Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

I think you need to change the water in your bong.

Yep.But I'm right though aren't I?
Stones fell down before gravity was discovered.
Gravity isn't a real thing though,it's made up.
Gravity isn't a real thing but what is an attempt to explain why stones fell down.
So when we say that gravity was discovered what we mean is - an explanation as to why stones came down to earth was discovered.
I mean like,science is never going to find out the ^source^ (if you know what I mean,i.e,how gravity came to be or how motion came to be or how anything came to be.)
It's simply not possible.any
ting ting ting ting *Predesigned world*

I'm not saying that an intelligent being predesigned our world.Just that It was predesigned.But who would be capable of designing a complex structure anyway?

(Also I have this theory that if the earth is the result of the big bang then the nearest planets of earth should also exhibit the features of earth.I thought about this after looking at how when I heated oil and it would pop then some popping would be localized to that region.)

Albert Einstein:

" The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. "

" The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. "

" What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism and myth. "

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Albert Einstein:

" The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. "

" The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. "

" What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism and myth. "

Jenny - I just wanted to tell you, in a moment of good spirits, that I'm glad we have some "anti-religion theist" types around here. I think if I believed in God I would be much, much angrier at the Christians and other earth religions than I am as an atheist.

I just keep thinking, when I imagine what God must be like, "How can you people think God is so small? So petty? So, so human?"

[paulpablo]

Science does not provide rules as to how the world should work.Science merely make observations of it and try to provide explanations for why it is the way it is.But how did it come be the way it is?Why does the water rise when we fill a bucket with water?Why doesn't it go down?Anyone that comes up with a scientific answer for why the water doesn't go down but up have not understood what or why science truly is.
Science is not the reason why the apple fell down.Science is not the reason why it hurts to have a cactus up your ass.
Science is the attempt at an explanation for why the apple fall down.Science is the attempt at an explanation for why it hurts to have a cactus up your ass.(Frankly I wouldn't need science to figure that out.)

Anyway,science is merely a tool that attempts to explain the already designed world.But how did the world come to be the way it is?Surely not by evolution.Isn't that stuff for the living things?Then from what The big bang? So basically there was nothingness and there was a big explosion and earth was created and people would move forward if they walked forward(I know it seems stupid but that's because it's how things have always been and it seems silly to question it.But have you ever wondered why you move forward when you walk forward?)and apples would fall down if they were thrown up.Kind of not very convincing tbh.I mean,why does water turn into ice when we cool it?The only explanation we have is a scientific explanation,not that it's a bad thing it's just that if water were to turn into chocolate(analogically) when we cooled it,then we'd figure out a scientific explanation for that too.So what the point?

If the world really was designed and implemented,we'd be explaining the implementation using science and the design would forever be a mystery.
I mean,nobody is really going to understand why a rock comes down when you throw it up - it just does.This hints for a pre-designed world.Thus my conclusion that creationists might be right.What do you think?

Disclaimer:

---

This is only an idea I got when I was taking a shit and I saw a bucket get filled by water.Don't need any flame wars.You can contribute if you have something to contribute or you can move on.
And no.I'm not revealing what I've been smoking.

---

Yeh I'd say you're correct.  There's some types of creationism that can't be proven or disproven by science, some types of creationism basically say that all scientific knowledge we have is correct, but God did it.

I don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about with all the cactus up the ass and walking forward part of the post.

[Alex K]

Albert Einstein:

" The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. "

" The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. "

" What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism and myth. "

Jenny - I just wanted to tell you, in a moment of good spirits, that I'm glad we have some "anti-religion theist" types around here. I think if I believed in God I would be much, much angrier at the Christians and other earth religions than I am as an atheist.

I just keep thinking, when I imagine what God must be like, "How can you people think God is so small? So petty? So, so human?"

Dawkins quotes Sagan saying something similar -

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way". A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

[ignoramus]

Pooley, did you know that God predesigned hydrogen and oxygen to be transparent to our eyes otherwise Jesus would've been walking around banging into things!
It all makes sense when you think about it...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Imagine a motorcycle.
When we turn the accelerator the motorcycle moves forward.
Why does the motorcycle move forward?
The motorcycle moves forward because the motorcycle was designed to move forward when someone turn the accelerator.

Now imagine yourself.
When you walk forward you move forward.
Why do you move forward when you walk towards that direction?
We move forward when we walk towards that direction because we were designed to move forward when we walk towards that direction.
Designed by who? I honestly have no idea

You can relate this example with literally everything that happens in our daily life

*shrug* Try to resurrect it all you like, but you're still making the mistake that Reverend Paley made - watches and wombats are two different things.

Boru

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

---

See the Third Law here.

---

I totally understand what you're trying to tell me. But science cannot explain why's of the natural world.

Are you familiar with programming?
If you look at this piece of code you will better understand what I'm trying to say:

void main()
{
int x=5,y;
printf("Enter a number: ");
scanf("%d",&y);
printf("The number is %d.",y+x);
}

This function is like our natural world. After a few try's we'd be able to figure out that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. This is what science does. Science make observations and derive conclusions. What science cannot do is why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. The only answer is - it's how it's always have been.
Our world is like that function. We have no clue why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give. The only thing we know is that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give through observation.

You get me? I have the idea in my head but I'm having trouble communicating it in a way people would normally do. :/

---

Science does not provide rules as to how the world should work.Science merely make observations of it and try to provide explanations for why it is the way it is.But how did it come be the way it is?Why does the water rise when we fill a bucket with water?Why doesn't it go down?Anyone that comes up with a scientific answer for why the water doesn't go down but up have not understood what or why science truly is.
Science is not the reason why the apple fell down.Science is not the reason why it hurts to have a cactus up your ass.
Science is the attempt at an explanation for why the apple fall down.Science is the attempt at an explanation for why it hurts to have a cactus up your ass.(Frankly I wouldn't need science to figure that out.)

Anyway,science is merely a tool that attempts to explain the already designed world.But how did the world come to be the way it is?Surely not by evolution.Isn't that stuff for the living things?Then from what The big bang? So basically there was nothingness and there was a big explosion and earth was created and people would move forward if they walked forward(I know it seems stupid but that's because it's how things have always been and it seems silly to question it.But have you ever wondered why you move forward when you walk forward?)and apples would fall down if they were thrown up.Kind of not very convincing tbh.I mean,why does water turn into ice when we cool it?The only explanation we have is a scientific explanation,not that it's a bad thing it's just that if water were to turn into chocolate(analogically) when we cooled it,then we'd figure out a scientific explanation for that too.So what the point?

If the world really was designed and implemented,we'd be explaining the implementation using science and the design would forever be a mystery.
I mean,nobody is really going to understand why a rock comes down when you throw it up - it just does.This hints for a pre-designed world.Thus my conclusion that creationists might be right.What do you think?

---

Disclaimer:

---

This is only an idea I got when I was taking a shit and I saw a bucket get filled by water.Don't need any flame wars.You can contribute if you have something to contribute or you can move on.
And no.I'm not revealing what I've been smoking.

---

Yeh I'd say you're correct.  There's some types of creationism that can't be proven or disproven by science, some types of creationism basically say that all scientific knowledge we have is correct, but God did it.

I don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about with all the cactus up the ass and walking forward part of the post.

To understand what I meant with having a cactus up one's ass refer to my previous post which I have quoted for you for your convenience.
I'm sorry if you are not familiar with programming because that Is the only way I seem to be able to explain what I mean to others in a way that they can understand(I.e, simplified to an unbearable extent).

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

---

I totally understand what you're trying to tell me. But science cannot explain why's of the natural world.

Are you familiar with programming?
If you look at this piece of code you will better understand what I'm trying to say:

void main()
{
int x=5,y;
printf("Enter a number: ");
scanf("%d",&y);
printf("The number is %d.",y+x);
}

This function is like our natural world. After a few try's we'd be able to figure out that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. This is what science does. Science make observations and derive conclusions. What science cannot do is why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. The only answer is - it's how it's always have been.
Our world is like that function. We have no clue why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give. The only thing we know is that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give through observation.

You get me? I have the idea in my head but I'm having trouble communicating it in a way people would normally do. :/

---

Yes I understand - that actually makes sense. We would eventually discover the fundamental law of physics "y+5", and unless we find deviations from it, that would be the end point of our search. However, since in reality one always measures with finite resolution and since one can never enter all possible numbers y to cross-check the theory with the black box (nature), the possibility always remains open that something new might await us - you can never know that you have found the ultimate rule. For example, 10 years later we might discover that it is actually closer to

printf("The number is %f.",(y+x)/(1+y/100000000000000.));

But then we'll still never know whether that is now the final answer.  It might be even worse - we discover that the answer we get depends on other things we do, that don't seem  to be captured by a single simple function. (I am mimicking here the progression from Newtonian physics (your example) to Relativity and quantum physics, respectively)

It is a deep question of philosophy of science whether such a final true rule as you propose it above exists in nature - one towards which our discovered laws of physics converge. The question is not clear at all.

I can see that you've made an effort to understand what I meant.
But you have confused some of the things I've explained.
The fundamental law of physics is not "y+x",it's "y".

"y+x" happens when a phenomenon deviates from something as normal as "y".

For example, if y was when you rolled a ball forward and it rolled forward and not backward it would be considered "y".
But if there is a wall in the path of the ball and it doesn't move forward then "y" would be considered "y+x" where x is a varying variable with an unknown value.
Science would then try to understand what the value of x Is to understand why "y" deviates from "y" to "y+x".
(I hope you were able to keep up with me :/)

Edit:
Science is a tool used to find "x". I don't even know if those supposedly science lovers and physics pros even know there is a "y".

[Alex K]

Sorry, but my interpretation of your piece of code makes more sense - you have a black box (the program) into which you can enter a number via an interface. That is the experimental parameter. You get an experimental result - the number output by your print statement. The program itself is not visible to us, only the interface. "Science" would then try to establish a law connecting the input parameter and the output, and the theory science would find after a bit of testing is: "nature" apparently always adds 5 to our number, i.e. y -> y+5. The fact that the black box performs a simple addition is not obvious, not visible by us a priori, since we do not see the code, and hence "5" is not enough to specify the law we discover.

[jenny1972]

theory : we and everything we see around us different species of plants and animals perfectly coordinated are nothing but the random inevitable result of an explosion

havent we tested this theory ?


as many times as this has been done not once has it resulted in organized creations just a big random mess