NationStates Jolt Archive

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?


I also beleive it's more important to concentrate here
and now. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be intresting
to find out the origin.

I also beleive it's more important to concentrate here
and now. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be intresting
to find out the origin.

Yeah, I suppose that our sense of curiosity is a thing that must be adhered to.

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?

Well, it would be nice to finally prove GODs existence one way or another. That way we could carry on with either worshipping him or bettering our lives for ourselves.

I never come across any debate on the matter other than on the Internet. In the real world, the debate is over. Evolution is the winner until something better comes along.

The Internet has a tendency to perpetuate outdated phenomena.

You talk about the "how we came to be" and the "what will we do now" as if they're unrealated. They're not.

Ultimately this fight is about the truth. Integrity to know the truth and tell it, and the ultimate in diffusion of responsability by abdicating this world to the notion of a deterministic God, because all the truth that anyone needs is in the pamphlet.

Should we run our institutions based on what is true, or what we would prefer to be true for emotional convienence?

I never come across any debate on the matter other than on the Internet. In the real world, the debate is over. Evolution is the winner until something better comes along.

The Internet has a tendency to perpetuate outdated phenomena.


Except in some US counties where the is pressure for creationism to be taught in schools.

I think it is vital to ensure that children are educated properly in critical thinking, else we will regress as a species and be unable to save ourselves.

I like being able to know what happened, but I also know how to use it for modern day matters.

Especially as an English major, which is full of psychology.

The whole evolution vs. creationism is not just a question of our origin (which would be interesting though), but as well a question of how you deal with scientific problems: It is about whether you try to give an answer based on your personal believes or try to answer a scientific question in the way it is supposed to be answered: Only based on hard facts and logical theories.

It's not a fight about the truth.

It's a pissing contest.

Anyone who really thinks that the truth about it can be found in an online forum with mainly kids on it needs a shrink asap.

It's more a fight about who can piss farther. Or people compensating for the fact that they're losers IRL. Or wannabe christians trying to spread their distorted dreams of "we're the only true religion" and broadcasting their fanatism.

Also I don't think that anyone on NS is competent enough in both issues to really argue the point properly, that goes for both sides. I don't see a scientist from any renowned university or some capacity from any church post in those threads. Usually it's kids arguing.

We'll never find out what really happened, how would we? Anyone got a time machine? No? Too bad, that would have been the only way to prove who's right. Well, then the most logic reason wins (and going by just one religious book is definitely not logic).

Also I miss the lack of other religions in those threads. It's usually only the pseudo christians crapping out their propaganda and that way they're showing a fanatism that's close to those weirdos who blow themselves up at bus stations in Israel. Where's the rest? Maybe Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc are too clever to stoop down to that level or have learned how to think?

this is the only place ive ever heard it discussed, everybody in the UK just accepts evolution....so no, i dont care at all

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?

I actually don't care about it myself, as I have my own theories (tee hee). I only care about how either is taught.

I can't quite understand why Christians who believe in creationism are being attacked here, when they're doing something no different than what science in general has been doing for the past hundred years.

Modern science's wildly successful modus operandii has been to theorize axioms, make predictions, and then see if those predictions bear out.

This method has generated more scientific progress than we as a species have ever seen. Why be so strongly opposed to what's worked so well for other theoretical ideas?

The fact that the pissing contest is *here*, is simply a reflection of the conflict that exists out in the real world. Perhaps not in your individual cloistered community.... I would suspect that some form of it does, but for various reasons it's kept out of sight.

Also, an on-line forum isn't a bad place to start. You're already at the computer, people are bound to provide links in support of one side or another. No trip to the library, no card catalogue, it's a pretty convienent setup. As to the presence of children, where else can they participate in the conflict and be treated seriously, without meaningful reprisals? School? Sunday School? The dinner table? In an ideal world all three, but the world falls far short of ideals. On all sides.

We do know what happened. In the past few centuries we've learned to tell the story of the universe from the first 10^-33 th of a second to the present, and well beyond, through the formation of our star and planet, to the rise of our species. Much of that story we know with precision greater than one part in a billion. Some of the story is still only known in rough. But it's both a legacy and a birthright. And it's not finished yet, that much you're right about. Perhaps some of the kids playing NationStates will pen a paragraph or two in the fullness of time.

As to why there aren't some people at the party? Well let's start with who knows english? Or just the number of Jews vs the numbers of Christians or secular individuals? What's the distribution of wealth that would afford access to a world wide communications infrastructure? And where that wealth occurs who has the political freedoms to access a site which will necessarily feature uncensored political commentary and a universally poor opinion of all incarnations of tyranny? I would suspect much of the religious vitrol probably comes from evangelists in the US. Part of that is cultural, religion isn't just the private experience advocated in the Bible. Here it's a public statement of belonging to a community. And the greater the conflict, the more prolific the activity will be. It's a simple numbers game. If any form of polytheism was widely practiced in europe, I imagine that you would see more religious diversity.

Conflict is entertainment. This forum provides a safe place for people who'd never normally meet each other to, in the process of communicating, write things about other people that might well end in tears in real life. That's why there will always be Hitler threads, Atomic weapons threads, USA is Hitler with Atomic weapons drinking oil from Jewish babies threads, Matrix sucks threads, etc etc. Even you're not immune. A card carrying member of the pro-futility party. Maybe we all are and only some of us cop to it.

That said, I didn't take the first post to be limited to scope of the myriad threads on these forums. Which that person might well have been implying.

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?
Hey, I'm with you. Nothing could matter less than how mankind got here.

You should make a poll.

I'm just wondering why I didn't take the blue pill.

The whole evolution vs. creationism is not just a question of our origin (which would be interesting though), but as well a question of how you deal with scientific problems: It is about whether you try to give an answer based on your personal believes or try to answer a scientific question in the way it is supposed to be answered: Only based on hard facts and logical theories.
And what if your personal beliefs are that a scientific answer is best?

I'm just wondering why I didn't take the blue pill.Yeah...I'm with you.

Conflict is entertainment...
True, dat.

I dont get these threads which complain about another type of thread. You dont have to post in a thread if you dont care about the topic. Just ignore it next time.

I guess what i'm doing is complaing about people who complain about other people...

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?

To a degree, I concur with this opinion. However, as part of what we do now that we are here, some thinking individuals will reflect back to how we got here. There can be a state of mind where a person is just a "be here, now" individual and they do not care about the past or the future.

