." (There are numerous other means of disproving that theory)

Darwin mentioned a few of the means in which we could demonstrate that evolution was false. For example:
Quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
This is just one means of disproving evolution as the origin of species. There are countless ways to disprove evolution as a whole, or some of the sub-theories developed along the way. A big aspect of evolutionary theory is finding ways to tear it apart, to develop new theories that better explain the facts, the observations.

Falsifiability is the aspect of science that makes it useful. It is the aspect that allows us to make testable predictions and develop new ideas and technologies. It is this aspect of science that lets us prove innocence and guilt. It is this aspect of science that makes the difference between studying experimental data and rolling dice.

To expand on the understanding of the need for falsifiability in scientific theory, google "The Dragon in my Garage".


Religious and Creation "theories" are inherently non-falsifiable. There is no way to demonstrate they are false. No testable predictions can be made, no further knowledge can be reliably developed. Because they are non-falsifiable; because they can't be proven or disproven; because no testable predictions can be made; because no further knowledge can be reliably developed from the exploration of these "theories", creationist myths are NOT science, and must not be taught as such.

By all means, teach them in social studies classes, alongside the religious beliefs of every other major society on the planet.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 09:11 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Types

Ex nihilo
Main article: Ex nihilo
Creation ex nihilo (L. "out of nothing") is thought to be the most common type of creation described in these stories. It is the type of creation described in the Genesis creation narrative in the Bible in Judaism and Christianity, and also in the Koran's Sura VII in Islam.[14][15] It is also known as "creation de novo". Besides in the Bible, Ex nihilo creation is found in creation stories from ancient Egypt, the Rig Veda and many animistic cultures in Africa, Asia, Oceania and North America.[16] The Debate between sheep and grain is an example of an even earlier form of ex nihilo creation myth from ancient Sumer.[17] The In most of these stories the world is brought into being by the speech, dream, breath, or pure thought of a creator but creation ex nihilo may also take place through a creator's bodily secretions. The literal translation of the phrase ex nihilo is "from nothing" but in many creation myths the line is blurred whether the creative act would be better classified as a creation ex nihilo or creation from chaos. With ex nihilo, the potential and the substance of creation springs from within the creator. Such a creator may or may not be existing in physical surroundings such as darkness or water, but does not create the world from them. In creation from chaos the substance used for creation is pre-existing within the unformed void.[18]

Quote:
Creation from chaos
Main article: Chaos (cosmogony)
In creation from chaos myth, initially there is nothing but a formless, shapeless expanse. In these stories the word "chaos" means "disorder", and this formless expanse, which is also sometimes called a void or an abyss, contains the material with which the created world will be made. Chaos may be described as a having the consistency of vapor or water, dimensionless, and sometimes salty or muddy. These myths associate chaos with evil and oblivion, in contrast to "order" (cosmos) which is the good. The act of creation is the bringing of order from disorder, and in many of these cultures it is believed that at some point the forces preserving order and form will weaken and the world will once again be engulfed into the abyss.[19]
[edit]World parent
There are two types of world parent myths, both describing a separation or splitting of a primeval entity, the world parent or parents. One form describes the primeval state as an eternal union of two parents, and the creation takes place when the two are pulled apart. The two parents are commonly identified as Sky (usually male) and Earth (usually female) who in the primeval state were so tightly bound to each other that no offspring could emerge. These myths often depict creation as the result of a sexual union, and serve as genealogical record of the deities born from it.[20]
In the second form of world parent myth, creation itself springs from dismembered parts of the body of the primeval being. Often in these stories the limbs, hair, blood, bones or organs of the primeval being are somehow severed or sacrificed to transform into sky, earth, animal or plant life, and other worldly features. These myths tend to emphasize creative forces as animistic in nature rather than sexual, and depict the sacred as the elemental and integral component of the natural world.[21]
[edit]Emergence
In emergence myths humanity emerges from another world into the one they currently inhabit. The previous world is often considered the womb of the earth mother, and the process of emergence is likened to the act of giving birth. The role of midwife is usually played by a female deity, like the spider woman of Native American mythology. Male characters rarely figure into these stories, and scholars often consider them in counterpoint to male oriented creation myths, like those of the ex nihilo variety.[3]
Emergence myths commonly describe the creation of people and/or supernatural beings as a staged ascent or metamorphosis from nascent forms through a series of subterranean worlds to arrive at their current place and form. Often the passage from one world or stage to the next is impelled by inner forces, a process of germination or gestation from earlier, embryonic forms.[22][23] The genre is most commonly found in Native American cultures where the myths frequently link the final emergence of people from a hole opening to the underworld to stories about their subsequent migrations and eventual settlement in their current homelands.[24]
[edit]Earth-diver
The earth-diver is a common character in various traditional creation myths. In these stories a supreme being usually sends an animal into the primal waters to find bits of sand or mud with which to build habitable land. Some scholars interpret these myths psychologically while others interpret them cosmogonically. In both cases emphasis is placed on beginnings emanating from the depths.[25] Earth-diver myths are common in Native American folklore but can be found among the Chukchi and Yukaghir, the Tatars and many Finno-Ugrian traditions. The pattern of distribution of these stories suggest they have a common origin in the eastern Asiatic coastal region, spreading as peoples migrated west into Siberia and east to the North American continent.[26]
Characteristic of many Native American myths, earth-diver creation stories begin as beings and potential forms linger asleep or suspended in the primordial realm. The earth-diver is among the first of them to awaken and lay the necessary groundwork by building suitable lands where the coming creation will be able to live. In many cases, these stories will describe a series of failed attempts to make land before the solution is found.[27]
[edit]
HTML Code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 09:17 PM  
Senior Member
 
