Debate and Discussion

Creationism VS Evolution
reconjsh at 7:15PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
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!?

The bible is accepted by an overwhelming amount of theologians to be mostly a book of theology, not science or history - though it does contain both to some degree. Your point is argumentative and really doesn't have much to do with this debate.

'KomradeDave'
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?

The books “validity” is easily and has been repeatedly proven. The main question for creationism has little to do with the bible. And the only point open to challenges of validity is Jesus' divinity… and this is not going to be the place I argue that point one way or the other.]

For MOST mainstream, informed Christians… the major difference between creationism and evolution, in the most vague sense of the terms, has to do with they why. Is it God inspired or not? Of course, there are some radical christians, like that previously mentioned Kent dude, that have it all wrong.

Take the Catholic Church for instance. In the catechism of the church (basically, the rule book) it says that it officially does NOT have a stance one way or the other about the theory of evolution. It goes on to say that if something can be explained scientifically, seems probable, and does not directly contradict the teachings of teh catholic church (all of which are derived from the bible), then the scientific answer is probably correct and therefore not bad to believe in.

As for science applied to creationism, that's easy. Assuming that the core of creationism is WHY things are the way they are (even if that means evolution) and not a polar opposite of evolution… then the goal of science applied to creationism is to determine whether God exists or not. And this is easy TESTED… though tough to prove. You can scientifically test whether prayer works, whether miracles happen, whether angels exist, whether there's something beyond time and understanding. All of these tests HAVE been scientifically tested and none have been disproven. Rather, some have been PROVEN (like the working of prayer). Why prayer works - whether its god or just human will - is unknown…. but science has shown that it does.

Now, what do we do when science is inconclusive… we test more.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
subcultured at 7:40PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
just because part of the story was based on events doesn't mean all of it is true

sure i can write about a talking rabbit who lied to king solomon…
even though solomon was a real person, that doesn't mean what i just said was a true sentence

Someone
You can scientifically test whether prayer works, whether miracles happen, whether angels exist, whether there's something beyond time and understanding. All of these tests HAVE been scientifically tested and none have been disproven. Rather, some have been PROVEN (like the working of prayer). Why prayer works - whether its god or just human will - is unknown…. but science has shown that it does.

Now, what do we do when science is inconclusive… we test more

why test something that can't be tested?
damn I wanted to test purple flying pigs who shoot crap whenever they are excited…but man, i just can't find any of them. must mean since it can't be disprove, those purple flying pigs must be true. they are just elusive, those tricky creatures from the down under

answers to prayers is all about probability, like winning the lottery. if it truly works, then everyone would just stop doing anything and pray for all the things they wanted.

you know actual science helps to expand God's greatness to human's eyes. who knew of other galaxies before science came in. Einstien's greatest goal in life was to read the mind of God using a forumula. he wanted to predict God's actions…but he died before he could finish that forumla. but he came close with the theory of relativity
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
KomradeDave at 8:12PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
You say this:
reconjsh
The bible is accepted by an overwhelming amount of theologians to be mostly a book of theology, not science or history - though it does contain both to some degree. Your point is argumentative and really doesn't have much to do with this debate.
But then also say this:
reconjsh
The books “validity” is easily and has been repeatedly proven. The main question for creationism has little to do with the bible. And the only point open to challenges of validity is Jesus' divinity… and this is not going to be the place I argue that point one way or the other.]
Plus, saying something is so does not make it so. Your first statement hits it, it is not a book of science or history. How then is it valid as a source for either? It is certainly valid as scripture, but not in the context for which it is being used as both science and history.
I'll break down and concede that the Bible is a valid authority in this particular matter if you can show me anything that validates besides faith. Faith and science, as I stated before, do not have to be enemies. Faith does not, however, belong in scientific argument as faith does not conform to the scientific method.
I'm not denying at all that there is a God, what I'm saying is that the Bible, no matter how respected, is no more proof of anything than a guess is.
You've still not answered what the hypothesis is and how it may be tested. You have given examples of other tenants of faith that have been tested, but what is the hypothesis of creationism and what is a test that can successfully support it? Creationism fails as a theory, it is merely an idea.
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 8:27PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Someone
How then is it valid as a source for either? (science or history)

I didn't claim such at any point. I merely said it was valid. And it is. It's real. And it can be proven to be real acocunts of people. There is a fair amount of imagery, story telling, parables, etc… but my point was that the book wasn't just a pratical joke or something made up to control people, but rather a sincere document made by real people with holy intentions.

