Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[munzter666]

---

I think well researched posts are good ones. Rodsky bai, nice one about the scientific method. :mrgreen:
---

It probably can't be denied that no system is free of errors but, rejecting any system because errors were found (in science or in religion) is like throwing the baby with the bathwater. Any system can be improved over time, if we only keep at it.
---

I personally don't see a conflict between religion and science. Both are searches for truth in different domains. I consider it that some persons or organizations are the ones creating this conflict, unnecessarily compelling some people to make a choice they don't even have to make in the first place.

I think there is no essential competition between roses and lilies.

nice
comment lang ko...

It probably can't be denied that no system is free of errors but, rejecting any system because errors were found (in science or in religion) is like throwing the baby with the bathwater. Any system can be improved over time, if we only keep at it.

its kinda true, but wasnt religion and its dogmatic beliefs designed or claim to be/ to withstand the test of time ergo cannot be revised, edited nor changed...

which is how i see these creationists...attempting to evolve or change by wrapping themselves with science kuno.

Mao! some people just don't know when to stop. Now, being narrow-minded will never get you anywhere but riding the same track. Ang pagtoo man gud ani nila nga ang kita nga lain ug huna-huna is against sa ilang tinuohan. Well, you all got to wake up dudes and dudettes!

you have to understand some people doesnt like to/want to be unplugged from the matrix.

[Sinyalan]

the same with you, you should wake up.

Peace!

fortunately I am... and I think you still are.

[brownprose]

you have to understand some people doesnt like to/want to be unplugged from the matrix.

hahaha...maayo pagka lansang!

[geoseph]

nice
comment lang ko...

Thanks. No prob.

its kinda true, but wasnt religion and its dogmatic beliefs designed or claim to be/ to withstand the test of time ergo cannot be revised, edited nor changed...

I think that's what defines dogma. =)

I personally don't see the problem as religion. I think the real problem is misuse of religion by their respective leaderships. It's like government. We can change our system of government as often as we like but, if corrupt people are in power, I don't see the rest of the people as exactly benefiting from it.

A non-example of a leader can conceivably get a grip of his (or her) flock with scare tactics, aided further by the churches differentiating themselves sufficiently as to make any of them claim that they are the only true church.

I believe there is a smart way and a not so smart way of belonging to a religion. If one can separate rice from husk, one can begin to practice what is truly essential, and ignore the rest (at least not blatantly enough to worry say, your parents). This is one reason I encourage everyone to think and feel the truth for themselves, so that we may start to see people as no less than fellow human beings.

which is how i see these creationists...attempting to evolve or change by wrapping themselves with science kuno.

They themselves are probably unable to reconcile religion from science, so might as well invite everybody. =)

you have to understand some people doesnt like to/want to be unplugged from the matrix.

Nicely put. :mrgreen:

Unplugging (for me, from unessential teachings) may be a matter of being true to one's conscience and proper use of reason.

[Sinyalan]

I believe there is a smart way and a not so smart way of belonging to a religion. If one can separate rice from husk, one can begin to practice what is truly essential, and ignore the rest (at least not blatantly enough to worry say, your parents). This is one reason I encourage everyone to think and feel the truth for themselves, so that we may start to see people as no less than fellow human beings.

Very proficient post geoseph. Which some of these nonsensical beings are impossing their beliefs rather than looking at a person as a human being.

I echo your ideas.

Hey, brod... if people are like you that understands more of the common mind, we all have a good topic to discuss.

[munzter666]

Thanks. No prob.
I think that's what defines dogma. =)

I personally don't see the problem as religion. I think the real problem is misuse of religion by their respective leaderships. It's like government. We can change our system of government as often as we like but, if corrupt people are in power, I don't see the rest of the people as exactly benefiting from it.

A non-example of a leader can conceivably get a grip of his (or her) flock with scare tactics, aided further by the churches differentiating themselves sufficiently as to make any of them claim that they are the only true church.

