Debate and Discussion

Creationism VS Evolution
subcultured at 5:04PM, Feb. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
should creationism be taught in a public school?
should evolution be banned from school?

I say nay, creationism is created from a book, while evolution can be tested and studied

most of the creationst “scientist” take all their time trying to prove evolution wrong, while no time to prove that creationism is right. just because you say evolution is wrong, doens't mean creationsim is right.

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
ozoneocean at 5:17PM, Feb. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,067
joined: 1-2-2004
There is no debate about Creation VS evolution.
The reality is that a tiny minority of weirdoes believe in creation and get pissed about it, while everyone else accepts evolution. That's just how things are. Probably about 1 person in 1000 (or maybe even in 100,000) trumpets “creationism”.

If there is a debate it's between a handful of nutters and the rest of the world. So yeah, not so much a debate and strange people making a fuss and everyone else trying to educate them. I don't think people should dignify the position of these silly creationists by even starting “debates” personally. Just step on he creationists and ID heads whenever they pop up, don't give them a forum so they can pretend their ideas actually matter. lol!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
Phantom Penguin at 7:46PM, Feb. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Theres no debate. Evolution can be proven. And i love Creationists argument “Well i never used to be a monkey”

No shit, it happens to a whole spiece over millions of years. A monkey just doesn't pop into being your co-worker.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
subcultured at 8:01PM, Feb. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
heh…actually, we do look like monkeys. if you look at indigenous people with limited genetic diversity, there is a more simian look. now if you look at a diverse person, it is further away from simian. so diversification of people is better, screw nazis and organizatons like that who think it's better to be one race.

being one race means that one disease can kill the human race because there is not enough diverse genetic material. things like sickle cell disease mostly affect people with african decent or skin cancer mostly affect people with lighter skin.

such as human's small evolution i.e. natives in hotter climates tend to be skinny because it is beneficial for cooling, and natives in colder climates tend to be fatter because of insulation. samoan people tend to gain and store fat as a way to stave off famine…changes that can be seen as proof that species do evolve. although there hasn't been a specie like us before in this earth, where we can stop evolution or change it to a different direction throuhg gene theraphy or using technology to enchance our weakness.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
Neilsama at 12:44AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
Creationists are largely ignorant of science. They don't understand the principle behind a theory. They think a theory is a wild, unsupportable guess. They also think that in order for a theory to be validated, one must actually SEE the theoretical phenomenon. If you hear anyone say that evolution is “only a theory”, you'll know that you're dealing with a person who has never seriously opened a science book.

First of all, the best way to deal with creationists is to take them down at their base assumptions. You can find a nice compilation of them in such books as “Icons Of Evolution” or by looking for Kent Hovind's creationist “challenge”.

The first thing to look for is the creationist concept of evolution. In the creationist context, the word “evolution” is a misnomer, because they try to lump a bunch of other theories along with it. Lost on the creationists is the fact that the topics they try to cover are actually spread across many theories and many fields of science. If you've ever been a creationist website, then you're familiar with the stories of creationists “stumping” their evolutionary biology professors with questions about the alleged inaccuracies of radiocarbon dating. It's not uncommon for a creationist in one breath to say that he can refute evolution and then, in the next breath, ask a geology question or a physics question. They literally have no idea what evolution is, otherwise, they wouldn't be asking these questions.

The responses I get from creationists is that I'm somehow “dodging” their claims, and it just amazes me how much they miss the point. The point that I try to make is that while all theories should be critically considered, it's not fair to lump everything on evolution. If creationists understood science and evolutionary biology, then they would have no choice but to admit that it's not just evolution they oppose: It's EVERY theory of science.

The quickest way to out a creationist is to simply ask him what the theory of evolution is. If he or she starts out with “millions and millions of years”, they are exposed immediately. While the theory of evolution certainly implies a large scale timeline, that's not what the theory is intended for. The theory of evolution is that allele frequences change in a population over several generations. That's it. There's nothing about God or Carbon-14. It's simply a description of how genetics function.

And then when they run out of arguments, creationists always fall back on the fairness issue. They say it's not fair to include one belief system on not the other. Again, this relies heavily on their erroneous assumptions of what evolution is. Evolution is not a philosophy or a worldview. Furthermore, it would be incredibly UNFAIR to teach creation in a science classroom, because creation has no evidence to support it. It's not science at all. It's anti-evolution propaganda.

