Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,230 Year: 5,487/9,624 Month: 512/323 Week: 9/143 Day: 9/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is creationism winning in Turkey & Korea?
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 77 (306594)
04-25-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
05-28-2002 4:47 AM


Creationism is really an American phenomena, it spreads like McDonald's around the world. While Europe ignores it, it seems that in Asia it would gain a stronghold.
Turkish creationist personality Harun Yahya with his 'Science Research Foundation' has a strong network, backed by the network of
quote:
Muslim organizations locally and internationally. They have been around for some time, and while creationism faces tough scientific infrastructure in the US, it certainly doesn't in Turkey or other Islamic countries. Therefore it may become bigger there. Take Indonesia for instance. After an Islamic publisher published Harun Yahya's 'Evolution Deceit', the atmosphere of creationism starts to build, and young Muslim activists are ready to confront local evolutionists (which are few here--too many laypeople) and hardly a month pass without another of Yahya's books turning up in bookstores.
Excellent. I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about. It is a system of belief and anti beliefs wrapped in science in some countries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-28-2002 4:47 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2006 9:57 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 77 (306595)
04-25-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
02-25-2006 8:47 AM


Re: all over the world
quote:
Imo, not strange, since most creationism's premise is the Bible, that credible book full of fulfilled prophecy and social goodies that bolster it's credibility. Imo, if the origins are flawed so should the prophecies be proven to be bogus.
True. But they do not call such solid evidence science. It isn't in with the scientific in crowd's deciding what is knowledge, and science and what is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 02-25-2006 8:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 77 (306625)
04-26-2006 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
04-25-2006 9:57 PM


quote:
Unless one is worried about increasing knowledge.
Science increases certain knowledge, not all.
quote:
Can you tell me how "anti beliefs" are different from normal beliefs?
Welcome to the fray.
Thank you. Normal beliefs come in many flavors. One of them is science. At least some parts of science. What is allowed and acceptable in some countries as "science" seems to be an anti God flavored concoction. If Turkey or other places were less restrictive, all the better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2006 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2006 8:30 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 77 (306927)
04-27-2006 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
04-26-2006 8:30 PM


quote:
Can you connect
msg 12 writes:
I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about.
and
Science increases certain knowledge, not all.
Well, science is a funny little thing. It does not apply to everything. Just our natural world. If we were to think there was nothing else, why, we might find connecting the dots was difficult. AS apparently you do.
quote:
Funny, I must have missed where you differentiated "anti beliefs" from normal beliefs. It seems you are changing the {topic\question\issue} again.
If one had an anti belief, it would be a belief that was opposed to another belief.
quote:
..What parts of science are beliefs?
What parts aren't?
quote:
Can you tell me how science could be pro god flavored?
Well, it would need a complete change of criteria acceptance for one thing. It would have to deal with more than just our natural world, for another. So many changes would be needed.
quote:
Be careful what you wish for.
I am.
This message has been edited by relative, 04-27-2006 01:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2006 8:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2006 7:47 AM simple has replied
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2006 10:27 PM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 77 (307834)
04-30-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
04-27-2006 7:47 AM


quote:
We are talking about knowledge, eh? Not science fiction, not fantasy, not "what if" stories right?
Sometimes these things are confused.
quote:
We have math, we have logic, and we have science. All these can be verified. What else?
Was there a point somewhere?
quote:
Let's not start with the ad hominems yet, but save them for when you have no other argument left eh?
It was not that. It was an observation.
quote:
Science increases knowledge. How does agreeing to that expand or clarify your original thesis that "I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about."
Some knowledge is better not increased.
quote:
So it would just be another belief? No different from any normal belief, and yet you seemed to make a clear distinction originally between a belief and an anti belief.
Depends on the context.
quote:
The parts based on facts, observations and repeated experiments. The ones that have valid logical conclusions and that lead to productive predictions.
Oh. I thought the teachings in question in Korea and places had something to do with orgins.
quote:
Do you mean we should choose second best theories instead?
Leave that up to the majority of the country. Your opinion of best, may be your own.
quote:
Care to flesh out your opinion with some substantiation of precisely what you consider a belief in science?
OK. That evolution did not start from creatures that were created.
quote:
If you are looking for knowledge outside the natural world then you are looking for philosophy, mysticism and the like, and not science.
I know.
quote:
you have betrayed a lack of knowledge of what science really is and what it's natural limits are,
Thats what you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2006 7:47 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2006 10:24 AM simple has replied
 Message 23 by EZscience, posted 05-01-2006 11:26 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 77 (308135)
05-01-2006 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
04-30-2006 10:24 AM


say what?
quote:
You are not making it any clearer. Are we talking about knowledge, yes or no? It's a simple question.
The stuff taught in foreign schools you don't like? I would think it has some knowledge, like the stuff taught in your country.
quote:
What other forms of knowledge (other than that derived from math, logic and science) can be verified?
Belief in God is verified by many, they feel. Simply doubting it doesn't make it go away. It is more certain than some other areas of knowledge.
quote:
Then clearly state the dots and then connect them and show me the errors of my ways. Answer the questions. Clarify and elucidate rather than make more vague unsubstantiated and generalized statements.
Take your own advice and actually say something clear you think needs answering.
quote:
Another vague unsubstantiated generalized statement. What knowledge is better not increased? How do you know? What are the standards that you would set? How are those standards determined?
Godless knowledge is better not increased. WOMD knowledge is better not increased. Standards? I am with those who allow Jesus and prayer in schools, and to hell with those that don't like it.
quote:
Are you now saying that it is the knowledge gained from science that "these people have to worry about" or are you avoiding the question again?
Knowledge we have covers the present. It does not cover God, or the future. I like knowledge of the present. I like knowledge of God. The pretended knowledge of the future men have is not science. Regardless of what you believe.
quote:
belief the earth is ~10 thousand years old
anti-belief the observed evidence that the earth is 4.5+ billions of years old.
The past, as some are now starting to understand was nothing like the present, and no present laws apply there. For your dating to work, those laws would have to apply. You have no clue if the past was totally different, as the bible indicates, or not. All you might offer is belief to suggest otherwise.
quote:
The theory of evolution does not address how life started. This is not a "belief" in science.
The theory of evolution from a common lifeform, rather than from created creatures is absolute pure, uncut belief. An adapting, and evolving in itself is a belief I share. Try and tie it to the common lifeform, and you crash and burn.
quote:
See The Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III thread for more information and to discuss this one further (it would be off topic here).
No thanks. The forum there is a science forum, and the deck on this forum is stacked. Maybe if it was in the coffee house.
quote:
Stop equivocating. The question was what part of science are beliefs? You still have not answered that question with any valid specifics. If you want me to connect your dots you have to put some out there.
All parts of science that you try to apply to the future are beliefs.
quote:
What the evidence shows is that as far back as we can determine there is a clear general progression of life from one form to another, and that the earliest life forms known were bacteria like. This is not a belief but an observation based on the evidence. This still starts with life evolving into life.
Not true. All we have is a record of what died and fossilized. Not any indication all creatures evolved from 'lower' life forms. That is your interpretaion I in no way share, as do not millions of others.
quote:
What we know is that 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on this planet, but somewhere between then and 3.87 billion years ago life appeared.
We know nothing of the sort. The past was different, and all your assumptions are wrong on dates, sorry to break the news.
quote:
What the evidence shows is that the first life 3.87 + billion years ago was bacteria like, and did not include fish, reptiles and mammals.
The life was here at that time. It just was in Eden. That's why it isn't found worldwide. Just certain creatures and plants were made for the earth at large.
quote:
Are you saying we should vote on which scientific theories are valid? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?
Yes. The majority should have sway in matters of belief. You believe the past was the same as now, but you can't call it science. The evidence works both ways. Beyond the present, lies just belief. Let the majority belief be in the schools.
quote:
No, it's an observation, based on what you have posted and what I have pointed out as the errors in your thinking of what science really is and what it's natural limits are.
You don't tell me what science really is. It really is this natural world. How long it was like it is, or will remain that way is guesses, and belief. That is all that is used to try to talk of things out of the fishbowl of the present. Absolutely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2006 10:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by EZscience, posted 05-01-2006 11:39 AM simple has replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2006 11:04 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 77 (308348)
05-01-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by EZscience
05-01-2006 11:26 AM


quote:
No, that's what you clearly stated below.
You seem to see science as an 'anti-belief' and favor definitions of science that include supernatural explanations.
Below what? I think you may be clearly confused. As for beliefs that are connected with science, some of them are anti God. That qualifies them as anti. Such as claims the earth is old. Or that God did not create us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by EZscience, posted 05-01-2006 11:26 AM EZscience has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 77 (308352)
05-01-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by EZscience
05-01-2006 11:39 AM


Re: say what?
quote:
They can 'feel' all they want but they don't 'know' diddley.
More than you know. as little as that may be.
quote:
No, but ignoring it usually does.
I wouldn't know, but since you seem well versed in the concept, I'll take your word for it!
quote:
And your metric of certainty is? .
Different than yours.
quote:
So any verifiable knowledge that is without reference to God is not worth building on? And to which God should this knowledge refer to increase it's value and worthiness of increasing?.
No, I didn't say that. But silly speculations on the future you might want to call science is not verifiable. Neither is your claims of the past. Science lives in the here and now.
quote:
... with people very capable of rebutting the mindless jibberish spouted by those wearing fundamentalist blinders.
If you call "capable" being able to silence opposing voices perhaps. That is the only hope they have here.
quote:
No. They are testable hypotheses that vary in the degree to which they have supporting evidence from past observtions.
Oh goody. Then you can do what you claim on this question I will pose. The bible says that this universe will pass away one day. It is temporary. Can you say that is wrong, or correct? Hopefully you were not just lying. Fill us in.
quote:
The way we use the term 'belief' here on the forum is to refer to something that is based solely on faith without scientific evidence.
Great. Can you provide evidence that the sun will burn out, rather than last forever, in the new heavens as the bible states? Let's see you strut your stuff here.
There have been whole threads debunking the efforts of the 'spiritually inclined' to equate science to a 'belief system'. [/quote] I don't do that. I equate the false beliefs of the past and future you might call science as the belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by EZscience, posted 05-01-2006 11:39 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by EZscience, posted 05-02-2006 6:45 AM simple has not replied
 Message 30 by Parasomnium, posted 05-02-2006 8:28 AM simple has not replied
 Message 31 by AdminOmni, posted 05-02-2006 9:01 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 77 (308355)
05-02-2006 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
05-01-2006 11:04 PM


Re: Let's try again to answer the questions ...
quote:
Please try to stick to the discussion. This is about your opinion not mine - I'm just trying to clarify your opinion here.
Says who? This is about what it is about, not what you dictate.
quote:
But I'll take this as a "yes" (please correct me if this is an error), just so we can move on.
Take it as chop suey if you want. I'll take it that the question if there ever was one was vague.
quote:
I fully agree that the pretend knowledge of the future that people have is not science. This would of course include all the pretend prophesy and things people believe that have no foundation in the real world. People who base their vision of what the future holds on beliefs and ignorance rather than observations and the testing of theories is most certainly not science and most likely rather pointless if not counterproductive, or even dangerous.
Great, so next time they say our galaxy will crash into another, or the sun burn out one day, I'll keep it in mind. I like real prophesy, like in the bible. It is so much better than ignorance and beliefs. It is so right on, and 100 % true so far, that there isn't hardly any belief required. More like history.
quote:
(1) I don't doubt that every single person that believes in god feels that it is verified, for every religion, sect, what have you. Otherwise they wouldn't believe eh?
Great, eh?
quote:
The problem that I have with this being verified knowledge is that different religions contradict other religions - even ones from very close forms of belief.
I don't know much about religion, so you'll have to work through your own problems.
quote:
2) Please demonstrate that your personal feeling regarding your belief in god is exactly matched by someone else's personal feeling regarding their belief in god. Perhaps you would care to participate in a double blind experiment to evaluate this aspect of religious belief?
My personal feelings have nothing to do with it. It is the word of God, and the huge limits of science that give me authority.
quote:
(3) It is possible to have a "religious experience" induced by purely electro-chemical stimulation of various parts of the brain (see The God Helmet"), so having such an experience does not necessarily mean that the experience was a reflection of reality.
So what? Are you insinuating most men are mad?
quote:
... then there should only be one religion, yes? (or no?). Then there should be no need for religion in school, yes? (or no?). Or are we talking about "other areas of knowledge" that are inconsequential.
Belief is religion. Projecting present science in the past or future is belief. It is taught in schools. There are many beliefs. The majority one should be taught.
quote:
Actually you are wrong again. For the past to be substantially different there would be significant problems in a number of systems, such as the decay of radioactive elements, that would make the world uninhabitable (think of 4.5 billion years of decay happening in 10,000 years, and remember that decay is an expotential decay curve - every half life you compress doubles the radiation you have to "dispose" of) ... talk about WOMD.
This post is too long, I'll cut it off here.
There was no radioactive decay in the past. There will be none in the fiuture. The daughter material you see you think decayed was already there, as the decay process began thousands of years ago. It never got there by decay, and of course we know it now does. But the process itself changed, it never used to be a decay process at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2006 11:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 12:55 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 77 (317372)
06-03-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
05-02-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Let's try again to answer the questions ...
??? Why is this stuff supposed to be a reply to me?
Later on====
Oh, I see what is going on here, they tar whisper with the simple brush. Now I have been around a bit. There was a 'dad; over on christianforums who posted I think it was said as one of the 'simple's' here at one time. He would be the one to take care of Razd, not me.
Edited by whisper, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 12:55 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024