creationism or evolution

It seems to me that everything we say is based on predicates, so is everything we say self-sufficient? "Sun is bright" is a predicate, "Sun causes life on Earth" is another predicate.
Also I believe it's a bit harder to separate statements from what we perceive. Once we talk about predicates, it's obviously we first understand the words ("sun", "to be", "bright") and the grammar binding them, and only after having these we can say what is a predicate and what is not.

Axioms can be challenged like you say. What is an axiom for you it may be not for me and viceversa. But when one estabilishes a body of axioms he demonstrates (usually invoking some goal and/or finding a root in some outer cause, to escape the continuous need for further justifications) the necessity of those axioms. What that demonstration consists of is a matter of discussion.

On your argument on possibility I am afraid there's a flaw. If it possible it doesn't mean it actually happens. If everything is possible, then it's possible for biological evolution to be true, but also possible for the intelligent design to be true, only that because they are incompatible they are not true at the same time.

Let's get back to the meat of the topic. One flavour of creationism claims the Earth life was created several thousands years ago. Evolutionism claims the Earth life was created (evolved from the an-organic) several billions years ago. While both claims may be possible, they are obviously not true at the same time. That's why such theories exclude each other.

You know, the more you both continue sharing your philosophical differences the more you get entangled in attempting to explain them. Maybe the fun with that is in the disagreement over your theories. If you can't come to an agreement perhaps you both can refocus on your impressions towards 'evolution'.

Originally posted by Seko You know, the more you both continue sharing your philosophical differences the more you get entangled in attempting to explain them. Maybe the fun with that is in the disagreement over your theories. If you can't come to an agreement perhaps you both can refocus on your impressions towards 'evolution'.

I understand the point so I'll drop my quarrel with Menumorut and continue only mine with Cezar which seems (still) to address the topic of the thread.

Originally posted by Cezar I was talking about logical predicates. I give it to you again: A predicate is self-sufficient, the value of the predicate is not.

My observation applies both to logical and grammar predicates. I could have said as well ""Sun is bright" has a predicate, "Sun causes life on Earth" has another predicate. Actually all logical predicates are based on grammar predicates because we need grammar to express ourselves. Don't we?

Therefore it all comes to the value of the axioms. Which is relative. Newton's physics is  sufficient to an extent. When it can't explain some things it becomes useless. So, it is necessary to rebuild physics on a new set of axioms but, watch it, the new physiscs must be consistent with the old. If you wish, call Newton's physics v. 4.1 and Einstein's physiscs v. 8.2.. That's why I think religion to be self sufficient yet incomplete. Also I think it's a dead end.

I agree that axioms are some-how a dead-end, but I do not understand your further conclusions. Until you clarify the paragraph above, everything (everything predicative) seems self-sufficient. And physics seems as complete or as incomplete (whatever they mean) as religion. IMO, the main difference between the religious knowledge and physical or biological knowledge lies at their foundation, at the axioms they choose. For the former, there's a magic (transcendental dimension) and an associated definition of the world(s) and our place in it - but eventually this can be seen as a body of axioms. For the latter, there's a scientific paradigm (sometimes simply refered as scientific method) which encapsulates a body of axioms which in their essence they define how to make science, how to obtain scientific knowledge.

Check again, I'm not flawed. You introduced the concept of time, which I didn't use or defined.

I think you misunderstood. "at the same time" which as adverb is synonymous with "simultaneously", "concurrently". While its semantics retains an obvious dimension of time,it can mean also a simple conjunction. Two statements (claims, theory, etc.) true at the same time = two statements true in conjunction, both true.
One good way to talk about modal claims is using possible worlds but I'm afraid I'll just trigger more misunderstandings. So let me rephrase my earlier objection in the following way (! = not, * = and):
p = a claim from evolutionism (where evolutionism is E = p*p1*p2*... - a lot of other claims)
!p = a claim from creationism, denying the the previous claim (where creationism is C = !p*q1*q2*... - a lot of other claims)
E can be true, C can be true, E*C however is certainly false because p*!p = 0, and the whole thing will be 0. Is this more clear now? (You called C actually RC, but many enough, if not most, types of creationism have claims which are contrary with some claims made in the mainstream evolutionist theory).







Edited by Chilbudios - 19-Dec-2007 at 12:28

If C = E * something, then you might be right, but again I say, most creationists reject mainstream evolutionism (in whole or parts of it).

Yesterday I watched a discussion about themes like that. One christian said that the problem with it is that the scientists or atheists are discussing this with facts that are real and that this would be the problem, because god can not be described with logical arguments. So you have to feel it.

Edited by beorna - 20-Dec-2007 at 10:46

Well, we can always say that what we know is just a result of our present knowledge, so that everything we know can be wrong tomorrow and so it is just the believe to know something. But this is a very intellectual debate then indeed. We know an apple is falling to the ground, everybody knows it and we know why, it's gravity. I can believe that an apple is falling up sometimes somewhere but I cannot proof it. So we should accept that knowing is better than believing. People who adore the creationism or the now called intelligent design want advices from the scientists for everything, but they can't stand when we do the same with their believe.

All ideas from the past have a use by date with a definate shelf life, they will not keep on being useful forever. Concepts that seemed brilliant at the time are historical myths now. All things in this world do change particularly our world of ideas!

You're sure. Scientists say it started with nothing and they cannot explain how this is possible. We could say it is God who creates everything from nothing. But, if we don't look if you can proof it or not, what is god? Can you tell me what it is? Is it the beloved father in heaven of what most people believe? Is he material, spiritual or what? I don't know if there is something like god or how ever we should name it, but I am very sure that he has nothing to do with the god of the christians, the muslims, the jews and the most of the others. So if the christian believe is wrong, creationism is wrong! The best explanation we have is that of the scientists! If there is someone a better explanation, o.k., but not these fundamentalist christian ideas (I'd like to write another word for ideas, but I am to handsome)

Edited by beorna - 21-Dec-2007 at 16:32

Well I did not say we shouldn't be open to possible further discoveries. We have always to ask ourself if we are right or wrong. But creationism is not a different scientific theory. It's an attack towards science. Science is one big base of humanism, and humanism is the base for our democracy. We are fighting against enemies of democracy all over the world but there is a cancor in ourself. I accept different opinions, no problem, but they don't want to discuss with us. They want to bring us their one god, their one way of live and their view of what is right or wrong.

Very good arguments gentlemen, however we all need to refresh our perspectives by taking and using what can be known. There is always more to know or there would be no point in having an education process. During the height of Greek times a philosophical argument was waged over the �state� of the universe. Was the universe static (unchanging in its basic or elemental properties) or flowing (in a state of constant change).  The earlier world view had loosely favored �all things flow� however this more ancient viewpoint lost the battle for hearts and minds. The more politically correct static viewpoint was favored until the time of quantum physics.

 

The once supreme and rampant static viewpoint favored having god or gods. The real argument here is whether or not the long standing Supreme Being idea is a fundamental concept that has been hardwired into the human brain. Growing evidence suggests that it is certainly not the case and an early form of �evolution� was naturally accepted long before the (arguably) more primitive creation ideas first appeared.

 

Look at the complexity of these psychic form arguments (that every caveman knows?). The earth (universe) has been �created� to function in certain ways by an eternally constant power that lives in an eternally constant realm. Now this unchanging power in this spiritual place hidden from our non-spiritual eyes has the power to change things around otherwise they will stay the same for they have no power within to change themselves.  However they can and do change because the creator has created the inner mechanisms for them to change.

 

We should not start from the physical world when trying to determine the truth? Pray tell from what world should we start? I�m not even arguing for science or religion but for common sense at last. The world has been abused and mistreated by diseased ideas dressed up in a gleaming party frock of rituals, ceremonies and lavish splendor that basically pleads permission for our form of life to put down other forms of life to �enrich� our own and advance our own selfish causes.