It would be like insisting that we teach gematria in addition to algebra, or alchemy along with chemistry. Let's teach both sides of the issue about the elements! On one side, you have the Periodic Table, and on the other you have the wind, fire, earth, and water.

The point is that all of the arguments that creationists have are either straw men, non-sequiturs, or red herrings. Like most people here have said, there really is no scientific controversy.

The only controversy is the public controvery of ignorant people passing bullshit off as science. By insisting on the teaching of anti-evolution dogma, they are actually doing something extremely immoral, because they're attempting to fight against progress and understanding for the sake of scriptural literalism.

And as you may have guessed, I do take it personally. In the last years of his life, my father had three bouts with MRSA, a very dangerous and rapidly-evolving strain of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. You can imagion how pissed I get when I hear people trying to fight evolution.

Thankfully, the pendullum has been very slowly swinging away from this nonsense, but I still get very angry when I hear people arguing this nonsense. I try not to get angry with them personally, because the people who buy into the creationist nonsense are probably the biggest victims of all. They've been robbed of any real understanding of the world.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
reconjsh at 11:05AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Couldn't you mesh creationism with evolution? They fit… let's consider where science fails, in 2 ways specifically.

1) Why something instead of nothing? i.e. where'd it all come from?

2) Science has yet to create life from non-life. They can see particles moving from single atoms to simple cells (in fossil records), but they can't bridge the gap (yet) of where this non-living cell (coacervate it's called, btw) gets life.

So far, the best answers for both of these points is time. Time explains everything in science. Why couldn't the answer be something “divine”. Perhaps not a grey beared god, but something beyond any understanding we will have?

I don't really know what the truth is. Evolution is an absolute…. granted the ONLY evolution that has EVER been observed is MICRO-evolution, where one species demonstrates genetic variances that allow it to better adapt to a given niche. MACRO-evolution, where one species becomes a distinctly dissimilar one has never been observed. Ever.

We've never observed a fish becoming a land creature… or a monkey becoming a homo sapien. We've only seen it through fossil records… with million year gaps. So again, time explains everything in evolution, so they say.

So why do we accept “science and evolution” as absolute fact when there's gaps “leaps of faith” you must take to believe in it… all the while claiming creationism as false because it requires faith? This, I can't answer.


So how can the two fit? Well, assuming creationism is possible… why couldn't an “infinite being” (God) have planned things to evolve instead of just manifest instantly? If “God” is so infinite, all-powerful, and complex… wouldn't it stand to reason that his method for creating everything would be something as complex as evolution and not as twitty as “poof, everyone is here now”?

Just some thoughts.. I honestly don't know what exactly I believe… but I'm certainly not so foolish as to completely rule out anything that is completely disproven… especially if the alternative isn't completely proven.

=P
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Gamemaner1234 at 11:13AM, Feb. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 28
joined: 12-7-2006
Evolution is a theory! They cant never SHOW you how the world came to be. Creation cant really either though. But, creation believers have FOUND noah's ark and some other cool things mentioned in the bible. Evolutionists swept that under the rug though. As did they with everything else. And also, what exploded? *swept under the rug* see? The only real explanation is that god made it. Bibles should be put back in school because there are good values for everyday life in a bible. And, evolution practices randomness. I'm born from a monkey? A reandom place in a part of nothingness randomly exploded? And then something randomly decided to turn into water? Or fire, or a living lifeform? And before that, there was nothing right? What was there to explode? Evolution is a load of crap! It's crap in a can. Made by people who want to make this country into the worst place to live. And they get to be on top of the world while others suffer. Cristians help each other. Poor people have no other solitude other than god.

That's why I hate evolution.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:32PM
Neilsama at 12:22PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
I'm going to assume that Gamemaner1234's post is a parody. There is not one coherent statement in that entire post.

In lue of actually addressing that post, I offer this instead: Why Arguing With Creationists Is A Waste Of Time

reconjsh
So far, the best answers for both of these points is time. Time explains everything in science. Why couldn't the answer be something “divine”. Perhaps not a grey beared god, but something beyond any understanding we will have?



