What scientific fields are the most/least tolerant to Creationists?

[RI]

Anyone who lost faith in God because of science didn't understand their religion very well to begin with.

[afleitch]

Anyone who lost faith in God because of science didn't understand their religion very well to begin with.

Depends on their religion.

[John Dibble]

Anyone who lost faith in God because of science didn't understand their religion very well to begin with.

So if someone who believes in Zeus loses faith because science can demonstrate that thunder and lightning aren't Zeus raining divine judgment upon the wicked, it's not because Zeus isn't really doing those things? Rather it's just a bad interpretation of the ancient Greek religion?

[the jmfcst...muted & still wearing a panty hose on his head]

The answer is really none - because science uses material machinations, not mythology, to explain the cosmos...I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind

Science has no explanation (apart from non-scientific conjecture) for the existence of the cosmos, nor does science have any observational evidence of anything that led to its origin.

And even if we ignore the lack of a mechanism, if we simply assume it came into its own being, the chances the cosmos could have randomly been so finely tuned to support life (or even form stars) is stupidly small (without non-scientific theories such as multi-universes).

As to the first point, the Big Bang. It's the most sensible empirical explanation.

the jmfcst was referring to a mechanism to initiate the Big Bang.

---

The answer is really none - because science uses material machinations, not mythology, to explain the cosmos...I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind

Science has no explanation (apart from non-scientific conjecture) for the existence of the cosmos, nor does science have any observational evidence of anything that led to its origin.

And even if we ignore the lack of a mechanism, if we simply assume it came into its own being, the chances the cosmos could have randomly been so finely tuned to support life (or even form stars) is stupidly small (without non-scientific theories such as multi-universes).

As to the second point, how can you possibly assume that? We have no evidence of other universes and must assume, if we're to assume anything, that with the expansion and cooling of the universe that these constants are where we would expect them to be.

I think you are unaware how finely tuned the universe is along many parameters...for example:

"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size." "  Stephen Hawking

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"  Stephen Hawking

---

The answer is really none - because science uses material machinations, not mythology, to explain the cosmos...I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind

As to science eroding faith...to the contrary, until science can explain the existence of the universe and/or falsify the bible, science will continue to support faith.

How?

And science can not only explain the existence of the universe, but has discovered chemical and physical laws that maintain it.

there is no science to explain the what kicked off the big bang.

---

With knowledge God has been demoted from every-day maintenance man to some kind of aloof architect in the 18th century to now some sort of deity who made everything to evolve or pushed the "go" button and then sat back and popped a cork on a bottle. In time He / She / It will not even have done that, because we'll have an explanation for that.

1) The bible NEVER claimed God was an every day maintenance man...to the contrary, the bible states God established physical laws by which he governs the universe:

Job 38:33 "Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?"
(BTW, that was a point blank refutation, from the bible no less, of your claim...it seems that the bible had your erroneous argument refuted thousands of years before you erred. )

2) The bible does NOT say God sat back.  Rather the bible claims God is active and mindful of his creation.  (I'll spare you yet another biblical refute, for I am kind as I am charming.)

3)  claiming as an absolute that science will find a physical mechanism leading to the big bang is simply your religion speaking, not science.

[John Dibble]

I think you are unaware how finely tuned the universe is along many parameters...for example:

"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size." "  Stephen Hawking

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"  Stephen Hawking

The jmfcst should be more cautious when cherry picking quotes from famous physicists.

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. … So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." Stephen Hawking, From an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel [October 17, 1988]

[the jmfcst...muted & still wearing a panty hose on his head]

Science has no explanation (apart from non-scientific conjecture) for the existence of the cosmos, nor does science have any observational evidence of anything that led to its origin.

Right, so science doesn't support your position as it has no data on which to support it.

Obvioulsy, science (the study of the physical universe) can not observe God...nor has science been able to support a beginning to the universe without a supernatural Creator having created it.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? And do pray tell us with your infinite wisdom how exactly you know that all other possible variants of the physical laws and constants would make the universe unable to sustain life in any area, much less that you know exactly what other possible variants there are? Do you have access to some supercomputer that has done these calculations for you? Because I'm not sure on what basis you could possibly know this outside of pulling it out your arse.[/quote]

see reply to other poster.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, which is why I know a bunch of former Christians who lost their faith after learning a bunch of science. Their loss of faith is clearly due to science's support of faith.
[/quote]

they were obviously ignorant of their faith and science

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think a lot of people here don't understand how science actually works... I would explain myself but I suspect illikeverin would correct me in some kind ultra-anal way. We should of course ask a scientist, anyway.

Either way, the point should be remembered that while science has not and can not (unless our intellectual abilities or knowledge improve massively) answer a lot of these questions, many religions have made truth claims which obviously contradict even basic scientific evidence. And if one idea erodes, then why should we trust the rest?

Anyone willing to defend the idea that man was created in God's image?

Of course, to go back on topic, plenty of Christians have been leading scientists. There is no contradiction and if there is, it can be worked around.

[the jmfcst...muted & still wearing a panty hose on his head]

The jmfcst should be more cautious when cherry picking quotes from famous physicists.

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. … So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." Stephen Hawking, From an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel [October 17, 1988]

I am well aware Hawkings is an atheist. These statements of his are NOT scientifically motivated (he is NOT trying to offer an explanation for a scientifically observed process, rather he is simply stating his religion.  And I have bolded the words that should have tipped you off that he was merely speculating...he had no scientific observational evidence by which to back up his idea.  As you yourself have pointed out, it is "possible" there is a giant spaghetti god controlling everything, but that doesn't make it so.

But, even if we assume (without observation) a self-contained universe with no boundary or edge, we are still left the observational fact the universe is extremely finely tuned.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The jmfcst should be more cautious when cherry picking quotes from famous physicists.

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. … So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." Stephen Hawking, From an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel [October 17, 1988]

I am well aware Hawkings is an atheist. These statements of his are NOT scientifically motivated (he is NOT trying to offer an explanation for a scientifically observed process, rather he is simply stating his religion.  And I have bolded the words that should have tipped you off that he was merely speculating...he had no scientific observational evidence by which to back up his idea.  As you yourself have pointed out, it is "possible" there is a giant spaghetti god controlling everything, but that doesn't make it so.

But, even if we assume (without observation) a self-contained universe with no boundary or edge, we are still left the observational fact the universe is extremely finely tuned.

The problem with that observation is that universe, whatever it was contained of, would still be very finely timed. What would a non-finely timed universe look like? Presumably one without any physical laws (where 'physics' as such would be impossible)... which would mean...

This is where the argument from design falls down, whatever existed could be provided as evidence of design. It's self-reinforcing while not actually demonstrating anything. A more important question is where is there X instead of Y and I don't see how an argument from design can answer that except through (more unneeded) 'mysterianism'.

[John Dibble]

Science has no explanation (apart from non-scientific conjecture) for the existence of the cosmos, nor does science have any observational evidence of anything that led to its origin.

Right, so science doesn't support your position as it has no data on which to support it.

Obvioulsy, science (the study of the physical universe) can not observe God...nor has science been able to support a beginning to the universe without a supernatural Creator having created it.

So what? You have yet to demonstrate a creator is necessary. Your claim that science supports you is nothing more than wishful thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, which is why I know a bunch of former Christians who lost their faith after learning a bunch of science. Their loss of faith is clearly due to science's support of faith.
[/quote]

they were obviously ignorant of their faith and science
[/quote]

You really do enjoy using the No True Scotsman fallacy, don't you?

The jmfcst should be more cautious when cherry picking quotes from famous physicists.

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. … So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." Stephen Hawking, From an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel [October 17, 1988]

I am well aware Hawkings is an atheist. These statements of his are NOT scientifically motivated (he is NOT trying to offer an explanation for a scientifically observed process, rather he is simply stating his religion.  And I have bolded the words that should have tipped you off that he was merely speculating...he had no scientific observational evidence by which to back up his idea.  As you yourself have pointed out, it is "possible" there is a giant spaghetti god controlling everything, but that doesn't make it so.

But, even if we assume (without observation) a self-contained universe with no boundary or edge, we are still left the observational fact the universe is extremely finely tuned.

So let me get this straight - you think you understand Hawking's work better than he does, and can dismiss what he thinks when you don't like what he has to say about it? Truly your ego knows no bounds. Have you actually even read any of his books, or do you just quote mine from websites?

[the jmfcst...muted & still wearing a panty hose on his head]

Anyone willing to defend the idea that man was created in God's image?

Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Given the fact the bible states God is spirit...you can be pretty sure it wasn't a reference to God's physical form - it is NOT meant to say that Adam and God were look-alikes.   So, it doesn't take much of a novice to understand "image" is used to relate to God's character and dominion over the physical (as well as the spiritual).

In regard to the prophecy in Gen 1:28 that man who attain physical and conscience dominion over life on the earth, that is obviously more so now than when Genesis was written.  So, yeah, I can easily defend the idea man was created in God’s image.

