Comments on aburt.com/evolution-creationism.ht

[CrittersMinion]

[Reposted from old comment system, from Ron Druva on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:33:41 0000]

I believe there is no way to prove there is a god, therefore there is no way to prove that He(She?) is the guilty party. If we Accept that there is a god, then we are only arguing about methods. To quote Ambrose Bierce: "The Lord God in Six days the world did make, and on the seventh he was arrested."

[CrittersMinion]

[Reposted from old comment system, from Rene Saucedo on Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:55:32 0000]

This area needs some activity. I have a very contraversial theory that's still science fiction, but has a basis in possiblities. That's the issue, isn't it? There are no science-based "God" theories. Not even Scientology is based on science. First, how is it possible for a science-based "God" theory? There have been a few stories on the subject. The usual story involves some alien entity that "could" be God. I put this theory in my story, The Virtual Resort - which I'm just about done re-writing thanks to the critiques on Critters.

It's too long to post. I tried. It's not a book-length, but it's about half of a chapter. I'll try to summarize, email me if you're interested in the whole thing.

Okay, it's about putting our minds in a computer (or at least a very close approximation that thinks the way the original mind does). We'd die, and our "other" mind would go on. For who knows how long, an eternity? Doesn't matter, just very long works.

Now, this machine would advance in technology, with our "alter-conciousness" still going. This "communal mind" might even outlast the species itself. It may eventually discover other beings, and continue growing. It would be able to figure some things out. It may, as an ultimate discovery, learn how to go back in time in some form.

It would come back for us, as it is composed of us. It would .......wait, running out of room again. Well, like I said, email me on this if you're interested.... renesaucedo333@q.com

Rene

[CrittersMinion]

[Reposted from old comment system, from Aburt on Tue, 04 May 2010 16:22:02 0000]

Exactly...!

[CrittersMinion]

[Reposted from old comment system, from Matt on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:47:32 0000]

But the scientific method does not apply to creationism as there is not data to collect/observe and the only hypothesis is "god did it" which is untestable.

[CrittersMinion]

[Reposted from old comment system, from Kermit Hale on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:27:29 0000]

I agree. To teach a theory as fact has always rankled me to no end. If they _the school systems_ insist on teaching evolution, they should teach the alternatives, too. (I have a cup that asks the question: If evolution works, why do moms only have two hands?)

[crit18373]

To me it is fairly obvious that Creationism is more akin to a Nigerian scam letter than a scientific principle.
Its purpose is to filter people out who are not predisposed to a certain type of exploitable closed mindedness.

OTOH hand, I have teaching SCIENTIFIC METHOD, logic and evidence gathering as part of a course called "Thinking for one's self" might be well advised as a required study for people of any age, especially on "social media."

Its is not just science that the marching morons mass to dilute, Teaching people in all fields how to think for themselves is of value.

R.C. Dale
Incubating Science Fiction Author