Couldn't you mesh creationism with evolution? They fit… let's consider where science fails, in 2 ways specifically.
Not in a scientific context. Philosophically, you could suggest that a creator exists AND evolution happens, but in terms of science, you can only make claims from evidence. Claims of devine creation are outside of this realm.

Please keep in mind that evolution is not a theory opposed to a creator. That's the inaccurate perception that creationists like to create. Evolution doesn't evoke a deity, not because it is saying that there is no deity, but rather that the subject is irrelevent.

I mean, the theory of gravity doesn't mention God either.

reconjsh
1) Why something instead of nothing? i.e. where'd it all come from?

2) Science has yet to create life from non-life. They can see particles moving from single atoms to simple cells (in fossil records), but they can't bridge the gap (yet) of where this non-living cell (coacervate it's called, btw) gets life.
You apparently didn't read what I just said. Evolution is not an all-encompassing theory that covers the origin of everything. Evolution is a theory of genetics. As soon as you start talking about abiogenesis, you've left the realm of evolution.

The origin of life belongs to a field of science known as biochemistry, which deals more heavily with such topics as the creation of organic molecules. Pointing out gaps in our understanding of the origin of life is really a non sequitur. You're criticizing something that doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary biology.

About the best analogy I've come up with for the difference between abiogenesis and evolution would be the difference between how a car is built versus how a car runs. The car is analogous to biological order.

Now, I haven't been keeping up on biochemistry, so for all I know, any postulations of the origin of life could still be largely hypothetical. However, that does not give a scientific license to evoke a creator, because that sort of deduction is what is known as an appeal to ignorance. The appeal to ignorance is fairly self-descriptive. It's when you make a conclusion based on a lack of knowledge, rather than an actual piece of evidence. Basically, it's a non sequitur.

Sir Issac Newton once proclaimed that the order of the solar system was itself evidence of a devine hand, and a lot of believers use his words as a sort of scientific endorsement of belief. But what they don't seem to realize is that the reason Newton made that claim is because he couldn't figure out why all the planets were on the same plain, and why they were all going the same direction. Issac Newton appealed to ignorance, and he was wrong.

reconjsh
I don't really know what the truth is. Evolution is an absolute…. granted the ONLY evolution that has EVER been observed is MICRO-evolution, where one species demonstrates genetic variances that allow it to better adapt to a given niche. MACRO-evolution, where one species becomes a distinctly dissimilar one has never been observed. Ever.
I covered this as well. This is a common confusion people make with science. They think that the theoretical phenomenon should be the observable phenomenon, but actually science is about piecing together bits of data to create a model that explains why the evidence is as it is.

Of course you're not going to see one species give rise to another in real time, but that's why scientists appeal to molecular evidence. Of course, most creationists will explain away the molecular evidence with “a common designer”, but simplistic arguments such as this completely overlook other evidential factors.

There are such factors as endogenous retroviruses, which is a history of viral infection preserved in the genetic code of species. As one would predict in evolutionary theory, species with similar morphology and genetic structures often have the same or remarkably similar viral histories. Now, some desperate creationists will say that this is only evidence of common infection, but this logic overlooks the fact that retroviruses mutate very rapidly, and therefore we would not have such identical viral strains in the DNA of humans and chimps. There are others who like to suggest that some viruses have a preferencial “bias” for particular areas of our genetic code, which is true, but again, for similar reasons, this is completely irrelevent.

Microevolution is really not what the creationists make it out to be. While there seems to be a distinction between evolution within species and evolution from species, the fact is that the two processes are one and the same. The only difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is a scale of time.

Besides, macro evolution isn't a linear process anyway. You have schysters like Kent Hovind passing around these horrible memes, as if we should expect to see a “dog give birth to a non-dog”. That's exactly the LAST thing you would expect in evolution. Rather, the model evolution proposes is more of a branching system, where isolated species become more and more distinct the longer they are separated from other populations. Such phenomena can be observed in what is known as a ring species.

Gulls, particularly, are good examples of rings species, because their is an observable chain from one population of gulls to another. Gulls in England can cross breed with gulls in Europe, and gulls in Europe can cross breed with gulls in Asia, and so on. This ring continues all the way around to North America. Curiously, the North American gulls cannot breed with the English gulls.