In regard to the spiritual fulfillment of the prophesy…all of the physical historical account of Genesis (and for that matter, much of the Old Testament), has ultimate fulfillment spiritually in Christ:  in the New Testament era, man takes on the image of God by receiving the Holy Spirit upon believing in Jesus Christ.  Then, at the resurrection, we are made incorruptible like God himself:

ICor 15: 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.”

So, yeah, I can defend Gen 1:27-28, for it is the Gospel in a nut-shell, foretelling not only man’s current physical dominion over the earth, and also the believer’s future spiritual dominion with Christ.

Amen.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not proof.

This is a statement from a book. Now, I could accept it as evidence but I would have to have a reason to do so rather than accept it as so. I have no reason to do so. For me, this piece of evidence - without further corroboration - is as much as evidence as quotations from the Illad or the Vedas or a copy of Batman would be. Which is to say of no worth whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm aware of the theology (I'm doing research on New England Puritanism atm btw) - but again, this fails basic epistemology. I have to have some reason to accept what you say is true. I currently have none as of this present moment. Would makes your truth claims superior to anyone else's?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.

I will now add that find this particular idea from the bible particularly obnoxious. It's an act of profound self-importance on Man's part to think that he (and it is he) was created as an ideal of the ultimate. We are a remarkably provinicial species.

[the jmfcst...muted & still wearing a panty hose on his head]

So what? You have yet to demonstrate a creator is necessary. Your claim that science supports you is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Science cannot demonstrate a mechanism leading to the formation of the universe, nor can science demonstrate why the values of the natural laws are what they are.  However, science CAN demonstrate that ever so slight variations to many values of those laws would make life impossible…and therefore science can demonstrate how ridiculously fined tuned the universe is.  All of which supports faith.

---

You really do enjoy using the No True Scotsman fallacy, don't you?

1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”

I have been a Christian since Oct 1992…no one that I have known to belong to Christ has left the faith.  Some might have fallen into sin, but none was ever renounced their faith.

Take me, the jmfcst, for instance…you know he is fully convinced Christ is alive and was manifest to him.  Could you ever imagine the jmfcst would renounce his faith in Christ?  Christ is more real to me than the world itself, and every facet of my life is evidence of my relationship with Christ.  Everywhere you look in my life, you see the evidence that the commission God gave me was real:  You can see it in my marriage, I’m married to the girl God used to bring me to believe in Christ... You can see it in my respect and insight of scripture…You can see it in the way my kids are brought up…You can see it in the way I am not swayed by the world’s PC.  You can see it in my boldness and steadiness of faith – I’ve attended the same church for 20 years.

If the Forum were to create a pool, what odds would be given for me renouncing my faith in Christ somewhere done the road? It ain’t gonna happen, because I would have to lie if I said I didn’t believe Jesus was alive, for my whole life has been shaped by God’s calling.

---

So let me get this straight - you think you understand Hawking's work better than he does, and can dismiss what he thinks when you don't like what he has to say about it? Truly your ego knows no bounds. Have you actually even read any of his books, or do you just quote mine from websites?

If you can’t tell the difference between a statement of observational and a statement of speculation, then you have no business reading ANYTHING.  It is an observational fact, without prejudice, that physical models break down if many of the known physical parameters are changed ever so slightly.  It is a statement of speculation, with prejudice, that the universe is self-contained.

You can see this in many areas of thought, not just science.  Even in religion, you can see people take the scripture and start to build one point on another and then completely jump the track, because they are reaching for a self-determined conclusion instead of accepting what it is there and admitting was is lacking.

We are all capable of stretching what is given, which is why we all need to check each other.  If you think Hawking’s is purely objective in everything he says, then you are fooling yourself.

[DemPGH]

Wow.

Well, the Big Bang is a model - I'm going to start using that in place of "theory," even though a theory in science is not a theory in pop culture. The Big Bang has been attacked for many years by scientists, and has only been buttressed by mathematics and by observation: that the universe is expanding - red and blue shift, background radiation, even dark matter now all support the Big Bang model. It's not a religion and it's not a whacky idea dreamed up at 1:00 a.m. on a lot of booze.

"The jmfcst" (who I assume has returned as JTakagi) is also making the God of the Gaps fallacy - that because a trigger mechanism for the Big Bang is not positively known, it must be God. No. There are explanations for why the Big bang occurred that do not require a deity, but of course where in the world is the evidence for a deity pushing the start button that was the Big Bang? It does not exist. So why assume something like that?

