Welcome to Gaia! ::

Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?
The New Wineskin's avatar

Conversationalist

silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?

No. Because one is a rejection of fact, while the other is the acceptance of something that is unverifiable that cannot be verified or falsified. The former has been proven false, while the latter has not.
No. Creationism is wrong. The truth of afterlives is hitherto unverified.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?
The similarity is that both are things that are believed without evidence to back them up. A faith, if you will.
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?


People (like Myself) Believe in an afterlife because we have faith
Nerdologist's avatar

Enduring Seeker

6,150 Points
  • Marathon 300
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
The New Wineskin
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?

No. Because one is a rejection of fact, while the other is the acceptance of something that is unverifiable that cannot be verified or falsified. The former has been proven false, while the latter has not.
Is creationism really falsifiable?
The New Wineskin's avatar

Conversationalist

Nerdologist
The New Wineskin
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?

No. Because one is a rejection of fact, while the other is the acceptance of something that is unverifiable that cannot be verified or falsified. The former has been proven false, while the latter has not.
Is creationism really falsifiable?

Yes. The type in which is implied by the OP (young-earth, literal 7 day creationism) has.
Nerdologist's avatar

Enduring Seeker

6,150 Points
  • Marathon 300
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
The New Wineskin
Nerdologist
The New Wineskin
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?

No. Because one is a rejection of fact, while the other is the acceptance of something that is unverifiable that cannot be verified or falsified. The former has been proven false, while the latter has not.
Is creationism really falsifiable?

Yes. The type in which is implied by the OP (young-earth, literal 7 day creationism) has.
But young-earth creationists can (and will) posit divine intervention to explain away any contrary evidence.

Hence unfalsifiability.
The New Wineskin's avatar

Conversationalist

Nerdologist
The New Wineskin
Nerdologist
The New Wineskin
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?

No. Because one is a rejection of fact, while the other is the acceptance of something that is unverifiable that cannot be verified or falsified. The former has been proven false, while the latter has not.
Is creationism really falsifiable?

Yes. The type in which is implied by the OP (young-earth, literal 7 day creationism) has.
But young-earth creationists can (and will) posit divine intervention to explain away any contrary evidence.

Hence unfalsifiability.

Not really, no. razz
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
The New Wineskin
Nerdologist
The New Wineskin
Nerdologist
The New Wineskin
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?

No. Because one is a rejection of fact, while the other is the acceptance of something that is unverifiable that cannot be verified or falsified. The former has been proven false, while the latter has not.
Is creationism really falsifiable?

Yes. The type in which is implied by the OP (young-earth, literal 7 day creationism) has.
But young-earth creationists can (and will) posit divine intervention to explain away any contrary evidence.

Hence unfalsifiability.

Not really, no. razz


Clarification?

haruki_jitsunin's avatar

Friendly Seeker

7,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Tycoon 200
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?


Without order you would not know that chaos exists. Without light, there would be no dark. Without a mountain there would be no valley.

Simply put without these illogical counter-cultural beliefs, there would not be "logic" and, in fact, without these unproven scenarios that exist in these mentally-acrobatic minds, there would be nothing to prove. Your post sounds like it's driven with such contempt for those that prefer to think outside of the scientific boundaries- the unproven or unexplainable parts of the universe. Yet without these parts, would there be anything for science to explore? Science is amazing, it does explain so much, but it doesn't explain everything right now. And pidgeonholing your mind into the box that is strictly scientific is limiting it just as much as those that prefer to not believe in scientific proof. How can we know the universe without exploring the unknown?
Abysmal Glare's avatar

Liberal Noob

2,100 Points
  • Voter 100
  • Friendly 100
  • Forum Dabbler 200
haruki_jitsunin
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?


Without order you would not know that chaos exists. Without light, there would be no dark. Without a mountain there would be no valley.

Simply put without these illogical counter-cultural beliefs, there would not be "logic" and, in fact, without these unproven scenarios that exist in these mentally-acrobatic minds, there would be nothing to prove. Your post sounds like it's driven with such contempt for those that prefer to think outside of the scientific boundaries- the unproven or unexplainable parts of the universe. Yet without these parts, would there be anything for science to explore? Science is amazing, it does explain so much, but it doesn't explain everything right now. And pidgeonholing your mind into the box that is strictly scientific is limiting it just as much as those that prefer to not believe in scientific proof. How can we know the universe without exploring the unknown?


I kicked a pebble into an unknown tree-lining. Beyond it could've fell in a pond or pothole. But I wouldn't think it fell in an entirely different existence of down is up and squares are round. But the pebble is inference. And my foot is a state-of-the-art telescope. The unknown would undoubtably be similar to things we've experienced in our long scientific pursuit. If not, then we'll find the logical answer.

Unless we somehow find a way to tap into the "Multiverse", if such a thing exists, one will equal one and squares will be squared. You would have to leave existence to be outside "scientific boundaries." Anything else is nonexistant.
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?


As Terence McKenna (a self-described secular humanist) said, "According to Big Bang theory, all of reality came into being in a single instant, from nothing, for no reason. If this isn't the limit test of credulity I do not know what is."
Ginnjii's avatar

Conversationalist

haruki_jitsunin
And pidgeonholing your mind into the box that is strictly scientific is limiting it just as much as those that prefer to not believe in scientific proof. How can we know the universe without exploring the unknown?


"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
Xiam's avatar

Anxious Humorist

13,600 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Hero 100
Samadhi23
silkandflowers
Do you think there is a similarity in the sort of logic loopholes and mental acrobatics that creationists have to go through in order to validate their rejection of sound scientific theory in favour of something with absolutely no proof to that of people who believe in an afterlife?


As Terence McKenna (a self-described secular humanist) said, "According to Big Bang theory, all of reality came into being in a single instant, from nothing, for no reason. If this isn't the limit test of credulity I do not know what is."

I don't think it was from nothing. Creation ex nihilo is the realm of religion, and the whole reason why atheists are all "******** you, Creationism is bullshit!"

And, you know, anyone with a sense of reason to look at the evidence for evolution and realize there's clearly something going on here.

(Not to mention that there are human civilizations alone that are older than Young Earth Creationists claim the Earth to be.)

The truth is, anybody who claims the Big Bang to come from nothing is reading far too much into it. We still can't figure it out that far. I think CERN has figured out the basics of what happened up to a fraction of an instant after, but not at the very instant, and certainly not anything before. For all we know, some multi-dimensional scientist could have done some mad magic s**t in a lab and BAM, in came our universe.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games