I believe there is a smart way and a not so smart way of belonging to a religion. If one can separate rice from husk, one can begin to practice what is truly essential, and ignore the rest (at least not blatantly enough to worry say, your parents). This is one reason I encourage everyone to think and feel the truth for themselves, so that we may start to see people as no less than fellow human beings.
They themselves are probably unable to reconcile religion from science, so might as well invite everybody. =)

Nicely put. :mrgreen:

Unplugging (for me, from unessential teachings) may be a matter of being true to one's conscience and proper use of reason.

science and religion are such vague concepts.

one is open to falsification and revisions...the other remains constant/stagnant. i believe religion's grasp in explaining natural phenomenon are overwhelmingly superceded by science. that's why religion and its works shines in the field of philosophy, which is it's rightful place.

creationism is attempting to get the best of both worlds the darnest possible way. thats why it falls outside of the mainstream scope of scholarly science. it doesnt play by its rules.

I believe there is a smart way and a not so smart way of belonging to a religion. If one can separate rice from husk, one can begin to practice what is truly essential, and ignore the rest (at least not blatantly enough to worry say, your parents). This is one reason I encourage everyone to think and feel the truth for themselves, so that we may start to see people as no less than fellow human beings.

ah the what they call "cherry pickers"...which i personally find them more open-minded people compared to those stcuk with unquestioning mentality.

[geoseph]

Very proficient post geoseph. Which some of these nonsensical beings are impossing their beliefs rather than looking at a person as a human being.

I echo your ideas.

Hey, brod... if people are like you that understands more of the common mind, we all have a good topic to discuss.

Thanks.

I also read the posts, and am hoping for better continuation.

I suspect some posts, no matter how irritating these may seem to the receiver, may have started out as a well meaning "help" (though the receiver may not really need it). As the saying goes, 'The road to "hell" is paved with good intentions.' It is not always the case that one's intent is translated well into language. If the intended "beneficiary" reacts then, the "sharer" might feel unappreciated. If the reaction is strong enough then, an argument may be triggered.

I have had my share of experiences regarding this. At first, it annoyed me. Later on, realizing it's part of life, and admitting my own imperfection (made similar mistakes), I somewhat got the hang of it (tolerate it). This gradually helped me realize that there is a difference between a person and his or her behavior. The person will remain but, the behavior can change. I therefore always have hope for everyone (including myself). People don't have to be the same person in the future as they are today. Perhaps, enemies today may be friends tomorrow.

I guess, that's enough mushiness for one post ...

[aubrey_pearl]

Thanks.

I also read the posts, and am hoping for better continuation.

I suspect some posts, no matter how irritating these may seem to the receiver, may have started out as a well meaning "help" (though the receiver may not really need it). As the saying goes, 'The road to "hell" is paved with good intentions.' It is not always the case that one's intent is translated well into language. If the intended "beneficiary" reacts then, the "sharer" might feel unappreciated. If the reaction is strong enough then, an argument may be triggered.

I have had my share of experiences regarding this. At first, it annoyed me. Later on, realizing it's part of life, and admitting my own imperfection (made similar mistakes), I somewhat got the hang of it (tolerate it). This gradually helped me realize that there is a difference between a person and his or her behavior. The person will remain but, the behavior can change. I therefore always have hope for everyone (including myself). People don't have to be the same person in the future as they are today. Perhaps, enemies today may be friends tomorrow.

I guess, that's enough mushiness for one post ...

ngano maabot paman jud sa away?

[geoseph]

science and religion are such vague concepts.

one is open to falsification and revisions...the other remains constant/stagnant. i believe religion's grasp in explaining natural phenomenon are overwhelmingly superceded by science. that's why religion and its works shines in the field of philosophy, which is it's rightful place.

I agree that they have their best places.

creationism is attempting to get the best of both worlds the darnest possible way. thats why it falls outside of the mainstream scope of scholarly science. it doesnt play by its rules.

Right, and it’s like a mythical beast, half this, half that, and a strange creature it becomes.

ah the what they call "cherry pickers"...which i personally find them more open-minded people compared to those stcuk with unquestioning mentality.

I'm guessing what you mean by "cherry pickers" are those who only eat the fruit, and the rest eat the leaves and small branches as well, "just in case" ... That's funny and sad to me at the same time.

[brownprose]

creationism is attempting to get the best of both worlds the darnest possible way. thats why it falls outside of the mainstream scope of scholarly science. it doesnt play by its rules.

And just because "no one was there" to prove what happened before, creationists conveniently resort to this form of argument to debunk empirical data or reject tenable theories.