As far as a hypothesis goes, you apparently didn't read my post. The point isn't to prove “poof there's the world”. The point is to prove God. Hypothesis: God may exist. Testing: test claims of divine intervention. Results: something greater has been observed. Conclusion: God helped. And they don't just accept that as the end. They retest and we'll all wait for better science to come out to make these tests better. For now, where we're at… they seem to show a greater presensse. Specifically, prayer. Faith healing. Good will. etc…
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
reconjsh at 8:35PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Someone
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.

If all rational explinations can be ruled out, then the remaining explination, no matter how upsurd, must be true.

Or something like that. I couldn't find the exact quote, but it was someone famous and is something to that effect.

Beside the point that creation scientists DO try to prove creationism, disproving other possibilities is still a valid discourse.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
KomradeDave at 8:59PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
reconjsh
As far as a hypothesis goes, you apparently didn't read my post. The point isn't to prove “poof there's the world”. The point is to prove God. Hypothesis: God may exist. Testing: test claims of divine intervention. Results: something greater has been observed. Conclusion: God helped. And they don't just accept that as the end. They retest and we'll all wait for better science to come out to make these tests better. For now, where we're at… they seem to show a greater presensse. Specifically, prayer. Faith healing. Good will. etc…
The point is not to prove there is a God. The point is to prove what hand, if any, God had in creation. The fact that there is a God proves nothing about creation because God's role in creation would still be unverified. A hypothesis must directly relate to the problem it tries to solve and must be testable. The only hypothesis we can get from creationism is “God did it,” which can not be tested. Your argument is also flawed in its logic. Breaking it down you propose:
There is (you used ‘may be’ ) a God
Tests of divine intervention show something greater
Thus God helped
The argument still has nothing to do with what we're discussing, which is creationism vs. evolution. Despite your assertion that this is all about whether or not there is a God, it is in all actually a debate about God's role, if any, in the creation of the life on this planet. Nothing you have presented has used logical argumentation in one way or the other on this topic, it's all been faith, or answering another question.
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
KomradeDave at 9:04PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
reconjsh
Beside the point that creation scientists DO try to prove creationism, disproving other possibilities is still a valid discourse.
The argument style employed would be a false dichotomy and is a fallacious argument. The basics of it are: If that side is wrong, mine is right. It is not valid argumentation.
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 9:25PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
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.
Oh come on! Notice that I highlighted the word “explanation”. What does creationism explain, Recon? That God did it? That's not an explanation!

Imagine if an auto mechanic gave that sort of “explanation” for his work. “How did you fix my car.” “Oh, I did it.” Notice that no explanation was given.

Theories are meant to answer “how” questions, not “who”.

reconjsh
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.
You are aware that evolutionary biology presents itself as a theory of BIOLOGY, where as creationism presents evolution as a theory of EVERYTHING. I mean, I've made this perfectly clear from the very beginning. And even when creationists stick to biology biology, they still apply very presumptuous arguments based on gross misconceptions of evolutionary biology.

You even applied some of these arguments yourself, while being blissfully unaware of your own ignorance. You made a comment about the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution. You brought up the lack of evidence for one species giving rise to another. Again, an oversimplification.

I've explained this to you two times already. Maybe if I use some of these forum tags, I'll be able to draw your selective reading back to the core of my argument…

CREATIONISM BEARS A FALSE REPRESENTATION OF EVOLUTION AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM!

Could I make my point any clearer?!

And I didn't ask you to provide the definition of a theory. I know what a theory is. I asked for you to give me an example of what you think a “proven theory” is. Surely you know that NO theory is ever absolutely proven.