Now, a creationist would say, “So what? They're all still gulls.” Well, categorically speaking, that is true, but these birds have also undergone quite a deal of morphological change from one end of the chain to the other, so it's not as simple as just looking at them and saying that they're obviously all the same species. Furthermore, should any of the intermediates go extinct, then you would indeed be left with two distinct and non-interbreedable species, from lineage of which there was only one.

reconjsh
We've never observed a fish becoming a land creature… or a monkey becoming a homo sapien. We've only seen it through fossil records… with million year gaps. So again, time explains everything in evolution, so they say.
No. Genetics tells the story of evolution. Time is implied, but determining the age of the Earth is not the job of evolutionary biologists. You're barking up the wrong tree. A lot of what you're saying sounds like stuff taken directly out of a Kent Hovind seminar.

Furthermore, your comments about seeing “a fish become a land creature” is exactly the type of misconception I was just talking about. A fish didn't one day give birth to a land creature. Rather, evolution would expect to find animals with shared characteristics between land and sea creatures. Such specimen do exist in the fossil record and in modern biology. The mudskipper would be one example.

reconjsh
So why do we accept “science and evolution” as absolute fact when there's gaps “leaps of faith” you must take to believe in it… all the while claiming creationism as false because it requires faith? This, I can't answer.
Please do not drag science down to the level of creationism. Anyone who understands science knows that knowledge is always going to be spotty. Accusing science of having gaps is essentially identical as accusing scientists of being in the process of learning things. Science is the persuit of knowledge; not the source.

Besides, my criticism of creationism is targeted at its horrendous misrepresentation of evolutionary biology and massive appeal to ignorance. Creationists assume that if they can beat evolution, their beliefs will win by default. That's not how you do science.

reconjsh
So how can the two fit? Well, assuming creationism is possible… why couldn't an “infinite being” (God) have planned things to evolve instead of just manifest instantly? If “God” is so infinite, all-powerful, and complex… wouldn't it stand to reason that his method for creating everything would be something as complex as evolution and not as twitty as “poof, everyone is here now”?
Many people believe just that. And that's fine. But in a scientific context, that sort of reasoning is not allowed.

Science is strictly material in its endevours. God, obviously, would be distinctly immaterial.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
reconjsh at 1:07PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Neilsame: Your retort is mostly applied semantics and I refuse to enter into a debate of such with you. You understand the nature of the terms and are using specific, contrary terminologies to make your points. Yes, a good debate should have these types of things clearly defined. This one does not and isn't valid. No, we shouldn't discard points of view because of a lack of understanding by prior debate participants.

Understood terms of debate would call for a clarification of terminology, not a retort. So either your intention was to clearify and you simply didn't know better, or your intention was to obscure my points in semantics. Either way, that's not good debate ettiquette.

The only point I'll argue is your first one:
Someone
Not in a scientific context. Philosophically, you could suggest that a creator exists AND evolution happens, but in terms of science, you can only make claims from evidence. Claims of devine creation are outside of this realm.

To say that the theory of a creator or something divine can't be explored scientifically is kind of narrow-minded, if you ask me. What people label divine intervention and influence can have the scientific method applied to it… and frequently does.

You went on to say:
Someone
Please keep in mind that evolution is not a theory opposed to a creator. That's the inaccurate perception that creationists like to create. Evolution doesn't evoke a deity, not because it is saying that there is no deity, but rather that the subject is irrelevent.

You're right here and in this I concede. However, the SPIRIT of this thread is pitting the two theories against each other and not asking which is right but rather should both be taught.

So…

Let's get back to the true question of this thread: Should creationism be taught along with evolution? The answer: yes. It, like evolution, is a theory… and a possible theory at that.

My response to this thread was to simply provide a few arguements to demonstrate my final point: it's foolish to completely rule out anything that is not completely disproven… especially if the alternative isn't completely proven. And in the spirit of being a “good scientist”, both should be taught in our educational system and those being educated should go out and seek their own answers. Granted, you can't “prove a negative”, you can only prove the opposite… and in this case, the ‘opposite’ hasn't been proven. Not to mention, re-testing proven negatives is still good science.

Btw, I'm not sure who Kent ‘something’ (can't find his name scrolling down) but rest assured that I'll google him and figure out why you referrenced him.

EDIT: Afterthought- isn't that Kent guy the guy who says the Earth is 6,000 years old?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Phantom Penguin at 1:37PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Gamemaner1234
Evolution is a theory! They cant never SHOW you how the world came to be. Creation cant really either though. But, creation believers have FOUND noah's ark and some other cool things mentioned in the bible. Evolutionists swept that under the rug though. As did they with everything else. And also, what exploded? *swept under the rug* see? The only real explanation is that god made it. Bibles should be put back in school because there are good values for everyday life in a bible. And, evolution practices randomness. I'm born from a monkey? A reandom place in a part of nothingness randomly exploded? And then something randomly decided to turn into water? Or fire, or a living lifeform? And before that, there was nothing right? What was there to explode? Evolution is a load of crap! It's crap in a can. Made by people who want to make this country into the worst place to live. And they get to be on top of the world while others suffer. Cristians help each other. Poor people have no other solitude other than god.

That's why I hate evolution.

And god does this to people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://www.gendercide.org/genocideinkurdistan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

and thats why i hate creationism.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
reconjsh at 1:42PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Someone
And god does this to people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://www.gendercide.org/genocideinkurdistan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

and thats why i hate creationism.

Ya, people do crappy things in the name of religion. That's a shame.

I can name several forces in the world that do much more evil in the world. What about all the great things that happen in the name of religion? Can you name something that does more GOOD in the world than religion?

If your beef is with God and not religion, what about all the great things that get done by God, or in the name of God. Believe in a god or not, alot of good stuff happens in his name. The good vastly out weighs the evil… so much healing, charity, help has happened.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Neilsama at 1:51PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
reconjsh
Neilsame: Your retort is mostly applied semantics and I refuse to enter into a debate of such with you. You understand the nature of the terms and are using specific, contrary terminologies to make your points. Yes, a good debate should have these types of things clearly defined. This one does not and isn't valid. No, we shouldn't discard points of view because of a lack of understanding by prior debate participants.
The points to which you are referring were made by people who lacked understanding of the topic. Many of the points you brought up are completely irrelevent to evolution's validity as a theory.

And contrary to your statements, evolution is very specifically defined within the framework of genetics. For you to attempt to make it more than that is simply building a strawman. I have every right to lay out the evolutionary argument as it is scientically defined and insist that you critically evaluate it in that context. If you don't, then you're simply straying from the topic.

And besides, defining evolution IS a very effective way of showing why creationism is wrong, because creationism itself insists upon a version of evolution which is simply distorted and untrue. This is a completely relevent objection to creationism within the context of this topic, because it shows that creationism is not good science and therefore should NOT be taught in a science classroom.

reconjsh
Understood terms of debate would call for a clarification of terminology, not a retort. So either your intention was to clearify and you simply didn't know better, or your intention was to obscure my points in semantics. Either way, that's not good debate ettiquette.
But in order to retort, I was required to correct your errors. Why is this not good ettiquette. My intention was to explain what evolution is and what it is not.

reconjsh
To say that the theory of a creator or something divine can't be explored scientifically is kind of narrow-minded, if you ask me. What people label divine intervention and influence can have the scientific method applied to it… and frequently does.
Again, I don't think you got my point. Creationism isn't a theory. They aren't using evidence to build a case. All creationism does is to attempt to undermine the evidence for evolution without presenting a case for itself.

Let's take evolution out of the picture for one moment. Let's say Charles Darwin never proposed the theory. Now, what is the creationist's case? Where is their evidence? All of their alleged evidences rely on attacking the contrary. If the contrary does not exist, then you see very clearly that creationism doesn't have a case built for itself. It's distinctly an anti-evolution propaganda argument.

That's not to say that these theories are not worthy of critical analysis. All theories should be subject to critical analysis. In fact, the only theories that aren't routinely critically observed are those that have been long disproven. But the problem with creationism is, as I said before, it relies on a very distorted representation of evolution, and therefore it does not represent a valid criticism of the theory.

reconjsh
My response to this thread was to simply provide a few arguements to demonstrate my final point: it's foolish to completely rule out anything that is not completely disproven… especially if the alternative isn't completely proven. And in the spirit of being a “good scientist”, both should be taught in our educational system and those being educated should go out and seek their own answers. Granted, you can't “prove a negative”, you can only prove the opposite… and in this case, the ‘opposite’ hasn't been proven. Not to mention, re-testing proven negatives is still good science.
Again with the appeal to fairness. I mean, that's basically what you're saying, when you say that we shouldn't rule things out. In other words, "Let's give the other theory a chance."

My first post dealt with this. But my point was that creationism is not a theory. Theories are not guesses. They are more like blueprints or models. They are made to represent a structure laid on the foundation of evidences. Creationism doesn't do this at all.

And so again, it would be incredibly unfair to put creationism in a classroom, because doing so would be awarding it a distinction it has not earned.

You keep insisting that evolution is not a proven theory. I'd like to know what your idea of a proven theory is. Theories are not ideas that are locked in stone. They are hypothetical constructs that are constantly subject to criticism. ALL theories are subject to criticism.

To say that evolution is incomplete is meaningless, because no theory is complete. Every theory has its flaws. Even the most successful theories have their problems. I really don't think you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

reconjsh
Can you name something that does more GOOD in the world than religion?
Civil rights. Aggriculture. Charity.

reconjsh
Btw, I'm not sure who Kent ‘something’ (can't find his name scrolling down) but rest assured that I'll google him and figure out why you referrenced him.
I recommend that you get out your galoshes. You're in for one hell of a snow job.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
KomradeDave at 2:07PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
Pretty much there's no contest here. The die hard creationists, or “creation scientists” as they sometimes like to be called are too fixed on their literal interpretation of their scripture to accept any other arguments. Then is then no point in arguing with them. In other words:

Man 1- Did you know that in any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs?
Man 2- Silly Pythagorist! That's only a theorum! Everyone knows that triangles are magic!

The argument can only really be made to an objective person (or the closest to it that you can get) who does the deciding. Humanity has been artificially selecting plants and animals since the beginning of domestication to create “evolution” as it is commonly used. it is “only a theory” because we don't have time machines or four million year life-spans. The observation of micro-evolution, however, leads the sensible to see how macro-evolution is certainly possible. The problem is that this logic doesn't synch up if you believe the eartch to only be 10000 years old.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 2:50PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
…I believe in both but you all seem to hate me for it.

In other words I agree with reconjsh about the meshing thing. It is possible, you're just not thinking enough about what he's saying.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
KomradeDave at 3:04PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
Atom Apple
…I believe in both but you all seem to hate me for it.

In other words I agree with reconjsh about the meshing thing. It is possible, you're just not thinking enough about what he's saying.

I don't hate you for it. That's why I stressed literal interpretation. With the Bible as literal truth there wouldn't be enough time for macro-evolution. I believe in God and I believe in evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive. Pope John Paul II even stated, when asked about evolution, that science should cover the the things that faith can't and vice versa. The two aren't mutually exclusive and shouldn't be enemies. The majority of the world has some sort of faith and the majority of the world accepts evolution, it is only the cranky fundamentalist minority that gets the attention and makes it seem like there's some sort of opposition.
As Neilsama said:
Neilsama
Please keep in mind that evolution is not a theory opposed to a creator. That's the inaccurate perception that creationists like to create. Evolution doesn't evoke a deity, not because it is saying that there is no deity, but rather that the subject is irrelevent.
Evolution doesn't exclude God or even a creator, it's just a natural means of explanation. Most of the faithful I know believe that, just like other natural laws, evolution is a mechanism through which God worked.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
Neilsama at 3:10PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
Atom Apple
…I believe in both but you all seem to hate me for it.
Well no, we don't hate you for it. I don't, anyway.

KomradeDave
Evolution doesn't exclude God or even a creator, it's just a natural means of explanation. Most of the faithful I know believe that, just like other natural laws, evolution is a mechanism through which God worked.
That's pretty much the impression I get from most theists. They don't see it as a conflict. Most theists that I know see scripture as purely inspirational. They're not looking to the Bible for an accurate history lesson, because to do so is really missing the point.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
subcultured at 3:19PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
Someone
We've never observed a fish becoming a land creature… or a monkey becoming a homo sapien. We've only seen it through fossil records… with million year gaps. So again, time explains everything in evolution, so they say

there are traces in nature
these would be vistigial organs (nature uses these as a way for survival, but since nature doesn't neccessarily subtract traits unless they are harmful to the organism, they stay in that organism evan as they evolved to a different form)

-wings for flightless birds
-hind leg bones in whales
-the human tailbone
-male breast tissues and nipples
-human appendex

SCIENTIFIC examples that can be seen
what kinda of God would give birds that can't fly wings? or useless nipples for men

as a side note, i do believe in God, but that doesn't mean I believe on all the hogwash that religion throws at me.

in my belief, God is everything. destroyer and creator. control and choas. but what he doesn't need is a group of people putting words into his mouth.

“God wants you to burn the ‘witches’”
“God wants you to kill the jews”
“God wants you to purify the race”

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
KomradeDave at 3:30PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
Neilsama
That's pretty much the impression I get from most theists. They don't see it as a conflict. Most theists that I know see scripture as purely inspirational. They're not looking to the Bible for an accurate history lesson, because to do so is really missing the point.
That's pretty much how I see it. Like most mythology The Bible explained how things worked before there was a solid explanation. Now that there is we can look at the symbolism in those stories, but they don't have to be literal truth. I don't believe I should ride into a non-believer's village, salt his earth, kill his women, and burn his temples, but the stories like that in the bible (and there are a number) still tell me somethng about the mindset that help found my faith.
This is the reason then that I would prefer evolution be taught in schools. The foundation of my faith is not the same as a hindu, a mormon, or a muslim (though there are similarities). For that reason alone an objective and non-religiously based explanation is preferable.
If I look at the evidence for creation science I can see just as much evidence that the great coyote in the sky shook his fleas and as they fell to ground they were reformed into all the beasts of the earth. From the way a lot of creation scientists act I could get this taught in public schools if I'm loud enough.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
Neilsama at 3:31PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
subcultured
there are traces in nature
these would be vistigial organs (nature uses these as a way for survival, but since nature doesn't neccessarily subtract traits unless they are harmful to the organism, they stay in that organism evan as they evolved to a different form)

-wings for flightless birds
-hind leg bones in whales
-the human tailbone
-male breast tissues and nipples
-human appendex
I want to back you up on this one. There is a common rebuttal to vestigial organs that creationists like to use. They claim that all of the examples given for vestigial organs are not really vestigial, because they're all used in some way. For example, the appendix has a function in the immune system, or the hind legs on a whale are used in birthing.

These creationist arguments completely miss the point, because vestigial organs are not necessarily organs without function. A vestige is simply a form from a prior function. So even if the appendix does have a real function, guess what: it's still a vestigial part of the digestive track, just as whale legs are still clearly legs with joints that were intended for walking.

I heard once that the human foot still retains the musculature, but not the dexterity, of a primate foot, which would have had an opposable digit. I gotta look that one up, actually.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
subcultured at 3:32PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
Someone
Can you name something that does more GOOD in the world than religion?

yes, people.
why do you need to be part of a religion, or religious to do good?
i know some athiest that i would trust my life on than a judgmental religious person.

-scientists who come up with vaccines. they didn't do it for religious purposes, they wanted to help people.

you don't need to say to the sky “HEY! HEY GOD, look at me! i'm doing good for you, man! save me a place in heaven, huh?”

in my book, a true person of GOOD is altruistic. doing something with no regards to the rewards they will bore.


btw, this is kinda interesting
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
KomradeDave at 3:37PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
subcultured
in my book, a true person of GOOD is altruistic. doing something with no regards to the rewards they will bore.

Exactly. Christ's reported words have a lot to do with things like this. Don't be pious so that people, and God, will see you being pious. Be good because it's the right thing to do, not because you'll be rewarded.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
reconjsh at 4:42PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Someone
“reconjsh” Said:
Can you name something that does more GOOD in the world than religion?

Civil rights. Aggriculture. Charity.

Civil rights and charity, to date, are vastly due to the morals handed directly down from religion… and aggriculture is a very important thing, but is irrelevant in terms of good we were using.