Because the Bible said so. But the Bible is just another compilation of ancient literature that reflects the values of the cultures who wrote its various books and chapters. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind.

Oh yes, clearly, the idea of a scientist who is a Christian is a complete myth.

Oh, I didn't say scientists who subscribe to mythological belief systems do not exist. I only said that such beliefs are not science.

[the jmfcst...muted & still wearing a panty hose on his head]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not proof.

This is a statement from a book. Now, I could accept it as evidence but I would have to have a reason to do so rather than accept it as so. I have no reason to do so. For me, this piece of evidence - without further corroboration - is as much as evidence as quotations from the Illad or the Vedas or a copy of Batman would be. Which is to say of no worth whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm aware of the theology (I'm doing research on New England Puritanism atm btw) - but again, this fails basic epistemology. I have to have some reason to accept what you say is true. I currently have none as of this present moment. Would makes your truth claims superior to anyone else's?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.

I will now add that find this particular idea from the bible particularly obnoxious. It's an act of profound self-importance on Man's part to think that he (and it is he) was created as an ideal of the ultimate. We are a remarkably provinicial species.

Are you intentionally dense?  You asked me to “defend the idea that man was created in God's image”…which is stated in Genesis 1:27, so I merely quoted that section to PROVIDE CONTEXT, not to “prove” it true by merely quoting.  And I am assuming you’re going to allow the God of the bible, from which the statement comes, to be God for the sake of this argument, otherwise there is no basis for discussion.


…and if you would bother to look at the context, the very next verse (Gen 1:28) gives a prophecy about man’s physical dominion upon the earth.  

Does man have dominion over animal life on earth?   Obviously.  Is the statement truer today than when Genesis was written?  Obviously.

So, we can factually state:  man has dominion over the earth and his dominion is increasing.   So, the prophecy of Gen 1:28 has come true, man does have dominion over the earth, which the bible prophesied would be an effect of man being made in God’s image

So, why can’t I use the correct prediction of Gen 1:28 to defend Gen 1:27?!

[the jmfcst...muted & still wearing a panty hose on his head]

Wow.

Well, the Big Bang is a model - I'm going to start using that in place of "theory," even though a theory in science is not a theory in pop culture.

Dude, go take a cold shower, then read some articles or books on the Big Bang written by its proponents...you'll see them calling it a "model" left and right.  It is NOT derogatory to apply the known physical laws to a mathematical construct of the theory can call it a "model".  

I work in risk management and construct mathematical models using computers all the time, and no one is offended by the term "model".

---

The Big Bang has been attacked for many years by scientists, and has only been buttressed by mathematics and by observation: that the universe is expanding - red and blue shift, background radiation, even dark matter now all support the Big Bang model. It's not a religion and it's not a whacky idea dreamed up at 1:00 a.m. on a lot of booze.

I never argued against the Big Bang in this thread.  I don't read processes, or lack of processes, into the Genesis account.  My faith makes no statements regarding processes or lack of processes God used creating the universe, it just states that he created it and set it all in motion by the power of his word.    When it says, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light", it doesn't say rather the light appeared instantaneously without process, or whether it was the result of a process involving time.  It makes no such statements, therefore I do NOT infer a processes or lack of processes.  

---

"The jmfcst" (who I assume has returned as JTakagi)

Joseph Yoshinobu Takagi to be exact.  Though that name probably means nothing to you, you uncultured swine!

---

 

is also making the God of the Gaps fallacy - that because a trigger mechanism for the Big Bang is not positively known, it must be God. No. There are explanations for why the Big bang occurred that do not require a deity, but of course where in the world is the evidence for a deity pushing the start button that was the Big Bang? It does not exist. So why assume something like that?

check title of thread....does the Big Bang theory (or cosmology in general) tolerate the idea of Creation?  Absolutely.

---

 

Because the Bible said so. But the Bible is just another compilation of ancient literature that reflects the values of the cultures who wrote its various books and chapters. Nothing more, nothing less.

stop being so unscientific.  You've succeeded in giving the jmfcst a headache.  Good night.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science#Social_sciences to name fields (granted, this isn't all of them, but this is still a pretty good list):
Most
Biology
Geology
Social Sciences
Psychology
Chemistry
Oceanography
Meteorology
Physics
Least

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Most
Biology

What the...?

[ilikeverin]

Most
Biology

What the...?