BCboy's Avatar

Shuswap, BC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 825 | Kudos: +30
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
a scientific theory is not "let's just assume god pooped them out" it's based on evidence, we don't know all those details, however it is not the schools nor science's place to use mythology to create fairy tale stories about the earth, the only "proof" that creationists really have is that old books say it was created less then 10,000 years ago.....

scientific theory does not jump to assumptions and call them facts, nor should a schools place be to teach things that are not firmly rooted in evidence and call them science....

as to your question, plants and animals evolved from simpler organisms which began under very different conditions, if you go back far enough yes there is a hypothesis to explain the beginning but that doesn't mean all the observable parts of evolution is disproven and then we must believe in creation myths, it means the scientific theory needs more data to fill in the parts we don't know to make it complete.... and science has been progressing to find these answer... while creationism just says "god pooped it out"

one could ask the same of god? who made him? how did he become of nothingness? oh he was just always around? oh so matter couldn't have just "always been around" but god could?
So you have no proof or arguement.
I have as much proof God exists, and that he made everything, as you do about where everything started.
So its interesting you call believers in God wrong.
When really you do not know squat.
But thats okay, keep living in your fantasy land.
__________________
We do NOT need to raise taxes on the people. The government needs to spend less is the answer.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 09:24 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCboy View Post
So you have no proof or arguement.
I have as much proof God exists, and that he made everything, as you do about where everything started.
So its interesting you call believers in God wrong.
When really you do not know squat.
But thats okay, keep living in your fantasy land.
When I'm feeling charitable, I call belief in god "Non-scientific". Because it *is* non-scientific. Science cannot rely on faith; the religious must.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 09:39 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Science cannot rely on faith; the religious must.
Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished-rapture-camping_1900744c.jpg 

Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished-evolution-450x450.jpg 

Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished-phelps_vert.jpg 

Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished-pat-robertson-prophet-738056.jpg 

Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished-coodex_63.jpg 

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 10:05 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCboy View Post
So you have no proof or arguement.
I have as much proof God exists, and that he made everything, as you do about where everything started.
So its interesting you call believers in God wrong.
When really you do not know squat.
But thats okay, keep living in your fantasy land.
you know how lame your argument is, we have plenty of evidence for evolution through dna and other means, not having every single piece of evidence is NOT the same as having no evidence............
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 10:26 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
Let's keep it non-personal please. We all have differing opinions, and that's alright.
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 10:46 PM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
I believe that God is the greatest scientist and used evolution to get the job done.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 10:49 PM  
Moved NY => Abq 3/9/11
 
JeeperDon's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 50 | Kudos: +15
Religion was invented by people that didn't know any better at the time. There are different religions now because way back whenever, the worlds people didn't have airplanes, or the internet, or CNN, or Al Jezeera to help them have only one, or none. After those religions were all created in their individual sandboxes, and those missing airplanes and global news were invented, the crap really hit the fan with the present global religion war.

Think of all the other crap people used to believe and now don't, because of science. Somehow people were able to let go of 'son goes around the earth', and 'earth is flat'.

We're all just sentient ants. All we can do is be nice to people and send our kids to college to be scientists.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 11:14 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicinabottle View Post
I believe that God is the greatest scientist and used evolution to get the job done.
Which is a perfectly acceptable religious, non-scientific theory. It's non-falsifiable. No testable predictions can be made from that theory. No further knowledge can be reliably and demonstrably derived from that theory. Like all religious theories, it is a dead-end for all purposes save entertainment, and should not be taught in a science class for any purpose other than as a counter example.

But by all means, teach it in social studies alongside all other religious philosophies.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Religion / Philosophy
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.