That pretty much makes your argument a non sequitur. Accusing evolution of being an incomplete or unproven theory is MEANINGLESS. It's like saying, “Scientists are still learning things.” Duh! that's what scientists are supposed to do!

reconjsh
If all rational explinations can be ruled out, then the remaining explination, no matter how upsurd, must be true.
Argumentum ad ignorantum, Dr. Holmes! Congratulations! You have engaged the argument from ignorance, which is all that creationism is. Thank you for proving my point.

And for your information, in science, if all rational explanations can be ruled out, then the question remains open. Think about what you just said. If a rational explanation can be ruled out… How do you rule out a rational explanation? Well, you prove that the explanation would actually be impossible and therefore absurd!!! So really, you're saying that if all other explanations are shown to be absurd, we're allowed to pick the most absurd. Or, if we can't have a rational answer, an irrational one will do.

WRONG!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
reconjsh at 10:34PM, Feb. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Neilsama: Are you passionate, obviously. But you have yet to make a definitive case for “not teaching evolution in the classrom” - which is this thread's intention.

Your tendency towards insults, sarcasm, and inaccurate paraphrasing only serves to demonstrate your apparent lack of debate skills. Thus, I can't rationally expect you to make a definitive case, ever. My only logical action is it extract myself from your debate.

Feel free to reply with flames if you feel the need.

I hardly suggested arguing from ignorance… rather, I suggested after thorough testing and ruling out everything else, that what's left must be true. That's arguing from observable facts. It's not arguing from a lack of evidence but rather arguing from an overwhelming amount of evidence disproving something. Big difference there… I'm sure you can see it.

The presence of God can be observed. Perhaps our understanding of what “god” is is flawed, but certainly there's observable and repeatable results regarding this labeling: “god”. If it can be observed, then it's possible that he has worked on Earth. If that's possible, then it's also possible that creationism and not evolution is the why. I personally don't believe in pure creationism, but certainly I accept it as a possibility and agree it SHOULD be taught as such.

End point: The fact that this debate exists at all is enough to validate that creationism IS a theory. And we'd be doing a great disservice to our “educated” youth if we excluded a possible and wildy held belief that creationism is real. Let them go out and find their own truth… but certainly you should agree that as educators, we should present them with every possible solution, right?

The proposed forum question: Should creationism be taught in the classroom? Yes. Should evolution be banned? No.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
mlai at 8:54AM, Feb. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Reconjsh, I will address some of your points.

Someone
Neilsama: Your tendency towards insults, sarcasm, and inaccurate paraphrasing only serves to demonstrate your apparent lack of debate skills. Thus, I can't rationally expect you to make a definitive case, ever. My only logical action is it extract myself from your debate.
Actually no. He is not insulting, or inaccurate, or lacking in manner of factual presentation. “Appeal to ignorance” is an objective and descriptive phrase; it is not calling you an ignoramus in general. Telling you that you have no idea what the scientific principle consists of is not an insult, but a statement of observation.
The only person here lacking in proper debating technique is you, sir. Like all reasonably-intelligent internet forum surfers, I've seen many debates. You commit many errors common to bad debaters, aka the “lalala I can't hear you” ppl. Twisting words, derailing topics, ignoring points, etc etc etc. Neil commits none of these.

This forum on DD is indeed very liberally biased. You can tell that just by looking at the Global Warming thread - it's pretty much a circle of treehuggers hugging each other and pissing at nonexistent anti-conservationists. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean creatures of your ilk are insulted and ridiculed (by the intelligent members). You simply face more informed resistance than you may be used to.

Someone
rather, I suggested after thorough testing and ruling out everything else, that what's left must be true.
This is a false line of reasoning. Even if evolution can be ruled out, what is to prove that God rather than FSM created life on earth? Nothing, because you have to use the Bible as proof, which you yourself admit is not proof.

This is because “ruling everything out” is unachievable if you include the unproveable in the test. How can the unproveable be ruled out? If it can't be ruled out, then isn't it an automatic win? But if it can't be ruled out, then how do we rule out the FSM, which is equally unproveable?

