Author Topic: Creationism  (Read 5042 times)

Offline Syamsu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Creationism
« on: October 08, 2018, 07:26:30 AM »
I will argue how come universities are mostly leftist.

Creationism is much maligned in academics, but you should hold back on your prejudices about it, because it's really the best most common sense thing.

You should view creationism as the alternative to materialism, and postmodernism. Not the Christian or Islamic creationism in particular, but generic creationism, the structure of a creation theory in general.

In materialism only facts are validated, the existence of material things is a matter of fact. That leaves subjective opinion, like about beauty nowhere. There is no place for beauty in materialism.

Then they made postmodernism, which asserts that subjectivity is inherent in statements of fact. That makes no strict sense, but it is better than materialism because at least it provides some facillity to subjectivity.

But what we require ofcourse is to have both objective fact and subjective opinion, each validated in their own right, and that is creationism.

Creationism has two categories, creator and creation. Subjective opinions apply to creators, and facts apply to creations. Choice is the mechanism of creation, it is how things originate.

To explain subjective opinion, take a look at the phrase "I find this painting beautiful". The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing the opinion. The word "beautiful" identifes a love for the way the painting looks as agency of the choice to say it is beautiful. So the logic of subjective opinion is to make a choice about what it is that makes a choice.

The logic fact is the same in creationism as in materialism, except that facts are only about creations. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it. The phrase "there is a mangotree by the river", the words essentially make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of said tree, forced by the evidence of it.

So you see that's great, both opinion and fact, each validated in their own right, with their own method, and their own domain to which they apply.

It matters if a politician is a materialist, a postmodernist, or a creationist. For example both communism and nazism are highly materialistic. Communism with dialectic materialism, and nazism with regarding character of people as a factual issue of racial science.

So it is my contention that people at Universities become leftists, because of the prevalence of materialism and postmodernism there, and the denial of  creationism.

Materialism undermines subjectivity to such an extent, as that mant people cannot become emotionally mature at universities. The hysteria of the left I guess to be typical of a certain kind of lack of emotional maturity, eventhough they may be emotionally mature in other areas of life.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65179
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2018, 08:30:14 AM »
Welcome Sam

That's an interesting take on Marxism in school.
Though a bit involved myopically, I've always viewed it as teaching ignorance. The left doesn't want people understanding history, educated to the point they develop critical thinking skills, no, they want them for a lack of better descriptor, "Barefoot and Pregnant".
#WWG1WGA

Offline Ranb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Gender: Male
  • Get off your butts and pass the HPA!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2018, 10:08:16 PM »
Creationism is much maligned in academics, but you should hold back on your prejudices about it, because it's really the best most common sense thing.
What do you say of the skeptic who has decided that the theory of evolution makes more sense than the theory of creation?
My gun collection has killed at least five fewer people than the Kennedy clan has with airplanes, automobiles and golf clubs.

Offline midcan5

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Liberal Conservative
Re: Creationism
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2018, 04:01:26 AM »
Science is not leftist, science can be tested and demonstrated.  Creationism is basically a religious belief, but ironically the science of evolution is so obvious that even many religious and religions recognize it as an explanation of life on earth. The proof of evolution is obviously shown by how closely life is related to other living things. But religious beliefs are beliefs and for some no amount of proof would convince them otherwise. Making science leftist is simply a rhetorical device used too often today to confuse and distort. For the reader check out these books and OP.

The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature'   by George C. Williams

'Prehistory: The Making Of The Human Mind'  by Colin Renfrew

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
Working class American, husband, father, grandpa, veteran, and still high on life.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65179
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2018, 05:35:16 AM »
Science is not leftist, science can be tested and demonstrated.  Creationism is basically a religious belief, but ironically the science of evolution is so obvious that even many religious and religions recognize it as an explanation of life on earth. The proof of evolution is obviously shown by how closely life is related to other living things. But religious beliefs are beliefs and for some no amount of proof would convince them otherwise. Making science leftist is simply a rhetorical device used too often today to confuse and distort. For the reader check out these books and OP.

The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature'   by George C. Williams

'Prehistory: The Making Of The Human Mind'  by Colin Renfrew

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
So because science proves Neanderthals are our distant relatives, this proves God didn't create man, how again?
#WWG1WGA

Offline Ranb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Gender: Male
  • Get off your butts and pass the HPA!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2018, 06:16:36 AM »
I think the point he was trying to make is that religion does not disprove the theory of evolution. 
My gun collection has killed at least five fewer people than the Kennedy clan has with airplanes, automobiles and golf clubs.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65179
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2018, 06:55:06 AM »
I think the point he was trying to make is that religion does not disprove the theory of evolution.
Which was my point vice versa.
#WWG1WGA

Offline s3779m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2350
  • Gender: Male
  • Keep looking, it's there
Re: Creationism
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2018, 11:38:32 AM »
Science is not leftist, science can be tested and demonstrated.  Creationism is basically a religious belief, but ironically the science of evolution is so obvious that even many religious and religions recognize it as an explanation of life on earth. The proof of evolution is obviously shown by how closely life is related to other living things. But religious beliefs are beliefs and for some no amount of proof would convince them otherwise. Making science leftist is simply a rhetorical device used too often today to confuse and distort. For the reader check out these books and OP.

The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature'   by George C. Williams

'Prehistory: The Making Of The Human Mind'  by Colin Renfrew

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
Or it could simply show there was only one creator.

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: Creationism
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2019, 05:41:14 AM »
I will argue how come universities are mostly leftist.

Creationism is much maligned in academics, but you should hold back on your prejudices about it, because it's really the best most common sense thing.

You should view creationism as the alternative to materialism, and postmodernism. Not the Christian or Islamic creationism in particular, but generic creationism, the structure of a creation theory in general.

In materialism only facts are validated, the existence of material things is a matter of fact. That leaves subjective opinion, like about beauty nowhere. There is no place for beauty in materialism.

...

Materialism undermines subjectivity to such an extent, as that mant people cannot become emotionally mature at universities. The hysteria of the left I guess to be typical of a certain kind of lack of emotional maturity, eventhough they may be emotionally mature in other areas of life.

I just saw this today and and decided to reply.

/b] Take for example mathematics - arguably the most "hard" science that seeks to prove universal truths. A sandbox where all is to be justified by proof. Statements like 2 > 1 (two is greater than one) is true universally ... and provable based on the axioms, some definitions, and proofs. But where are the foundation "facts" generated? Those would be the axioms ... the ideas that you accept as true without proof. For math, that falls under set theory. There are basically nine axioms of set theory on which all math that we exercise is supported from (e.g., for a list, see the short book Chapter Zero or http://fa.its.tudelft.nl/~hart/onderwijs/set_theory/Jech/01-axioms_of_set_theory.pdf for example).

But there are limitations even to axiomatic systems, e.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems ... hence even the best axiomatic systems are on shaky ground.

Some do not accept all the axioms as valid - for example the Axiom of Choice (ZF vs. ZFC). And it has tremendous consequences in what is provable as true (or not). To dip a toe in on that see "The Axiom of Choice" by Jech (for example). 

Hence, all math is faith based - faith in the axioms that you choose to accept and use. And if that's true, how much more true is it of any other field of science.

So most ideas we hold are subjective due to a self-chosen origin. About all you can say is "true" is that which you witness directly. And just because you witness something locally (observable / measurable) does not make it universally true.

The key question is whether you believe that absolute truth exists. Then, what ideas are absolutely true? And an interesting question is what truth can we infer from our subjective observations, understanding, and experience. Also, what false truths may be inferred from a set of observations?
 

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2019, 02:17:18 AM »
I have some problems with creationism.   I have some problems with the idea of no creator as well.  Neither possibility makes sense.

1.  Which version of creationism (if any) is correct?  Biblical version?  The India version, Ancient Greek, Chinese?  How do we know this beyond faith or some kind of gut feeling?

2.  If there is a creator of everything then this creator has no origin.  How is that logically possible for let's say an object or entity to have no origin or no "where or whence it came?" 

On the other hand, if there is no creator and everything must have an origin then logically we would have an infinite amount of creators?  How is this logically possible as well?

If the choices are creator or no creator leading to logical impossibilities then something must be wrong with all of our assumptions that lead to either of these possibilities b/c neither possibility make sense.  So, I'm stuck and confused.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65179
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2019, 06:08:45 AM »
I just saw this today and and decided to reply.