Oldies hasn't met many social scientists if he thinks that psychologists and other social scientists are among the most likely to be creationists   I, of all people, am probably the second most religious person that I know of in my program.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

I think he got the list wrong, and if he flipped it it would be better (Biology least tolerant, Physics most)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, why can’t I use the correct prediction of Gen 1:28 to defend Gen 1:27?!

Because Genesis 1:28 isn't a prediction?  As of the time Genesis was written down, mankind had been fruitful, had spread over the face of the earth, and was the dominant life form.  Genesis 1:28 describes things as they were while providing an explanation of how they came to be.

[John Dibble]

So what? You have yet to demonstrate a creator is necessary. Your claim that science supports you is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Science cannot demonstrate a mechanism leading to the formation of the universe, nor can science demonstrate why the values of the natural laws are what they are.  However, science CAN demonstrate that ever so slight variations to many values of those laws would make life impossible…and therefore science can demonstrate how ridiculously fined tuned the universe is.  All of which supports faith.

Let's say for a moment I accept your premise. (I don't, the scientific mindset doesn't work the way you think it does) Why is your creator faith somehow better than faith in the idea of a multiverse or some other explanatory reason why we're in a universe that allows for life to exist but does not involve an intelligent agent?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”[/quote]

Just because the Bible is using the same logical fallacy you are doesn't mean it isn't a logical fallacy. No. True. Scotsman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And if someone you did know that you thought belonged to Christ left, you would then change your mind and say they didn't actually and you were mistaken. No. True. Scotsman. You love it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. As hard as it may be for you to believe, zealots can and do lose faith. It may be rare for someone as zealous as you to lose faith, but it does happen, so yes I can imagine it. That doesn't mean I expect you to lose it, but that's just based on probability - like I said, it's rare. Still, doesn't change the fact that you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Mr. Morden]

jmfcst is right in this limited sense: You can't use science to "step outside the universe" so to speak and try to explain its own existence.  The laws of physics can't cause themselves to exist.  A few people, like Lawrence Krauss (supported by Richard Dawkins, who really doesn't know anything about cosmology, but is desperate to latch onto any argument against theism), have tried to use some ridiculous sleights of hand to explain how you can get something out of nothing, and other scientists have raked them over the coals on it.  Here's a 6 minute takedown of the idea on Bloggingheads by two science journalists:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/10113?in=30:10&out=36:40

In any case, it's a philosophical question for which I'm not sure there's a good answer.  Even if you try to "solve" it by invoking the existence of a creator, that arguably just displaces the question, and you can then ask who or what created the creator.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

arg, Anthropic is not a theological debate in and of itself, it can be modded to support god, but when you quote scientists defending the ORIGINAL anthropic principle doesn't mean there necessarily is a god. By definition, there can be NO proof of that god, just belief, which means that people that don't share that intrinsic belief or are other wise convinced encomienda wise, don't belief in it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not proof.

This is a statement from a book. Now, I could accept it as evidence but I would have to have a reason to do so rather than accept it as so. I have no reason to do so. For me, this piece of evidence - without further corroboration - is as much as evidence as quotations from the Illad or the Vedas or a copy of Batman would be. Which is to say of no worth whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm aware of the theology (I'm doing research on New England Puritanism atm btw) - but again, this fails basic epistemology. I have to have some reason to accept what you say is true. I currently have none as of this present moment. Would makes your truth claims superior to anyone else's?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.

I will now add that find this particular idea from the bible particularly obnoxious. It's an act of profound self-importance on Man's part to think that he (and it is he) was created as an ideal of the ultimate. We are a remarkably provinicial species.

Are you intentionally dense?  You asked me to “defend the idea that man was created in God's image”…which is stated in Genesis 1:27, so I merely quoted that section to PROVIDE CONTEXT, not to “prove” it true by merely quoting.  And I am assuming you’re going to allow the God of the bible, from which the statement comes, to be God for the sake of this argument, otherwise there is no basis for discussion.


…and if you would bother to look at the context, the very next verse (Gen 1:28) gives a prophecy about man’s physical dominion upon the earth.  

Does man have dominion over animal life on earth?   Obviously.  Is the statement truer today than when Genesis was written?  Obviously.

So, we can factually state:  man has dominion over the earth and his dominion is increasing.   So, the prophecy of Gen 1:28 has come true, man does have dominion over the earth, which the bible prophesied would be an effect of man being made in God’s image

So, why can’t I use the correct prediction of Gen 1:28 to defend Gen 1:27?!

I, intentionally dense? Are you? I asked you defend the proposition that God created man in his image, you quoted bible quotes at me without explanining that this was really 'context'. You still haven't defended the idea, but please go ahead...