Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[dwardwarbinx]

then read your bible, go to church..

umm, sir. no offense ha pero mao jd ni mga reasons ngano mapilding tang mga creationists sa mga arguments kay palaban dayon tag sturya2 sa bible. *obviously not religious* hehe.

that's different. more like ANSWER formulation vs. GOAL formulation.
try applying that with "god/s".(good luck)hehe


let me expound no.2, science does answer through SUPERNATURAL/mystery(mysterious) means.

who is this god/s? what is/are this god/s?....now you'll end up explaining the how's and the why's about this god/s SUPERNATURALLY.

...and we only started with a question, now we have more than one question un-answered.

for the sake of conversation....what has creationism contributed so far? in the medical field? biology?
cant seem to read any of them in my science textbooks.

umm, sir unya sa sir ha kay labad pa kaayo ako ulo gikan inom gabii. haha. bitaw, ganahan rako mu-comment ni NASYO. padayunon tani sir later. thanks.

ay diay sir, klaruhon nato atong um arguments. we're talking here about Neo-Darwinian Evolution as opposed to my Creation Theory crap, right? sige sir, laters. happy sunday.

[munzter666]

then read your bible, go to church..

what are the medical, biological, perhaps pharmacological implications of mud pie magic
how does that suppose to help me? with what?

ay diay sir, klaruhon nato atong um arguments. we're talking here about Neo-Darwinian Evolution as opposed to my Creation Theory crap, right? sige sir, laters. happy sunday.

clarify which creation theory you got...do note there are a lot of creation stories out there. heck even our own indigenous tribes have varying stories.

[dwardwarbinx]

clarify which creation theory you got...do note there are a lot of creation stories out there. heck even our own indigenous tribes have varying stories.

hehe lagi. Akoa kay i cant find the logic of something as amazing as the human body (with all the complicated processes that work so well with each other, chuvA) to be a product of randomness gni. na nagkataon lang na everything was arranged well nya na-evolve dayon ang banana to fishes (lame example, i know. lol) nya from man to apes. murag there SHOULD be some sort of supreme highly intellectual uber being behind all that. some really intelligent engineer.

That's my creation theory. Very romantic and unscientific kay kapuy man sige basa about creationism gd. mao gani di ko well-versed about it. wahehe. will read more tho.

What's yours, sir? aside from being the lucky sperm theory .

[munzter666]

see, you are mystified with its process and beauty...and then assigned this to a WHO? a mystery WHO? the problem with that approach is...this WHO could be ET, captain barbel, darna, the crystal skull.hehe
and the rest of the god/s in the inventory list. should there be a need for such?

i'm happy with randomness and chance. its not really as comforting as something magically inclined with happy endings.lolz

[dwardwarbinx]

see, you are mystified with its process and beauty...and then assigned this to a WHO? a mystery WHO? the problem with that approach is...this WHO could be ET, captain barbel, darna, the crystal skull.hehe
and the rest of the god/s in the inventory list. should there be a need for such?

i'm happy with randomness and chance. its not really as comforting as something magically inclined with happy endings.lolz

not necessarily a WHO, sir. It can even be a supreme highly intellectual pebble. lol. basta SOmeone, something has to be behind everything that's naturally awesome in this world. that i guess should be the creationism theory. that's the creationist theory that's valid for me anyway.

randomness and chance doesnt make sense to me man gud. aah. to each his own na jd siguro. whatever makes sense to us and what makes us happy. tanan tao sir pareha palang nimo. mwahaha

[munzter666]

you have a deep seated desire for this something/someone, its already clouding your objectivity.
this is where this theory(i cant even classify it as a scientific theory) fails. it has mysterious elements in the mix. science never attempts to answer such query through SUPERNATURAL means.
what happened to testability? is it open to falsification? this are a few things to keep in mind when dealing with scientific theories. they are in no way ABSOLUTE in nature and is open for revision if new evidences arise.

can you do that with creationism? i'm afraid not. thats why it is mostly taught in religion classes and not in science.

...somethings just happen. let the chips fall where they may.haha

[dwardwarbinx]

same goes for the theory of evolution, sir. it has mysterious elements in the mix as well pero this is not a thread for creationism vs. evolution man gud and i try not to steer away from the topic as much as i can.

anyhoo, i don't think it's a deep seated desire for the supreme and highly intellectual pebble, it's a deep seated desire to make some sense out of creation. some things CAN'T just happen just like that. i don't want to resign myself to that fatalistic notion na kung baga magic magic lang nahimo ang life. there should be a valid theory behind it. an explanation. creationism is the closest thing that makes sense to me.

i actually studied evolution pud and tried to consider it kay wa ta kabaw, okay diay. pero I can't find myself to believe in the Neo-Darwinian Evolution because it has so many flaws and it is mostly based on materialism ideology, however them evolutionists deny it. and that of course is Off-topic. hehe.