As for me, I have faith that there is a single, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being -- God. Our Creator is the reason for our existence and consciousness. He gave us His Son, Jesus, to reconcile us with Himself for our sins.

This faith gives me peace. It is the Holy Spirit of God that helps sooth tormented souls. Peace, love, mercy and the essence of goodness comes from God.

Does evolution exist? Yes, it is part of the whole state of the universe, which God created. People who are "evolutionists" can be "creationists" too. Rather than dicker over the amount of time it took for evolution of species, because God created time, both sides can agree that God created everything, even the tiny and immense worlds that know the laws of quantum physics, where space and time are beyond the scope of something that affects reality.

In our world, and within the range of our perception, I recommend that people choose God, and believe that Jesus is their souls' Savior from eternal hell after they shed their mortal coils.

I dont get these threads which complain about another type of thread. You dont have to post in a thread if you dont care about the topic. Just ignore it next time.

I guess what i'm doing is complaing about people who complain about other people...

I can't stand it when people like you post in a thread complaining about other threads just to complain about people complaining about the pointlessness of the other threads.

Also I don't think that anyone on NS is competent enough in both issues to really argue the point properly, that goes for both sides. I don't see a scientist from any renowned university or some capacity from any church post in those threads. Usually it's kids arguing.




hmmm...you don't think very highly of us (NS forum ppls) do you :p
i guess i felt a bit slighted, i'm graduating from a B. Biotech (Hons) at the end of this yr! :( I would have thought I'd know something about evolution :)

I have learned that only people too stupid to ever understand attempt to understand anything. I believe that everything is wrong by default. Therefore, only the foolish try to find meaning in anything. Also, I am allergic to dairy products. Thankyou for your time.

I have learned that only people too stupid to ever understand attempt to understand anything. I believe that everything is wrong by default. Therefore, only the foolish try to find meaning in anything. Also, I am allergic to dairy products. Thankyou for your time.
So, this your understanding of the meaning you've found in people's attempts to understand?

Isn't it human nature to ask for origin to better understand what we are doing here right now and then to ponder where it might lead us?

Isn't it human nature to ask for origin to better understand what we are doing here right now and then to ponder where it might lead us?
Depends. I orginated in my mother's womb. That fact is not what gives me purpose.

"How should I know anything about another world when I know so little of this?"
Confucius

Depends. I orginated in my mother's womb. That fact is not what gives me purpose.

That's not what I meant and you know it!

Besides:
"Ach, good to see you haff made it here in one piece," says evil doctor Akira Rifkin as you wake up strapped to a chair in a secret lab. "As you can see from my brilliant experiments, science has now solved zer problems of zer vorld und ve need nothink else! I propose zat ve do AVAY vith zer teachink of silly thinks like religion und concentrate on zer FACTS! For a start, ve must teach our children where ve came from. Ve shouldn't be teaching anythink that hasn't been scientifically proven - er - accounted for, I mean. Igor, release our guest - I haff a monkey to show him..."

That's not what I meant and you know it!

Besides:
"Ach, good to see you haff made it here in one piece," says evil doctor Akira Rifkin as you wake up strapped to a chair in a secret lab. "As you can see from my brilliant experiments, science has now solved zer problems of zer vorld und ve need nothink else! I propose zat ve do AVAY vith zer teachink of silly thinks like religion und concentrate on zer FACTS! For a start, ve must teach our children where ve came from. Ve shouldn't be teaching anythink that hasn't been scientifically proven - er - accounted for, I mean. Igor, release our guest - I haff a monkey to show him..."
M'thinks perhaps that you are not talking about origin, then, but circumstance.

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?
I "care" cause it is damned intresting to learn things

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?

There are two different things at work here...

Personally, I suspect evolution is 'correct'... but I don't count OR discount god in that equation.

I have absolutely no concern whether someone else believes in god, creationism... evolution, whatever. What someone else accepts or believes is up to them.

However, the reason why the Evolution/Creationism debate IS important, is because there are people who are trying to make it law that ONLY creationism (and then, only the Christian creation story) is taught in schools.

While people try to force such a fascist platform, the debate is not just IMPORTANT, but ESSENTIAL.

Also I don't think that anyone on NS is competent enough in both issues to really argue the point properly, that goes for both sides. I don't see a scientist from any renowned university or some capacity from any church post in those threads. Usually it's kids arguing.


You are obviously not associating with the right people, then...

There are quite a few graduates, students, qualified priests, etc on the forum... it's a shame you seem to have missed them.

You are obviously not associating with the right people, then...

There are quite a few graduates, students, qualified priests, etc on the forum... it's a shame you seem to have missed them.
Agreed :fluffle: you are our translation expert :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

It's not a fight about the truth.

It's a pissing contest.

Anyone who really thinks that the truth about it can be found in an online forum with mainly kids on it needs a shrink asap.

It's more a fight about who can piss farther. Or people compensating for the fact that they're losers IRL. Or wannabe christians trying to spread their distorted dreams of "we're the only true religion" and broadcasting their fanatism.

Also I don't think that anyone on NS is competent enough in both issues to really argue the point properly, that goes for both sides. I don't see a scientist from any renowned university or some capacity from any church post in those threads. Usually it's kids arguing.

We'll never find out what really happened, how would we? Anyone got a time machine? No? Too bad, that would have been the only way to prove who's right. Well, then the most logic reason wins (and going by just one religious book is definitely not logic).

Also I miss the lack of other religions in those threads. It's usually only the pseudo christians crapping out their propaganda and that way they're showing a fanatism that's close to those weirdos who blow themselves up at bus stations in Israel. Where's the rest? Maybe Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc are too clever to stoop down to that level or have learned how to think?

Because we all know you have to be a member of an accredited university to do any research or have an opinion :rolleyes: I have learned MUCH from these "bunch of kids" everything from more feeling for human interaction to some real hard knowledge about religion and science and theory.

Priests and scientists are not the only ones that have information to share the rest of us do as well

Yeah, I care about the debate because others do. If no one else did, it would be of purely academic interest to me, because no one would be trying to cram their religious beliefs down the public's throats dressed up as not religious belief but HISTORICAL FACT or worse, SCIENCE.

Ever since I was in ... grade school, I've encountered this debate. Regardless of whether I wanted to. (Well, I could just agree with people when I know they're wrong. Maybe that's what you do?)

Sadly, the anti-evolutionists (for thats really the best term to describe their beliefs - they hate evolution and think they would be less of a man if it were true) have not changed their arguments and are still using the same exact ones. At least I in the process have learned a bit more evolutionary biology than I knew when I was 12.

As I previously stated, I don't see how you can be so opposed to axiomatic science on the one hand, and embrace it on the other.

As long as physicists are coming up with axiomatic theories, making predictions, and then either keeping those theories or throwing them out based on whether the predictions match reality, you're fine with it, but for someone who believes in creation to do the same is blasphemous to science and evidence of "cramming their beliefs down people's throats"?

That's as inconsistent a position as can be. Creationism stands or falls by its axioms' ability to make correct predictions as to what will be observed, just like any other science. Let it run its course, or argue against it based on the above criterion, but don't pretend as though evolution has the market cornered on scientific thought. That kind of ivory-tower elitism from both educated supporters of evolution and lay supporters of evolution is a large part of what's got conservative preachers so riled up.

The subject of evolution/creation is important because we cannot know where we are going unless we know where we come from. Also, understanding the mechanisms behind the beginning of life gives us some excellent predictors. If life is spontaneous, for instance, we have an excellent chance of finding other forms of it elsewhere in the universe. We can test the theory on a few bodies right here in our own solar system.

But do I really care about the evolution/creation debate? No. For one thing, it is not productive. Grown people who believe in creation are either not smart enough or not honest enough to assess their beliefs in an objective manner. You can throw all the science in the world at them, and they will still adhere doggedly to their beliefs, in the same way a baby clings to their blankie. Creationists are warm and comfortable in their ignorance, and have no interest in letting an overwhelming abundance of scientific data take that from them.

As I previously stated, I don't see how you can be so opposed to axiomatic science on the one hand, and embrace it on the other.

As long as physicists are coming up with axiomatic theories, making predictions, and then either keeping those theories or throwing them out based on whether the predictions match reality, you're fine with it, but for someone who believes in creation to do the same is blasphemous to science and evidence of "cramming their beliefs down people's throats"?

That's as inconsistent a position as can be. Creationism stands or falls by its axioms' ability to make correct predictions as to what will be observed, just like any other science. Let it run its course, or argue against it based on the above criterion, but don't pretend as though evolution has the market cornered on scientific thought. That kind of ivory-tower elitism from both educated supporters of evolution and lay supporters of evolution is a large part of what's got conservative preachers so riled up.

That's the point. Creationism has run its course. It fell on its face. It's time to move on to other theories.

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?
The thing is, what you believe impacts what you do. Thought begets behavior. If you believe in "creationism" it influences you to reject evolution, elevate humans into an exclusive class of animal, and treat the rest of the animal kingdom ( ineed, most of the rest of "creation" ) as at best "resources" with which you may do as you please.

Cabinia, given that you totally ignored what I just posted, I guess that the creationists aren't alone in their ignoring of presented facts, eh?

People who have no conception of what science is ridiculing someone else's scientific endeavors or beliefs just make themselves look asinine.

Demonstrate how creationism fell on its face, instead of just asserting that it did.

i.e., What aspect of the predictions made from the axioms of creationism failed to hold?

Demonstrate how creationism fell on its face, instead of just asserting that it did.

i.e., What aspect of the predictions made from the axioms of creationism failed to hold?
7 day creation does not fit with facts (if you are trying to be exact CREATIONISM is the direct genisis translation) not to mention creation order issues within genisis itself

As I previously stated, I don't see how you can be so opposed to axiomatic science on the one hand, and embrace it on the other.


Aha, so "creation" is "science?" Interesting. Maybe I simply can't find my copy of the Bible in Scientific American. And where is the principle of falsibility? You find me a fundamentalist who can accept that creationism may be false, maybe I'll consider agreeing with your insistance on equating religion with science.


As long as physicists are coming up with axiomatic theories, making predictions, and then either keeping those theories or throwing them out based on whether the predictions match reality, you're fine with it, but for someone who believes in creation to do the same is blasphemous to science and evidence of "cramming their beliefs down people's throats"?

People telling me I'll go to Hell because I'm an atheist who doesn't accept that evolution is propaganda and the Bible is pure fact are 'cramming their beliefs down my throat.'

And again your argument would be fine if I accepted that creation is science. Too bad I don't.

That's as inconsistent a position as can be.

Yes, it would be, if I had ever accepted your assumptions as truth.

Creationism stands or falls by its axioms' ability to make correct predictions as to what will be observed, just like any other science.

Creation as advocated in this thread stands or falls based primarily on religion and faith.

Science is not religion.

Religion is not science.

Let it run its course, or argue against it based on the above criterion, but don't pretend as though evolution has the market cornered on scientific thought. That kind of ivory-tower elitism from both educated supporters of evolution and lay supporters of evolution is a large part of what's got conservative preachers so riled up.

"Ivory-tower elitism," ah yes, because I don't want RELIGION taught in SCIENCE classes. I guess you must be an elitist if you don't want me to teach Catholic History in your Remedial Math 101.

"7 day creation does not fit with facts (if you are trying to be exact CREATIONISM is the direct genisis translation) not to mention creation order issues within genisis itself"

Again, this is more assertion. What specific facts?

Further, 7 day creation isn't a prediction of the creationist model; it's an axiom. Two different things. What predictions does creationism make from its axioms that turn out to be untrue?



In case you're wondering, I'm far from what one would call a creationist.

Do YOU care about creation vs evolution?
Damn right I do. I got fifty quid on evolution!

Demonstrate how creationism fell on its face, instead of just asserting that it did.

i.e., What aspect of the predictions made from the axioms of creationism failed to hold?

Yawn. Hasn't this been done to death already? The topic of this forum is how people feel about the debate. I don't see any value in turning this forum into yet another debate. Besides, as I mentioned before, I don't care about it.

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?


Definitely! In fact, concentrating on the now is the easiest way to avoid *tons o stress!* After all, why worry about something you will never actually prove because **you weren't there!**

Creationism versus Evolution is however a fascinating topic to some individuals so they continue to discuss it, debate it and argue it into the ground and I've heard some pretty convincing evidence for both and against both.

What I just wish would stop and I mean, I know that I shouldn't hold my breath, is the flame wars. Of course, these forums half the time are just like trying to prove Creation or Evolution and worrying about the past. In otherwords, pointless because nobody really cares about your opinion anyway! ;) So most of the time you're just speaking your mind which is a good thing I guess but if you really are trying to accomplish something with what you're saying *good luck*.

Santa Barbra, I'm not going to follow your example and be a jerk. I'll continue to be nice regardless of how you treat me in return, but you should be aware that your vitrol makes you look bad. :)

Now, down to brass tacks.

"Aha, so "creation" is "science?" Interesting. Maybe I simply can't find my copy of the Bible in Scientific American. And where is the principle of falsibility? You find me a fundamentalist who can accept that creationism may be false, maybe I'll consider agreeing with your insistance on equating religion with science."

Nobody said anything about equating religion and science. You're misinterpreting creationism if you think Christian fundamentalism and creationism are the same thing. Christian fundamentalism is a philosophical stance, whereas creationism is an axiomatic science whose characteristic axiom is belief in 7 day creation, which is one particular belief that characterizes the philosophical stance Christian fundamentalism.

I'm not failing to differentiate between religion and science. You're failing to realize the nature of axiomatic science, which is why I seriously doubt you work anywhere close to a real scientific field.

"People telling me I'll go to Hell because I'm an atheist who doesn't accept that evolution is propaganda and the Bible is pure fact are 'cramming their beliefs down my throat.'

And again your argument would be fine if I accepted that creation is science. Too bad I don't."

Clearly only axioms that occur in your particular favored axiomatic system have a chance of being right. Like I said, ivory tower elitism. I'd suggest studying some college-level geometry to broaden your understanding of how axiomatic systems, and by association, modern sciences, work, but you'll need a good teacher in the field, which is rare.

Creationism as a discipline doesn't concern itself with any aspect of Christian theology other than 7 day creation, so your being offended by the rest of Christian theology leading to your dismissal of creationism the axiomatic system is a non sequiter.

"Yes, it would be, if I had ever accepted your assumptions as truth."

*sigh* Doesn't understand science, check. Every science makes assumptions. Euclidean geometry assumes that the distance between two points is the square root of the sum of the squares of the difference between the two components of the two points in question. General relativity assumes that addition of velocities isn't linear. Quantum physics assumes that energy is emitted in packets.

The way these notions have become so ingrained in our beliefs is because we assumed them for whatever reason, made predictions, and these predictions were born out in observation. For example, we predicted the existence of certain subatomic particles long before we actually observed them. Hence, once we observed them, we became pretty sure that what we assumed to make those predictions is at least somewhat close to reality.

You don't like creationism because you don't like its axiom of note, which is understandable. However, the way to go about dismantling the discipline is not through ridiculing that axiom. Sure, you have fun engaging in that ridicule, but you don't accomplish anything of note. An assertion that an axiom is false isn't a scientific way to go about things.

That's why, as I've said, if you want to demonstrate creationism is an ill-founded scientific discipline, you need to show where a prediction they made, reasoning from their axioms, is shown wrong by observation. If you can do that, then you've establised that at least one of their axioms is wrong, thus causing the whole structure to collapse as if it were no more than a house of cards.

"'Ivory-tower elitism,' ah yes, because I don't want RELIGION taught in SCIENCE classes. I guess you must be an elitist if you don't want me to teach Catholic History in your Remedial Math 101."

I never said anything in defense of teaching creation in schools. I'm against that as much as I'm against the teaching of evolution in schools. Creation is far too new and unrefined a discipline to have earned a place in serious scientific study as of yet, and random and purposeless evolution from common descent can be demonstrated false as an axiomatic system by the predictions it's made that turned out to be false.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be off to take a test on abstract algebra. If this soon-to-be graduate student of mathematics isn't being logical or scientific enough for your tastes, let me know.

I never said anything in defense of teaching creation in schools. I'm against that as much as I'm against the teaching of evolution in schools. Creation is far too new and unrefined a discipline to have earned a place in serious scientific study as of yet, and random and purposeless evolution from common descent can be demonstrated false as an axiomatic system by the predictions it's made that turned out to be false.

.
He never said anything about teaching creation in schools (well meaning it is not the SCHOOL part he has an issue with it is the SCIENCE class)

Creationism is not a scientific theory ... it has no place in a science class (and are you seriously saying that creationism is too young to be concidered in scientific studies LOL)

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?

I would say that how we got here is quite important, and I do not have any problem with it being discussed. However, I agree with you that what we do here is very important. I find it a shame that most religious discussions focus on whether religion is true or not, rather than whether it is moral or not (and obviously by reverse whether non-religious views are moral or not).

Santa Barbra, I'm not going to follow your example and be a jerk. I'll continue to be nice regardless of how you treat me in return, but you should be aware that your vitrol makes you look bad. :)


Heh. "You're a jerk, but I'm not. You jerk!"

At least I don't claim NOT to be jerk...


Nobody said anything about equating religion and science. You're misinterpreting creationism if you think Christian fundamentalism and creationism are the same thing.

Ah yes. Two different types of creationism, both argued by largely the same groups, for the same general goal, against the same thing. I suppose the Christian fundamentalists who agree with you are misinterpreting creationism too?

Christian fundamentalism is a philosophical stance,

Which people want to get introduced into the science class. People who would agree with everything you say and understand nothing. But maybe I'm wrong for disagreeing with such people, is that what you're saying? Or are you saying theirs isn't the "true" creationism?

whereas creationism is an axiomatic science whose characteristic axiom is belief in 7 day creation, which is one particular belief that characterizes the philosophical stance Christian fundamentalism.

Tell me, would you have your "scientific" belief in 7 day creation if it wasn't also in the Bible?

I'm not failing to differentiate between religion and science. You're failing to realize the nature of axiomatic science, which is why I seriously doubt you work anywhere close to a real scientific field.

I'm sick of arguments that hinge on whether or not I am educated in a particular field. I never claimed to work in a real scientific field, so in addition to being another ad hominem what you've got here is a strawman.


Clearly only axioms that occur in your particular favored axiomatic system have a chance of being right. Like I said, ivory tower elitism. I'd suggest studying some college-level geometry to broaden your understanding of how axiomatic systems, and by association, modern sciences, work, but you'll need a good teacher in the field, which is rare.

Or maybe, you know, "DO AS I DID, FOR I AM CORRECT AND YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ELITIST" is not such a good argument.

Creationism as a discipline doesn't concern itself with any aspect of Christian theology other than 7 day creation, so your being offended by the rest of Christian theology leading to your dismissal of creationism the axiomatic system is a non sequiter.

Yet another strawman. When did my being "offended" by the "rest of Christian theology" matter one bit about what I said?



*sigh* Doesn't understand science, check. Every science makes assumptions.

Maybe you forgot the part where we aren't testing hypotheses, but arguing on a message board.

Maybe you also forgot that you said something about not being a "jerk," and all you are doing is insisting how ignorant I am. Apparently I don't even know the scientific method, because I pointed out that you made stupid ASSUMPTIONS.

Euclidean geometry assumes that the distance between two points is the square root of the sum of the squares of the difference between the two components of the two points in question. General relativity assumes that addition of velocities isn't linear. Quantum physics assumes that energy is emitted in packets.

Strawmen assume that their education itself is a tool that grants them omnipotence in any debate and moral and intellectual superiority against anyone who disagrees. Bah, silly strawmen!


You don't like creationism because you don't like its axiom of note, which is understandable. However, the way to go about dismantling the discipline is not through ridiculing that axiom. Sure, you have fun engaging in that ridicule, but you don't accomplish anything of note. An assertion that an axiom is false isn't a scientific way to go about things.

Once again you have no idea why I don't or do like anything, and what's more that is still irrelevant. And another strawman: who says I am trying to "dismantle the discipline" here? Is posting on a political forum associated with a free internet game the "scientific way to go about" anything?


I never said anything in defense of teaching creation in schools. I'm against that as much as I'm against the teaching of evolution in schools. Creation is far too new and unrefined a discipline to have earned a place in serious scientific study as of yet, and random and purposeless evolution from common descent can be demonstrated false as an axiomatic system by the predictions it's made that turned out to be false.

What about the idea of Creation is new? As you've already said, the 7 day aspect dates at least as far back as the Bible... doesn't sound very new to me.

And while you're against teaching creation in schools, all your arguments are in support of it, and all anti-evolutionists will agree with you without even understanding that. Hope you understand that.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be off to take a test on abstract algebra. If this soon-to-be graduate student of mathematics isn't being logical or scientific enough for your tastes, let me know.

Logical, not really, but logic is only a tool. Scientific? Not really, since this isn't a lab and we aren't scientists. But I think your real point here is to show how educated you are, and how that (again) means you are probably in the right and how (again) I am ignorant in comparison to you and how (again) you're not as much of a jerk I am. Correct me if I'm wrong, and make sure to cite your entire academic pedagree while you're at it, since that always has the effect of impressing anonymous strangers online.

I think the discussion is important. Creationism, IMHO, is a very dangerous kind of pseudoscience and must be fought at all costs.

First of all, let me briefly sum up the Creationist point of view (as far as i have understood it): Creationists insist that Creation and Deluge happened according to the book of Genesis, since it also mentions the Fall of man. If the story about the Fall is not true, then there is no justification for Jesus Christ. Therefore, Creationists insist that Creation according to Genesis would be real. For them, it's fundamental for their beliefs.

However, reality looks a lot different. As we all know, evidence for evolution is overwhelming, unless you're a total idiot (which many Creationists are, no offense), you cannot ignore that. And consider all the different fields involved: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, geology, mineralogy and paleontology. Some of them have little or nothing to with each other, yet they tell us with conformity about the past.

Evidence for evolution is overwhelming, hence the accusation by Creationists that it was wrong is a lie. If you think about it the other way round it means that Creationist believe (i.e. Christian fundamentalism) is based on lies. Who would join a religion that is based on such shameless nonsense - i definitly won't! :mad:

Another thing that angers me about Creationists is their latent inconsistency in respect for science: they want to forbid the "Bad science" that is defying their believe while on the other hand they don't want to give up "Good science" that has given them all the nifty inventions that have made their lives easier. And this stinks, IMHO.

SB isn't interested in having a correct conception of how science has worked since early this century, check.

Sorry, but whether or not you want to accept it, science has worked in the axiomatic method I just outlined since early this century, and it's why we've made the incredible advancements that we have.

It's as I expected; those most virulent in objecting to creationism have nothing of real value to say. There are a number of thoughtful critics of 7-day creationism, myself included, but you clearly aren't one of them.

As I said, you're just making yourself look asinine to anyone with half a brain stem. If you want to continue to do so, it's none of my business.

SB isn't interested in having a correct conception of how science has worked since early this century, check.

Sorry, but whether or not you want to accept it, science has worked in the axiomatic method I just outlined since early this century, and it's why we've made the incredible advancements that we have.

It's as I expected; those most virulent in objecting to creationism have nothing of real value to say. There are a number of thoughtful critics of 7-day creationism, myself included, but you clearly aren't one of them.

As I said, you're just making yourself look asinine to anyone with half a brain stem. If you want to continue to do so, it's none of my business.

Here's a tip: if you're actually interested in debating rather than just trying to score cheap points off your oponent. Dont ignore all their arguments and just dismiss them as being ill-educated.

Here's a tip: if you're actually interested in debating rather than just trying to score cheap points off your oponent. Dont ignore all their arguments and just dismiss them as being ill-educated.

Well, that's a good point. I personally find it really entertaining to debunk the folly Creationist arguments, it can be really fun at times. However, i must admit, it can also get boring after a while. Simply because they won't get any smarter, they're likely to get more dumb... :p

Not meaning to ruffle any feathers... but I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person to not particularly care about HOW we got here but care more about WHAT to do once we're here. Is anyone with me? Does anyone else not question the how but just concentrate on the now?
I don't really care all that much, but I would love to find out the answer. If there is one. Maybe there isn't one.

Wisjersy, first of all let me thank you for interjecting a little bit of thought here. It's rare that one finds an opponent of creation or an opponent of evolution with even a basic understanding of the other's position.

Secondly, I want to say up-front that I disagree with a number of your points, and I'd like to dissect them line-by-line and show you where I disagree.

"Creationists insist that Creation and Deluge happened according to the book of Genesis, since it also mentions the Fall of man. If the story about the Fall is not true, then there is no justification for Jesus Christ. Therefore, Creationists insist that Creation according to Genesis would be real. For them, it's fundamental for their beliefs."

That's an accurate portrayal of the position of most creationists, yes. No movement, scientific or otherwise, is homogeneous, though. For example, there are currently at least five different conceptions of the theory of special relativity, which can't all be true at the same time. I'm sure it's the same with creationists; some have dissenting opinions as to the specifics of what they purport. For example, by the definition of creationist as someone who believes in 7 days of creation and a young earth, I don't fit the bill. Yet, I am a Christian who believes in the literal truth of the Genesis accounts. Some creationists would disown me as a heretic for dismissing the "young earth" part of that.

However, in truth, Christianity does not hinge on the literal truth of the Genesis accounts of creation or the young earth. Jesus Christ being who he claimed to be hinges only on the literal truth of the doctrine of original sin. The concept of original sin isn't necessarily forced into the framework of a literal Genesis account. Hence, Christian creationists are wrong when they insist upon the necessesity of the literal truth of Genesis as foundational for the gospel.

"However, reality looks a lot different. As we all know, evidence for evolution is overwhelming, unless you're a total idiot (which many Creationists are, no offense), you cannot ignore that. And consider all the different fields involved: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, geology, mineralogy and paleontology. Some of them have little or nothing to with each other, yet they tell us with conformity about the past."

Your second point here is well-taken, and it's the big reason why I don't subscribe to the young-earth notion. What you pointed out is young-earth creationism's most vulnerable point; established sciences have results that contradict the young-earth hypothesis.

The problem is that this is just a contradiction of an axiom that isn't necessary for the discipline to still otherwise be solid. Young-earth isn't a prediction of creationism so much as it is an assumption that's made by creation scientists, incorrectly in my opinion. However, scientists of any particular persuation aren't half as objective as they should be, something not limited at all to creationists.

That's exactly what I meant, though, when I said creationism hasn't existed as a scientific discipline for long enough to be considered a good topic for classroom study. There's still too much fluff in the hypotheses that really don't need to be there for scientific work to still be done, and this fluff needs worked out. It's only been a relatively recent development to actually take the time and effort to see how well creation serves as a predictive origins model. The effort may fall flat on its face, the effort may give us new insights that we'd never have thought of otherwise; either way, we'll be better off for it having been done, so long as nobody rushes to introduce curriculum into schools. The "teach creationism in schools" thing is just as laughable to me as it is to the most hardened atheist at this point, and that's the big political bone of contention I have with the movement currently.

As for your first point, though: The only evidence that a scientific model is concerned with accumulating is making predictions by assuming one's theory is correct, and then showing that those predictions turn out to be true. Here's where evolution (as in spontaneous generation of self-replicating life and common descent via gradual evolution over time of that life) falls apart. If this model of evolution is assumed true, then it follows that the fossil record would consist of mostly transitional forms. Reality doesn't bear this out, however. Hence, at least some part of this model of evolution must be wrong.

"Evidence for evolution is overwhelming, hence the accusation by Creationists that it was wrong is a lie. If you think about it the other way round it means that Creationist believe (i.e. Christian fundamentalism) is based on lies. Who would join a religion that is based on such shameless nonsense - i definitly won't!"

As I just showed, logically, at least one part of the form of evolution fundamentalist Christians so strongly oppose leads to incorrect conclusions. Hence, there's no "shameless nonsense" involved... at worst, there's just a lack of understanding of how it is that the conclusion that this form of evolution can't be true came about. I agree that it's a tragedy that churchgoers have no clue why they believe what they believe, but I don't think that's indicative of some universally-known, deliberate lie.


As I said, you raised good points, and I'll be looking forward to your reply. I'm glad that there's hope of some civil discourse here.

As I said, you raised good points, and I'll be looking forward to your reply. I'm glad that there's hope of some civil discourse here.

First of all, thanks for your long reply, too. I'm a bit short in time, but i hope i can give it the time it deserves and explain my position sufficiently:


As for your first point, though: The only evidence that a scientific model is concerned with accumulating is making predictions by assuming one's theory is correct, and then showing that those predictions turn out to be true. Here's where evolution (as in spontaneous generation of self-replicating life and common descent via gradual evolution over time of that life) falls apart. If this model of evolution is assumed true, then it follows that the fossil record would consist of mostly transitional forms. Reality doesn't bear this out, however. Hence, at least some part of this model of evolution must be wrong.

Well, regarding transitional forms, it's complicate. First of all, one has to realize a few principles of taphonomy: when an animal dies, it's body will be decomposed and eventually fully recycled. Even it's skeletal remains will be eroded away eventually. Thus, usually nothing will remain. Fossilization is a quite unlikely event, especially fossilization of land animals, and localities with good preservation are rare. And then think about how little of the sediments is exposed at the surface and are accessible to us. It's not suprising that there are huge chronological gaps and the apparent lack of transitional forms. However, new fossils are constantly found, and the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. Great examples are the transition from reptile to mammal and from land-living mammal to whale - these enjoy a comparably dense fossil record. The evolution of the birds on the other hand, still has some mysteries since all the feathered Dinosaurs come from lower Cretaceous while the Archaeopteryx (which remains unchallenged so far as "oldest bird") comes from late Jurassic sediments. I'm expecting new finds from the middle to late Jurassic, though. Btw, that's a very good point for the verification/falsification of our current theories on evolution: expected finds do happen, while *radically* unexpected finds simply do not happen. Btw, good example for radically unexpected would be fancy stuff like Cyclops or Pegasi, and non-fancy examples would be dinosaurs from the Permian, or fish from the Precambrian.

Regarding the way evolution works, this indeed is something that's debatable - think of that gradualism vs. punctualism debate. However, in any case, there should be no doubt evolution has really happened.


As I just showed, logically, at least one part of the form of evolution fundamentalist Christians so strongly oppose leads to incorrect conclusions. Hence, there's no "shameless nonsense" involved... at worst, there's just a lack of understanding of how it is that the conclusion that this form of evolution can't be true came about. I agree that it's a tragedy that churchgoers have no clue why they believe what they believe, but I don't think that's indicative of some universally-known, deliberate lie.

I have to admit, Creationism is a very heterogenous movement. Apart from the mentioned Young-Earth/Seven-Day variant (which i personally oppose most vehemently, due to the earlier mentioned reasons), there are generally three different other cathegories of Creationism which i have observed. Interestingly, some of them are very incompatible with each other:

The first one is that "God made the Earth look older than it really is" hypothesis (it might be called "Solipsistic Creationism"). The main problem about it is that it's impossible to falsify - no matter what you do. Essentially, it's something kinda similar in argumentation to The Matrix. Anther problem about it is that it is - from my understanding - largely incompatible with Christian beliefs. I don't see where the bible states that God is a deceiver.

The second one some kind of a synthesis between believe into a creator and the acceptance of mainstream science (i.e. "Creation/Evolution hybrid"). This is very variable, though and like the former one, it's impossible to falsify this one. The main problem is that it creates the image of a very awkward God which doesn't fit very well into the bible, either. Question would then be something like this: "Why did God create animals and make them extinct in chronological order so that it looks as if they would be an evolution line, and why did he give them DNA that has similarity just in the way that it is conform with the forementioned chronological order?"

Then, finally, there's intelligent design. It is interesting from the fact that it's vastly different from the other ones. The main reason is because it brings up arguments that can be verified/falsified, and because it doesn't make statements about the Creator/Designer. The positive aspect of ID is that it encourages discussion and research into these seemingly irreducibly complex structures in nature - i.e. constructive criticism.
Btw, closer examination shows that many structures are not irreducibly complex - even if they look like that at first.

Of course, then there's a fourth variant, which is however not exactly regarded as Creationism by some of the earlier mentioned groups, namely the approach that the Creation account in book of Genesis doesn't need to be taken literal. I agree with your point that it's not necessary for Christian belief - unless you are a fundamentalist, that is. ;)

So... those are my thoughts on the topic. I hope it helps explaining certain things a bit...

Take a class in molecular biology. If you still believe that we are here by pure chance you have more faith then I do. As for evolution vs creation, what if it was an evoltion in one Being's thought?

Guys... please. I appreciate the fact that you are answering, but this IS NOT an evolution vs creationism thread. I am merely asking if anyone feels the same way I do (ie. not really worrying about the past). For the record, I agree with common sense and am therefore an "evolutionist."

I don't care aboutit one bit, not a smidgon, not a drop. If one or the other is true my life won't change at all.
It is the just like the existence of aliens visiting earth. If they show up tomorrow and announce their arrival I still have to go to work.

i only care about the creation vs evolution debate because radical evolutionists are often talking patent nonsense with no discernible basis in anything worthwhile and trying to teach it to children. which is bad for society.

i only care about the creation vs evolution debate because radical evolutionists are often talking patent nonsense with no discernible basis in anything worthwhile and trying to teach it to children. which is bad for society.

I think you forgot to put your </sarcasm> tag on...

I have to admit that you have me on the fossil record thing. I'm far from an expert of paleontology, so if you say the fossil record is complete, I've really got no way to disagree with you. All I'm running on here is a little bit of what I read a number of years ago, which ran the gamut from Richard Dawkins to the ICR types.

You can see the problem that people face, though. One guy says the fossil record is incomplete, another says it isn't. Both present fairly convincing arguments. How is the layperson to know who's right?

I do think that entirely too many laypeople on both sides have tried to get involved in this debate, myself included ;) That's why it's been so long since I've read anything on the subject. My area of study is mathematics, not biology or paleontology.

Out of what I have read, I was most impressed by biochemist Michael Behe's arguments of irreducible complexity, but that's been years ago. The problem evolution faces when it comes to irreducible complexity is even one irreducibly complex structure forces a sudden jump in species complexity that gradual evolution can't explain.


All I'm trying to say is that there are a lot of grey areas in science. That's just the nature of the thing. It's typically not the scientists themselves that claim to be absolutely sure that a given theory is correct, but rather the press or other laypeople. Instead, science is full of a lot of assumptions. One has to assume one's theory is correct in order to get anywhere with it, because verified predictions are what makes theories look palpable.

Creationism is a young movement. It's got in it a lot of mistakes. Where it wants to be taught in schools as a scientific model, it should be denied. Where it thinks it can't possibly be wrong, it needs rethought. However, assuming a particlar set of axioms and working from there is something that, in general, can't be frowned upon. Attack creationism all you want on any area you please, except for believing what they can't prove, because all science does that.

In mathematics, we assume we know what a line is. We assume that we know what addition is. We assume the Euclidian metric is true, upon which hinges all of calculus.

Hence, all I'm saying is that it's not some kind of scientific sin to assume what you're not sure of.

SB isn't interested in having a correct conception of how science has worked since early this century, check.

Sorry, but whether or not you want to accept it, science has worked in the axiomatic method I just outlined since early this century, and it's why we've made the incredible advancements that we have.

It's as I expected; those most virulent in objecting to creationism have nothing of real value to say. There are a number of thoughtful critics of 7-day creationism, myself included, but you clearly aren't one of them.

As I said, you're just making yourself look asinine to anyone with half a brain stem. If you want to continue to do so, it's none of my business.

Wow, I'm looking "asinine." In addition to my being a "jerk" and "ignorant." What a fantastic fucking argument you have. Apparently you think ad hominems and self-inflating egotistical recounts of supposed academic "thoughtfulness" are a good way to convince people. Well, you can speak for yourself, but I don't see anyone agreeing with you about me "looking asinine," not to mention it wouldn't matter a whit if they did.

You don't have a real argument, and as you say you "expected" me to be "asinine" in the first place - how could I possibly disagree with someone who already has their mind set and already dismisses everything I say without reading it? You have an egg-like shell protecting that ego of yours and your precious axioms, and all you can do when someone threatens your axioms is lash out with stupid ad hominem attacks and talk about - again - how educated and thoughtful YOU are.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong - and make sure to do so with MORE ad hominems. They really make you look thoughtful.

Wow, I'm looking "asinine." In addition to my being a "jerk" and "ignorant." What a fantastic fucking argument you have. Apparently you think ad hominems and self-inflating egotistical recounts of supposed academic "thoughtfulness" are a good way to convince people. Well, you can speak for yourself, but I don't see anyone agreeing with you about me "looking asinine," not to mention it wouldn't matter a whit if they did.

You don't have a real argument, and as you say you "expected" me to be "asinine" in the first place - how could I possibly disagree with someone who already has their mind set and already dismisses everything I say without reading it? You have an egg-like shell protecting that ego of yours and your precious axioms, and all you can do when someone threatens your axioms is lash out with stupid ad hominem attacks and talk about - again - how educated and thoughtful YOU are.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong - and make sure to do so with MORE ad hominems. They really make you look thoughtful.

Very true someone debasing the intelligence of the others he debates still manages to make logical flaws (ad hominim) in the debate
I just stopped paying attention to him or her :)

I don't see a scientist from any renowned university or some capacity from any church post in those threads.

How about GA Tech? Is that "renowned" enough for you?

And Bottle is from...hmmm...I forget, but she's working on her Ph.D. as well


Meanwhile, my issue is not really with Creationism v. Evolution, but ensuring that only science is taught in science classrooms. If Creationists really want their "theory" to be taught in science classrooms, fine - but it can only be taught as an example of what not to do in science.

How about GA Tech? Is that "renowned" enough for you?

And Bottle is from...hmmm...I forget, but she's working on her Ph.D. as well


Meanwhile, my issue is not really with Creationism v. Evolution, but ensuring that only science is taught in science classrooms. If Creationists really want their "theory" to be taught in science classrooms, fine - but it can only be taught as an example of what not to do in science.
Dont forget me ! I am a comp Sci/Networking teacher as well! (along with other things)

Out of what I have read, I was most impressed by biochemist Michael Behe's arguments of irreducible complexity, but that's been years ago. The problem evolution faces when it comes to irreducible complexity is even one irreducibly complex structure forces a sudden jump in species complexity that gradual evolution can't explain.

The problem with the irreducibly complex idea is that it assumes something we know is not true - that biology is put together like a rube goldberg machine - that losing one part would make the whole thing fall apart. This is patently untrue.

And I have yet to see a single example of a truly irreducibly complex structure. When most IDers say "irreducibly complex", what they really mean is "we can't understand it, so it is evidence of an intelligent design." Of course, people used to say the same thing about lightning.

All I'm trying to say is that there are a lot of grey areas in science. That's just the nature of the thing. It's typically not the scientists themselves that claim to be absolutely sure that a given theory is correct, but rather the press or other laypeople. Instead, science is full of a lot of assumptions. One has to assume one's theory is correct in order to get anywhere with it, because verified predictions are what makes theories look palpable.

To get a theory at all, one must perform numerous experiments and look at numerous sets of data. You never assume that theory to be absolutely true. In fact, experiments are specifically designed to disprove a given hypothesis (which, if there is a theory, generally stems from the theory).

Hence, all I'm saying is that it's not some kind of scientific sin to assume what you're not sure of.

It is if that assumption cannot be disproven.

Dont forget me ! I am a comp Sci/Networking teacher as well! (along with other things)

I like CS people, they're such fun geeks! =)

:fluffle:

Yeah, in the debate I'm a supporter of evolution, but ultimately I don't care.

I like CS people, they're such fun geeks! =)

:fluffle:
YAY YOU GOT IT RIGHT!!! (geeks not nerds ) :D :fluffle: I am a networking man at heart but they roped me into teaching 201 (intro to comp sci) which is a C++ class (also teach 451) Which is WAN design

:D

Though technically I am only an associate professor (I am in their IT department not teaching staff technically)

Though I think this is maybe what I want to do with my two masters degree (maybe doctorate soon enough lol)

I do think that entirely too many laypeople on both sides have tried to get involved in this debate, myself included ;) That's why it's been so long since I've read anything on the subject. My area of study is mathematics, not biology or paleontology.

Creationism is a young movement. It's got in it a lot of mistakes. Where it wants to be taught in schools as a scientific model, it should be denied. Where it thinks it can't possibly be wrong, it needs rethought. However, assuming a particlar set of axioms and working from there is something that, in general, can't be frowned upon. Attack creationism all you want on any area you please, except for believing what they can't prove, because all science does that.
1. Sorry, but you must suck at math. Or you're a little kid who finds algebra challenging. Statistical thermodynamics, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology, high energy physics, and many other disciplines have absolutely destroyed creationism as a serious argument. How? On the strength of math, and accumulated emperical observations.

2. Creationism is so young it's two millenia old (assuming we restrict ourselves to just the Christian bible, and Genesis isn't New Testament). Evolution is 150. Cosmology isn't anywhere near that old if we count from the realization that the Milky Way wasn't the only galaxy. So let's recap. Creationism: 0 predictions confirmed true, a vast number confirmed false. It's study has produced the occasional song, but 0 useful tools or processes that have enhanced people's lives creating wealth. Science: He built and rebuilt the world many times over the centuries. The application of it's revealations have changed the way we, live, eat, sleep, work, entertain ourselves, communicate, travel, raise children, have children, and fight disease. It's verified predictions are practicaly uncountable.

Millennia of unmitigated failure vs undeniable unimaginable success. And you *still* want to bet on Creationism. I got to take my hat off to you, that is a sterling example of unquestioning, unreasoning, unshakeable faith.

I'm afraid I'm a doomed inbetween-er...
As the "bible-thumping" conservities on one side and the "godless" scientists on the other.

I notice that neither side actually listens to the other; they both make deragatory statements, which no one can prove or disprove. (those like me i.e. stuck in the middle ground, feel like this :headbang: )

I, personnally, believe in the co-existence of the bible and science.

Although it doesn't really matter where or how we come to be. It wouldn't change basic human nature, nor would it hinder development of any kind. All it would do is allow one side to go "HA HA I TOLD YOU SO!!" Like the three-year olds they are. (meaning no disrespect to there ideas, merely the means that they communicate them. In short grow up.)

There I'm done, and I feel much better now... :)

I'm afraid I'm a doomed inbetween-er...
As the "bible-thumping" conservities on one side and the "godless" scientists on the other.

I notice that neither side actually listens to the other; they both make deragatory statements, which no one can prove or disprove. (those like me i.e. stuck in the middle ground, feel like this :headbang: )

I, personnally, believe in the co-existence of the bible and science.

Although it doesn't really matter where or how we come to be. It wouldn't change basic human nature, nor would it hinder development of any kind. All it would do is allow one side to go "HA HA I TOLD YOU SO!!" Like the three-year olds they are. (meaning no disrespect to there ideas, merely the means that they communicate them. In short grow up.)

There I'm done, and I feel much better now... :)

The debate is useful, in terms of getting a better understanding of biology and not relying on outmoded doctrine. But also evolution is not useless. It underlies many elements of modern biology and has inspired a few areas of maths like genetic algorithms, so its not all about getting on over on your opponents.

However it has been used to such an extent that thats all it means. A way for the scientists and the religious to duke it out with out laying hands on each other. Yes, the debate has merit. But the ones debating are the ones we really should be questioning, and the way they are debating is atroucious (sp?). It only stands to reason that a person on the street would get fed-up with all the comotion about it. Shouldn't the religious energies be better spent eslewhere? like helping the communty? And shouldn't the scientists go on there way making the world a better place in there own way? Go on with both of your beliefs, and move on using what base you have.

I care not! Really...I can survive with out the stress.