Someone
you should agree that as educators, we should present them with every possible solution, right?
As educators, we should not confuse children about what science is. Science, like math, is a strict and concise program of knowledge. Its parameters should not be fudged and nudged for the sake of a socially-popular imposter. Creationism doesn't challenge evolution - it challenges the basic foundation of the scientific discipline, i.e. the scientific method. It's like teaching children 1+1=2 and also teaching them 1+1=3, and telling them “go decide for yourself which is correct, then you can go on to learn higher math.” How (the ****) do kids go on to learn calculus if they don't even know for sure what 1+1 equals?

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
mlai at 9:22AM, Feb. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6387611.stm

While the above is interesting for its own sake, I'd like to use this as an example of “This is not biological evolution.” The researcher is loosely referring to cultural/social evolution of the monkeys.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
reconjsh at 9:34AM, Feb. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
'Mlai'
You commit many errors common to bad debaters, aka the “lalala I can't hear you” ppl. Twisting words, derailing topics, ignoring points, etc etc etc. Neil commits none of these.

You've got to be kidding me here? I'll assume yes. It amuses me that YOU didn't address the sarcasm that I claimed, but did the other 2 points. Convienently - and ironically - ignored?

I must apologize though, I've been operating under the assumption that we were using the same definition for “creationism”. Most of the definitions I've found are (paraphrased): “'Book of Genesis' is the exact blueprint for how life was created”. From the beginning, I've stated clearly that I don't agree this to be the case. So this is my fault. Sorry. Be sure to hear it THIS time.


I'm an advocate for god having a role in creation… in creationism. Of course evolution is observable and real, I have no doubt in this. Creationism claims the earth to be 6,000 years old and dinosaurs co-existed with man, and many more upsurd things. But as I've already stated, there's gaps that most probably will never be jumped. We must investigate WHY the inexplicable is so. Carl Sagan contended that “faith” removes all wonder. I agree. But at no point did Carl Sagan claim there was definitivly not a god… he merely said he didn't think it probable. I guarentee while he examines scientific results, he considers divine inspiration.

'STEVEN HAWKING'
“It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief.”

A Brief History of Time: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I'm sure I don't need to mention that Steven Hawking is probably the most brilliant person ever to work on origins. And I know Hawking is not 100% convinced on a creator. But he does use a creator liberally to explain “why?” and also to bridge gaps that he feels science will never bridge.

And, as always was my case, a theory of creation/evolution can have a “divine” influence. And if something divine has set the rules for everything into motion, we must certainly try to test this? How? Try to prove god exists… scientifically.
Prayer is a good example of this. Research: Havard Prayer Experiments.

'Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact'
The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can't all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It's a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they're called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation.

There is a solid point in there. Just as he asserts believers of faith must be skeptical if you care about truth… also does he assert that scientists should consider there to be something divine.


Final Point: The question of this thread was: should creationism be banned from the schools? My answer was no. Maybe it doesn't belong in the science room… but it belongs. I think it's clear from the world's foremost thinkers that it DOES belong in the science room, however. I agree.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Atom Apple at 8:18PM, Feb. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Religion should be taught in religious schools. What do you think they're for? A bunch of obsessed parents pay an unreasonable amount of money so they can go to a crappy school. The only reason they do it is because of religion. Start teaching opinion and you'll have to teach everyone's opinion. Everyone knows evolution exists which omits it from that rule. Some old guys taught differently just can't accept it. In fact, they'd probably want you off the computer because they think it's a magic pedophile machine.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
Neilsama at 9:13PM, Feb. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
Atom, not everyone in this country is a Christian. You have to understand that. Putting religion in schools is a human rights violation.

The teaching of evolution is not the teaching of an opinion. It's the teaching of a theoretical construct based on evidence. Theories are not guesses. They are models. Granted, they are reverse-engineered models, but the point is that they are not arbitrary assumptions.



Now, Recon. I'm sorry that you don't understand. Yes, I am moody, but I'm getting a little tired of your attitude as well. You respond to my arguments as if I'm evading you somehow, and yet my only purpose is to show you why creationism is not science. I think I've sufficiently argued my point as to why creationism has no place in a science class room. Not only is it not a theory, but it lacks the ability to address evolutionary arguments properly.

