• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

your views on creationism please

Free episodes:

Quick synopsis:
Small lizard population isolated on island near Croatia. Researchers were not able to get back to the island for over 30 years due to war. Researchers get back to island to find some amazing things. Original polulation of 10 lizards have taken over the island and now number near 5000. And, shockingly, they have developed entirely new organs to meet the needs of their newfound home. Evolution in action?? Or is this just a belief that they developed entirely new organs?? However evolution is initiated, it certainly seems to confirm that biology can change due to environmental and whatever othere stresses it is subject to.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html
That is amazing. Kind of reminds me of the movie Jurasic park.

The other thing is I never hear the outcry that physics is a belief system. Thermodynamics, .. is a belief. Modern medicine, .. belief. I don't hear any disagreement about the science that has extended longevity, given us technology like computers and worldwide communication, put Rovers on Mars, immunizations, anti-venom, and any number of other items where science has benifited us directly. .... Where is the picket line with large signs proclaiming "Gravity doesn't exist!!"??

This is the same science,.. the same methods, ... that gave us all of these benefits. But you hear zero opposition to any of it. We only hear opposition when it comes to the heralded egotistical human and his origins. Why is this?? Do we still have questions about evolution?? No doubt. Is it the best explanation that fits the data we have, .... why yes. Are revisions in the future, ... of course.

However long it takes, science has always been self correcting, ... religion not so much.
Preach on brother!
 
hahaha, I never thought of that. Kinda says it all doesn't it.

I maintain the easiest way to disuade someone of the notion that the Bible is the perfect and true word of God almighty is to actually make them read the thing. Just read it. Don't read along with the pastor so you only get his highlighted interpretation, read it YOURSELF.

Capn still around? Tell him I said hey. Oh, nm, I just did.

Hey Aaron, welcome back! And bearing gifts too in the form of one of my favourite Lewis Black rants!

And of course I'm still here. Dude, I don't quit message-boards, I close them down.
 
LOL, I told my son almost this exact phrase 2 days ago. I was half watching something on the Discovery channel and he says, "what is the big bang". So I said "Well, there was absolutely nothing and then it exploded and created everything. To wit he says "was it loud?".

You gotta love the Egyptians. You can almost see 9 bald guys smoking hash around a fire making all that shit up.

lol, they must have had good stuff in those times... ::)

"Was it loud ?" lol how old is he ?
 
Well this thread has made for an interesting Monday morning read. After reading through the 4 pages that appeared, seemingly overnight, I can say that I don't think there's anyone posting here that is a true creationist. What I mean is the 6 day, 6000 year old earth nutters. So we're all arguing a point that can pretty much never be proven: some guy decided to make an experiment and start this whole thing up a few billion years ago. Right now, there's nothing that can prove to me that there is some dude taking care of stuff in the background, like some network administrator, so I don't believe it. However, if there is, he probably forgot about this project, and moved on to a new one. We're probably gathering dust in his basement and when he moves out and the new owners throw it out, we'll be screwed.
 
lol, they must have had good stuff in those times... ::)

"Was it loud ?" lol how old is he ?

He is 5 at the end of this month. 5 going on 30 it seems.

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

Well this thread has made for an interesting Monday morning read. After reading through the 4 pages that appeared, seemingly overnight, I can say that I don't think there's anyone posting here that is a true creationist. What I mean is the 6 day, 6000 year old earth nutters. So we're all arguing a point that can pretty much never be proven: some guy decided to make an experiment and start this whole thing up a few billion years ago. Right now, there's nothing that can prove to me that there is some dude taking care of stuff in the background, like some network administrator, so I don't believe it. However, if there is, he probably forgot about this project, and moved on to a new one. We're probably gathering dust in his basement and when he moves out and the new owners throw it out, we'll be screwed.

Angel, that is the best "sum up" of my feelings on the matter that can be expressed. Now, as I am prone to do with stuff I agree with, I will add this metaphor to my personal arsenal. Thanks!
 
Welcome to the exciting world of neo-deism, Ron! Where earth is just a peitri dish on some forgotten lab shelf and we're all merely bacteria growing on it. Benefits include no scriptures, no dogma, no punitive morality and you don't have to get up early once a week and get dressed in your finest just to to go to some building and have a guy in a robe tell you things you already knew. It's GREAT.
 
Welcome to the exciting world of neo-deism, Ron! Where earth is just a peitri dish on some forgotten lab shelf and we're all merely bacteria growing on it. Benefits include no scriptures, no dogma, no punitive morality and you don't have to get up early once a week and get dressed in your finest just to to go to some building and have a guy in a robe tell you things you already knew. It's GREAT.

I grew up a southern baptist. Being from a small rural town in Oklahoma it's not a shocker. When I was 14 I had the opportunity to visit my aunt and uncle in Hong Kong for 3 months. I spent 1 month traveling in China, this was 1990 China mind you. Before I went I was told about how these people were going to hell because they denied the truth of Jesus. In China, I saw a monastery that had a doorway closed by a literally millions of spider webs. The story went that four hundred years ago a lone spider created a web and the monks chose not to disturb him in accordance to their faith. Since, the use a window to enter and exit this structure. I was dumbfounded. these gentle people wouldn't brush a spiders web aside. They would gladly sacrifice comfort and ease in the observance o their faith. Yet, if my religion were to be believed they would all burn right along side the murderers and rapists. It was soon after this that I started to question not only my religion but all organized religion. That lead me to question everything. It's been a hard and bumpy road since then. Sometimes I wonder how blissfully ignorant my life would have been had I not dared to ponder why.
 
Breaking down the statement into its hidden assumptions

  • Intelligence
    1. "Sufficient" is a term that may imply a graduated scale (or even continuum) of intelligence
    2. Means intelligence itself increases the ability for an acting agent to create a universe in such and such way.
  • Power
    1. "Sufficent" again a term that implies a graduated scale or continuum
    2. Means that increasing an acting agents power increases creative ability.
    3. Essentially this assumes intelligence and power are prerequisites for creating a universe.
I have several problems with this:

(1) A basic assumption of your propositions set intelligence and power as a prerequisite for creating a universe in a particular way.
(2) But then your proposition states the two cases mentioned as scientifically indistinguishable.

(3) Now I assert that your premise "...the two cases are scientifically indistinguishable " is contradictory to the unmentioned assumption (1) -- such an experiment would require the very bases and assumptions that undermine its relevance.

So based on your own statements I cannot accept the conclusion.

I was trying to contrast the cases 1) where the universe was created by some intelligent agent that arranged the basic properties of the universe for its own purposes (I called the agent "God" since that's what we were discussing, but it could I suppose be a scientist from a culture with very advanced physics/engineering) with 2) the universe came into existence as a result of some unconscious process with no conscious agency involved.

My contention was that an observer within that universe would have no way of distinguishing the two cases from each other, since the universe comes into being with a particular set of basic properties already established. Hence the argument e.g. between the 'finely tuned' and 'multiverse' explanations of our particular universe, which obviously does have what are (as far as we know) the rather narrow set of basic properties that can give rise to intelligent life.
 
My problem with the "universal agent" theory is that it ignores other data, i.e. if people have "evolved" portions of the brain that are focused on feeling God, then there must, according to natural selection, be a God that can be felt.

hence every culture has a religion, no culture has an inherent atheism as it's unifying factor.

That implies that God would be more than just some explanation for a first cause, and would make trying to understand the mind of God, as valid as trying to understand the genetics of a field mouse.

Also since everyone here has read the bible and studied it so deeply, could you tell me what passage describes God as an white haired old man with a beard?
 
My problem with the "universal agent" theory is that it ignores other data, i.e. if people have "evolved" portions of the brain that are focused on feeling God, then there must, according to natural selection, be a God that can be felt.

Funny how how you seem to lose track of your old friend confirmation bias when his presence would counteract your arguments... Given our limited understanding of the brain at this time I cannot simply dismiss your point out of hand however, as I mentioned earlier, the human body contains a whole array of redundant organs which we have evolved out of using. I can easily make the case therefore that the so-called "god center" of the brain is yet another left over of previous versions of ourselves and whatever function it originally served no longer exists, leaving it essentially idle in the middle of our brains. All religious or magical thinking may have come about as a result of this... whatever it was falling into dormancy and simply generating random nonesense for the brain to interpret.

hence every culture has a religion, no culture has an inherent atheism as it's unifying factor.

What about us? Modern man. Do we not constitute a culture? Atheism/agnosticism/no-affiliation is the fastest growing "religious" group in the modern west. And lest we forget in the past (and sadly still in the present for many) disbelief was heresy punishable by DEATH.

That implies that God would be more than just some explanation for a first cause, and would make trying to understand the mind of God, as valid as trying to understand the genetics of a field mouse.

Fundamentally impossible. If there is such a thing, man has as much chance of "understanding" the mind of god as an ant does of carrying on a conversation with a sperm whale.

Also since everyone here has read the bible and studied it so deeply, could you tell me what passage describes God as an white haired old man with a beard?

I can tell you for a fact it doesn't (at least not in my copy). It does however make the case that god has a humanoid appearance (we're made in his image, the lord has eyes, ears and hands, etc) and a gender (thy father) and an age (seriously freakin' old). So it's not really that hard to see where the "sky grandpa" image comes from through extrapolation.
 
New scientific experiement that changes the electrical signal polesnot sure if thats the right terminology) in the brain , has shown to give people an intense"God Feeling" or "Devine Presence" this feeling can happen naturally by someone being it by lightening or standing near a radio tower or near exposed electrical wires,Depending on the person and there beliefs this can have implications on how there brain processes it. I'll post a link to the acticle when i find it >_< again.Evolution is a fact but it doesn't hold all the answers to how we came into being .Martian left-overs is my opinion =P
 
I can tell you for a fact it doesn't (at least not in my copy). It does however make the case that god has a humanoid appearance (we're made in his image, the lord has eyes, ears and hands, etc) and a gender (thy father) and an age (seriously freakin' old). So it's not really that hard to see where the "sky grandpa" image comes from through extrapolation.

Well, since study, implies the need for exactness, lets then be truly exact about what the Bible states God is. The Hebrew term for image DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICAL, never has, it means we have capacity to love, create, free will etc.

Father, in ancient times was a term of respect and in a patriarchal society also a term denoting power.

God is also described as being Timeless, outside of space/time, because as the creator he would have to exist outside his creation.

Again, can you tell me whey he's a old man with a white beard? still having trouble figuring that out, and it seems that's one of the biggest things people are objecting too, but it's not in the bible.

Also for fun here is Richard Dawkins reading the bible:

 
Well, since study, implies the need for exactness, lets then be truly exact about what the Bible states God is. The Hebrew term for image DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICAL, never has, it means we have capacity to love, create, free will etc.

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me of the other thing that makes the Bible a virtually worthless point of reference: translation and interpretation. We're talking about a book that goes from Hebrew and Greek to Latin then to Old english then to modern english. This is not a recipe for accuracy...

At any rate, while the average CREATIONIST (and I'll remind you again that that's the topic here) would not argue that what you said is true, they would most likely still argue for a literal representation. Also, the references are not limited to the creation story, many other chapters make reference to "The eyes of the lord were upon them" or "the hand of god moved across the land" and so forth. Even "So sayeth the lord god" implies a mouth. For a book that makes no direct claims as to god's appearance (if we ignore Eziekiel for the moment) there's certainly enough anecdotal references to define a humanoid shape.

Father, in ancient times was a term of respect and in a patriarchal society also a term denoting power.

Still male terminology, no matter what ribbons of ceremony you tie to it.

God is also described as being Timeless, outside of space/time, because as the creator he would have to exist outside his creation.

That's correct. Unfortunately humans occupy linear timespace and as such cannot easily envision a "timeless" being.

Again, can you tell me whey he's a old man with a white beard? still having trouble figuring that out, and it seems that's one of the biggest things people are objecting too, but it's not in the bible.

As I said, I can't because it's not in there. However, this isn't a Bible study class. Given the patriarchal nature of the Hebrews and their structure of society being based on a council of wise elders, the extrapolation of god being the ultimate "wise old man" is not far fetched. On the contrary, it's predictable. And given the commonality of the bearded father god from Osiris to Zeus to Odin, not uncommon either. MAN creates GOD in his own image.
 
Well, since study, implies the need for exactness, lets then be truly exact about what the Bible states God is. The Hebrew term for image DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICAL, never has, it means we have capacity to love, create, free will etc.

Father, in ancient times was a term of respect and in a patriarchal society also a term denoting power.

God is also described as being Timeless, outside of space/time, because as the creator he would have to exist outside his creation.

Again, can you tell me whey he's a old man with a white beard? still having trouble figuring that out, and it seems that's one of the biggest things people are objecting too, but it's not in the bible.

