Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
So are you going to grow some balls and answer about koalas? Or creationism websites run out of excuses to defend their myths?
Was a pair of koalas on ark or not?
Duh. Everybody knows koalas float.
MVP
Well-Known Member
your **** floats
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
You never answered my last post about the ark landing on Ararat.
Every time I look at this thread, I notice how unfair the title is.
"Science" vs. "Creationism"
Scientists don't like to talk much about their history. Just one thousand years ago, our "scientists" were called "alchemists" or "wizards". They were regarded with deep dark suspicions mixed with mystical wonderings about transmuting lead to gold. They were hacks for religious priests, generally, dabbling in astrological divinations and producing, for a few loaves of bread, teachings about how God does it all.
But then Scientists invented "plausible deniability" by formalizing a method of inquiry and a mechanism for discarding and forgetting the inconvenient beliefs of the past.
It is not an honest discussion in this thread unless the so-called scientists of today. . . . the politicized demagogues of intellectual coercion who claim the priestly robes of "sicentific consensus" and state-directed "education". . . . can't at least set up the discussion with neutral rhetoric.
What business does our political climate properly have in either dissing the religious notions of the populace or promoting their own equally religious notions of godlessness and meaninglessness as philosophical underpinnings of a statist regime that is as repressive as any other government mankind has ever suffered?
yah, I know. Get on the bandwagon or at least push it along. . . . it will be a brave new world. And like every other repressive regime, the foot-soldiers will be smiled at and handed some bread from the government's takings in conquest or taxes.
Science is in no material way different from any other systematic belief system we have ever invented. Science has embraced a sort of "rational" mode, or at least it has claimed as much. But since the 1950s, "Science" has been a hand-fed pet of government funding resources that have become increasingly politicized, until today it is nothing more than a priestly enclave wholly subservient to a political propaganda machine. Meanwhile, religion has changed over time in largely equal measures with any other classification of human loyalties or labels, but on a path that has been to some larger degree, responsive to the "believers'. "Science" believers just like "Religious" believers, do harm to the rest of us by taking this to political realm, and invoke statist powers to lend "authority" in support of their notions.
Statists can make equal use of propaganda, regardless of it's philosophical foundations. . . . but the modern philosophies underpinning "social progress" of the British intellectual model, whether communist or socialist or "conservative" which attack anthropocentric priorities are the worst. Why? because we ought to get the "State" out of our business and our belief.
Because if we allow our "teachers" to take away our "worth", the historical consequence has always been the loss of our dignity, our human rights, and our privilege of belief.
I stand with the conservative christians though I don't give a damn about "creation" or "evolution" because the purpose of this attack on religion is to destroy human values, human worth, and human rights.
People who are so gung-ho on all the merits of "Science" specifically pertaining to "evolution" often have a hatred of human values that have served us well, whenever we have applied them. family values, moral values of a common or elementary sort that enable people to function in families and communities with some general "cultural shorthand" that makes it all easier to do. We live, we learn a few things. . .. true or false. . . . that people readily accept as common currency, as "cultural values", as a social "currency". Like fiat currency in the economic realm, it works as long as we don't doubt it. . . .
But when it's government "establishing" the beliefs we must follow, it goes all wrong. In that case, we have lost our freedom, and our power to direct our lives, at least in relation to the statist dictates.
People who join the push-change-organizations. . . . the athiest/socialist/"progressives" often believe their dreamland is a better world, but there is no objective basis for that belief. Uhhhh. .. . . hmmmm.....
Just go back to that whole notion, so useful in dissing old religions, about the whole "godless"/"no ultimate authority" concept, and the purposelessness/meaninglessness of a purely statistical or "chance" or "non-creation" context of human life. Notice the parallel conclusion in relation to all the wonderful "progressive" fantasies you now have, and all your notions of what "government should do", or what "the law should be". In your bold attack on others' beliefs, you have no solid ground of your own to stand on.
Go back to your basement bedroom your mom or pop is paying the utilities for, and re-think your whole philosophical foundation.
If you want a "cause" you can believe in, go get a job.
"Science" vs. "Creationism"
Scientists don't like to talk much about their history. Just one thousand years ago, our "scientists" were called "alchemists" or "wizards". They were regarded with deep dark suspicions mixed with mystical wonderings about transmuting lead to gold. They were hacks for religious priests, generally, dabbling in astrological divinations and producing, for a few loaves of bread, teachings about how God does it all.
But then Scientists invented "plausible deniability" by formalizing a method of inquiry and a mechanism for discarding and forgetting the inconvenient beliefs of the past.
It is not an honest discussion in this thread unless the so-called scientists of today. . . . the politicized demagogues of intellectual coercion who claim the priestly robes of "sicentific consensus" and state-directed "education". . . . can't at least set up the discussion with neutral rhetoric.
What business does our political climate properly have in either dissing the religious notions of the populace or promoting their own equally religious notions of godlessness and meaninglessness as philosophical underpinnings of a statist regime that is as repressive as any other government mankind has ever suffered?
yah, I know. Get on the bandwagon or at least push it along. . . . it will be a brave new world. And like every other repressive regime, the foot-soldiers will be smiled at and handed some bread from the government's takings in conquest or taxes.
Science is in no material way different from any other systematic belief system we have ever invented. Science has embraced a sort of "rational" mode, or at least it has claimed as much. But since the 1950s, "Science" has been a hand-fed pet of government funding resources that have become increasingly politicized, until today it is nothing more than a priestly enclave wholly subservient to a political propaganda machine. Meanwhile, religion has changed over time in largely equal measures with any other classification of human loyalties or labels, but on a path that has been to some larger degree, responsive to the "believers'. "Science" believers just like "Religious" believers, do harm to the rest of us by taking this to political realm, and invoke statist powers to lend "authority" in support of their notions.
Statists can make equal use of propaganda, regardless of it's philosophical foundations. . . . but the modern philosophies underpinning "social progress" of the British intellectual model, whether communist or socialist or "conservative" which attack anthropocentric priorities are the worst. Why? because we ought to get the "State" out of our business and our belief.
Because if we allow our "teachers" to take away our "worth", the historical consequence has always been the loss of our dignity, our human rights, and our privilege of belief.
I stand with the conservative christians though I don't give a damn about "creation" or "evolution" because the purpose of this attack on religion is to destroy human values, human worth, and human rights.
People who are so gung-ho on all the merits of "Science" specifically pertaining to "evolution" often have a hatred of human values that have served us well, whenever we have applied them. family values, moral values of a common or elementary sort that enable people to function in families and communities with some general "cultural shorthand" that makes it all easier to do. We live, we learn a few things. . .. true or false. . . . that people readily accept as common currency, as "cultural values", as a social "currency". Like fiat currency in the economic realm, it works as long as we don't doubt it. . . .
But when it's government "establishing" the beliefs we must follow, it goes all wrong. In that case, we have lost our freedom, and our power to direct our lives, at least in relation to the statist dictates.
People who join the push-change-organizations. . . . the athiest/socialist/"progressives" often believe their dreamland is a better world, but there is no objective basis for that belief. Uhhhh. .. . . hmmmm.....
Just go back to that whole notion, so useful in dissing old religions, about the whole "godless"/"no ultimate authority" concept, and the purposelessness/meaninglessness of a purely statistical or "chance" or "non-creation" context of human life. Notice the parallel conclusion in relation to all the wonderful "progressive" fantasies you now have, and all your notions of what "government should do", or what "the law should be". In your bold attack on others' beliefs, you have no solid ground of your own to stand on.
Go back to your basement bedroom your mom or pop is paying the utilities for, and re-think your whole philosophical foundation.
If you want a "cause" you can believe in, go get a job.
Last edited:
Of course they are not coincidental. Floods behave the same way all over the earth; naturally stories about floods will have common elements.
Some of them do talk about the history of science, most are more interested in advancing current knowledge and simply don't care. Almost none of them are embarrassed by their history.
They are developed out of previously existing attributes.
Why not? What's the information limit on a molecule?
We have too many hypotheses, and too little proof, on molecule to single cell. We have single cell to fish fairly well covered.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Godless countries like Denmark, Norway or Sweden seem to do much better than very religious country like USA in most morality related situations ( crimes, teen abortions, stds, etc ) and in general happiness. We beat that topic to death, being religious does not make you automatically good person and vice versa.
For example I once was fishing in Norway. You come to river, there is a simple box with licence tickets rolled in some roll, you leave your money in a box, peel ticket off and go. None of godless norvegians ever consider just taking ticket without paying or stealing the box with cash. Heck most of their houses used to not have any locks until some immigration from African and Asian countries started to happen. Doubt that would work that well in highly religious Carolina states lol.
So please, rest that "no God no morality" case, real world situations proved it wrong long time ago.
Some folks might want to correlate behavior with current norms, but it is a mistake to overlook the contributions of religion to those norms. The Vikings, before they became Christians, were of a wholly different character. They sailed around raiding the villages along the coasts of many nations, taking what they pleased. If the principle which Christ taught about personal accountability and personal judgment and virtue had not come to Norway, ahead of the modern answerless philosophies which hold people irresponsible and unaccountable for their actions, it's prettly likely those little license boxes would be ignored.
For that matter, even our present "evolution" towards a new world order carries a lot of christian precepts. Couldn't have a fascist state at all if people didn't think they should respect government authority as Christ taught. When people lose the traces of those basic morals, there will be no possible government except force of arms.
You talk like crusades did not happen.