OT: i'm not really as well-versed on scientific creationism as i am with anti-neodarwinian evolution concepts. so, umm, mao to. ^^ hehe

[munzter666]

kindly name or point out those mysterious elements from evolution. i do understand that this theory is still in the works...but nonetheless, it still stands cause there's nothing BETTER to replace it with.

...anyway, you choose to believe in creationism because its comforting, suit yourself.

i don't want to resign myself to that fatalistic notion na kung baga magic magic lang nahimo ang life. there should be a valid theory behind it. an explanation. creationism is the closest thing that makes sense to me.

i dont get it, you refuse to resign to fatalistic notion na kung baga magic magic lang nahimo ang life. yet you are comfortable with mudpie magic??

[pixelwise]

you have a deep seated desire for this something/someone, its already clouding your objectivity.
this is where this theory(i cant even classify it as a scientific theory) fails. it has mysterious elements in the mix. science never attempts to answer such query through SUPERNATURAL means.
what happened to testability? is it open to falsification? this are a few things to keep in mind when dealing with scientific theories. they are in no way ABSOLUTE in nature and is open for revision if new evidences arise.

can you do that with creationism? i'm afraid not. thats why it is mostly taught in religion classes and not in science.

...somethings just happen. let the chips fall where they may.haha

galileo admitted to the inadequacy of his tools and methods, but he stood firm on his theory on heliocentrism and the tides. he was later found to be wrong about the tides. in those days when new ideas can get you hanged or burned, ngano kaha nagpagahi jud si galileo? unsa to, just arrogance? but why not faith? couldn't he been mesmerized and mystified enough to yield to faith what his tools couldn't measure?

being mystified is being human. it's one reason we now have cellphones while dolphins still click and shriek to communicate. a simple "what if" can lead to great discoveries. i definitely would not reject a notion just because i happen to be mesmerized by it. i wouldn't stop at the possibility of a creator just because contemporary beliefs put it beyond the border between "reality" and the "supernatural" ... what border? who put it there and how did they know where to put it exactly?

do i want or desire for there to be a god? truth be told i personally believe things are better if there wasn't one, or if he was here and gone, never to come back. but based on what our science currently presents as "evidence", yes the idea of a god is more comforting. it's actually saner.

my qualms with the modern proponents of the scientific view is that they go headlong to the concept of a universal source but just as suddenly they stop on where it's most convenient. i mean, why stop at the big bang? why conveniently call it "nothing" and conclude that there can't possibly be anything before it? sounds to me like trying to evade something, i.e the possibility of stumbling upon the possibility of a creator. sounds too wishful yes, but i'll take that over the idea of a billion chimps aspiring to be the bard.

[munzter666]

galileo admitted to the inadequacy of his tools and methods, but he stood firm on his theory on heliocentrism and the tides. he was later found to be wrong about the tides. in those days when new ideas can get you hanged or burned, ngano kaha nagpagahi jud si galileo? unsa to, just arrogance? but why not faith? couldn't he been mesmerized and mystified enough to yield to faith what his tools couldn't measure?

being mystified is being human. it's one reason we now have cellphones while dolphins still click and shriek to communicate. a simple "what if" can lead to great discoveries. i definitely would not reject a notion just because i happen to be mesmerized by it. i wouldn't stop at the possibility of a creator just because contemporary beliefs put it beyond the border between "reality" and the "supernatural" ... what border? who put it there and how did they know where to put it exactly?

do i want or desire for there to be a god? truth be told i personally believe things are better if there wasn't one, or if he was here and gone, never to come back. but based on what our science currently presents as "evidence", yes the idea of a god is more comforting. it's actually saner.

my qualms with the modern proponents of the scientific view is that they go headlong to the concept of a universal source but just as suddenly they stop on where it's most convenient. i mean, why stop at the big bang? why conveniently call it "nothing" and conclude that there can't possibly be anything before it? sounds to me like trying to evade something, i.e the possibility of stumbling upon the possibility of a creator. sounds too wishful yes, but i'll take that over the idea of a billion chimps aspiring to be the bard.

*i am not arguing about the existence of god/s nor disproving god/s here. i'm only NOT ASSUMING any, in relation to the topic.

being mystified is being human

true. couldnt say more about the ORIGINS of god/s.
mysteries....they are useful. they push the boundaries regarding our knowledge pool but answering them through mysterious means as i pointed out will get you NOWHERE.

do i want or desire for there to be a god? truth be told i personally believe things are better if there wasn't one, or if he was here and gone, never to come back. but based on what our science currently presents as "evidence", yes the idea of a god is more comforting. it's actually saner.

just because its comforting doesn't mean nor make it REAL though. honestly speaking, i am not satisfied with evolution and big bang, it still needs work. but with the current tools and the level of our knowledge pool, its the best one we got. so i'm sticking with it. offer a better one, enough to revise such learning....creationism, try again.

an important rule regarding scientific method is....to never jump into conclusions.

what are the implications for this god in this field then? answering the how's, why's, what's, where's....with "god did it"? how does that help me? god of the gaps....in return is succumbing to "lazythingking"....and we end up, NOWHERE.