Also for fun here is Richard Dawkins reading the bible:


I fail to see why this matters. Some conjure up the image of an old man in the clouds others may think of Charlton Heston or Morgan Freeman... even Alanis Morissette. I tend to think of Papa Smurf. It doesn't matter and has no bearing on the subject.

---------- Post added at 05:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 AM ----------

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me of the other thing that makes the Bible a virtually worthless point of reference: translation and interpretation. We're talking about a book that goes from Hebrew and Greek to Latin then to Old english then to modern english. This is not a recipe for accuracy...
You forgot Aramaic. Oh and there is also the fact that it was an oral tradtion for a few hundred years before anyone bothered to write the stuff down. :)
 
Ah yes, thank you for reminding me of the other thing that makes the Bible a virtually worthless point of reference: translation and interpretation. We're talking about a book that goes from Hebrew and Greek to Latin then to Old english then to modern english. This is not a recipe for accuracy...

Well then, you must not believe in Alexander the Great? and Plato must all be garbled, well, most historical documents must all be faulty actually, I mean, they weren't written in modern English and we know translators couldn't possibly be able to give us a accurate account.... right?

At any rate, while the average CREATIONIST (and I'll remind you again that that's the topic here) would not argue that what you said is true, they would most likely still argue for a literal representation.

Actually they would argue for a triune entity, i.e. Trinity. I agree there are some people out there that may argue that God is a old dude, but they are the ill-informed. Its similar to the people that argue the inerrant accuracy of evolutionary theory. ;-)


Unfortunately humans occupy linear timespace and as such cannot easily envision a "timeless" being.

So because you can't envision it, then it must be wrong... because if humans can't understand it, it simply can't exist.

MAN creates GOD in his own image.

Or since man is made as "imagers", like God, the traits we carry for creativity allows us to express the nature of God in simple ways that is easy for us to comprehend.

It still seems there is an undercurrent of prejudice against Christians in your statements, which have deep seeded hostilities in them... there has to be a reason behind that too. ;-)

---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ----------

I fail to see why this matters. Some conjure up the image of an old man in the clouds others may think of Charlton Heston or Morgan Freeman... even Alanis Morissette. I tend to think of Papa Smurf. It doesn't matter and has no bearing on the subject.

Actually, logical critique of a subject means you should be very well versed in what the subject actually states.

Like the fact that for some reason, bias is NON-existent in evolutionary theory, and although the psychological studies have been done using the scientific method, those studies must be completely flawed.

So all other sciences that may cause us to question the validity of evolutionary theory must be wrong.

This is based on the fact that evolutionary scientists, being super-human, never fall prey to the same human frailties that confound the rest of us.

Instead using the Magical Peer Review process (i.e. the council of the gods) everything that proceeds from mount Olympus of evolution is all truth with a capital T... inerrant and unquestionable!

i.e. Religion!
 
Well then, you must not believe in Alexander the Great? and Plato must all be garbled, well, most historical documents must all be faulty actually, I mean, they weren't written in modern English and we know translators couldn't possibly be able to give us a accurate account.... right?

The accuracy of many of those documents can be (and indeed have been) challenged. However, you have a gift for reading only half of what I write, in this case you seem to have missed the word interpreted. Unless of course you're claiming that the Bible is on par with ANY historical text, in which case this conversation ends, as you will have broken it by sheer weight of ridiculousness.

I agree there are some people out there that may argue that God is a old dude, but they are the ill-informed. Its similar to the people that argue the inerrant accuracy of evolutionary theory. ;-)

Both groups are made up of people but the similarity ends there.

So because you can't envision it, then it must be wrong... because if humans can't understand it, it simply can't exist.

No, because humans can't envision something which by defintion alone is undefinable they have a tendancy to insert proxies based on their own superstitious and cultural preferences (ie sky grandpa). The ultimate reality is that it may exist and it may not but we will never know and are, in point of fact, incapable of knowing.

It still seems there is an undercurrent of prejudice against Christians in your statements, which have deep seeded hostilities in them... there has to be a reason behind that too. ;-)

That in itself is a prejudicial assumption. For a start the Bible incorporates the Torah so to claim my beef is with christians alone is disingenuous. But more over (as I would think would be clear by now) the focus of this thread may I remind you (AGAIN!) is CREATIONISM, a waste-product excreted primarily by fundamentalist christians, so naturally my focus is on them in this particualr case. By no means am I aligned against them specifically though, my disdain for all forms of religion is pretty generalized (although sharper against fundamentalists of any stripe). I'm simply not familiar enough with other religions to be as specific when calling out their bullshit.
 
So because you can't envision it, then it must be wrong... because if humans can't understand it, it simply can't exist.

Genesis 1:5 -- "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
Genesis 1:8 -- "And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
Genesis 1:13 -- "And the evening and the morning were the third day."
Genesis 1:19 -- "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
Genesis 1:23 -- "And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."
Genesis 1:31 -- "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Genesis 2:2 -- "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

Hmmm, sounds fairly linear and oddly physical to me.

Actually, logical critique of a subject means you should be very well versed in what the subject actually states.

Like the fact that for some reason, bias is NON-existent in evolutionary theory, and although the psychological studies have been done using the scientific method, those studies must be completely flawed.

So all other sciences that may cause us to question the validity of evolutionary theory must be wrong.

This is based on the fact that evolutionary scientists, being super-human, never fall prey to the same human frailties that confound the rest of us.

Instead using the Magical Peer Review process (i.e. the council of the gods) everything that proceeds from mount Olympus of evolution is all truth with a capital T... inerrant and unquestionable!

i.e. Religion!

I gotta hand it to you, you can certainly bend statements and oversimplify things and still manage to surround it all in an almost condescending professorial tone. I challenged you before to show me in anything other than this debate how conformational bias negated the body of research entirely. Not a single person here has said that conformational bias does not exists. But, it can not be pointed to as the sole reason the theory of evolution exists and enjoys wide acceptance. Real research has lead us to this conclusion.

My challenge from Post#89 page 9 that you ignored completely:
"If conformational bias is hopelessly permeated in this theory then that same proliferation should be evident in all other aspects of research utilizing accepted scientific research procedures. If thats the case show me a non-creationism vs evolution example where your view is supported."

Again, personally, I have no problem with the concept of creation(at least not in the broad concept, that 7days 6k years ago stuff is BS). Also, it just struck me that the bible never addresses the creation of the universe. Only, the creation of the earth and arguably the solar system.

Genisis 1: "1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Is this perhaps because when this was laid down in writing the earth was viewed as the absolute center of the universe? Now that we know better (through scientific study, experimentation, and observation all of which utilized the scientific method mind you) theists then expanded the meaning to include the universe concept. Maybe your right, since clearly conformational bias must have permeated this revelation as well, perhaps the earth really is the center of the universe or that "God" only made our tiny planet, thought highly of himself, and then took a nap.
 
I challenged you before to show me in anything other than this debate how conformational bias negated the body of research entirely. Not a single person here has said that conformational bias does not exists. But, it can not be pointed to as the sole reason the theory of evolution exists and enjoys wide acceptance. Real research has lead us to this conclusion.

My argument isn't that bias destroy's all aspects of evolutionary adaptation entirely, it's in key positions, which have to date, still to be proven. The leap from one dog type to another dog type isn't in question (chihuahuas and great Danes for example) the argument is that there is un-disputable proof that a fish became a dog. (yes simplified, but actually what the theory states when you break it down.)

Time has become the God of the Gaps, which is what evolutionist state. Just give enough time and organisms can change from a single cell, to a fish, to dog, or human etc.

Where is the solid proof for that?

Or isn't that just a belief?

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" by Charles Darwin, one of the main proofs of how man evolved is black people, aboriginals to be exact were surviving examples of primitive forms of humans. White people of course were top of the food chain... and he could prove it!

Using racism as a "proof" the theory then began to build, and when fossils were found this became a way of classifying them.

Article from scientific journal of the time using Aboriginal people and Neanderthal (not considered early man anymore) as a way to show how this skull (still found in textbooks) is part of man's ancestry.

JSTOR

So, as these respected scientists held up skulls and used Aboriginal people as part of their proofs, who could argue, we can study the skull and the black person side by side for proof!

When those then became indisputable facts, the next set of facts were bolstered by those original facts. (Eventually the racist elements faded away, but not for a very, very long time) So looking back, can you really say all these foundational facts have been interpreted correctly, without a doubt?

So, unless this board is full of bigots ( i mean racial bigots, it is full of anti-religious bigots, which is ok I see ;-) can you really argue that Darwin, etc. who used black people as proof, didn't create a bias among scientists that helps establish a potentially faulty foundation?
 
Back
Top