NationStates Jolt Archive


Kormanthor, just for you

Dempublicents
30-11-2004, 21:24
This exchange will be ended now because the Terra - Domina never meant this to be a part of his/her thread . But I welcome the chance to continue this elsewhere . If you have scientific proof supporting evolution then post in on a thread of your own, I
will be glad to answer you there. Terra - Domina please except my Apology for this intrusion.

You miss the point yet again.

Evolution is a theory based off of the evidence. *All* currently known evidence backs it up. Any evidence found that does not back up the current incarnation of the theory changes the theory. That is the difference.

Creationism, on the other hand, has a conclusion in hand. They have concluded that everything in whatever flawed translation of Genesis they are using is absolutely correct (never mind that theological scholars are all very aware that there are two separate and opposing creation stories in Genesis anyways). They *only* look for evidence that they can interpret in some way to back up their foregone conclusion. This is not, by any measure of the word, science.

Intelligent Design basically says "It's all so complicated! We can never explain it! God!!!" which is also, by no measure of the word, science. On top of that, it is based on the incredibly flawed premise that biology is such a fragile, Rube-Goldberg like system that it had to have been designed. If this were true, there would be *no* robustness in biology. Removing one piece - a single protein - would kill off the organism. We know for a fact that this is untrue.
Terra - Domina
30-11-2004, 21:37
lol

Dempublicants, well done

way to start the new thread
Dempublicents
30-11-2004, 21:40
lol

Dempublicants, well done

way to start the new thread

=)
Gnostikos
30-11-2004, 21:44
Well put, Dempublicents, as Terra said. I would like to give an example of how evolutionary theory has changed. Darwinism, survival of the fittest, gave birth to neo-Darwinism, survival of the fittest genome. How many times has Genesis been modified to fit new evidence? Not too many times, I'd wager.
Bodies Without Organs
30-11-2004, 21:48
How many times has Genesis been modified to fit new evidence? Not too many times, I'd wager.

Ah yes, but the interpretation of Genesis has changed many times: a few hundred years ago the seven 'days' would have been read literally as seven periods of twenty-four hours, whereas now there are many Creationists that interprete a 'day' here to mean an age of indeterminate length, thus maintainiong some kind of correlation with geological evidence.
Dempublicents
30-11-2004, 21:56
Ah yes, but the interpretation of Genesis has changed many times: a few hundred years ago the seven 'days' would have been read literally as seven periods of twenty-four hours, whereas now there are many Creationists that interprete a 'day' here to mean an age of indeterminate length, thus maintainiong some kind of correlation with geological evidence.

But every single Creationist ignores the fact that there are *two* separate and contradicting Creation accounts in Genesis written by *two* separate authors from *two* very different viewpoints.

Meanwhile, whichever idea they come up with, they still start with a conclusion and try to find evidence.

Suppose I saw a young chicken following a dog around wrote a book that said that dogs give birth to chickens. The following would be an example of the approaches:

1) Scientist - There is evidence that chickens sometimes follow dogs, but they also sometimes follow other chickens. Let's design an experiment and watch both.... Dogs have never actually been observed giving birth to chickens. However, other chickens have laid eggs that become chickens, so it seems that chickens lead to chickens. But I wonder why the chicken was following the dog.... Let's design an experiment... Oh, look! Chickens follow whatever they see move first, we can make chickens follow dogs, people, and robots. Interesting.

2) Creationist - Dogs give birth to chickens! The proof is right here! The chicken is following the dog!! That chickenist is wrong because in that one experiment, one of the eggs didn't hatch.

3) Intelligent Designist - Dogs give birth to chickens, but the process is so complicated that only an intelligent creator could have possibly come up with it.
Vittos Ordination
30-11-2004, 22:02
But every single Creationist ignores the fact that there are *two* separate and contradicting Creation accounts in Genesis written by *two* separate authors from *two* very different viewpoints.

Meanwhile, whichever idea they come up with, they still start with a conclusion and try to find evidence.

Suppose I saw a young chicken following a dog around wrote a book that said that dogs give birth to chickens. The following would be an example of the approaches:

1) Scientist - There is evidence that chickens sometimes follow dogs, but they also sometimes follow other chickens. Let's design an experiment and watch both.... Dogs have never actually been observed giving birth to chickens. However, other chickens have laid eggs that become chickens, so it seems that chickens lead to chickens. But I wonder why the chicken was following the dog.... Let's design an experiment... Oh, look! Chickens follow whatever they see move first, we can make chickens follow dogs, people, and robots. Interesting.

2) Creationist - Dogs give birth to chickens! The proof is right here! The chicken is following the dog!! That chickenist is wrong because in that one experiment, one of the eggs didn't hatch.

3) Intelligent Designist - Dogs give birth to chickens, but the process is so complicated that only an intelligent creator could have possibly come up with it.

EDIT:

2) We have never really seen a dog give birth to a chicken, but this book we were read to when we were young said that they do, so it can only be that they must.

3) We have pretty good documentation that chickens follow dogs, and this book says that dogs give birth to chickens. It doesn't make much sense to us that a dog would give birth to a chicken, but we do not want to question our faith and step out on a limb so we'll just suppose that God must work in mysterious ways.
Gnostikos
30-11-2004, 22:03
Ah yes, but the interpretation of Genesis has changed many times: a few hundred years ago the seven 'days' would have been read literally as seven periods of twenty-four hours, whereas now there are many Creationists that interprete a 'day' here to mean an age of indeterminate length, thus maintainiong some kind of correlation with geological evidence.
I've heard that before, and I could accept it (sans the no-evolution part), but then God has things in the wrong order. How can plants come before aquatic organisms? It is common knowledge (I hope) that life began in the water. And there are some weird things, like the earth being made before the sun and stars. That's pretty inaccurate. And where are the micro-organisms? Weren't bacteria the first life? Followed by protists? The only reason is that when humans wrote the Bible, they didn't know about them. But God must have, so why didn't he create them before plants? And where do viruses come in, the half-living genomes and protein. What about prions, composed of only protein. But at least it is quite a bit of progress to say that the earth and the whole universe was made in the period of 144 hours.
Dempublicents
30-11-2004, 22:26
EDIT:

2) We have never really seen a dog give birth to a chicken, but this book we were read to when we were young said that they do, so it can only be that they must.

3) We have pretty good documentation that chickens follow dogs, and this book says that dogs give birth to chickens. It doesn't make much sense to us that a dog would give birth to a chicken, but we do not want to question our faith and step out on a limb so we'll just suppose that God must work in mysterious ways.

hehe
Grave_n_idle
30-11-2004, 22:50
Ah yes, but the interpretation of Genesis has changed many times: a few hundred years ago the seven 'days' would have been read literally as seven periods of twenty-four hours, whereas now there are many Creationists that interprete a 'day' here to mean an age of indeterminate length, thus maintainiong some kind of correlation with geological evidence.

I can vouch for the fact that Southern Baptists still profess to believe it was actually one week.
Vittos Ordination
30-11-2004, 23:17
I can vouch for the fact that Southern Baptists still profess to believe it was actually one week.

Here in southern Illinois, about everybody accepts the literal translation, also, no matter the denomination.
Joey P
30-11-2004, 23:31
It's kind of depressing to think that so many people would rather embrace the creation myth of a bronze age tribe and defend it with all their might rather than to look up the evidence and anylize it in an open minded way.
The God King Eru-sama
30-11-2004, 23:52
Ah yes, but the interpretation of Genesis has changed many times: a few hundred years ago the seven 'days' would have been read literally as seven periods of twenty-four hours, whereas now there are many Creationists that interprete a 'day' here to mean an age of indeterminate length, thus maintainiong some kind of correlation with geological evidence.

In order to answer scientifc challenges, try decide to "reinterpet" the text. Sounds suspiciously Ad Hoc to me.
Los Banditos
01-12-2004, 00:09
In order to answer scientifc challenges, try decide to "reinterpet" the text. Sounds suspiciously Ad Hoc to me.

But the theory of evolution changed when new scientific discoveries challenged the old theory.
Gnostikos
01-12-2004, 00:14
But the theory of evolution changed when new scientific discoveries challenged the old theory.
Yes, but it wasn't re-interpreted. It was pretty much changed altogether, quite radically from the knowledge gained from genetics, even if the underlying theme stayed constant.
Los Banditos
01-12-2004, 00:17
Yes, but it wasn't re-interpreted. It was pretty much changed altogether, quite radically from the knowledge gained from genetics, even if the underlying theme stayed constant.

I just don't see what is wrong with reinterpretating it. Would people prefer that it was always looked at the same way?
Gnostikos
01-12-2004, 00:22
I just don't see what is wrong with reinterpretating it. Would people prefer that it was always looked at the same way?
I would prefer if people didn't look to a multiple millennia-old scripture for answers to today. If God meant something, he meant it through and through, not to be re-interpreted. If science means something, it is meant to constantly be questioned, since humans are certainly fallible, and science recognises that. The difference is that faith claims to know the truth, science seeks it.
Dempublicents
01-12-2004, 16:04
bump
Dempublicents
01-12-2004, 21:28
Now that you seem to be around...