Is religion the sole cause? Of course not… people should be and are just good. But like it or not, religion has been and is an extremely positive force in our world.


Someone made the claim that creationism ISN'T a theory?

DEFINITION FOR THEORY: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”.

Creationism is well-substantiated; accepted knowledge that applies to a wide variety of phenomena; and creationism includes testable hypotheses.

Seems like it qualifies to me.

Again, the question comes back to: should it be taught. Yes, it should be taught. It fits as an opposing THEORY to evolution… or at the very least, a reason evolution functions in the first place.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
subcultured at 5:10PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006

civil rights and equality is a new word from this millenium. you forget that a lot of old civilizations were mostly xenophobic.

euoropeans chased the indians out of their land, but then they though they were doing God's work. tempering the mettle of savages. i'm sure the religious south though they were doing good by enslaving the savages and teaching them the way of the lord.

even people that go help the poor trumpet for their conversion

“sure, you can eat this food, if you believe in jesus”.
..not much of a tough choice for a starving family

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
Aurora Moon at 5:16PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I have no problems with creationism being taught. that's just it shouldn't be taught in science class, where that theory has No real place at all.

in a lot of schools they have an basic class in cultures, and what not… inducing the religions from other countries. that could be taught there, but not in science class.

evolution=scientific theory that gets taught in science class.

creationist=an religious theory that has an cultural basis in being influenced by American Christians/catholics/other religious people. could be taught in cultures class, or even in philosophy class.

would be fair enough to me.

just can't be taught side by side in the same class, like science class. that doesn't make sense at all, as seeing they come from competely different orgins as theories.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
KomradeDave at 5:18PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
reconjsh
Someone made the claim that creationism ISN'T a theory?

DEFINITION FOR THEORY: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”.

Creationism is well-substantiated; accepted knowledge that applies to a wide variety of phenomena; and creationism includes testable hypotheses.

Seems like it qualifies to me.

Again, the question comes back to: should it be taught. Yes, it should be taught. It fits as an opposing THEORY to evolution… or at the very least, a reason evolution functions in the first place.

Where now? It is well substantiated, in a book whose validity can neither be proved nor disproved. It is accepted by a minority of the scientific community due to its lack of scientific credibility. What is the hypothesis and how do you test it?
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
LIZARD_B1TE at 5:55PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,308
joined: 6-22-2006
Hey, guys, here's an idea. What if the bible was actually written to the understanding of people a couple thousand years ago? I mean, what if most of it is symbollic? I know, it's a crazy idea, but bear with me. What if the story of Adam and Eve is a symbollic story written by someone in the past with limited scientific understanding!?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:36PM
Priest_Revan at 6:23PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,339
joined: 12-31-2006
LIZARD_B1TE
Hey, guys, here's an idea. What if the bible was actually written to the understanding of people a couple thousand years ago? I mean, what if most of it is symbollic? I know, it's a crazy idea, but bear with me. What if the story of Adam and Eve is a symbollic story written by someone in the past with limited scientific understanding!?

I'm shocked!
Updates Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday's (depends).

7/0

Offering Project Wonderful Ad space on my website.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:48PM
Phantom Penguin at 6:43PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Aurora Moon
I have no problems with creationism being taught. that's just it shouldn't be taught in science class, where that theory has No real place at all.

in a lot of schools they have an basic class in cultures, and what not… inducing the religions from other countries. that could be taught there, but not in science class.

evolution=scientific theory that gets taught in science class.

creationist=an religious theory that has an cultural basis in being influenced by American Christians/catholics/other religious people. could be taught in cultures class, or even in philosophy class.

would be fair enough to me.

just can't be taught side by side in the same class, like science class. that doesn't make sense at all, as seeing they come from competely different orgins as theories.

Now this i agree with.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 6:59PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
South Park
Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
subcultured at 7:13PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
LIZARD_B1TE
Hey, guys, here's an idea. What if the bible was actually written to the understanding of people a couple thousand years ago? I mean, what if most of it is symbollic? I know, it's a crazy idea, but bear with me. What if the story of Adam and Eve is a symbollic story written by someone in the past with limited scientific understanding!?

then it would be an outdated book like the science books from the 1950's…it was useful before, but now we need to move on

so creationist “scientists” just need to move on
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved