Crazy things Creationists have said

[rewebster]

I'm having horse for lunch and pi for dessert.

 

[Moridin]

Let me ask you: if someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does it fill you with discomfort, and prompt you to logically parse and refute the assertion?

It does if the person just watched someone else actually eating a complete horse. Ken Hovind, the speaker in the video, actively believe that science is a religion, point blank in the vulgar, classical sense. In any case, I understood that I may have been too fast in pulling a standard refutation. I freely confess to being a science fanatic.

 

[rewebster]

It does if the person just watched someone else actually eating a complete horse. Ken Hovind, the speaker in the video, actively believe that science is a religion, point blank in the vulgar, classical sense. In any case, I understood that I may have been too fast in pulling a standard refutation. I freely confess to being a science fanatic.

Just as there are different levels, ideologies that make up different groups in religion, I don't mind having groups of different thinking in the Physics area.

(I had to re-write that)

 

[Moridin]

A fanatic need not have anything to do with sects or ideologies.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/fanatic.html

Definition #2 is the one that I am refer to for myself.

 

[BobG]

Let me ask you: if someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does it fill you with discomfort, and prompt you to logically parse and refute the assertion?

Now that you mention it.

Is that an 'American' statement implying the person is so hungry he could eat horsemeat - a meat considered undesirable in the US? Or does it imply the person is so hungry he could eat an entire horse? If the latter, is he referring to a Shetland Pony or a Clydesdale? If he's referring to one of http://www.guidehorse.org/dispatch.htm, the thought would definitely fill me with discomfort. Consuming a horse this size wouldn't be nearly as impressive, plus it would leave the poor owner blindly groping across a busy street where he'd be struck by a car.

 

[humanino]

Is that an 'American' statement implying the person is so hungry he could eat horsemeat - a meat considered undesirable in the US?

I would have a hard time believing that.

Or does it imply the person is so hungry he could eat an entire horse?

I think this is more likely.
However, a horse is not that bigger than a bull. Maybe "I could eat a whale" would be more sound.

If the latter, is he referring to a Shetland Pony or a Clydesdale? If he's referring to one of http://www.guidehorse.org/dispatch.htm, the thought would definitely fill me with discomfort. Consuming a horse this size wouldn't be nearly as impressive, plus it would leave the poor owner blindly groping across a busy street where he'd be struck by a car.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now that you mention it.

Is that an 'American' statement implying the person is so hungry he could eat horsemeat - a meat considered undesirable in the US? Or does it imply the person is so hungry he could eat an entire horse? If the latter, is he referring to a Shetland Pony or a Clydesdale? If he's referring to one of http://www.guidehorse.org/dispatch.htm, the thought would definitely fill me with discomfort. Consuming a horse this size wouldn't be nearly as impressive, plus it would leave the poor owner blindly groping across a busy street where he'd be struck by a car.

You'll have to watch the Hovind video. Apparently it contains footage of someone eating a complete horse.

 

[Astronuc]

If you're talking about science and religion in general, I'd say the simplified answer is that science is a response to a desire to understand the universe while religion is a response to a desire that the universe have meaning. Science doesn't require there to be any meaning associated with the universe. Religion doesn't require that the meaning of the universe be understandable, just that some meaning exists. I imagine that there are a lot of people that would like to do both and consider the first a prerequisite for understanding the second.

Considering them separately, science is willing to accept (at least temporarily) an iterative solution that's approximately correct, especially if each iteration yields a more exact solution. Most scientists would accept the fact that the universe has no meaning, even though quite a few might think it nice if it did.

Excellent points.

On the last point, possibly many scientists are agnostic, which is middle of the road, as in - the universe may or may not have meaning, but if it does we probably don't know what it is. Some would accept that the universe just is and accept that. Then there are others who have more religious or theistic view and ascribe a meaning to the universe.

The two quotes posted by Evo about Einstein pretty much express my views as a transcendental existentialist agnostic.

“If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

“I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

It is my view that one can be agnostic or atheist and still be religious in the sense of adherring to moral and ethical principles and practices as best one can.

I see the Universe and Nature, more or less one in the same, as amazing entity. Sometimes, I just sit back an enjoy it (e.g. watching planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies, . . . ), and other times I get out and actively enjoy it (outdoor activities or gardening. And then there is the particular enjoyment of sharing that with others who share similar interest.

 

[rewebster]

good post, Astronuc--that's a better way than what I said in my Einstein's 'religion' post (I still think Einstein had to have some type 'religion' to use 'God' so relevantly in that dice statement and maybe other statements?--maybe he had 'religion' earlier in his life and was still embedded to some degree)---

It falls into an ideology/spirituality, but not the idea that most think of 'spirituality' (of the spirit world)--more of the 'spirit' to be open minded about almost, if not all, that is presented (including the knowledge of 'religion'). If someone isn't open minded to all knowledge/areas (but still discerning using judgement and reason), the logical deduction is that that person is closed minded.

There are some things studied in the 'sciences' that have always 'crossed over' into the religion area (or vice-versa)---like all the 'psychic' stuff.

 

[Astronuc]

As for Einstein's reference to 'G_d', perhaps he was speaking in the cultural context so that others might understand the point that he was trying to make.

Perhaps Einstein's views on religion/theism changed over time as a matured, as is the case for many.


Thinking of Science and Religion as tools that people use, they can be used productively (to enhance the human exerience) or destructively (to denigrate or hurt the human experience) - it all depends on the user.

 

[BobG]

good post, Astronuc--that's a better way than what I said in my Einstein's 'religion' post (I still think Einstein had to have some type 'religion' to use 'God' so relevantly in that dice statement and maybe other statements?--maybe he had 'religion' earlier in his life and was still embedded to some degree)---

It falls into an ideology/spirituality, but not the idea that most think of 'spirituality' (of the spirit world)--more of the 'spirit' to be open minded about almost, if not all, that is presented (including the knowledge of 'religion'). If someone isn't open minded to all knowledge/areas (but still discerning using judgement and reason), the logical deduction is that that person is closed minded.

There are some things studied in the 'sciences' that have always 'crossed over' into the religion area (or vice-versa)---like all the 'psychic' stuff.

It's impossible for the two not to cross over into each other's area. Instead of 'pyschic stuff', the issue of whether the universe is deterministic or probabilistic is a better example.

If all interactions in nature always follow the same law and there's only one way for the interactions to turn out, then, if one knew the conditions that existed at the Big Bang, you could predict every single thing that would occur in the universe (theoretically, at least, since you'd never have enough information). A person's life would be determined completely by fate. Free will would just be an illusion created by not having all information.

If interactions are probabilistic and can't be predicted exactly no matter much information you might theoretically obtain, then the choices a person makes do have an impact on their own lives and the future of the entire universe. Free will would exist, along with its responsibilities.

 

[Moridin]

good post, Astronuc--that's a better way than what I said in my Einstein's 'religion' post (I still think Einstein had to have some type 'religion' to use 'God' so relevantly in that dice statement and maybe other statements?--maybe he had 'religion' earlier in his life and was still embedded to some degree)---

If I hit myself on the thumb with a hammer and exclaim 'my god that hurts', does that mean that I am religious? For a living refutation, Stephen Hawking, a self-proclaimed non-theist has use the term many times in his books.

There is a difference between being open minded and downright gullible. Being open minded means assessing each new piece of evidence objectively, and trying to see the wider picture. This mean accepting possibility, but evaluating probability. It does not mean believe everything. It does not mean to assert absolute truth in the absence of evidence.

There are some things studied in the 'sciences' that have always 'crossed over' into the religion area (or vice-versa)---like all the 'psychic' stuff.

I'd like to take that ball and run with it in a somewhat different direction. Science can study religions, their natural origin (if they have one) and it can study and see if the attempts by self-proclaimed psychics works better than chance. Although I would not go so far as to claim that I am a proponent of NOMA.

 

[rewebster]

My ideas of (the) science(s) and (all) religion(s) is that in the history of man the two were (almost) overlapping Bell shaped curves. Depending on 'where on earth' and 'where in time', the Bell shaped curves (science one, religion the other) are becoming 'less' overlapping (set theory comes into play,too).

This 'bothers' some 'religious' people/leaders as they 'feel' (and through history, also), they are losing power/control. It's sad to think about, but if a government/'some religious group' wants to be more powerful, they'll chop off as much of the 'science' Bell curve as they can (e.g.- holy roman empire, Nazi's, Taliban, Al queda, Inquisition (e.g.-galileo), and a couple of years ago, on a smaller way, Bush and the global warming).

 

[Evo]

good post, Astronuc--that's a better way than what I said in my Einstein's 'religion' post (I still think Einstein had to have some type 'religion' to use 'God' so relevantly in that dice statement and maybe other statements?--maybe he had 'religion' earlier in his life and was still embedded to some degree)---

Sorry, but Einstein said it sarcastically. I don't have the exact context, but this Times article should help put it in proper perspective for you.

Einstein was convinced that the cosmos is an orderly, continuous unity: gravity and electro-magnetism must, therefore, have a common source. He was in a minority, for Planck's famed Quantum Theory, which Einstein himself did so much to develop, and which many modern scientists accept, suggests that the physical universe is made up of small particles (quanta) that are governed not by some orderly causality but by chance.

But Einstein persisted: "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos." He set himself to find a new synthesis, which he called the Unified Field Theory. He wanted to unify the field of gravitation with the field of electromagnetism, and thus resolve every cosmic motion into a single set of laws. On three occasions Einstein felt sure he was on the point of grasping the "final truth." But he had to admit last year that he had "not yet found a practical way to confront the theory with experimental evidence," the crucial test for any theory.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,866292-4,00.html

The correct quote is “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”

Albert Einstein on quantum mechanics, published in the London Observer, April 5, 1964; also quoted as "God does not play dice with the world." in Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 19.

Another Einstein letter -

“The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.”

Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.

 

[rewebster]

If I hit myself on the thumb with a hammer and exclaim 'my godthat hurts', does that mean that I am religious?

To me, I would think, it would depend on who your 'god' was that you were referring to?

There is a difference between being open minded and downright gullible.

why did you change the 'opposites' from 'open minded' and 'closed minded' to 'open minded' and 'downright gullible'?

 

[Astronuc]

. . . . they are losing power/control

I think that is the key issue - the use (or misuse) of religion by one or more to exert control over others, as well as the annoyance of having someone trying to impose their belief or otherwise irrational ideas on oneself.

 

[rewebster]

Sorry, but Einstein said it sarcastically. I don't have the exact context, but this Times article should help put it in proper perspective for you.



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,866292-4,00.html

The correct quote is “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”

Albert Einstein on quantum mechanics, published in the London Observer, April 5, 1964; also quoted as "God does not play dice with the world." in Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 19.

Another Einstein letter -

I get the sarcasm level of the statement (I really do)--but then using "I" ('I cannot believe...')--it even makes it more 'personal'. I just find it all kind of amusing that he made the statement and denial part of it as being contested. I also get the 'relate it to the general populous' concept. Maybe it was a 'muttered' thought that escaped through his lips----

--------------------------------------------

I have to go again for a little while---but, I really enjoyed this Sunday's morning's gathering and services---

 

[zoobyshoe]

If I hit myself on the thumb with a hammer and exclaim 'my god that hurts', does that mean that I am religious?

A woman I know here told me that one of her ex boyfriends, well known for his strongly held atheistic views, would invariably cry out "Oh God! Oh God!..." upon climaxing.

Hilarious, but it means nothing, of course. It's a phrase people learn to use in extreme moments.

Had Einstein said "Nature does not play dice..." should we conclude he believed in "Mother Nature", in any literal sense? Of course not.

 

[zoobyshoe]

good post, Astronuc--that's a better way than what I said in my Einstein's 'religion' post (I still think Einstein had to have some type 'religion' to use 'God' so relevantly in that dice statement and maybe other statements?--maybe he had 'religion' earlier in his life and was still embedded to some degree)---

It falls into an ideology/spirituality, but not the idea that most think of 'spirituality' (of the spirit world)--more of the 'spirit' to be open minded about almost, if not all, that is presented (including the knowledge of 'religion'). If someone isn't open minded to all knowledge/areas (but still discerning using judgement and reason), the logical deduction is that that person is closed minded.

There are some things studied in the 'sciences' that have always 'crossed over' into the religion area (or vice-versa)---like all the 'psychic' stuff.

I'm not understanding the reason for all the internal quotation marks. Are you trying to indicate italics?

 

[rewebster]

I'm not understanding the reason for all the internal quotation marks. Are you trying to indicate italics?

"Use–mention distinction
Main article: Use–mention distinction
Either quotes or italic type can emphasize that an instance of a word refers to the word itself rather than its associated concept.

Cheese is derived from milk.
“Cheese” is derived from a word in Old English.
Cheese has calcium, protein, and phosphorus.
Cheese has three e’s.
A three-way distinction is occasionally made between normal use of a word (no quotes), referencing the concept behind the word (single quotes), and the word itself (double quotes):

When discussing ‘use’, use “use”."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Use–mention distinction
Main article: Use–mention distinction
Either quotes or italic type can emphasize that an instance of a word refers to the word itself rather than its associated concept.

Cheese is derived from milk.
“Cheese” is derived from a word in Old English.
Cheese has calcium, protein, and phosphorus.
Cheese has three e’s.
A three-way distinction is occasionally made between normal use of a word (no quotes), referencing the concept behind the word (single quotes), and the word itself (double quotes):

When discussing ‘use’, use “use”."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

Thanks. I had never run into that before. Now I know.

 

[rewebster]

Thanks. I had never run into that before. Now I know.

'know' problem

 

[Kurdt]

Since its come up in this thread I'll ask the question here. Why are so many seemingly obsessed with the notion that the universe has to have meaning? I've honestly never been able to understand why that is so important to people. When they talk about it I just can't get anywhere near the same wavelength they're on and it frustrates me that I can't at least 'empathise' or understand to some extent.

I know that's slightly off topic but if someone will indulge me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Since its come up in this thread I'll ask the question here. Why are so many seemingly obsessed with the notion that the universe has to have meaning? I've honestly never been able to understand why that is so important to people. When they talk about it I just can't get anywhere near the same wavelength they're on and it frustrates me that I can't at least 'empathise' or understand to some extent.

I know that's slightly off topic but if someone will indulge me.

I think it's pretty simple: if the universe has meaning then each of our lives has meaning. The thought your life might be meaningless is, quite obviously, depressing. It's a basic psychological issue.

 

[Kurdt]

I suppose I can't understand why anybody would think their life was meaningless in that case. Its up to them to give it meaning and that is within everyones power.

Thanks zooby.

 

[Cyrus]

I think it's pretty simple: if the universe has meaning then each of our lives has meaning. The thought your life might be meaningless is, quite obviously, depressing. It's a basic psychological issue.

I don't see why its depressing. More or less, everyones life is meaningless. In the end were all going to die anyways. Its a fact of life, people need to learn to get over this.

 

[Evo]

I think it's pretty simple: if the universe has meaning then each of our lives has meaning. The thought your life might be meaningless is, quite obviously, depressing. It's a basic psychological issue.

I'm with Kurdt, I cannot understand why the universe has to have meaning. It just is. It has nothing to do with me. If the universe has to have meaning in order for their lives to have meaning, then I have a news bulletin for them, their lives have no meaning. Meaning comes from within.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I suppose I can't understand why anybody would think their life was meaningless in that case. Its up to them to give it meaning and that is within everyones power.

People's identities, their self image, is often pretty fragile, especially in adolesence. People form and join cliques mostly to define themselves. To the extent meaning might be already built into existence it would cut way down on that kind of stress and angst.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't see why its depressing. More or less, everyones life is meaningless. In the end were all going to die anyways. Its a fact of life, people need to learn to get over this.

Well, in your case it's true: your life is completely meaningless.

(See what I mean?)

 

[Kurdt]

Would be a lot less fun though. May as well be born a worker bee or ant.