UF News: Interview with Realest

[John Snowstorm]

Palem; are you really defending creationism? on the internet?

Science does not address the origin of life, only it's development.

Incorrect, science does in fact address the origins of life. The theory of evolution does not, but the various abiogenesis hypotheses do.

And Science doesn't address religion in the least bit.

Incorrect, science addresses any claims of religions that effect the natural world, if you claim that all of humanity was created out of dust and a second hand rib 6000 years ago, that is a testable claim and is very much addressed by science. The same applies if you claim the earth is flat or the sun orbits the earth. Science does not address supernatural beings by definition, but religions tend to make all sorts of natural claims which science can address.

[Palem]

Palem; are you really defending creationism? on the internet?

Incorrect, science does in fact address the origins of life. The theory of evolution does not, but the various abiogenesis hypotheses do.

I'm only defending it slightly. I don't believe it myself, but there's no reason to scoff at the idea that a scientist could be a creationist. While I do think science will eventually find the answer, at this point biogenesis is just as reliable as creationism as a means of explaining the beginning of life.

Incorrect, science addresses any claims of religions that effect the natural world, if you claim that all of humanity was created out of dust and a second hand rib 6000 years ago, that is a testable claim and is very much addressed by science. The same applies if you claim the earth is flat or the sun orbits the earth. Science does not address supernatural beings by definition, but religions tend to make all sorts of natural claims which science can address.

The crux of all religions is that there is an all powerful god(s) and that we should be believe in them, which is what I was getting at. As you pointed out, science doesn't address supernatural things.

/off topic rants about religion and creationism lol

[lastunicorn]

Find the most annoying troll, and let me interview him and I promise you, you will learn more about that individual because I have the know-how to present ideas.

Let's see an interview on gojete that is enjoyable for everyone.

[Flair]

The crux of all religions is that there is an all powerful god(s) and that we should be believe in them, which is what I was getting at. As you pointed out, science doesn't address supernatural things.

/off topic rants about religion and creationism lol

Isn't that because its pretty much impossible to prove that absence of something within an undefined space.

[Anri]

If the news team isn't gonna take this seriously why even bother? This was garbage, with ridiculous questions and worthless answers.

what he said

[Al3x]

Let's see an interview on gojete that is enjoyable for everyone.

go on then realest the gauntlet has been thrown down.

[Jo3MoMMa]

I'm only defending it slightly. I don't believe it myself, but there's no reason to scoff at the idea that a scientist could be a creationist. While I do think science will eventually find the answer, at this point biogenesis is just as reliable as creationism as a means of explaining the beginning of life.



The crux of all religions is that there is an all powerful god(s) and that we should be believe in them, which is what I was getting at. As you pointed out, science doesn't address supernatural things.

/off topic rants about religion and creationism lol

Look up the physicist Stephen Hawking, or the psyscologist Sigmund Freud, or look up Mathew Alper. Hell have you ever heard of the big bang theory? While I agree at not scoffing at scientists or people in general who are creationists. While the practice of religion is not a science, religion it self is what mankind turned to for answers to questions b4 science could answer them.

[Palem]

The big bang theory only explains how the universe has developed, not how it was created.

Although, string theory and such are getting close to being able to fully explain it, so we're getting there

[John Snowstorm]

I'm only defending it slightly. I don't believe it myself, but there's no reason to scoff at the idea that a scientist could be a creationist.

Yes, there is, there isn't a scientist worth his salt that believes the earth is 6000 years old or anything close to it. Its exactly akin to saying 'there's no reason to scoff at the idea that a geologist could believe the earth was flat". Excuse me sir, but that is plenty scoffable for me. I scoff in its general direction. Scoff Scoff.

The crux of all religions is that there is an all powerful god(s) and that we should be believe in them, which is what I was getting at. As you pointed out, science doesn't address supernatural things.

/off topic rants about religion and creationism lol

There are plenty of religions that do not imply all powerful gods, its practically only the Abrahamic faiths that do. Theism != religion. Without making testable pr at least ponderable claims you will find it very difficult to move yourself beyond a deistic position, so yes, science will tend to have things to address religion about.

[John Snowstorm]

The big bang theory only explains how the universe has developed, not how it was created.

Although, string theory and such are getting close to being able to fully explain it, so we're getting there

Assumption of creation, physical laws break down at the singularity implied by BBT. No reason to assume any creation event ever took place there. Hawkings most recent book (The Grand Design) is worth a read and hovers around this topic.

[Palem]

Yes, there is, there isn't a scientist worth his salt that believes the earth is 6000 years old or anything close to it. Its exactly akin to saying 'there's no reason to scoff at the idea that a geologist could believe the earth was flat". Excuse me sir, but that is plenty scoffable for me. I scoff in its general direction. Scoff Scoff.

You act like a requirement to believe in god(s) is to believe all the inaccuracies that come with it.
You can believe in god(s) and still trust in science to present facts.

[goodlilwitch]

Way to get completely off topic guys lol.

In other news...
There's really nothing more I can say in response that I haven't already said, so I'm just going to say this: ^5 Realest! :P

[John Snowstorm]

You act like a requirement to believe in god(s) is to believe all the inaccuracies that come with it.
You can believe in god(s) and still trust in science to present facts.

No, I didn't. I specifically didn't in fact. I spoke specifically about Creationism, and explained the difference between untestable deism and testable religious claims.

[Jo3MoMMa]

You act like a requirement to believe in god(s) is to believe all the inaccuracies that come with it.
You can believe in god(s) and still trust in science to present facts.

very true, no matter what happens there will always be the question well what caused that, or created that. which is why i am always open to possibilities.
Theres a theory out there i forget the name but the idea is we always find something because we look for it, as in our brains create it. It goes into the quantum physics and the multi verse theorys, and is also very interesting.

srry witch but this topic is way more intriguing to see peoples thoughts, rather then reading criticism of you or realest

[Palem]

No, I didn't. I specifically didn't in fact. I spoke specifically about Creationism, and explained the difference between untestable deism and testable religious claims.

Right, but just as you don't have to believe every word of the bible to be a good christian (i think lol), you don't need to believe everything in creationism to think it has some merrit. It could just be as simple as 'I think god created the universe'

I think I did my /end rant earlier, but...yea lol