Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
His name is right there.
Or the explanation I tend to lean towards of “It happened the way science described, because of how God set things into motion”. When you consider the suggestion that simply by being outside of time, he can create and shape the universe to come into being more or less exactly the way he intends it to be. Depending on how much you want to believe we have free will and whatnot, the fuzziness of how much was planned and how much is the natural progression of how science works consequently can be adjusted.
I’d like to think he mostly just aimed for humanity coming into existence and then with a bit of further tinkering (re; biblical accounts) left it alone to naturally develop. This accounts for the incredibly coincidental nature of how life could just spontaneously develop without denying any of what the scientific evidence demonstrates as to the individual gears and numbers involved in getting to that point.
But, y’know, that just tends to get you labeled as a scientifically apologetic heretic and an ignorant science-hater at the same time because you can’t only half-agree with anyone without offending them.
@P3FOYFN
Yeah that’s kinda creepy skinny. D: Like, emaciated. Probably due to all the extra skin on him from dropping that much that fast.
He looks like a snake now.
He’s like a head taller than all of us, and he wasn’t that fat
Damn, I never knew he had a neck.
Yup.
He was saying that his doctor told him to either drop the weight, or have health problems in a few years. So he dropped the weight.
Holy shit is that what he looks like now?
Holy shit. It looks like he not only lost it, he dropped it.
Ya, two years ago.
Bravo Sir, do it again! Come on, this comment section on an MLP imageboard is worth your time. Construct your arguments with care and don’t forget to veil the hate. People on this imageboard about cartoon horses care a lot about what you have to say, so please, write another novel.
Every scientist I know who does believe in God would be insulted by you - or anyone - grouping them in with crackpots like creationists or IDers. Even the Vatican, who have priests who are also well known scientists, would not appreciate the comparison. You’ll really find that the people who hate creationists the most are those who dislike that they prompt arguments like this: aka the religious scientists who do actual science.
And if someone declares that the Earth floats in a sea of Aether or that the stars are actually splatters of milk from the teat of Odin’s celestial cow or that all orbits have to be circles, because circles are perfect and the heavens should be perfect… guess what? They’re going to get “written off.” Just like people once dismissed that space was a vacuum, that the stars were little-suns and not celestial milk, and that orbits can be elliptical. The difference is that good theories are proven and pass peer review. Bad theories do not.
There is no reason to be nostalgic or wax poetic about bad theories, or to say they should be taught alongside proven ones. You wouldn’t ask someone to drive a steam powered car or ask to fly in a tri-plane instead of a 777. Sometimes things need to just be retired, and that includes bad theories that fail to hold water or that can’t contribute to continued progress.
Ultimately, do you want to know why creationism is failure?
Because a thousand biologists and more can publish a hundred scholarly papers each on how evolutionary principles affect any number of things, especially biochemistry, bioengineering, genetics, and microbiology. These hundreds of thousands of papers can lead to hundreds of new discoveries, innovations and patents, like new medical treatments. Creationism can only attempt to prove that it “isn’t wrong” - it doesn’t produce anything. It can’t. Because it isn’t even close to a comprehensive theory. It is political claptrap trying to hide the stink of bad pop-culture philosophy.
This isn’t about God or Religion. It is about people making a mockery of both. You wouldn’t want a witch doctor fixing your computer, why would you want a creationist trying to play at biology? I’ll just say it once last time, then I’m done:
There is nothing wrong with a researcher who believes in God. There is everything wrong with a ‘researcher’ who justifies bad science, bad methodologies, lack of peer review, and logical fallacies like ‘argument from ignorance’ by pointing to his faith. You would be wise not to conflate the two. They are very different indeed.
Perhaps, but I also don’t think people should just “write-off” anyone, or any scientist who believes in creationism/God as an “idiot/fool.” (Especially, if their religious beliefs are a “personal” thing.) Some great scientists in history were religious, or agnostic actually. You don’t have to be an “atheist” to be a “true scientist.” That’s all I’m saying.
Yes, I believe they shouldn’t “force” religious things on people, but i also don’t think they should force secularism on religious people, as well, or teach people “God doesn’t exist,” because there’s no proof for that. I think people should come up with their own decisions for that, or try to be open-minded. Same with science, I also don’t think people (relgious or not) should write-off unproven scientific theories, as well, as some of those require faith, just like their religion (or lack of one) does. (And some unproved scientific things are still interesting to read, and study about, as well.)
Though, I don’t really wanna get into it to much, as “religion VS science” is always a touchy subject, but personally, I believe a person can be a “man of science,” and a “man of God,” as the same time. (Or woman, but you get what, I mean.) :P
To add one last point to this, just in case the previous was, in fact, not clear…
Imagine you have two men, one a staunch Marxist and the other a staunch Capitalist, solve the same mathematical equation in the same room. They both get the same answer, “X”
Now imagine those same two men, except the Marxist announces - halfway through the equation - that “math is for capitalist running dogs” and that they answer isn’t “X” it is “Y” because the “working classes demand that it be Y, X being the answer conflicts with the dogma of the party and the indisputable aims of worldwide revolution, tovarich!”
And you see why one should not let political philosophy (or religion) be involved in hard science, as creationism is. Religion, on the other hand, can be very useful where it belongs: in philosophy, sociology, economics, and other human/social sciences. Whether one’s belief is in Marxism or Hinduism or Christianity, X is still X. It isn’t Y because Marx/Vishnu/God demands that it be or because you would like it to be. If the world was what we like it to be, then “science” would tell us we can fly by thinking happy thoughts. Everyone just isn’t thinking happy-enough thoughts, that’s why it isn’t working!
Then maybe you don’t know what creationism is…?
It isn’t just belief in a deity; it is attempting to use that deity to substitute for research or methodology. Creationism is a rather specific attempt to replace scientific theories in biology (and physics and chemistry) with alternatives. Which would be fine, since the history of science is one of constantly debating, challenging, and refining various proposals, except this process also involves proving one’s theories to one’s peers, generally by having others observe the same data or outcome that you observed. That’s the part creationism fails at; just like proponents of the aether theory eventually just had to give up because, no matter how much they love the idea of aether, there was no evidence to back it up.
It isn’t that belief is anathema to science, just that it can not and must not be used as a substitute for proof. People tend to LIKE it when things are repeatable and reliable, not just in one person’s mind, but every time and for every one. That only comes from rigorous testing, analysis, and theory.
In brief: your beliefs are fine, but since your beliefs aren’t everyone’s beliefs, they aren’t going to be replacing universal constants like gravity anytime soon. Whereas I guarantee that everyone you’ll ever meet, no matter what they believe, will be obeying the natural laws that are the foundation of actual science. Hopefully, I’ve been clear enough in typing this up that this is really self-evident… seriously.
I don’t see what’s so “bad” about “Creationism” honestly.
I believe in God & scientific stuff myself. (Does that make me a “Creationist?”)
People atheist, or religious who say you can’t believe in both are close-minded…
Speaking of creationism specifically.
There’s a difference between believing in “snake oil salemen” trying to con you, and people just believing in God, and not hurting anybody.
I know. Next thing is, people will be upset when you speak out against ‘snake oil’ medicine. Don’t they know that dried pygmy meat and rhino horn cures cancer? It’s 100%* proved! Or at least, you can’t 100% disprove it! That’s good too!
*(as documented in an informal study of congo witch doctors, as published in the Equatorial Guinea Journal of Insane Jungle Medicine, not peer reviewed)
>Speaking out against Creationism
And that’s why Bill Nye is a respected scientist.
:runs away: