Question Time: Creationism

British politicians, including Peter Hain (Secretary of State for Wales), agree that creationism is "barmy" and completely at odds with science. This candid discourse will be refreshing to free thinkers across the pond, where creationist "science" is taught in numerous states. Would these gentlemen still have jobs if they worked in the USA?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Creationist
• Evangelicals
• Britain

[punksachoo]

@maxmanwellman Since we are not in a position to determine whether or not any object is still in absolute terms since there is no frame of reference we may not say that such an object does not exist. The discourse I was having was rather long winded but essentially I was trying to say that anyone who favours einsteins relativity would not state that it is not possible for earth to be stationary which the Bible says it is.The geocentric position is not disproved by relativity(or anything else)!

[maxmanwellman]

@punksachoo What do you mean when you say that "logic would insist on the possibility of there existing a stationary point"?

Are you saying that it is logically possible for there to be a stationary point in the universe, or that there actually must be one in existence outside the realms of logic?

[punksachoo]

@JoeT3378 Yeah. That's me. How did you know?

[jonnysmpr]

@punksachoo Are you for real?!?!?

[JoeT3378]

Can anyone tell me if the last chap to speak is Huw George? Cheers haha :-)

[punksachoo]

I said logic would insist on the "possibility" of there existing a stationary point. It is plain illogical and very unsound to insist that everything is in motion for the simple reason that "what if in reality there is a body in space that is still and about which every other body moves".

[nashertheatheist]

@punksachoo

Nothing is stationary. I have said that before and I will say it again. There are no absolutes here, or at least if there are then we haven't discovered them. It can help us to think about something as being stationary for the sake of a particular equation, but it has no bearing on reality as it truly is.

Logic does not insist on there being a stationary point. The universe is expanding. Every point in space is moving away from every other point, and has been since the big bang.

[punksachoo]

@nashertheatheist It's a terrible analogy.simply because it doesn't allow for the possibility that any of the vessels is stationary. That possibility MUST be allowed. Logic insists upon it. I understand the usefulness of the analogy but it can not be used to illustrate the truth of what is going on out there. Any one of the celestial bodies we see in the sky "could" be stationary and/or central in the universe. I see that it might not matter when sums are being done etc but earth "can" be still

[nashertheatheist]

@punksachoo

I will use Galileo's analogy.

Imagine an endless ocean. The water is constantly moving, so it is impossible to use it as a frame of reference. There are several ships on the surface, moving here and there in different directions. Which one is still? Answer: none of them. But the sailors on each boat think their boat is still.

Are any of the sailors right? A yes or no answer will suffice, but do elaborate if you wish.

[punksachoo]

@nashertheatheist After this comment we're done. You thought I was dumb for believing in a stationary earth but you've as much as admitted that within your preferred ways of thinking about cosmology it is "possible" for earth to be stationary. So I really don't see that we're at that much variance. I just happen to believe in one of several possible scenarios that relativity allows for. If relativity doesn't allow for the possible truth that one or other body in space is at rest, it's no good.