/b] Take for example mathematics - arguably the most "hard" science that seeks to prove universal truths. A sandbox where all is to be justified by proof. Statements like 2 > 1 (two is greater than one) is true universally ... and provable based on the axioms, some definitions, and proofs. But where are the foundation "facts" generated? Those would be the axioms ... the ideas that you accept as true without proof. For math, that falls under set theory. There are basically nine axioms of set theory on which all math that we exercise is supported from (e.g., for a list, see the short book Chapter Zero or http://fa.its.tudelft.nl/~hart/onderwijs/set_theory/Jech/01-axioms_of_set_theory.pdf for example).

But there are limitations even to axiomatic systems, e.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems ... hence even the best axiomatic systems are on shaky ground.

Some do not accept all the axioms as valid - for example the Axiom of Choice (ZF vs. ZFC). And it has tremendous consequences in what is provable as true (or not). To dip a toe in on that see "The Axiom of Choice" by Jech (for example). 

Hence, all math is faith based - faith in the axioms that you choose to accept and use. And if that's true, how much more true is it of any other field of science.

So most ideas we hold are subjective due to a self-chosen origin. About all you can say is "true" is that which you witness directly. And just because you witness something locally (observable / measurable) does not make it universally true.

The key question is whether you believe that absolute truth exists. Then, what ideas are absolutely true? And an interesting question is what truth can we infer from our subjective observations, understanding, and experience. Also, what false truths may be inferred from a set of observations?
 
Sorry, didn't see this till now.

To address your query, Gods Law, Natural Law. Instead of me giving examples, look it up, but here's two.
You can't breathe water and fire will burn you. These are just two axioms one can't deny.
#WWG1WGA

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65179
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2019, 06:14:00 AM »
I have some problems with creationism.   I have some problems with the idea of no creator as well.  Neither possibility makes sense.

1.  Which version of creationism (if any) is correct?  Biblical version?  The India version, Ancient Greek, Chinese?  How do we know this beyond faith or some kind of gut feeling?

2.  If there is a creator of everything then this creator has no origin.  How is that logically possible for let's say an object or entity to have no origin or no "where or whence it came?" 

On the other hand, if there is no creator and everything must have an origin then logically we would have an infinite amount of creators?  How is this logically possible as well?

If the choices are creator or no creator leading to logical impossibilities then something must be wrong with all of our assumptions that lead to either of these possibilities b/c neither possibility make sense.  So, I'm stuck and confused.
Same for you, look up Natural Law. Our Founders had a good understanding of Gods Law, many  were Deists in thought, the absence of religion, the idea that something created life and walked away.
But to create life, there had to be certain laws of physics for the whole thing to coalesce, these are Natural Laws, laws that in most cases be broken, and in others, should not.

Look it up, you have much to learn.
#WWG1WGA

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2019, 08:06:49 PM »
Sorry, didn't see this till now.

To address your query, Gods Law, Natural Law. Instead of me giving examples, look it up, but here's two.
You can't breathe water and fire will burn you. These are just two axioms one can't deny.

But, why does fire burn at all and why can't one breathe water?   How does it actually work? 

I looked up Deism.  How is it possible for there to be an uncaused cause at all?   It seems like all creationists says is that there must be a creator and this creator created all.  Nothing beyond that it simply is.  How though?  How?   Again, it simply is.  That's the message I'm getting.  How is it possible for something to exist without an origin? 

Solar, it's like you from my own observations of what you say here take a very simplistic view of life. It's like you'll say that water is simply wet and then don't think about it any further.   For me, this is so beyond frustrating.  I'm not trying to insult you or be an ass to you and if it comes across that way I apologize.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2019, 08:13:38 PM by alienhand »

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2019, 10:04:53 PM »
It's frustrating and fascinating.  The best way I can describe your way of thinking Solar is that you're complicatedly simple.  And, the founding fathers and others who wrote all of these words in the Constitution and other documents are of the same thinking style. 

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12668
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2019, 04:31:24 AM »
It's frustrating and fascinating.  The best way I can describe your way of thinking Solar is that you're complicatedly simple.  And, the founding fathers and others who wrote all of these words in the Constitution and other documents are of the same thinking style.

Remember KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

 

Powered by EzPortal