/sci/ - Science & Math

The highest authority for a creationist is the bible. It is a theory based on theology, not empirical evidence

>>10589483
I am not what is generally meant by a creationist, and I view science as a wonderful tool for understanding how the Universe works.

That said, I do believe in a Creator who started the whole thing going roughly 14 billion years ago in such a way that conditions were right to allow us to be here.

I do not see any conflict between Science and Religion as grand overarching concepts, though obviously some specific views of some religions are not compatible with some specific findings of science.

All that said, threads dealing with religion on /sci/ generally get worthless pretty fast, and are normally pruned by the Mods. If a Mod wanders by, I'd be interested in letting this thread stand as a test case -- to see if such a discussion might be able to survive here now without going to shit. If it goes to shit, it can always be deleted at that time and the blanket rule be enforced going forward.

>>10589483
Americans please stop making us Christians look like idiots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2b1d6ar1V8
skip to 7:43 for koalas

>>10589640
Thanks for the good answer.
Nowadays you ither have the political christianity crowd who just posts tips fedora if you ask critical questions or people who go like lol sky wizard.
Just wanted to hear some more educated view on the nuanced bits

>>10589660
Not american.
I find feelgood christians that wash away important doctrine to avoid criticism much worse than creationists to be. honest
but that's i guess the wrong place for that

>>10589640
>Creator who started the whole thing going roughly 14 billion years ago

so, let's start with the question: what is creator made from?

>>10589483
Young earth creationism is retarded, mainstream evolution is also dumb because its a theory that dosent mean anything unless you analyze the vaccuum in which it occurs. Questions like quantifying the standard at which apadtion can over come extinction is hand waved by everybody but mathematical biologists, and even they can't explain why the universe wills the way it does. Ultimately the universe, and all of reality, including the laws of physics, consciousness, and life is designed by telesis and is self designed.

>>10589483
>Any creationists here?
yes
>Is it a valid theory?
yes
>Do you object only to young earth creation with all species created
no
>or also against old earth where each was created in their kind and the different species evolved from that?
yes
>If so on what grounds?
the word from our one true god

>>10589662
I think that creationism is in reverse of the truth. The universe creates god, humans might do it or we might all die out, some aliens might do it or they all die out, some strange abstract star nursery might do it or they all die out. If god exists I think it is because it is a function of the universe that created it.

>>10589713
you mean three right? there’s the old guy who can throw lightning bolts, the jewish communist who walks on water, and also the bird ghost right?

In regards to creation, we are so at awe of it because we perceive it to be the ultimate thing.

Frankly not very impressed by creation or creating although I contraeictivly am very fond of the being that exist and always seem to want to preserve and ease. Well with few exceptions.

Anyway, we create and create, we have a good idea of how it works, thought, idea, plan the sand in thebox and what we don't know how to cook up sooner or later using the same formula we discover the recipe!
Personal I think it is limmiting to concentrate too much on that ONLy.

I am trying to fathom what is beyond creation, 5he next step outside the box! Perhaps we do have some strong limits of comprehending for now, but sooner or later, here or there those that seek it like I do will find the true it.

I know it will be magnificent, perhaps like the very first spark. Kinda like when AI awakes, the spark, I want the true spark, I want to know and I know creation is just a drop in the sea!

>>10589483
>Is it a valid theory?
It is not a *theory* in any case.
Lrn2theory fgt pls

>>10589668
Well the creator would be eternal. "Outside the dimension of time" they'd say, so the answer is nothing. Where did energy come from?

>>10590823
Just like the probability wave which has no existence in space-time

Not even a hypothesis

>>10590859
yes, good comparison, because every religious person has written down the exact mathematical rules of the creator and tested them thoroughly against evidence and reformulated the rules that dictate the creator’s behavior each time any evidence was found that wasn’t 100% compatible with the math

>>10589483
There is evidence pointing toward evolution but this is not a scientific fact. If it were, the theory would not change over time. The angles of a triangle have equalled 180 deg forever and always will. Evolution is not this way, it shouldn't be taken as a fact but rather a hypothesis to be tested. If it is indeed a fact, then testing it shouldn't upset anyone. Real scientists want their theory to be tested. For example, recently people we excited (and happy) that gravitational waves were observed although they were predicted mathematically a century ago, a theory was tested and verified to be scientific fact. Until there is evidence that life can spontaneously form how can one shelve the possibility creationism, even if you don't believe it is the way life formed? People who will not consider any explanation other than evolution are just as "anti-science" as the people who will only consider creationism.

>>10590883
Don't be an asshat. Of course they did. In their mind, with their beliefs and intuition.

Why are you upset that formal math does away with intuition in favor of purely logical proofs?

>>10590891
first of all, there is no such thing as an absolute fact in science. empirical facts are just well-supported by evidence but nothing precludes counter-evidence from overturning (“falsifying”) any empirical “fact”

second, actually the universe is noneuclidean so really triangles are not all 180 degrees.

so already you are showing that you’re a sciencelet. finally, there is evidence suggesting the spontaneous formation of the proteins that enable life to form

>>10590892
show me your equations that model god then? i’ll run a python simulation

>>10590891
The fact that bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics is enough proof for evolution you bible thumping snake.

>>10590906
I'm not saying I use formal or informal math to measure supersets of my personal reality.

>>10590926
do you admit the “wavefunctions are as unscientific as flying wizard creator” argument is retarded then?

>>10589483
no, I take the presocratic greek conception that parmenides and aristotle toched on, that is the earth and heavens have always been and always will be, change is an illusion as far as it does not represent the consistent and completeness of the universe/singularity, what we term change is something else that we don't and probably are unable to comprehend because of our finite restrictions. past and future are the limits of the present. death doesn't exist, because death is nothing (the state of non-existence), nothing is void, void is void of existence.

I think the earth probably goes through cycles of growth+decline+transformation repeatedly ad infinitum. it never ends, it's a beautiful madness. but the key essences are retained, these essence underpin how the physical and what we perceive as change manifest, that is shape, form, colour and so on. and so you have the same or very similar forms arise in nature. if evolution exist, it is not change but the manifestation of the complete and whole essences in a complete and whole universe.

>>10590903
>no such thing as an absolute fact in science
low iq statement
>universe is noneuclidean so really triangles are not all 180 degrees
Draw one
> evidence suggesting the spontaneous formation of the proteins that enable life to form
no source, what function do these specific proteins serve?
>you’re a sciencelet
if you proved your point you wouldn't need insult

>>10590917
you've referred to the proof of mutations and genes not creation of life

>>10590950
so you deny all of modern astrophysics and cosmology? at least that creation anon who admits the earth is ~14 billion years old didn’t outright deny tons of objective scientific results

>>10590966
>glorifying life
Bye

>low iq statement
excellent argument
>Draw one
pic related
>no source, what function do these specific proteins serve?
look it up idiot. i don’t see you citing any sources; this is common knowledge. proteins are important for eg. cellular membranes and DNA/RNA, newsflash

>>10590972
oops i meant “the universe” not “the earth”

>>10590966
read up on abiogenesis. life doesn't require magic to occur

>>10590972
no i denied the paradigm of linearity that is found in creationism and mainstream cosmology, where there's a start and finish, inferring change and void exist, which is absurd, how can nothing exist? assuming it does exist, what then is existence? how do you distinguish between what does and doesn't exist? it seems to me that what we call nothing is actually something and that something is our ability to imagine what the least amount of existence looks like, but even then it still exist, both in our minds and as an objective reality that is the space in-between what we sense as solids.

>>10590984
Not a triangle.

>>10590891
Why did you jump from evolution to abiogenesis and why does this always happen?

>>10591020
yeah, the point is that in noneuclidean geometry, your idea of “straight lines” loses its euclidean meaning, and that geodesics linking three points don’t look like your normal triangle. but that’s the reality of it. your idea of a triangle with a perfect exact 180 degree sum of its angles actually does not exist in the real universe

>>10590984
This drawing serves the purpose well - do you agree that this drawing fits the definition for a generic non-euclidian triangle? Will any non-euclidian triangle break or disobey the properties which define a non-euclidian triangle?
If you agree that a triangle (euclidian or non-euclidian) has certain properties that define its existence, then how one can say this is not an absolute fact in the field being discussed.

If it is common knowledge it should already be in the thread because it is the good evidence for disproving creationism. Next lets wait for spontaneous formation of DNA/RNA.