By calling you ignorant, I am not calling you stupid. You are uninformed of both scientific inquiry and proper debate procedure. You don't even realize how fallacious your arguments are. By accusing you of arguing from ignorance, I am simply pointing out that you are using the absence of knowledge as a basis for supporting what you believe to be a theory. That is absolutely the antithesis of how science is done.

I can tell just by your responses that you have never been exposed to any real understanding of evolutionary biology. And I'm not saying that to be pompous. I'm saying it because your arguments are so far removed from what is actually published in peer-review science. You have the level of scientific understand as someone who gets all of his scientific information straight from Trinity Broadcasting.

You need to do some reading, and by that, I don't mean the internet. I suggest going to your local library and checking out some books written on the topics of molecular biology, natural selection, speciation, and of course evolution. And please, feel free to cross-reference these resources with whatever creationist resources you have. What you will find is that the creationist argument, which you've been supporting here, is really a non sequitur, because creationism approaching evolution with an erroneous presupposition of what topic actually is.

You also need to check out some resources on formal logic. Maybe then, you can avoid the types of fallacious arguments you've been making here, such as non sequiturs, the argument from ignorance, false dichotomies, ad hominems, etc.

You need to educate yourself. I don't have time to teach you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
Rich at 10:12PM, Feb. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
Creationism should be mentioned in schools, but not straight out taught. Science is the practice of clear and observable fact. We cannot observe creationism, and as such it should not be taught but should at the very least be mentioned as one popular theological explanation.

However, there is no real competition between creationism and evolution. Apart from extremist fundies, most churches probably agree on some level that evolution is correct. There's no reason why God could not have manufactured evolution, and as such, I see no reason for the two theories to conflict.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
reconjsh at 10:35PM, Feb. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Ah, you guys are probably right. Thanks for straightening me out Neilsama and Mlai. I'll come back when I have more understanding.

To the library!

Professor Xavier asks: “If none of us had limitations… what would God do with His time?”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Atom Apple at 7:26AM, Feb. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Neilsama
Atom, not everyone in this country is a Christian. You have to understand that. Putting religion in schools is a human rights violation.
…Wow. Just wow. You didn't even get what I was saying. I supported you, not the other guy, you and you couldn't even read good enough to figure that out. Oh well, this debate's as good as dead if this kind of misunderstanding prevails.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
LIZARD_B1TE at 4:49PM, Feb. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,308
joined: 6-22-2006
Atom Apple
Religion should be taught in religious schools. What do you think they're for? A bunch of obsessed parents pay an unreasonable amount of money so they can go to a crappy school. The only reason they do it is because of religion.

Actually, it's also because of some wierd misunderstanding that Private Schools are Bully free. Now, although there may be no gun problems, I can assure you that Private Schools are full of bullies. Do you have any idea how many dumbass arrogant rich kids there are in those places?

Oh, yeah, I also go to Private Schools because the only Public Schools around here are “gangsta” central. >_>
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:36PM
ccs1989 at 7:32PM, Feb. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
The problem with creationists is that they believe that evolution and the Bible cannot coexist. Unfortunately the problem with the Bible is it was created by man around 500 AD in order to explain the events that were around then. It incorporated a ton of mythology, stories, and events that are generalizations and are not proven to have ever happened, although they may be loosely based on History.

If we've learned anything from literature it's that stories are not meant to be taken literally. Obviously the individuals who wrote the Bible over a long period of time had no knowledge of micro-organisms or the process that individual organisms go through in order to change over time. So they approximated.

However if we apply the Bible to what we know now we can reinterpret it with scientific concepts in mind. God is more like the underlying order of the universe, which makes scientific properties and math, etc all synchronize and work. All the stories in the Bible such as the Garden of Eden and so on are just representations of the gradual development of living organisms and the increasing level of complication which these organisms reached in order to be considered “intelligent”.

It's all symbolism. This is what English classes are for. So we learn how to not just think in absolutes and take everything literally. Literal thinking in these situations is dangerous and leads to absolutes, which are never good.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Rich at 9:58PM, Feb. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
ccs1989
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html

I understand what you're trying to say, but using a parody website is not the way to do it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
ozoneocean at 10:54PM, Feb. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Are they a parody site? They seem to have quite a hate war against the Landover Baptists, which is the best parody site around… If you've ever seen Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends you'd know some people are stranger than parody could ever make them appear. lol!
I actually hope they're a parody, that stuff is scary. Yea, they must be a parody.

Try not to hammer reconjsh too hard, he's the only representative for an alternate view, that puts him in a very tough position.

What about “Intelligent Design”? We've discussed that before, but it applies here as well: Creationist stealth-theory, or legitimate competitor to evolution? Personally I consider it a Creationist plot.

In the latest news they believe that humans and Chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor about 4 to 5 million years ago. This is based on applying a mathematical formula to the mutation rate of a particular gene… I consider it rather speculative, but considering the way science is disseminated these days it will be widely viewed as “gospel truth” (pardon the pun) until the next study comes along to knock it on its head and change our view of things yet again… That's one of the fun thing about science: “facts” aren't rock solid like they are in religion, they can shift and change at any time.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
Neilsama at 4:53AM, Feb. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
Atom Apple
…Wow. Just wow. You didn't even get what I was saying. I supported you, not the other guy, you and you couldn't even read good enough to figure that out. Oh well, this debate's as good as dead if this kind of misunderstanding prevails.
Sorry, I must have skimmed you. Even I have knee-jerk reactions sometimes. My error.

ozoneocean
What about “Intelligent Design”? We've discussed that before, but it applies here as well: Creationist stealth-theory, or legitimate competitor to evolution? Personally I consider it a Creationist plot.
Well, considering that my argument against creationism was primarily targeted at it's scientific inadaquacies rather than its particular theological bias, I pretty much submit every objection I've made in this thread to intelligent design as well. It makes the same wrong assumptions about evolution and science in general.

Intelligent Design is wrong because it…
A.) …assumes victory by default should evolution be defeated.
B.) …fails to present an actual explanation for anything.
C.) …assumes a false dichotomy between evolution and divine presense.
D.) …assumes that evolution carries the baggage of biological and cosmic origins.
E.) …treats a scientific theory as if it was synonymous with a guess.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
Atom Apple at 10:27AM, Feb. 25, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
I myself believe both and I can tell you that's not how we all are.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
Ludus Pragma at 8:09PM, Feb. 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 33
joined: 11-9-2006
If they teach Creationism they have to teach all of the other hair-brained ill-consived stories about where we came from and what it means to be alive that are out there. This includes everything from Alien Ancestors to Zeus did it!

Every person in the world who belives in a literal interpritation of the bible should be fighting tooth and nail to keep the concept of Creationism as far away from their religion as possible. Because if a benevolent God created and guided our evolution: Why do we have wisdom teeth that are painful and can get infected a kill us? Why do we have apendixes that can rupture and kill us?. Why is it so easy to choke? Why are our knees so weak? Why do we have goose bumps its not like we have fur to get tuffed up? Why are there birth defects that cause babies to live short painful lives? Why is there a blind spot in our vision? Why is the human animal so prone to back pain? Why…(There is like ten thousand more of these.)

Not to mention the fact that the bible clearly states that the Earth is a piller raised out of the ocean. Where it is orbited by the sun!

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:48PM
KomradeDave at 8:18PM, Feb. 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
Ludus Pragma
Not to mention the fact that the bible clearly states that the Earth is a piller raised out of the ocean. Where it is orbited by the sun!
Where's that part? I'm only familiar with Genesis where the heavens earth were created. It then says that he seperated the water and the land, but nothing about pillars. The creation of the sun says merely that he made two lights to rule over day and night, one for each. I am unfamiliar with the pillar or anything about orbits.
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
Ludus Pragma at 4:38AM, Feb. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 33
joined: 11-9-2006
KomradeDave
Where's that part? I'm only familiar with Genesis where the heavens earth were created. It then says that he seperated the water and the land, but nothing about pillars. The creation of the sun says merely that he made two lights to rule over day and night, one for each. I am unfamiliar with the pillar or anything about orbits.

From the moment I hit send on that post I knew I was in trouble because I can't for the life of me remember where the cosmology bits are. This is bad because it was an unsupported statement and that boils down to name calling.

But with a few key strokes I was able to find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology

Which is pretty neat.

This is all secondary to my main point. To a Christian who knows their religion Intelegent Design = Blasphemy. To a scientist ID= Bad Science.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:48PM
exalted1 at 8:38AM, Feb. 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 5
joined: 11-17-2006
For the record, an experiment where people pray for other people to be healed as mentioned earlier in this debate. is not a good test for the existence of God, and incontrovertible proof that such a being created life, the universe and everything.

and why is that?

you have to ask what controls are being used to ensure that it isn't, say, human's innate psionic ability healing others (parapsychology, replacing the need for god since 1950… :)) or that some other transdimensional entitiy other than a universal creator is doing the healing? such experiements can be like saying “if i let go of this rock and it floats upwards instead of down: God exists.”

many of the studies that have claimed the healing power of prayer are often poorly designed. in fact back in 1996 the medical journal The Lancet did an analysis of about 500 of these studies and found them to be empirically valueless. was it the praying taht spead the healing? or was it the emotional reasurance that the activity gives that lowers blood pressure, stress hormones, endorphines, etc?

but now to the main topic:
a “scientist” came to my university a few years ago to do a speech for Creationism.
some of his arguements:
1/just because things are genetically similar doesn't mean they are related.
2/there are no fossil records of sharks before a certain period. they just appeared.
3/“all cultures” on the planet have a story about a great flood therefore the Flood in the Bible happened.

so in a 1 hour talk he revealed that your parents may not be your parents, that the conservation of matter and energy isn't real, that geology is totally wrong, and that the flood story isn't due to most early civilizations settling in fertile floodplains and then spreading these stories through language trees to many but rather that it really happened.

he gave no information how he could empirically validate his stance beyond resorting to going into anthropolgy and since he was a biologist, that's not a good sign.

life is confusing enough without this bunkum being taught along side real scientific theories. you can put Creationisms (ALL of them) it in a philosophy class, and basically teach kids that nothing we know is certain

btw. the speaker? he gets paid really well to travel the world and do this talk.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:24PM
subcultured at 12:53PM, Feb. 27, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
there should be a law against creationist scientists calling themselves scientist.
you don't go to a doctor that's not really a doctor do you?

real scientists use the scientific method…most creationist scientist just bounce from hypothesis to conclusion without doing aything in the middle
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
reconjsh at 2:23PM, Feb. 27, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
subcultured
there should be a law against creationist scientists calling themselves scientist.
you don't go to a doctor that's not really a doctor do you?

real scientists use the scientific method…most creationist scientist just bounce from hypothesis to conclusion without doing aything in the middle

I don't know that this is valid.

First, that's a pretty broad generalization there. I'm guessing (just as I'm sure you did) that a lot, if not most, creationist scientists use the scientific method. Even if their conclusions don't seem scientific to most.But, even if “most” don't use the scientific method, the ones that DO use it are entitled to use that title, right?

Second, you don't GO to a doctor that sucks. But if he went to med school and got a PhD/MD, then he's a doctor. He's just a really crappy one if he doesn't practice medicine or he splints your leg when you have a heart attack.

Furthermore, we probably don't get to see the actualy creationist scientists… we probably see religious leaders speaking on their behalf (or using their data) instead.

I concede, of course, that there are a lot of crack-pots out there. But I've read “scientific reports” (quotations added for you guys) that use the scientific method in it's entirety.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
josif at 8:43AM, Feb. 28, 2007
(offline)
posts: 156
joined: 1-7-2006
If christians accept that the whole 7 day Adam and Eve creation story is just a story they can still beleive in God and Jesus and everything else the bible says.
I think that God created creatures through evolution and the creation story is a load of crap.
Your Reading Skills Have Increased By Two Points.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:11PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved