NationStates Jolt Archive

So, how do you define a creationist?

Do I qualify as one if I believe in;

That the eons ago (billions or more) that THE divine being (let's call IT God/Allah/Jehova/Bob) pops (or bangs) ITSELF a universe (this one). IT saw that it was fitting for some planet in rustic star system in a spinal arm on some backwater galaxy to hold life, and manipulated IT's forces (including chance) for some amino acids to react and lo, that thar be life.

And in IT's grand scheme for this insignificant little planet was that mammals should be the planet's primary lifeform, so IT plays IT's dice to to have some huge disaster turn the planet into a viable place for mammals.

And with more scheming and planning THE divine being saw it was fit that some sort of monkeys to become even more dominant than the other mammals, by giving them sentience (can evolution explain this one?).

Bla bla later on here we are arguing about is there a god, creation, evolution, while of course, existing as one of the gears (i'd say even less than gears, maybe some atoms of said gears) of this complex machine called the universe.

The End.

Epilogue, eventually, some physicist (who's somewhat responsible for splitting the atom) said "God doesn't play die with the universe", unknown to him that IT does play die, cept that the die, and the rules are all loaded to IT's favor.

Which verse in the Bible predicts global warming?

And if (For the Quran) you mean that verse about the Eagle... well...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/quran911.asp

Sorry, Urban Legend.

In Revelations, near the end of the world perversion and evil are common, and the sky rolls away and is replaced by blackness, God allows the sun to be blocked out. Those match the description of global warming once the atmosphere becomes mainly made up of smog. I think it mentions that God allows the sun to scorch the people, the temperature around the world is already rising. Science says if global warming continues then what was written with the sun scorching the earth could happen.

I got about 2 minutes in to the first video. I don't think I'll waste my time watching any more. If she thinks she's proven the bible to be fact she's not worth listening to.

I picked one at random, and about 2 minutes into it she presented a strawman. Sheesh.

I didn't read the whole thread, I'm lazy, so if I apologize for anything I say that was already said. Now:

First off, I believe the bible is not supposed to be scientifically accurate, not everything in it is historically accurate. It is merely a moral compass, not a text book. (also, where in the bible does it say that the earth is only 6,000 years old? even if it does say that somewhere, that doesn't mean that it is.)

I believe that evolution and any other theory/possibility/whatever, could be how it happened. If the theory of evolution is correct, it was created by God. God created everything.

As for the story of creation and the Earth being created in seven days, it says a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. There is no time in God. And the story it's self might be just that - a story. Where did the story come from? It is one of many stories about creation that was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth that was very likely elaborated on through the years. It is a representation of how people back then thought the world was made.

It is often said that God works in mysterious ways, subtle ways. It would be against that nature to just make something out of nothing, He can of course, and has, such as with Moses, and through Jesus, according to the bible, but always to get people's attention. I would think He would prefer the slow evolution approach.

[Abrupt ending, I'm not good at this.]

I guess that's about it.... I haven't typed something that long in a while.

First off, I believe the bible is not supposed to be scientifically accurate, not everything in it is historically accurate. It is merely a moral compass, not a text book. (also, where in the bible does it say that the earth is only 6,000 years old? even if it does say that somewhere, that doesn't mean that it is.)


It doesn't. That age is taken from a Catholic monk who worked out the math of all the ages of people in the bible, adding it up, and coming to that as the age.

Some people just took those 7 days way to literally.

The Bible preceded evolutionary theory by a few years. It is more accurate to say that evolutionary theory rejects all evidence to the contrary as provided by the Bible and recorded history.

Swing and a miss. The ancient Greeks, having studied fossils, put forward the theory that all living things (including humans) were descended from marine life.

That's before we stop to consider the 'rejects all evidence to the contrary' statement. What evidence? If creationists are so sure of themselves, why aren't they out there looking for some? All it would need is, for instance, a fossil dinosaur with some fossil human remains in its stomach. There must be plenty of them out there. Come on, get digging.

If you were God what would you do, create millions of forms of diverse life that all evolved from a common ancestor so that once the humans you've created find that out with genetics they can go "God is really majectic and powerful and wise" or would you just snap your fingers and will stuff into existence. I think the more elaborate version gets God more glory thus he made things that way. He gets more glory from making energy into matter, matter into atoms and molucues, that into life and then making that life evolve into at least 10 million other species as opposed to God creating everything in a short period of time.

I should like to clarify that I am not debating the specifics of the evolutionists/creationist debate, but rather the debate itself.

Obviously, Creationism does not seek to explain the existence of the world (including ourselves) in purely "mechanical" scientific terms, or as caused by purely physical and biochemical processes. In this sense, it is not scientific at all.

However, it does not follow that a Creationist could not be an excellent scientist or researcher. Nothing in our beliefs prohibits us from using the scientific method to investigate the world around us, or speculating the wondrous possibilities and complexities of creation. Thus a Creationist is not prohibited from being an excellent doctor, psychiatrist or physicist. I know many Creationists who reject philosophy (no matter the definition) and psychology, and believe me, I've debated them on these points.

King Solomon who said "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of a king to seek it out."

I suppose that my reasoning regarding world-views is basically Aristotlean in its logic. There are those who seek knowledge for it's own sake, believing that ignorance is the root cause of their problems, and therefore some sort of education is the solution. There are others who seek knowledge for the sake of power, or for personal development, or to discover themselves, or to further entrench themselves in their traditions (such as all too many Creationists do). Perhaps it is possible that someone would seek out two different things for their own sake, but I believe that psychologically, people tend to see one thing as their main need, and all other things as either attendants or incidental beneficaries of that need.

Bottle, if you are a scientific researcher, I would be very interested to hear about it. Every time someone says "research" my curiousity is piqued.

Swing and a miss. The ancient Greeks, having studied fossils, put forward the theory that all living things (including humans) were descended from marine life.

lol scientists in ancient Greece with no microscopes or electricity were years ahead of the people in those videos

http://limewoody.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

I thought we had quelled this in the last thread. Quick, ready the Bottle-signal!

Creationism can go hang. And yes, I am in favor of evolution. The day I believe in a book based on the belief of people who thought the Earth was flat is the day I take LotR as gospel. Yes, it's shocking, isn't it? The Earth is in fact round. My, my...

Yes, it's shocking, isn't it? The Earth is in fact round. My, my...

I thought it was slightly spherical with some ovoid inclination?

I thought it was slightly spherical with some ovoid inclination?

that was funny :mp5:

I thought it was slightly spherical with some ovoid inclination?
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/a/ac/Square-earth.jpg/180px-Square-earth.jpg
Nope, you've been misguided.

Heck yeah! Screw the US presidental election, Vote LG for God in 2008!

It's definitely my kind of job. No matter how active or inactive I decide to be: Whether I'm smiting non-believers with six-foot pies or sipping margaritas in St. Thomas and ignoring the hell out of all of you, it's God's Will.

That's just my speed because I plan on doing a little of each. :)

The Bible does not teach the Earth is flat. In the Hebrew language, it's referred to as a sphere. And in fact, Egypt, where the Israelites were enslaved for 400 years (more or less) immediately before the Torah was written, believed that the earth was shaped like an egg... hmm... slightly spherical with some ovoid inclination?

And on that note, during the Middle Ages, the benighted Catholic Church accepted as scientifically authoritative the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who taught that the earth was round. To question the works of Ptolemy was to question the authority of the RCC, hence the fuss over Galileo's denial of a geocentric universe. The disagreement with Christopher Columbus was NOT over the flatness vs roundness of the earth, but over the diameter of it. Chris thought it was thousands of miles less than what was previously thought. Turns out, he was wrong. On of those little ironies in history, I guess.

Jist of it due to complaints: This lady says--- evolution is false, The big Bang Theory is false, chemicals forming organisms is false , the bible is a science test book, all animals including dinosaurs lived with humans, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. ONly god can create anything. Nothing can form out of something else EVER.

Well, she is entitled to her beliefs.:rolleyes:

I don't think, though, that with her ideas about science and the universe, she would be able to explain or build any kind of technological device more modern than a shovel, or to explain why does modern medicine works a lot better than the Middle-Ages one. So, I'll stick to Galileian-style science, thank you very much.;)
The Essayer rules, btw.

The Bible preceded evolutionary theory by a few years. It is more accurate to say that evolutionary theory rejects all evidence to the contrary as provided by the Bible and recorded history. The Bible certainly contradicts evolutionary theory, but evolutionary theory rejects the Bible's evidence, not the other way around.

Considering that the Genesis accounts of creation contradict one another, and considering that even the areas they agree... are disputed by actual physical evidence... it would seem that what the bible has to offer as 'evidence' is somewhere between mere anecdote and nothing.

http://limewoody.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

I thought we had quelled this in the last thread. Quick, ready the Bottle-signal!
My thoughts exactly.

The Bible does not teach the Earth is flat. In the Hebrew language, it's referred to as a sphere. And in fact, Egypt, where the Israelites were enslaved for 400 years (more or less) immediately before the Torah was written, believed that the earth was shaped like an egg... hmm... slightly spherical with some ovoid inclination?

And on that note, during the Middle Ages, the benighted Catholic Church accepted as scientifically authoritative the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who taught that the earth was round. To question the works of Ptolemy was to question the authority of the RCC, hence the fuss over Galileo's denial of a geocentric universe. The disagreement with Christopher Columbus was NOT over the flatness vs roundness of the earth, but over the diameter of it. Chris thought it was thousands of miles less than what was previously thought. Turns out, he was wrong. On of those little ironies in history, I guess.

I wonder if you can show me the verse where the Hebrew calls the earth a sphere?

The scripture does say that the world has corners, that it rests on pillars, and that there is a mountain high enough you can see the whole world from it.

Explain to me how a mountain can be 'high' enough to see all of a sphere?

EDIT: I just have to point out, also... it was Babylon that was home to the Hebrews just before Torah were written... and there is no real evidence to suggest Hebrews were ever 'slaves' in Egypt... aside from one (obviously likely to show some bias) set of self-penned scriptures.

What if you believe that God evolved and then created us? WHERE'S YOUR POLL OPTION FOR THAT!?

Umm...try reading it. Genesis at least. You'll find everything you need there.
It's been said, but I feel the need to emphasize:

No, Genesis does not present evidence.

Genesis presents statements. Genesis, the book, tells a particular story (actually a couple of different stories) about Creation. There is no evidence presented. There are no testable hypotheses suggested.

If you want Creationism to be regarded as science, or to be placed on an equal footing with evolutionary theory, then you're going to actually have to do the required WORK. You can't be lazy little whiners who complain about how your personal guesses aren't given the same status as the exhaustively-collected data, painstakingly-tested hypotheses, and applied and upheld predictions that have been generated by the countless scientists who have spent countless lifetimes doing real science.

I thought it was slightly spherical with some ovoid inclination?

I stand corrected.

I thought it was slightly spherical with some ovoid inclination?

It is an oblate spheroid - a sphere flattened slightly at the poles.

In Revelations, near the end of the world perversion and evil are common, and the sky rolls away and is replaced by blackness, God allows the sun to be blocked out. Those match the description of global warming once the atmosphere becomes mainly made up of smog. I think it mentions that God allows the sun to scorch the people, the temperature around the world is already rising. Science says if global warming continues then what was written with the sun scorching the earth could happen.

You do realise how much of a stretch this is don't you? About a reliable claim to accuracy of prediction as the horoscope in a newspaper.

Now, I will say that it's not entirely wrong to question Evolution as a scientific theory, because that's how scientific theories grow in the first place- you adapt them based on new discoveries.

This is absolutely true. The thing is, those questions have to make sense and they have to be valid. The "questions" Creationists tend to ask are nearly always (a) based in ignorance of evolutionary theory (Stupid questions like, "If we came from chimpanzees, how come there are still chimpanzees?"), (b) based in ignorance of what evolutionary theory encompasses (Questions that would apply to other theories like, "What started the Big Bang?"), (c) "I don't understand it so it must not be true," questions, or (d) questions based in the assumption that the Bible is literally true and thus scientific evidence must be wrong.

As soon as Creationists or "Creation Scientists" or "Intelligent design proponents" whatever they want to call themselves start asking scientifically valid questions, they can play with the rest of us.

This is absolutely true. The thing is, those questions have to make sense and they have to be valid. The "questions" Creationists tend to ask are nearly always (a) based in ignorance of evolutionary theory (Stupid questions like, "If we came from chimpanzees, how come there are still chimpanzees?"), (b) based in ignorance of what evolutionary theory encompasses (Questions that would apply to other theories like, "What started the Big Bang?"), (c) "I don't understand it so it must not be true," questions, or (d) questions based in the assumption that the Bible is literally true and thus scientific evidence must be wrong.

As soon as Creationists or "Creation Scientists" or "Intelligent design proponents" whatever they want to call themselves start asking scientifically valid questions, they can play with the rest of us.
Exactly.

Every single legitimate, useful, interesting, valid criticism of evolutionary theory has come from science. Creationists just ask lame "questions" which really serve only to highlight how little they personally understand about biology and science.

Exactly.

Every single legitimate, useful, interesting, valid criticism of evolutionary theory has come from science. Creationists just ask lame "questions" which really serve only to highlight how little they personally understand about biology and science.

That probably has more than a little to do with the fact that if they actually understood the science, they wouldn't be bitching about it.

It would make a good children's book.
Oh, yeah, thanks. I can see you really see you took the time to think about it...
-_-
Anyway,
what does everyone ELSE think about it?
Like I said, just another of millions of theories, but at least I can back it up...
:p

What if you believe that God evolved and then created us? WHERE'S YOUR POLL OPTION FOR THAT!?
Hmm,
your right.
It seems everyone else has come up with everything else, why not that?
It could be true.

The irony of all this is that we are all argueing over something noone will know unti lthey die, if even then.
And yet, here we are, STILL argueing.
Morally just to argue about something or give ourselves something to do.
No matter what you say or how you say it, everyone is going to end up offendig someone.
SO, where does this GET us?
NOWHERE
:)

The irony of all this is that we are all argueing over something noone will know unti lthey die, if even then.

1) Why would it be impossible for somebody to learn the answers to the question of our origins?
2) Even if it were impossible for us to know the answers to these questions, what would be ironic about debating the possible answers?


Morally just to argue about something or give ourselves something to do.

If that's why you argue the Creationism/evolution debate, that's fine for you.

I have quite concrete, pragmatic reasons for participating in these debates.


No matter what you say or how you say it, everyone is going to end up offendig someone.

If people are offended by being informed of facts, then that's their problem. Facts don't give a shit about your personal feelings.


SO, where does this GET us?
NOWHERE

Throwing our hands up and saying "Oh, there's no point, why bother?" gets us nowhere.

Educating people, promoting scientific method and serious inquiry, and encouraging critical thinking skills and honest data acquisition methods...those are what have allowed us to enjoy all of modern medicine and modern technology. If you think that's "nowhere," then I suggest you stop using a computer. :D

I wonder if you can show me the verse where the Hebrew calls the earth a sphere?

He can't. The Hebrew mysteriously does not use any one of the words it could have used to denote a sphere, instead using the Hebrew word for "circle".

In Revelations, near the end of the world perversion and evil are common, and the sky rolls away and is replaced by blackness, God allows the sun to be blocked out. Those match the description of global warming once the atmosphere becomes mainly made up of smog. I think it mentions that God allows the sun to scorch the people, the temperature around the world is already rising. Science says if global warming continues then what was written with the sun scorching the earth could happen.

Well the sky isn't completely covered in smog. Maybe sometimes in LA, partly but never completely . Also we can reverse global warming. Mayor Bloomberg is treying to pass some bill right now One more thing the bible may be similar to some things but even priests admit that things are exagerated. Abraham and his wife weren't like 90 when they had kids. WE know thats not possible. Also Noahs Ark, we relize there couldn't be a flood that big because with only a handfull of people left we'd all be inbred. We can disprove we aren't all inbred because we have DNA that is vastly different.

If God doesn't exist how come the Bible and the Quran have scriptures that are predicint the future. The Bible predicted global warming and the decline of civilization, the Quran predicted WTC and the "War on Terror" in verse 9:11 strangely enough.
-->
Which verse in the Bible predicts global warming?

And if (For the Quran) you mean that verse about the Eagle... well...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/quran911.asp

Sorry, Urban Legend.


@South Lizasauria: i take that as a NO. :rolleyes:

Exactly.

Every single legitimate, useful, interesting, valid criticism of evolutionary theory has come from science. Creationists just ask lame "questions" which really serve only to highlight how little they personally understand about biology and science.don't forget the peanut butter

don't forget the peanut butter

And the bananas! (the other atheists' nightmare)

and shouldn't dogs be the anti-evolutionists' nightmare?

I wish that God would show ITself and then with a booming voice said " Y' know, you all don't have any meaning to me, you're just something I randomly doodled. "

That'll shut everybody up.

But then again, if IT did show up, it's probably because IT cared (that big softy).

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled
with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum:
why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

-- Sister Miriam Godwinson,
"But for the Grace of God"

[QUOTE=Ifreann;12737635]Are all the videos around 10 mins long? Cos this could take a while.


Also creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.


really???

how so?

really???

how so?

God created evolution as part of the universe's natural laws in order to develop life on Earth.

[QUOTE=Ifreann;12737635]Are all the videos around 10 mins long? Cos this could take a while.


Also creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.


really???

how so?

Because God created evolution. And it was go-oo-ood.

I wish that God would show ITself and then with a booming voice said " Y' know, you all don't have any meaning to me, you're just something I randomly doodled. "

That'll shut everybody up.

But then again, if IT did show up, it's probably because IT cared (that big softy).

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled
with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum:
why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

-- Sister Miriam Godwinson,
"But for the Grace of God"

Yep.

can a perfect god change his mind?

Just to inform you, evolution is true.
Since the Egyptians lasted more than 11,600 years, 6000 years is incorrect. Next, god cannot create living beings except if god was able to give birth. Also, humans (Modern) found proof of that. Humans evolved for some type of homo saipens, which we are homo saipens saipens (which evolved from homo netherlandias, which furthermore has been evolved by the homo hablias.)
And god did not create (or if you think Jesus) the Great Flood. And god would not create a generation of humans that follow different religions, neither more technology. And genetics are the basis of people, which god could not create.:gundge:

Since the Egyptians lasted more than 11,600 yearswtf?

btw the modern homo sapiens sapiens did not evolve from homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Yep.

can a perfect god change his mind?

I dunno, does even a perfect god had a mind altogether?

really???

how so?

It kinda depends on the flavour of creationism. One can believe that God created the universe, set up the rules and such and the pressed the cosmic GO button. But "strong" creationism(as in God created humans and animals and that as they are now around 6000 years ago and took 6 days to do it) is all kinds of mutually exclusive with evolution. With reality in general.

Just to inform you, evolution is true.
Since the Egyptians lasted more than 11,600 years, 6000 years is incorrect. Next, god cannot create living beings except if god was able to give birth. Also, humans (Modern) found proof of that. Humans evolved for some type of homo saipens, which we are homo saipens saipens (which evolved from homo netherlandias, which furthermore has been evolved by the homo hablias.)
And god did not create (or if you think Jesus) the Great Flood. And god would not create a generation of humans that follow different religions, neither more technology. And genetics are the basis of people, which god could not create.:gundge:

Er... few problem here.

First, it is unlikely that we evolved from Neanderthals. We're not terribly sure where they lie in terms of taxonomy, whether they are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or an entirely seperate species of their own.

Secondly, Homo habilis was around LONG before neanderthals, even before Homo erectus. The going idea is that Homo antecessor is the last common ancestor between Neanderthals and Sapiens , but that is conjecture.

:D

Wow...there was no bias there...

"We are going to give you a neutral view.

Attack evolutionism
Attack evolutionism
Attack evolutionism

GET ON OUR KNEES AND WORSHIP GOD BEFORE WE ALL DIE! IF YOU QUESTION THIS YOU ARE EVIL!"

Please.

[QUOTE=Utius;12747984]

Because God created evolution. And it was go-oo-ood.

Hahahaha!Haha! God! made evolution! No. He could not mutate humans once in a while, neither do it once. Humans occasionally change through its genitical experience, for example, humans. In order to cope the ice age of near 500,000 years ago, humans were nearly wiped out. However, few humans adapted into homo saipens (or homo netherlandians) to protect them from the fierce ice sheets. After that, the ice age ended, and many humans evacuated into Africa, beginning an adaption. People no longer needed to cope the cold, so they ended up using more of their brain power, instead of muscular strength to frolic freely in the cool or borial forests. Another story of evolution was the world.
:sniper:

Er... few problem here.

First, it is unlikely that we evolved from Neanderthals. We're not terribly sure where they lie in terms of taxonomy, whether they are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or an entirely seperate species of their own.

Secondly, Homo habilis was around LONG before neanderthals, even before Homo erectus. The going idea is that Homo antecessor is the last common ancestor between Neanderthals and Sapiens , but that is conjecture.

:D

And that's a lot of homos, (Lat: man, not Lat:uniform).

Er... few problem here.

First, it is unlikely that we evolved from Neanderthals. We're not terribly sure where they lie in terms of taxonomy, whether they are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or an entirely seperate species of their own.

Secondly, Homo habilis was around LONG before neanderthals, even before Homo erectus. The going idea is that Homo antecessor is the last common ancestor between Neanderthals and Sapiens , but that is conjecture.

:D

However, humans still went through a process of ice age to cope right here. Therefore evolution changes the process. We were nearly always the same until homo saipens saipens.:mp5:

And Seangoli, I know that 600,000 years ago was homo hablis evolution, 550,000 aprx. homo erectus, and so on. BUT, evolution is still genetically formed, that's what I'm arguing about!:headbang:

Since the Egyptians lasted more than 11,600 years

Where did you get 11,600 years ago, Mesopotamia (where civilization started) had it's first cities only 6,500 years ago

or mabye I just made that up, I get things confused

Where did you get 11,600 years ago, Mesopotamia (where civilization started) had it's first cities only 6,500 years ago

or mabye I just made that up, I get things confused

Jericho, in the West Bank, is approx. 10,000 years old.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

For those of you that claim evolution to be a science, I ask you to give me one empirical experiment that can prove macroevolution, then come crying about how intelligent design advocates are full of baloney.

For those of you that claim evolution to be a science, I ask you to give me one empirical experiment that can prove macroevolution.

Give me one empirical experiment that can prove gravity.

Or, on the other hand you can learn how science works before trying to argue against it. You just make yourself look stupid.

For those of you that claim evolution to be a science, I ask you to give me one empirical experiment that can prove macroevolution, then come crying about how intelligent design advocates are full of baloney.

Look at the damn fossil record! Lord and Lady, look at the progression of hominid fossils! I realize that it's your right to make an ass out of yourself in public, but really! This is a bit much!

Give me one empirical experiment that can prove gravity.

Or, on the other hand you can learn how science works before trying to argue against it. You just make yourself look stupid.

Immensely so.

NEWS FLASH: It's impossible to "prove" a theory true. It is only possible to prove a theory false, or to show that all attempts to disprove a theory have failed.

The fairy tale notion of "proving" evolution is about as ludicrous as claiming that years of application of Newtonian mechanics "proved" Newtonian mechanics. Guess what, it's wrong, or at the very fucking least DAMNED incomplete.

This is why we have such things as "General Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics"

I suggest you read on them, and I suggest you also read on exactly what "Science" is before preaching Intelligent Design to a forum full of intelligent people and expecting to be taken even remotely seriously.

However, humans still went through a process of ice age to cope right here. Therefore evolution changes the process. We were nearly always the same until homo saipens saipens.:mp5:

Er... no. Not at all. The variation among the various Homo species is massive. There are massive differences between, say, Homo habilis and Homo erectus, likely to the differences between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. To say that Homo species were largely the same up until the rise of sapiens is a gross over simplification, and is just plain wrong.

And Seangoli, I know that 600,000 years ago was homo hablis evolution, 550,000 aprx. homo erectus, and so on. BUT, evolution is still genetically formed, that's what I'm arguing about!:headbang:

Ah, however it is very important to be very specific in these cases, as generalizations and simplifications often confuse those not in the know. Simplicity, of course, is necessary to teach those that don't know the material, however over-simplification is far to confusing.

Immensely so.

NEWS FLASH: It's impossible to "prove" a theory true. It is only possible to prove a theory false, or to show that all attempts to disprove a theory have failed.

The fairy tale notion of "proving" evolution is about as ludicrous as claiming that years of application of Newtonian mechanics "proved" Newtonian mechanics. Guess what, it's wrong, or at the very fucking least DAMNED incomplete.

This is why we have such things as "General Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics"

I suggest you read on them, and I suggest you also read on exactly what "Science" is before preaching Intelligent Design to a forum full of intelligent people and expecting to be taken even remotely seriously.

However, there is a difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is fact. We see it. The mechanisms behind it, and the explanations for it, however, is an entirely different matter. As my Astronomy professor said:

Facts are useless in Science. A simplification, I know, but the point is, when you have only facts, they are useless. Instead, you use facts to produce and provide evidence for theories, which have predictable outcomes. The Theory of Evolution is testable, has been exhaustively tested, and has stood the test of time, so to speak(not to say it hasn't changed-it has, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, just that the previous explanation wasn't "complete", in a sense.)

For those of you that claim evolution to be a science, I ask you to give me one empirical experiment that can prove macroevolution, then come crying about how intelligent design advocates are full of baloney.

Well, we would expect new species to arise from isolated populations. Of course, this is difficult to observe in animals with long gestation periods, however with insects, who usually reproduce in a matter of weeks, it is observable.

That test has been done.

Guess the result?

Also, even if Evolution were not tested, as you claim, that does not prove Intelligent Design or Creationism. Instead, it would prove the Theory of Evolution wrong. Just because one explanation(Which is a tried and tested theory) is wrong does not mean another(Which has not only not been tested, but no testable hypothesis has been created) right.

lol scientists in ancient Greece with no microscopes or electricity were years ahead of the people in those videos

Yeah, they had the one piece of scientific equipment that you can't do without: an open mind.

Oh it was a long while back I came across "Peanut Butter the Athiests Nightmare" well today I finally ask this... watch all, some, or even just one evolution vs. creation video and answer the poll. Coment please.
____________________________
The links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0 (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjJr0CIQQk&mode=related&search= (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x91eYg_yG5Q&mode=related&search= (Part 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gF4tNmcBLc&mode=related&search= (Part 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-U2uI1f8mU&mode=related&search= (Part 5-especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&mode=related&search= (Part 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3JND0gND-U&mode=related&search= (Part 7-especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qjHtyKq3yc&mode=related&search= (Part 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKV2sWMEwuk&mode=related&search= (Part 9)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVzt7qH2UA&mode=related&search= (Part 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0QYPnvU5qE&mode=related&search= (Part 11)

______________________
Some bonuses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk (especially interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 (especially interesting)
_____________________
Explanaintion due to complaints: (especially interesting) = especially retarded
_____________________

All in all about an hour and 15 minutes.
_________________________________________
Jist of it due to complaints: This lady says--- evolution is false, The big Bang Theory is false, chemicals forming organisms is false , the bible is a science test book, all animals including dinosaurs lived with humans, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. ONly god can create anything. Nothing can form out of something else EVER.

Gosh, I'm convinced now. Beam me up Jesus.

My preference for science over gibberish leads me to favour evolutionary biology over creation myths.

The term "evolutionist" is ridiculous, however, as it implies that "evolution" is some kind of ideology, whereas in reality it is a process by which organisms adapt over generations.

creation myths aren't gibberish if they aren't read like news reports. myths were never supposed to be blow-by-blow factual reports of things, they express fundamental truths...calling a creation myth gibberish because it isn't factual is like saying the story of the boy who cried wolf is utter nonsense because there was never a historical boy who cried wolf...it was never meant to be taken literally in the first place.

creation myths aren't gibberish if they aren't read like news reports. myths were never supposed to be blow-by-blow factual reports of things, they express fundamental truths...calling a creation myth gibberish because it isn't factual is like saying the story of the boy who cried wolf is utter nonsense because there was never a historical boy who cried wolf...it was never meant to be taken literally in the first place.

Woah, let's not let this turn into an intelligent discussion people. I demand less insightful posts and more dogmatic foolishness.

I have a confession to make. I voted creationist because I thought it would be funny to perplex everyone. But then I saw that 10% or something were creationist. Perhaps it's black humour, but I didn't find that very funny at all :(

Please tell me some of you did the same.

For those of you that claim evolution to be a science, I ask you to give me one empirical experiment that can prove macroevolution, then come crying about how intelligent design advocates are full of baloney.
Nylon-eating bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria

Jericho, in the West Bank, is approx. 10,000 years old.as a settlement, not as a state-organized civilization

Give me one empirical experiment that can prove gravity.jump out the window :confused:

arn't chewing gum and pizza the creationist's nightmare?

and what about the endless examples of UNintelligent 'design'?

might i also point out that rocks have somewhat less incentive to decieve then humans who have prejudged what they wish to believe. so i'm sorry but i'm a bit more inclined to take the word of a chunk of rock then that of however well meaning a priest.

=^^=
.../\...

(and it takes forever to open a video stream on u-tube or anywhere else as i've only got dial up, so there's no way i've even bothered, or can immagine wanting to.)

=^^=
.../\...

This might have established that there may be a tiny majority of people who are more convinced by evolution than God Did It. More souls for the eternal bonfire.

Also, Cameroi, what's with the
=^^=?
.../\...

This might have established that there may be a tiny majority of people who are more convinced by evolution than God Did It. More souls for the eternal bonfire.

Also, Cameroi, what's with the
=^^=?
.../\...

RELIGIOUS FANATISISM IS EVIL!

creation myths aren't gibberish if they aren't read like news reports. myths were never supposed to be blow-by-blow factual reports of things, they express fundamental truths...calling a creation myth gibberish because it isn't factual is like saying the story of the boy who cried wolf is utter nonsense because there was never a historical boy who cried wolf...it was never meant to be taken literally in the first place.

Fair enough. Would you mind telling us which particular Creation Myth you accept and what fundamental truths it expresses?

RELIGIOUS FANATISISM IS EVIL!

As is taking any post on NSG seriously. EVIL.

Immensely so.

NEWS FLASH: It's impossible to "prove" a theory true. It is only possible to prove a theory false, or to show that all attempts to disprove a theory have failed.

The fairy tale notion of "proving" evolution is about as ludicrous as claiming that years of application of Newtonian mechanics "proved" Newtonian mechanics. Guess what, it's wrong, or at the very fucking least DAMNED incomplete.

This is why we have such things as "General Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics"

I suggest you read on them, and I suggest you also read on exactly what "Science" is before preaching Intelligent Design to a forum full of intelligent people and expecting to be taken even remotely seriously.

DM rocks, and rolls, all night.

It's all mopping up, after this post...

However, there is a difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is fact. We see it. The mechanisms behind it, and the explanations for it, however, is an entirely different matter. As my Astronomy professor said:

Facts are useless in Science. A simplification, I know, but the point is, when you have only facts, they are useless. Instead, you use facts to produce and provide evidence for theories, which have predictable outcomes. The Theory of Evolution is testable, has been exhaustively tested, and has stood the test of time, so to speak(not to say it hasn't changed-it has, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, just that the previous explanation wasn't "complete", in a sense.)

A 'fact' isn't necessarily true. Worth remembering.

You can say the process of evolution is a 'fact', but it's not a very accurate way of talking about it.... it would be better to refer to the evidence as a series of facts, that suggest a strongly supported mechanism.

Nitpicking, maybe... but I don't like the broad assurances people suggest when they say things like 'evolution is a fact'. Science is about not knowing, but thinking it 'might work like this'.

For those of you that claim evolution to be a science, I ask you to give me one empirical experiment that can prove macroevolution, then come crying about how intelligent design advocates are full of baloney.

It's good to start off your basis for argument from hurt and spurned feelings, eh?
Solid foundations can take a lot of whatever you pile on 'em.
...you know, emotional responses to mechanical situations... that usually works just fine.

I remember when NS was bursting with Creationists and IDiots but they're all gone now. Maybe they evolved.

I remember when NS was bursting with Creationists and IDiots but they're all gone now. Maybe they evolved.

Don't be silly. God took them to away from all us evil Devilutionists.

I remember when NS was bursting with Creationists and IDiots but they're all gone now. Maybe they evolved.

There's too many winners in this thread, but this one pretty much seals the deal.
*bows*

Don't be silly. God took them to away from all us evil Devilutionists.

They were raptured! Hallelujah!

There's too many winners in this thread, but this one pretty much seals the deal.
*bows*

YAY!!!

*flees before somebody cleverer or wittier replaces me*

I remember when NS was bursting with Creationists and IDiots but they're all gone now. Maybe they evolved.Or they are making films like the ones this thread is about :(

Immensely so.

NEWS FLASH: It's impossible to "prove" a theory true. It is only possible to prove a theory false, or to show that all attempts to disprove a theory have failed.

The fairy tale notion of "proving" evolution is about as ludicrous as claiming that years of application of Newtonian mechanics "proved" Newtonian mechanics. Guess what, it's wrong, or at the very fucking least DAMNED incomplete.

This is why we have such things as "General Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics"


I'm sorry but i'm going to have to play devils advocate here. The idea that no theory is every proven true but only opposing theories proven false is just a rumour that has been spread across the internet. All kinds of scientific communities are always trying to prove their theories true, usually by proof by exhaustion or through mathematical proof. For instance, the Big Bang theory relies on evidence of red shift, backround radiation etc... and not on attempting to disprove God (which would be impossible).

Fair enough. Would you mind telling us which particular Creation Myth you accept and what fundamental truths it expresses?

I don't know about him, but the Abrahamic creation myth expresses the fundamental truth that women are morally weaker than men and unless carefully and strictly controlled will bring themselves to ruin and deceive men into following them.
Also I'm kidding. About that being the truth anyway.

A 'fact' isn't necessarily true. Worth remembering.

You can say the process of evolution is a 'fact', but it's not a very accurate way of talking about it.... it would be better to refer to the evidence as a series of facts, that suggest a strongly supported mechanism.

Nitpicking, maybe... but I don't like the broad assurances people suggest when they say things like 'evolution is a fact'. Science is about not knowing, but thinking it 'might work like this'.

I was referring to the fact that species do infact change, and do not remain constant. Not to the Theory of Evolution itself, but the evidence used to support. Poor choice of wording, I suppose, on my part.

In other words, facts and such are used as support for theories, but theories are never fact(As they are always changing to new information and new testing-they only become more accurate with the available technology, or are proven false in a sense).

I'm sorry but i'm going to have to play devils advocate here. The idea that no theory is every proven true but only opposing theories proven false is just a rumour that has been spread across the internet. All kinds of scientific communities are always trying to prove their theories true, usually by proof by exhaustion or through mathematical proof. For instance, the Big Bang theory relies on evidence of red shift, backround radiation etc... and not on attempting to disprove God (which would be impossible).

You misunderstood. I did not mean that scientists attempt to disprove opposing theories, I meant that scientists, rather than trying to prove their theories correct, look for ways that would lead to their theories being proven false, and follow that line of research and experimentation.

In context of the Big Bang, analysis of red shift patterns and the CMBR are made in an effort to show that, if either of those don't follow the Big Bang theory's predictions, the Big Bang theory is false, or at the very least flawed.

I don't know about him, but the Abrahamic creation myth expresses the fundamental truth that women are morally weaker than men and unless carefully and strictly controlled will bring themselves to ruin and deceive men into following them.
Also I'm kidding. About that being the truth anyway.

The Greeks did it too...

>.> I'm looking at you Pandora!

The Greeks did it too...

>.> I'm looking at you Pandora!
Indeed. I was thinking the same thing as I typed it.

The Greek Creation myths, though, at least spawned a great deal of literary value. All the Abrahamics have is Paradise Lost and a few poems.

Indeed. I was thinking the same thing as I typed it.

The Greek Creation myths, though, at least spawned a great deal of literary value. All the Abrahamics have is Paradise Lost and a few poems.

True.

Originally Posted by Neo Undelia
Indeed. I was thinking the same thing as I typed it.

The Greek Creation myths, though, at least spawned a great deal of literary value. All the Abrahamics have is Paradise Lost and a few poems.

It is TRUE that the Greek myths inspired a lot of great works, but all we poor lil Creationists get is Paradise Lost and a few poems? Yeesh! Look, I'm not used to these doddering debates where a bunch of Evolutionists bash and insult Creationists as idiotic medeivalists. If all you guys have is scorn and scoffing, what kind of discussion is THAT?

All we've got is Paradise Lost? Though the Greek (and Norse) myths did play a part in much of the following, here's a list off the top of my head of other literary works which were inspired by the Judeo-Christian worldview or incorporate them to a dominant extent:

Augustine's City of God; Thomas A More's Utopia; Chaucer's the Canterbury Tales; the works of Dante; the legends of King Arthur; Edmund Spenser's the Faerie Queene; the works of Shakespeare; the works of Charles Dickens; the works of Leo Tolstoy; the works of CS Lewis; the works of JRR Tolkien; Pilgrim's Progress; Ben-Hur; Uncle Tom's Cabin; the works of George MacDonald...

And what about art? Do I really need to site all the artwork inspired by the Bible? Sure, there's a Greek influence there too, but: DaVinci, Raphael, Michelango, Donatello; moving beyond turtles: :eek:Rembrandt,

Here's where I had to look this up, because I'm not so much into art:

Peter Paul Rubens, Gustave Dore, El Greco, Albrecht Durer, Giotto, van Leyden, Titian, Van Eyck, Van Gogh, Vermeer, etc.

My source for the latter:
http://www.artbible.info

Oh, and after looking up the literary stuff, here's some more: Herman Melville's writings (including Moby Dick); JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye; Madeline L'Engle.

Should I bother listing the great music that my faith has inspired?

Come one guys. I know that a lot of Christians are jerks and/or idiots, and that perhaps some of you HATE religion. Well, I'm not a big fan of religion either, or of jerks and idiots, no matter which side of the debate they're on. But I've heard a lot of sweeping statements in this thread (which is hard to keep track of), and while you're making smug statements about how Creationists are morons, I'm studying Plato, Aristotle and Spenser.

So there! :p

It is TRUE that the Greek myths inspired a lot of great works, but all we poor lil Creationists get is Paradise Lost and a few poems? Yeesh! Look, I'm not used to these doddering debates where a bunch of Evolutionists bash and insult Creationists as idiotic medeivalists. If all you guys have is scorn and scoffing, what kind of discussion is THAT?

All we've got is Paradise Lost? Though the Greek (and Norse) myths did play a part in much of the following, here's a list off the top of my head of other literary works which were inspired by the Judeo-Christian worldview or incorporate them to a dominant extent:

Augustine's City of God; Thomas A More's Utopia; Chaucer's the Canterbury Tales; the works of Dante; the legends of King Arthur; Edmund Spenser's the Faerie Queene; the works of Shakespeare; the works of Charles Dickens; the works of Leo Tolstoy; the works of CS Lewis; the works of JRR Tolkien; Pilgrim's Progress; Ben-Hur; Uncle Tom's Cabin; the works of George MacDonald...

And what about art? Do I really need to site all the artwork inspired by the Bible? Sure, there's a Greek influence there too, but: DaVinci, Raphael, Michelango, Donatello; moving beyond turtles: :eek:Rembrandt,

Here's where I had to look this up, because I'm not so much into art:

Peter Paul Rubens, Gustave Dore, El Greco, Albrecht Durer, Giotto, van Leyden, Titian, Van Eyck, Van Gogh, Vermeer, etc.

My source for the latter:
http://www.artbible.info

Oh, and after looking up the literary stuff, here's some more: Herman Melville's writings (including Moby Dick); JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye; Madeline L'Engle.

Should I bother listing the great music that my faith has inspired?

Come one guys. I know that a lot of Christians are jerks and/or idiots, and that perhaps some of you HATE religion. Well, I'm not a big fan of religion either, or of jerks and idiots, no matter which side of the debate they're on. But I've heard a lot of sweeping statements in this thread (which is hard to keep track of), and while you're making smug statements about how Creationists are morons, I'm studying Plato, Aristotle and Spenser.

So there! :p

Yes, well. As Neo Undelia was talking about works inspired from creation myths, this may mean you want to look again at your post?

It is TRUE that the Greek myths inspired a lot of great works, but all we poor lil Creationists get is Paradise Lost and a few poems? Yeesh! Look, I'm not used to these doddering debates where a bunch of Evolutionists bash and insult Creationists as idiotic medeivalists. If all you guys have is scorn and scoffing, what kind of discussion is THAT?

To be fair, as the Creationists have failed to bring any kind of science to the discussion there isn't much else to do.

Augustine's City of God;

I'm sure you're aware that Augustine also wrote a book entitled "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" in which he argued that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally and was an analogy for the human mind. ;)

And what about art? Do I really need to site all the artwork inspired by the Bible? Sure, there's a Greek influence there too, but: DaVinci, Raphael, Michelango, Donatello; moving beyond turtles: :eek:Rembrandt,

Certainly, there've been some great works of art inspired by Christianity, although many of the artists and musicians employed by the Church at the height of its power were employed at spear-point. The architect who was charged with moving an obelisk from Egypt to the Vatican quite literally had several fast horses ready in case anything went wrong. Voltaire had to publish his greatest work, Candide, under the pretense that it'd been written in German and translated by a fictional 'Doctor Ralph'; Voltaire also made a point of living by the border so he could flee to Switzerland if the need arose. Much Christian art is dark and unpleasant, filled with pits of fire and people being martyred in nasty ways; give me Zeus and Athena any day.

But I've heard a lot of sweeping statements in this thread (which is hard to keep track of), and while you're making smug statements about how Creationists are morons, I'm studying Plato, Aristotle and Spenser.

So there! :p

Nobody's saying that Creationists are all stupid, only that they're painfully ignorant about biology.

I'm sorry but i'm going to have to play devils advocate here. The idea that no theory is every proven true but only opposing theories proven false is just a rumour that has been spread across the internet. All kinds of scientific communities are always trying to prove their theories true, usually by proof by exhaustion or through mathematical proof. For instance, the Big Bang theory relies on evidence of red shift, backround radiation etc... and not on attempting to disprove God (which would be impossible).

No, my dear, the fact that the scientific method is not used to prove anything true is the very basis of that method. We cannot prove any theory to be true by testing, because the next test can always reveal our theory to be wrong - and we must always be open to that possibility. Science has never and will never prove something to be true, because that is simply not the way it works. No matter how accepted a theory might become, the scientific method recognizes that further evidence might disprove it, causing the theory to either be modified or rejected - and that is how science progresses.

No, my dear, the fact that the scientific method is not used to prove anything true is the very basis of that method. We cannot prove any theory to be true by testing, because the next test can always reveal our theory to be wrong - and we must always be open to that possibility. Science has never and will never prove something to be true, because that is simply not the way it works. No matter how accepted a theory might become, the scientific method recognizes that further evidence might disprove it, causing the theory to either be modified or rejected - and that is how science progresses.However, there are parts in all theories that are not likely to be ever proven wrong. A theory always reflects the current understanding of certain phenomena, and in the case that this understanding is indeed accurate then the respective part of the theory is "true". The only problem with this is that there is no way of knowing whether the current understanding is accurate. Nevertheless it is possible to assign probabilities to observed phenomena based on experiences. Just take the current understanding of gravity: although it might be possible that an apple will *not* fall from a tree down to earth, it is very probable that is will. The progress of science is largely based on experience (=tested assumptions) and not just assumptions (weird ideas) as some folks would like to understand science, especially them creationists.

Nobody's saying that Creationists are all stupid, only that they're painfully ignorant about biology.

And archaeology.
And geology.
And zoology.
And astronomy.
And palaeontology.
And botany.
And anthropology.
And ornithology.

And archaeology.
And geology.
And zoology.
And astronomy.
And palaeontology.
And botany.
And anthropology.
And ornithology.And chemistry.
And physics.

And above all: history.

Nobody's saying that Creationists are all stupid, only that they're willfully ignorant about biology.

Corrected and reposted.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg (www.xkcd.com)

XKCD>Creationism

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg (www.xkcd.com)

XKCD>Creationismhow can you reply to someone before he posted?

how can you reply to someone before he posted?

One of the many wonders of the Jolt servers - ie a time warp.

Either that or Ifreann is temporarily The One.

how can you reply to someone before he posted?

I'm The One.

I'm The One.
A number one, maybe.

¬_¬

However, there are parts in all theories that are not likely to be ever proven wrong. A theory always reflects the current understanding of certain phenomena, and in the case that this understanding is indeed accurate then the respective part of the theory is "true". The only problem with this is that there is no way of knowing whether the current understanding is accurate. Nevertheless it is possible to assign probabilities to observed phenomena based on experiences. Just take the current understanding of gravity: although it might be possible that an apple will *not* fall from a tree down to earth, it is very probable that is will. The progress of science is largely based on experience (=tested assumptions) and not just assumptions (weird ideas) as some folks would like to understand science, especially them creationists.

Indeed. Testing is a huge part of scientific progress, and an idea is not generally called a "theory" until quite a bit of testing has been done. Most of our tests do not disprove theories, and thus they are said to be supported. My point was simply that none of these theories are (or can be, through the scientific method) proven true.

jump out the window :confused:

Nope. All that proves is that you fall. Doesn't prove gravity.

To be more specific, it proves in that one case you fell. It doesn't prove that you'll fall in general.

ummm


Isn't this the *counts*


I can't count how many Creationist vs Evolutionists threads that has been here on NSG....

And archaeology.
And geology.
And zoology.
And astronomy.
And palaeontology.
And botany.
And anthropology.
And ornithology.

And all of these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science)

I'm The One.

A number one, maybe.

¬_¬

On a scale of 10. *runs away*:D

how can you reply to someone before he posted?

God. That same trickster that likes to seed evidence of doubt so those pesky scientists and logic-minded people make the path of "truth" and faith so much more dire ...
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

Nope. All that proves is that you fall. Doesn't prove gravity.

To be more specific, it proves in that one case you fell. It doesn't prove that you'll fall in general.Oh that's funny. So far all the folks who jumped out of windows have fallen downwards. In generally every case. And it is quite a strong hint at the existence of gravity. In fact it is pretty obvious that it exists (empirical evidence is evidence after all; every time you test it, it's there), only the question about the properties of gravity is a little more difficult to answer.

ummm


Isn't this the *counts*


I can't count how many Creationist vs Evolutionists threads that has been here on NSG....It seems to be an issue that upsets people.

For those of you that claim evolution to be a science, I ask you to give me one empirical experiment that can prove macroevolution, then come crying about how intelligent design advocates are full of baloney.

Give me one empirical experiment that can prove Creationism. It works both ways.

However, there are parts in all theories that are not likely to be ever proven wrong. A theory always reflects the current understanding of certain phenomena, and in the case that this understanding is indeed accurate then the respective part of the theory is "true". The only problem with this is that there is no way of knowing whether the current understanding is accurate. Nevertheless it is possible to assign probabilities to observed phenomena based on experiences. Just take the current understanding of gravity: although it might be possible that an apple will *not* fall from a tree down to earth, it is very probable that is will. The progress of science is largely based on experience (=tested assumptions) and not just assumptions (weird ideas) as some folks would like to understand science, especially them creationists.

What you're describing there is a law not a theory. A theory is a supposition- based on experiments- that has gained some acceptance in the scientific world but has yet to gain overwhelming acceptance. However, once it *is* overwhelmingly accepted- by repeated successful experiments spanning history- then a theory becomes a law. Gravity, thus, is a law- we've proven time and again that the Earth pulls things to the ground because a force we've named "gravity". Now, *how* that process works is still a theory- the most widely accepted theory is Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which posits space-time whirlpools ("gravity wells") where the object being pulled to another is going down to- but so far no theory on the process of gravity have been proven as well as the idea that we're all being pulled down by the Earth. If the processes *do* get proven repeatedly and overwhelmingly in the coming decades and centuries, then it can become a law- until then it's just a theory.

Now, to tie this to Evolution- it's a theory simply because there's too many parts of it that remain "unproven" (like, for example, macroevolution- the fossils are a great start but they don't say *how* it happened, and frankly it's a long process to observe), but since it's the best explanation we have in science for how we got to where we are, we use it. However, it'll remain a theory until the flaws are sorted out the best that they can.

Give me one empirical experiment that can prove Creationism. It works both ways.



What you're describing there is a law not a theory. A theory is a supposition- based on experiments- that has gained some acceptance in the scientific world but has yet to gain overwhelming acceptance. However, once it *is* overwhelmingly accepted- by repeated successful experiments spanning history- then a theory becomes a law. Gravity, thus, is a law- we've proven time and again that the Earth pulls things to the ground because a force we've named "gravity". Now, *how* that process works is still a theory- the most widely accepted theory is Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which posits space-time whirlpools ("gravity wells") where the object being pulled to another is going down to- but so far no theory on the process of gravity have been proven as well as the idea that we're all being pulled down by the Earth. If the processes *do* get proven repeatedly and overwhelmingly in the coming decades and centuries, then it can become a law- until then it's just a theory.

Now, to tie this to Evolution- it's a theory simply because there's too many parts of it that remain "unproven" (like, for example, macroevolution- the fossils are a great start but they don't say *how* it happened, and frankly it's a long process to observe), but since it's the best explanation we have in science for how we got to where we are, we use it. However, it'll remain a theory until the flaws are sorted out the best that they can.

Er... no. Laws are archaic, and have no function in today's science.

Also, Gravity is not a law. Nor a force. Instead, depending on the theory, it is an effect, more or less. For all intensive purposes it acts like a force, but in certain circumstances, it doesn't.

Theories state:

"If I do this, this should happen."

Laws would state:

"This is true."

Now, we have found that in current science... nothing "always" is true. Just usually.

As well, Theories make predictions, laws are statements of fact. There is a difference.

Er... no. Laws are archaic, and have no function in today's science.

Also, Gravity is not a law. Nor a force. Instead, depending on the theory, it is an effect, more or less. For all intensive purposes it acts like a force, but in certain circumstances, it doesn't.

Theories state:

"If I do this, this should happen."

Laws would state:

"This happens. Period. End of story."

Now, we have found that in current science... nothing "always" happens.

Thanks for clarifying. My degree is in History, not science, so I probably have some of the greater details wrong.

In modern science Laws are basically descriptions of a relationship in nature. They're commonly given the name of the scientist who came up with them, like Newton's laws of gravity. They're not even accurate, they can be wrong, they just need to be useful.

Theories are much more diverse and useful. They represent the current scientific understanding. They explain and link related phenomenon together.

Evolution is an observed fact. The theory of evolution is our best explanation for this.

And btw, humanity has got pretty damn good at science over the years. The modern ToE is the work of tens of thousands of scientists over a hundred or so years. We can be pretty damn certain it's essentially correct.

Gravity cannot be proven. You can just as easily say that god simply wills that things be closer to the ground whenever possible, or that the electro-magnetic field of earth causes air between the center of the earth and an object to disappear, creating a vacuum in which things are drawn towards the center.

All we can do is observe that things fall. We don't know why they fall, and we don't really understand how gravity works. We just kind of assume it's there and work around that, but if we happen to, one day, find an experiment that somehow allows us to find that there are invisible gnomes attached to everyone and everything that have the power to hurl us towards the ground, then the theory of gravity will be changed.

Science is good.

Gravity cannot be proven. You can just as easily say that god simply wills that things be closer to the ground whenever possible, or that the electro-magnetic field of earth causes air between the center of the earth and an object to disappear, creating a vacuum in which things are drawn towards the center.

All we can do is observe that things fall. We don't know why they fall, and we don't really understand how gravity works. We just kind of assume it's there and work around that, but if we happen to, one day, find an experiment that somehow allows us to find that there are invisible gnomes attached to everyone and everything that have the power to hurl us towards the ground, then the theory of gravity will be changed.

Science is good.We do understand pretty well how gravity works. All we don't know is what gravity is.

And archaeology.
And geology.
And zoology.
And astronomy.
And palaeontology.
And botany.
And anthropology.
And ornithology.

And chemistry.
And physics.

And above all: history.

Corrected and reposted.

And all of these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science)

Would it be easier if we just said:

"Nobody's saying that Creationists are all stupid, only that they're willfully ignorant about reality"?

We do understand pretty well how gravity works. All we don't know is what gravity is.

I think you have that backwards. We know that gravity is the thing keeping us from floating upwards, and the thing that screws us over at certain heights.

How it works? We have no fucking clue. Why do large bodies of mass have more gravity than small bodies of mass? Why do they have any gravity at all? How does gravity work? Does it work at a molecular level? Atomic level? Subatomic? Are there waves of radiation and that's how it affects us?

We have no idea.

Would it be easier if we just said:

"Nobody's saying that Creationists are all stupid, only that they're willfully ignorant about reality"?

Not nearly as fun. Or insulting.

I think you have that backwards. We know that gravity is the thing keeping us from floating upwards, and the thing that screws us over at certain heights.

How it works? We have no fucking clue. Why do large bodies of mass have more gravity than small bodies of mass? Why do they have any gravity at all? How does gravity work? Does it work at a molecular level? Atomic level? Subatomic? Are there waves of radiation and that's how it affects us?

We have no idea.

It's not gravity, it's Intelligent Pushing. An Intelligent Pusher is keeping us from falling off the earth.

Would it be easier if we just said:

"Nobody's saying that Creationists are all stupid, only that they're willfully ignorant about reality"?

Much easier, but a bit too general for my liking. It also poses the question: At what point does willful ignorance on a wide variety of issues (plus the determination to parade that ignorance in public) become stupidity?

Much easier, but a bit too general for my liking. It also poses the question: At what point does willful ignorance on a wide variety of issues (plus the determination to parade that ignorance in public) become stupidity?

When several billion years become a week, and an omnipotent deity needs a day off.

Much easier, but a bit too general for my liking. It also poses the question: At what point does willful ignorance on a wide variety of issues (plus the determination to parade that ignorance in public) become stupidity?when knowledge is discarded in favor of belief.

When several billion years become a week, and an omnipotent deity needs a day off.

DM just hit the nail on the godcock.

And chemistry.
And physics.

And above all: history.

Ah, but advocates of evolution are just as ignorant of history...There was no Earth before man.

Ah, but advocates of evolution are just as ignorant of history...There was no Earth before man.

*raises eyebrow*
I seem to be missing some important metaphysical concept here, since neither genesis nor the theory of evolution seem to support that claim.

Care to clarify ?

Ah, but advocates of evolution are just as ignorant of history...There was no Earth before man.

Actually you're wrong. Even going by Das Book, earth was around for a few days before man popped into existence out of god's Big Puddle of Moxiousness.

Ah, but advocates of evolution are just as ignorant of history...There was no Earth before man.

How about we each choose one text that the other person CAN'T use... and we'll see who better supports their argument?

I say... you can't use... hmmm - how about The Bible?

Now, let's see what else you got.

How about we each choose one text that the other person CAN'T use... and we'll see who better supports their argument?

I say... you can't use... hmmm - how about The Bible?

Now, let's see what else you got.

Oooh, I know the answer to this one! What Pastor Jimmibob said the other day when they were sharing a beer after church.

*raises eyebrow*
I seem to be missing some important metaphysical concept here, since neither genesis nor the theory of evolution seem to support that claim.

Care to clarify ?

Jaguar Paw phrased it best in Apocalypto:

"My father hunted these forests before me, and his father before him." We hunt these forests, as our fathers have done, and their fathers, and our grandfathers many times removed. No history exists beyond that of man and Earth together.

Man and Earth are one--neither can exist without the other.

EDIT: You seem to be the only one intelligent enough to realize that this is not something supported by the Bible.

How about we each choose one text that the other person CAN'T use... and we'll see who better supports their argument?

I say... you can't use... hmmm - how about The Bible?

Now, let's see what else you got.

Okay.

Ah yes, my statement still stands.

Actually you're wrong. Even going by Das Book, earth was around for a few days before man popped into existence out of god's Big Puddle of Moxiousness.

Actually, no, I'm quite right. Earth did not exist before man; and man not before Earth.

Jaguar Paw phrased it best in Apocalypto:

"My father hunted these forests before me, and his father before him." We hunt these forests, as our fathers have done, and their fathers, and our grandfathers many times removed. No history exists beyond that of man and Earth together.

Man and Earth are one--neither can exist without the other.

Your quote merely states that there was no history before men. If one defines history as what humans experienced that makes perfect sense.
It does however not mean that nothing existed before that - just that there were no humans to experience it. Or name it "Earth".

Okay.

Ah yes, my statement still stands.

You appear to misunderstand the basic premise of debate. We'll be requiring evidence, and the evidence needs to be extraordinary, if the claim is extraordinary.

You made the first outlandish claim, let's see you support it?

Actually, no, I'm quite right. Earth did not exist before man; and man not before Earth.

Earth existed before man... it just didn't have a name.

Edit: In fact - it MIGHT have had a name, really... we just don't know it...

Your quote merely states that there was no history before men. If one defines history as what humans experienced that makes perfects sense.
It does however no meant that nothing existed before that - just that there were no humans to experience it. Or name it "Earth".

Perhaps. But you do not account for the possibility the universe is a balance of all things...an Earth without Man did not exist, as the separate appearance of man would create an imbalance in the proper order of nature.

Earth existed before man... it just didn't have a name.

And man definately existed before the name "Earth". Not all cultures call it "Terra" after all.

Perhaps. But you do not account for the possibility the universe is a balance of all things...an Earth without Man did not exist, as the separate appearance of man would create an imbalance in the proper order of nature.

You claim that humans aren't an imbalance ?

Perhaps. But you do not account for the possibility the universe is a balance of all things...an Earth without Man did not exist, as the separate appearance of man would create an imbalance in the proper order of nature.

You don't account for the possibility that the universe is nothing more than the hallucination of a rabbit.

Earth existed before man... it just didn't have a name.

Edit: In fact - it MIGHT have had a name, really... we just don't know it...

And there was a whistling in the wind, a voice that harkened us back to a time when the Earth was whole and young, before the time of our ancestors' ancestors, when the wind danced wildly over the earth unfettered by our tallest buildings and our windmills. And as we craned our ears to hear this voice in the willowing wind, we almost heard the word it spoke, that ancient name of the land and the sea, known among all the animals and the plants of the world. We would later swear that the voice seemed to say, simply, "Mother."

The Bourgeosie Elite makes baby Jehovah cry.

And man definately existed before the name "Earth". Not all cultures call it "Terra" after all.

That one amused me... it suggests an alternative that centres around people floating in the ether like cosmically-spilled jelly babies...

Ah, but advocates of evolution are just as ignorant of history...There was no Earth before man.??

You appear to misunderstand the basic premise of debate. We'll be requiring evidence, and the evidence needs to be extraordinary, if the claim is extraordinary.

You made the first outlandish claim, let's see you support it?

Forget everything you've been taught for a moment. Go outside to a park, a forest, some place of nature. If you relax, and focus on the senses, you will notice something not taught, because what we are taught is that we are separate from nature. You are part of something...you feel a tingling, a sensation that is really not able to be described because it is only experienced. You observe with your eyes, your hands, your nose, your tongue if you wish. There is no medium of observation--it is a firsthand, personal account, and you feel a part of what is happening, what is. Nothing in this observation says that you are an age, much less that Earth is an age. It does not seek to figure out why you are here or where you are, but only what you are. There is no beginning and no end except what you experience. And in this observation, this experience, this feast of senses, you realize that everything exists together--so long as there has been life, there has been death, as long as air, water; as long as sound, ears; as long as Earth, Man. This is my evidence, and it is greater than any other because it does not rely on a medium to relay information, it does not rely on stories passed down for generation, it does not rely on science or faith but only on your unhindered observation.

And man definately existed before the name "Earth". Not all cultures call it "Terra" after all.

What's in a name? It is only a place-marker for an existence, a place, and event, a experience in time.

You don't account for the possibility that the universe is nothing more than the hallucination of a rabbit.

That actually clears up a lot for me.

The Bourgeosie Elite makes baby Jehovah cry.

My humblest apologies.

And there was a whistling in the wind, a voice that harkened us back to a time when the Earth was whole and young, before the time of our ancestors' ancestors, when the wind danced wildly over the earth unfettered by our tallest buildings and our windmills. And as we craned our ears to hear this voice in the willowing wind, we almost heard the word it spoke, that ancient name of the land and the sea, known among all the animals and the plants of the world. We would later swear that the voice seemed to say, simply, "Mother."

Works for me. :)

That one amused me... it suggests an alternative that centres around people floating in the ether like cosmically-spilled jelly babies...

Then you are a fool.

Forget everything you've been taught for a moment--

That's where I stopped listening.

Forget everything you've been taught for a moment. Go outside to a park, a forest, some place of nature. If you relax, and focus on the senses, you will notice something not taught, because what we are taught is that we are separate from nature. You are part of something...you feel a tingling, a sensation that is really not able to be described because it is only experienced. You observe with your eyes, your hands, your nose, your tongue if you wish. There is no medium of observation--it is a firsthand, personal account, and you feel a part of what is happening, what is. Nothing in this observation says that you are an age, much less that Earth is an age. It does not seek to figure out why you are here or where you are, but only what you are. There is no beginning and no end except what you experience. And in this observation, this experience, this feast of senses, you realize that everything exists together--so long as there has been life, there has been death, as long as air, water; as long as sound, ears; as long as Earth, Man. This is my evidence, and it is greater than any other because it does not rely on a medium to relay information, it does not rely on stories passed down for generation, it does not rely on science or faith but only on your unhindered observation.

I agree. There is an epiphany in what you describe. Our truest EXPERIENCE can only ever be that - an experience. It can't be taught, found or translated.

However, while I agree with your perception on the subjective nature of our interaction with the infinite... that doesn't alter the facts of when the universe was created, or when all this will end.

Living in the moment is not an escape from eternity, just an escape from contemplating it.

Works for me. :)

Why thank you. People rarely ever comment on those blurbs I put in there.

Then you are a fool.

This is unimaginably amusing, coming from you.

That's where I stopped listening.

Case in point.

Then you are a fool.

This would be an ad hominem attack.

I notice you bring nothing to the table to support it, either... ah well, my hopes weren't high.

That's where I stopped listening.

You shouldn't have. There is actually something worthwhile in what was said. It comes close to the circle of life that some Native Americans describe... a sort of chthonic symbiosis. I like the idea.

Not really relevent to the thread, but an interesting read, none-the-less.

Why thank you. People rarely ever comment on those blurbs I put in there.


It's that kind of insight that has you on my 'to watch' list. :)

You shouldn't have. There is actually something worthwhile in what was said. It comes close to the circle of life that some Native Americans describe... a sort of chthonic symbiosis. I like the idea.

Not really relevent to the thread, but an interesting read, none-the-less.

I tend to get distracted and confused easily at certain times. Now is one of those times.

I didn't want my mind to get off-topic and start thinking about squirrels.


... Squirrels are cute... they don't actually walk, they hop everywhere...

It's that kind of insight that has you on my 'to watch' list. :)

*bows* Much obliged. It's this kind of positive reinforcement that makes me think I may actually get something published eventually.

I tend to get distracted and confused easily at certain times. Now is one of those times.

I didn't want my mind to get off-topic and start thinking about squirrels.


... Squirrels are cute... they don't actually walk, they hop everywhere...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

Yes, I posted this before. Yes, I just like it ;)

*bows* Much obliged. It's this kind of positive reinforcement that makes me think I may actually get something published eventually.

*tackles the puppetmaster*

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

Yes, I posted this before. Yes, I just like it ;)

I <3 XKCD

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

Yes, I posted this before. Yes, I just like it ;)

Oh god, it fits so well...


What the hell is that from, I must have more.

What the hell is that from, I must have more.

http://xkcd.com

*tackles the puppetmaster*

:) Are you implying I have my hand up my characters' rears?

:) Are you implying I have my hand up my characters' rears?

Implying would suggest that I wasn't entirely sure that you did. =)

http://xkcd.com

Broken link?

Broken link?

It works perfectly for me.. and the website owner seems to dislike a www. prefix...

*bows* Much obliged. It's this kind of positive reinforcement that makes me think I may actually get something published eventually.

I just call it like I see it. Give me a mention in your foreword, and I'll give you a mention in mine. :)

I just call it like I see it. Give me a mention in your foreword, and I'll give you a mention in mine. :)

Sounds like a plan! :)

Implying would suggest that I wasn't entirely sure that you did. =)

Touche.

Forget everything you've been taught for a moment. Go outside to a park, a forest, some place of nature. If you relax, and focus on the senses, you will notice something not taught, because what we are taught is that we are separate from nature. You are part of something...you feel a tingling, a sensation that is really not able to be described because it is only experienced. You observe with your eyes, your hands, your nose, your tongue if you wish. There is no medium of observation--it is a firsthand, personal account, and you feel a part of what is happening, what is. Nothing in this observation says that you are an age, much less that Earth is an age. It does not seek to figure out why you are here or where you are, but only what you are. There is no beginning and no end except what you experience. And in this observation, this experience, this feast of senses, you realize that everything exists together--so long as there has been life, there has been death, as long as air, water; as long as sound, ears; as long as Earth, Man. This is my evidence, and it is greater than any other because it does not rely on a medium to relay information, it does not rely on stories passed down for generation, it does not rely on science or faith but only on your unhindered observation.That is your evidence for what?

There's some flaws in evolution... and for me, the most disturbing is :

If evolution is true, why haven't the stupid and the ignorant perished yet?

Seems more and more of them pops up everyday :).

There's some flaws in evolution... and for me, the most disturbing is :

If evolution is true, why haven't the stupid and the ignorant perished yet?

Seems more and more of them pops up everyday :).

They're proof that sometimes, evolution works in reverse.

They're proof that sometimes, evolution works in reverse.

We're devolving into trogdolytes!!!

"Nobody's saying that Creationists are all stupid, only that they're willfully ignorant about reality"?
+
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Oh noes!

When several billion years become a week, and an omnipotent deity needs a day off.

Omnifatigue?

*ponders*
...

Not nearly as fun. Or insulting.

Both, always both.
*nods*

It's not gravity, it's Intelligent Pushing. An Intelligent Pusher is keeping us from falling off the earth.

Ayup, in cahoots ...

http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksucker.html
+
http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksuck.txt

DM just hit the nail on the godcock.

God has a prince albert?
o.0
*link withheld for reasons of inspiring imagination*
Ah ... so that was ECSTASY for Jeshua on the crucifix, then?

Mmmm.
:fluffle:

As if imagination weren't enough for a thread about creationism, how 'bouts this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apadravya

There's some flaws in evolution... and for me, the most disturbing is :

If evolution is true, why haven't the stupid and the ignorant perished yet?

Seems more and more of them pops up everyday :).

Because smart people use birth control.

Somehow I think the historians would have noticed if the dinosaurs were walking around at the time of the Roman Empire.

Jaguar Paw phrased it best in Apocalypto:

"My father hunted these forests before me, and his father before him." We hunt these forests, as our fathers have done, and their fathers, and our grandfathers many times removed. No history exists beyond that of man and Earth together.
Ooh, that reminds me 'bout something else regarding Gibson and that flick.

Due to the yelling, Gibson said, "I can't understand what you're saying."

Security personnel began pushing the speaker and turned off Perez's microphone. Gibson said to let them talk, and the microphone was turned back on.

"I'm not offending you. I'm treating you with respect," Estrada said.

Gibson responded with liberal use of the f-word. Audience members clapped and cheered, one even turning to Estrada and clapping in her face.

President of the Central American United Students Association Josue Guajan came to the event because he is a CTVA student.

"I thought there would be conflict but I did not expect this disrespect to Professor Estrada," Guajan said.

Estrada said the film is blatantly racist, but Gibson responded by saying, "I don't think it's racist at all, and I resent you saying that it is."

Estrada and Perez were escorted out, but not before Gibson said, "I think you're a fucking troublemaker, so fuck off."
http://media.sundial.csun.edu/media/storage/paper862/news/2007/05/21/News/Mel-Gibson.Lashes.Out.During.apocalypto.Screening-2905399.shtml
:p

And there was a whistling in the wind, a voice that harkened us back to a time when the Earth was whole and young, before the time of our ancestors' ancestors, when the wind danced wildly over the earth unfettered by our tallest buildings and our windmills. And as we craned our ears to hear this voice in the willowing wind, we almost heard the word it spoke, that ancient name of the land and the sea, known among all the animals and the plants of the world. We would later swear that the voice seemed to say, simply, "Mother."
Mother, do you think they'll try to break ... my balls?

Somehow I think the historians would have noticed if the dinosaurs were walking around at the time of the Roman Empire.That's what The Dark Ages were for ... to cover up the evidence.
Gotta hit the catacombs of the Vatican for more.

Mother, do you think they'll try to break ... my balls?

I would. If only for the mental image of Jeebus with a prince albert.

Because smart people use birth control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

Ow, my balls!

*bows* Much obliged. It's this kind of positive reinforcement that makes me think I may actually get something published eventually.

I'd read it.
Heck, i might even PAY you for it! :p


BTW - Grave rocks. No "idle" praise.

I would. If only for the mental image of Jeebus with a prince albert.

Ow, my .... ah, well. All is good.

I personally wouldn't have much of a problem with Jeebus/Mithra/Horus having a fetish for the pricklytickly.

:) Are you implying I have my hand up my characters' rears?
I'm sure someone here can hook you up.
*nods*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

Ow, my balls!

HA! I have got to check that out.

I'd read it.
Heck, i might even PAY you for it! :p


BTW - Grave rocks. No "idle" praise.

Thanks :)

I'm sure someone here can hook you up.
*nods*

There's a disturbing thought.

Thanks. :)
I've penned a bit m'self. Problem is i'm too much the "editor". :)

There's a disturbing thought.I didn't mean specifically me, but my schedule isn't always full. I've pimped before.

I've penned a bit m'self. Problem is i'm too much the "editor". :)

Oh I know wholeheartedly what you're talking about. And it leads to a much slower writing pace and far too many scrapped projects. But when it finally does come out, it's the best work you could've done on it. That's what I'm aiming for.

I didn't mean specifically me, but my schedule isn't always full. I've pimped before.

Eh...<.< >.> I'll pass...

Oh I know wholeheartedly what you're talking about. And it leads to a much slower writing pace and far too many scrapped projects. But when it finally does come out, it's the best work you could've done on it. That's what I'm aiming for.
I usually end up revisiting the ideas after i start to forget them, and i've done more research and had new perspectives on the ideas. You know ...
kinda like songwriting.


Eh...<.< >.> I'll pass...Well, ya never know.
Ruffy's got my card.
So does Corny .... but he's a "special" case. :)

Forget everything you've been taught for a moment. Go outside to a park, a forest, some place of nature. If you relax, and focus on the senses, you will notice something not taught, because what we are taught is that we are separate from nature. You are part of something...you feel a tingling, a sensation that is really not able to be described because it is only experienced. You observe with your eyes, your hands, your nose, your tongue if you wish. There is no medium of observation--it is a firsthand, personal account, and you feel a part of what is happening, what is. Nothing in this observation says that you are an age, much less that Earth is an age. It does not seek to figure out why you are here or where you are, but only what you are. There is no beginning and no end except what you experience. And in this observation, this experience, this feast of senses, you realize that everything exists together--so long as there has been life, there has been death, as long as air, water; as long as sound, ears; as long as Earth, Man. This is my evidence, and it is greater than any other because it does not rely on a medium to relay information, it does not rely on stories passed down for generation, it does not rely on science or faith but only on your unhindered observation.
ARGUMENT FROM WOW

1. When I look into the sky and see all the pretty stars, all those galaxies...
2. Wow.
3. Therefore, God/gods/spirits/magic exists.

[some weekend hippy type stuff about how some pseudo mystical experience constitutes evidence about the nature of reality]

Look at the diagram:
http://intepid.com/2005-04-27/12.25/

Keep looking. Maybe you will catch on.

LAST TIME, ON CREATIONISMBALL Z, GOKU HAD JUST FINISHED CREATING THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS, BUT HAD SPENT ALL HIS ENERGY. CAN KRILLIN AND GOHAN HOLD OUT UNTIL HE RECOVERS ON THE SEVENTH DAY!?

LAST TIME, ON CREATIONISMBALL Z, GOKU HAD JUST FINISHED CREATING THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS, BUT HAD SPENT ALL HIS ENERGY. CAN KRILLIN AND GOHAN HOLD OUT UNTIL HE RECOVERS ON THE SEVENTH DAY!?

:fluffle::fluffle:

Jaguar Paw phrased it best in Apocalypto:

"My father hunted these forests before me, and his father before him." We hunt these forests, as our fathers have done, and their fathers, and our grandfathers many times removed. No history exists beyond that of man and Earth together.

Man and Earth are one--neither can exist without the other.

EDIT: You seem to be the only one intelligent enough to realize that this is not something supported by the Bible.

Actually George Carlin said it best. It was something to this effect. You think we're damaging the Earth??Litering?Like puttig plastic in the ground is sooo bad.We've only been here 10,000 years, only 200 of which we've been engaged in heavy industry. The Earth has been through plenty without us:earthquakes,volcanoes,the ice age!!!! Maybe thats why we're here!!The earth didn't know how to make plastic! It wanted plastic. So when we're gone the earth will start a new phase,the earth + plastic
_________________________________

The earth doesn't need us. We need it.
________________________________

I FOUND THE SKIT --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IET1uKHPqc8&NR=1

:fluffle::fluffle:

Us nerds gotta fluffle together.

:fluffle:

Forget everything you've been taught for a moment. Go outside to a park, a forest, some place of nature. If you relax, and focus on the senses, you will notice something not taught, because what we are taught is that we are separate from nature. You are part of something...you feel a tingling, a sensation that is really not able to be described because it is only experienced. You observe with your eyes, your hands, your nose, your tongue if you wish. There is no medium of observation--it is a firsthand, personal account, and you feel a part of what is happening, what is. Nothing in this observation says that you are an age, much less that Earth is an age. It does not seek to figure out why you are here or where you are, but only what you are. There is no beginning and no end except what you experience. And in this observation, this experience, this feast of senses, you realize that everything exists together--so long as there has been life, there has been death, as long as air, water; as long as sound, ears; as long as Earth, Man. This is my evidence, and it is greater than any other because it does not rely on a medium to relay information, it does not rely on stories passed down for generation, it does not rely on science or faith but only on your unhindered observation.

Did that. Conclusion: Earth is older than man. Way, way older.

Did that. Conclusion: Earth is older than man. Way, way older.five 'yom' ? :p

Also creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Quite so. In fact, anybody that holds that god (deliberately small G to allow for any god) had anything to do the universe being here is a creationist, in one form or another. The naturalists (those who are committed to using only natural forces to explain the origins) are probably a tiny minority, even among scientists.

I'm a creationist. I believe God did it. But how he did it is something I'm willing to learn. Every person should be willing to follow the truth wherever he or she finds it, to go wherever it leads. Whether God used evolution or creation or both is something worth investigating. So far, there isn't anything I have read in any science journal that convinces me that God didn't create the world six thousand years ago. At the same time, my belief in God does not require me to believe that he created the world six thousand years ago. Regarding that issue, I'm quite interested, but neutral.

What puzzles me, however, is that the evolutionary story can be so widely held as fact, and yet totally fail to convince me. And the more I read about it, the less impressed I am by it. The theory just doesn't fit with the evidence but has to be supported with endless speculations. For example, the genetic mutation rate in humans is hugely higher than was predicted, based on evolutionary assumptions. In fact, it fits far better, currently, with a human race of less than ten thousand years in age. That leaves many people claiming that there must be something that we have missed. I have head people defend evolutionary theory by claiming that it isn't a perfect theory, just the best one to date. But I'm have to say that it would only be the best one under a given set of assumptions. These assumptions are philosophical, and ones that I do not agree with anyway, e.g., that every explanation that science invokes must be restricted to natural causes. For when I look at nature, the idea that lots of tiny undirected changes of long periods of time can account for every variation is absolutely preposterous. And the closer I look at nature, the less likely this proposal seems to be.

There are some forms of evolution that I don't disagree with. These would be the forms that we can observe, document, and explain in terms of molecular interactions. However, the extrapolation of this form of evolution to account for the evolution of man from microbes is totally theoretical and finds sketchy support at best in disputable fossil forms and genetic similarities. In fact, every one of the major evidences used to support evolutionary theory is rather questionable. Why, then are there calls for the theory of evolution to be taught as fact? I suspect that it has more to do with conviction of belief rather than confidence in the evidence. Either that, or there is something huge missing in my basic comprehension of science literature.

Its not that I'm against science. Rather, I am very much for it. But I wonder what science would look like were it not so dominated by the evolutionary theory. I am almost convinced that much of evolutionary theory is a waste of time. Some of it has been useful, perhaps, but most of it appears to be speculation, with which there is no way of falsifying--exactly what the creationists get criticised with.

For example, the genetic mutation rate in humans is hugely higher than was predicted, based on evolutionary assumptions. In fact, it fits far better, currently, with a human race of less than ten thousand years in age.

Reallllly ? Care to show some references/evidence for that ?

Reallllly ? Care to show some references/evidence for that ?

Not to mention the neglect of external non-supernatural factors. Higher incidence of radiation exposure, higher genetic diversity and higher breeding over wide genetic diversities, just to name a few.

These assumptions are philosophical, and ones that I do not agree with anyway, e.g., that every explanation that science invokes must be restricted to natural causes. For when I look at nature, the idea that lots of tiny undirected changes of long periods of time can account for every variation is absolutely preposterous. And the closer I look at nature, the less likely this proposal seems to be.



Get real - science allowing supernatural explanations is ridiculous. "Why do objects fall - that would be the pixies".

My explaination for this is that it has been proven that there is a positive correlation between atheism and intelligence.
Since I assume you are intelligent, this graph is explained perfectly.
:)
I'm guessing the result will either be a flood of reproically altruistic endorsement (my nation's name is my username) or I may have to fight the creationists from my door. :sniper:
:(

Hopefully the eAc will protect me.

Reallllly ? Care to show some references/evidence for that ?

The first link was an article that put me on to this.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html

This guy is a creationist. But his analysis of the literature can be followed. http://naturalselection.0catch.com/index.html


However, a peer reviewed link is here
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

They think that there are 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Other people are publishing rates about 10 times less. However, this is still much higher than expected as shown by the statement ''This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common.''

Get real - science allowing supernatural explanations is ridiculous. "Why do objects fall - that would be the pixies".

I am not claiming that we ought in invoke 'supernatural' explanations when there are perfectly good natural ones. Nor am I suggesting that we simply put God in the gaps. What I am saying is that when we understand that the natural causes that we do know about are never going to account for something, should we be forced to make those natural explanations fit, no matter how ridiculous they seem? That would only lead away from the truth, wouldn't it?

I am not claiming that we ought in invoke 'supernatural' explanations when there are perfectly good natural ones. Nor am I suggesting that we simply put God in the gaps. What I am saying is that when we understand that the natural causes that we do know about are never going to account for something, should we be forced to make those natural explanations fit, no matter how ridiculous they seem? That would only lead away from the truth, wouldn't it?

This doesn't even make sense. How are we going to understand that natural causes are never going to account for something?

Reallllly ? Care to show some references/evidence for that ?
Doesn't matter. He's making the bunk claim that surprise and science are incompatible. Sure, scientists sometimes predict one thing and then observe another...that's part of science, and doesn't remotely suggest that science is bad or insufficient to analyze the new observations.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"
-Isaac Asimov

Doesn't matter. He's making the bunk claim that surprise and science are incompatible. Sure, scientists sometimes predict one thing and then observe another...that's part of science, and doesn't remotely suggest that science is bad or insufficient to analyze the new observations.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"
-Isaac Asimov

Asimov=God. :)

:sniper: dumb ass there is no god

:sniper: dumb ass there is no god

I don't know: You're a pretty strong argument against evolution. ;)

I don't know: You're a pretty strong argument against evolution. ;)

Or one might say our technology has led us to disrupt natural selection by, say, allowing the mentally deficient to have access to the internet.

So far, there isn't anything I have read in any science journal that convinces me that God didn't create the world six thousand years ago.

What about varves in Lake Suigetsu, which show the world to be at least 36,000 years old?

Some of it has been useful, perhaps, but most of it appears to be speculation, with which there is no way of falsifying--exactly what the creationists get criticised with.

Which bits can't be falsified?

I don't know: You're a pretty strong argument against evolution. ;)

Well I'm convinced by the eloquence of his argument.

This doesn't even make sense. How are we going to understand that natural causes are never going to account for something?

We aren't. That's the problem. Bruarong always claims that he is not arguing for the god-of-the-gaps, but apparently fails to see that this is exactly what he is arguing for. We don't know all of the possible natural causes. But, Bruarong says, if none of the natural forces we have defined explain something, we should attribute it to something outside of nature. That is precisely the god-of-the-gaps argument.

What about varves in Lake Suigetsu, which show the world to be at least 36,000 years old?



Not to mention ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY AND ALL OF RADIOACTIVE DATING TECHNOLOGY.


That small stuff. Surprised he hadn't known.

LAST TIME, ON CREATIONISMBALL Z, GOKU HAD JUST FINISHED CREATING THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS, BUT HAD SPENT ALL HIS ENERGY. CAN KRILLIN AND GOHAN HOLD OUT UNTIL HE RECOVERS ON THE SEVENTH DAY!?
"Satan, what does the scouter say about his power level?"
"IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!"
Asimov=God. :)

Pfft, then why weren't we programmed with his laws of robotics? We're basically robots made out of meat anyway.

"Satan, what does the scouter say about his power level?"
"IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!"

Iffy.




I love you.


That is all.

HA! I have got to check that out.

There's some good spots in it, fo' sho'.

What puzzles me, however, is that the evolutionary story can be so widely held as fact, and yet totally fail to convince me. And the more I read about it, the less impressed I am by it. The theory just doesn't fit with the evidence but has to be supported with endless speculations. For example, the genetic mutation rate in humans is hugely higher than was predicted, based on evolutionary assumptions. In fact, it fits far better, currently, with a human race of less than ten thousand years in age. That leaves many people claiming that there must be something that we have missed.

Faults in the theory doesn't make another theory automatically better- it just means that there's faults in the theory; and scientists know that. If scientists simply "believed" in their theories without adapting them as new information arrives, we'd still be reporting as fact that the Earth is flat and the centre of the Universe. Science grows because new information challenges theories and, despite what you might think, scientific theories do get replaced when something better comes along. Since Creationists don't present an alternate theory with supporting evidence (beyond the Bible, which doesn't apply to everyone because not everyone is Christian) and no other alternate theories exist that counters Evolution, Evolution remains the best possible theory- and the one scientists rely on (and update as they see fit) until something new and better comes along.

I have head people defend evolutionary theory by claiming that it isn't a perfect theory, just the best one to date. But I'm have to say that it would only be the best one under a given set of assumptions. These assumptions are philosophical, and ones that I do not agree with anyway, e.g., that every explanation that science invokes must be restricted to natural causes. For when I look at nature, the idea that lots of tiny undirected changes of long periods of time can account for every variation is absolutely preposterous. And the closer I look at nature, the less likely this proposal seems to be.

Again, that's how science works- science works on "the best possible answer", not "the best answer". Stating it's wrong simply because it's not perfect is simply ignorant of the scientific method- *no* theory is perfect, not just Evolution. Does this mean that there are no theories within the scientific world that are precarious at best and are only held because they're also "the best possible answer"? No it doesn't- I'm sure there are plenty of them (I don't know every scientific theory so I'm only speculating here, but since the Historical method and the scientific method are practically the same and given the fact there are several Historical theories that are only held because "they're the best possible answer", I'm sure there several scientific theories held for the same reason). However, since science works on the basis that we're trying to piece together every bit of our natural existence, any explanation we get with some credibility that "fills the gap" we'll use until something better comes along. The rules shouldn't be changed for Evolution.

Not to mention ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY AND ALL OF RADIOACTIVE DATING TECHNOLOGY.


That small stuff. Surprised he hadn't known.

I did a research paper on Creationism (because I really wanted to see if there actually *was* any proof for it- and there wasn't) and one of the pieces of "evidence" it turned up was a laughably bad assertion by Russell Humphries that radioactive decay rates were somehow "sped up" before the flood, accounting for the rates we have today. He even created equations to account for this acceleration, without explaning how he came up with it, and even admits that decay rates are consistent with millions of years of decay, as the Evolutionary Theory states. Here, this is the entire book:

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf (the section of note is pp. 333-380- I know, still quite long but a lot less to take tin)

and even admits that decay rates are consistent with millions of years of decay, as the Evolutionary Theory states.

Nitpick: evolutionary theory does not state that. It is stated by by a branch of physics which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

It just happens to fit with the timescales needed for it.

How does the ancient Mesopotamian civilization fit in with a universe 6,000 years old and had a big flood

Pfft, then why weren't we programmed with his laws of robotics?

Where's the fun in that? :p

Doesn't matter. He's making the bunk claim that surprise and science are incompatible.

Not true at all. Surprise and science are quite compatible. But what is incompatible is a theory that cannot be fitted to the evidence. If you want to take the approach that 'yes, it may not fit now, but just wait, and we will find something', then fine, but at least to be consistent. You cannot rule out creation, at that rate, because who knows, perhaps science will find god, or the easter bunny!!!


Sure, scientists sometimes predict one thing and then observe another...that's part of science, and doesn't remotely suggest that science is bad or insufficient to analyze the new observations.

The science is bad if it refuses to let go of a theory despite it being shown to be useless or incompatible. Good science, rather, is a lot more open minded. If our current understanding of the human mutation rate is so high, perhaps it is because the human race isn't so old. Or is that too unthinkable?




What about varves in Lake Suigetsu, which show the world to be at least 36,000 years old?

Firstly, I never said anything about the age of the world. Most creationists are not in the strict 6000 year category.

Secondly, such calculations based on deposited algae layers are not a direct evidence of the age of the earth. Rather, it is an inferred evidence, the confidence in which is based heavily on repeatibility. Limitations to the method (even if you don't consider the disputes over the methodology) include the assumptions upon which the numbers are derived and converted into calendar years.
Furthermore, just because we think we know all the causes for the varves, it doesn't really mean that we do. If they find out something new about it tomorrow, the conclusions will need to be reworked. At least, I'm not about to conclude that the world *must* be older than 36,000 years because some fellows found a way of deriving numbers from varves. I don't think any body else should either. That being said, I find the research itself rather interesting. And I certainly can accept that the world may well be rather old.



Which bits can't be falsified?


For example, there is no known mechanism for evolution apart from the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. How would we falsify the idea of macroevolution? It cannot be observed. We can't do any experiments that would confirm or deny it. The best we can do is look for evidence that seems to be consistent with it, such as the fossil record or homology in living organisms. But despite the multiple claims that the fossil record supports macroevolution, there are probably just as many claims that it doesn't. The same goes for genetics. It all depends on the arguments and speculations, and these cannot falsify a theory.



We aren't. That's the problem. Bruarong always claims that he is not arguing for the god-of-the-gaps, but apparently fails to see that this is exactly what he is arguing for. We don't know all of the possible natural causes. But, Bruarong says, if none of the natural forces we have defined explain something, we should attribute it to something outside of nature. That is precisely the god-of-the-gaps argument.

If we observe something for which we cannot find an adequate cause, I propose that we do not commit ourselves to finding a natural explanation. Rather, we should have to freedom to follow the truth. If God did create, naturalistic explanations would never lead to the truth.

A God of the gaps argument would insert God the moment we come across a gap. But this is not what I propose. A gap is simply an indication that we need to do some thinking and researching. To insert God without understanding the gap would be foolish. Probably just as foolish as inserting ''evolution just did it''. Rather, a 'God did it' conclusion would first require an understanding of the complexity and the specificity. From there, alternative models could be built, the ideas of which should be testable. If there is a way that evolution could fill the gap, then we would settle for evolutionary explanations. If the intelligent design model fills the gap, then why not allow such a conclusion? Or is that too unthinkable?

Faults in the theory doesn't make another theory automatically better- it just means that there's faults in the theory; and scientists know that. If scientists simply "believed" in their theories without adapting them as new information arrives, we'd still be reporting as fact that the Earth is flat and the centre of the Universe. Science grows because new information challenges theories and, despite what you might think, scientific theories do get replaced when something better comes along. Since Creationists don't present an alternate theory with supporting evidence (beyond the Bible, which doesn't apply to everyone because not everyone is Christian) and no other alternate theories exist that counters Evolution, Evolution remains the best possible theory- and the one scientists rely on (and update as they see fit) until something new and better comes along.

Sure, faults in a theory doesn't trash the theory, but it does indicate that there needs to be some changes. And there are changes. I'm not denying that at all. I realise that scientific concepts are modified all the time.

Creationists do present alternative theories, but they have a hard time doing this in peer reviewed journals because of the prejudice against it. And I have read enough about this to be convinced that their alternatives are not based on the Bible, but on real data. It is only your view point that convinces you that Evolution is the best possible theory, because you have accepted the philosophical assumptions upon which the theory rests. I don't, therefore, when I look at the data, I can conclude with 100% honesty that I don't think Evolutionary theory is always the best theory. It is unreliable (because all theories usually need modifying). And thus what you or I see as 'better' really does depend on the world view that we hold.



Again, that's how science works- science works on "the best possible answer", not "the best answer". Stating it's wrong simply because it's not perfect is simply ignorant of the scientific method- *no* theory is perfect, not just Evolution. Does this mean that there are no theories within the scientific world that are precarious at best and are only held because they're also "the best possible answer"? No it doesn't- I'm sure there are plenty of them (I don't know every scientific theory so I'm only speculating here, but since the Historical method and the scientific method are practically the same and given the fact there are several Historical theories that are only held because "they're the best possible answer", I'm sure there several scientific theories held for the same reason). However, since science works on the basis that we're trying to piece together every bit of our natural existence, any explanation we get with some credibility that "fills the gap" we'll use until something better comes along. The rules shouldn't be changed for Evolution.

I do understand your point. Just working with the best possible theory is recommended. The trouble is that you cannot assume that I also think that evolution is the best possible theory. In some cases, perhaps most, the facts fit better with creation, in my view. Does that mean I am stupid, or dishonest? Or does it mean that I have a different view point to you? Which view point is correct? Shouldn't we agree to respect each other's view points and recognise the limitations to our understanding?



I did a research paper on Creationism (because I really wanted to see if there actually *was* any proof for it- and there wasn't) and one of the pieces of "evidence" it turned up was a laughably bad assertion by Russell Humphries that radioactive decay rates were somehow "sped up" before the flood, accounting for the rates we have today. He even created equations to account for this acceleration, without explaning how he came up with it, and even admits that decay rates are consistent with millions of years of decay, as the Evolutionary Theory states. Here, this is the entire book:

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf (the section of note is pp. 333-380- I know, still quite long but a lot less to take tin)
[/QUOTE]

That's like saying, 'I once ate an apple, and found the center was rotten, thus all apples have rotten centers.' If I was to take the same treatment to a number of papers on evolution, I would come away thinking that there was no proof for evolution. Actually, there isn't any proof, just data which can be interpreted as supporting or not supporting. You can forget the 'proof' word here. If you go looking for proof on the origins, you will probably never find it. You will, however, find arguments.

Nitpick: evolutionary theory does not state that. It is stated by by a branch of physics which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

It just happens to fit with the timescales needed for it.??

How does the ancient Mesopotamian civilization fit in with a universe 6,000 years old and had a big flood

The trouble is that we don't know how old the Mesopotamian civilization is. Carbon dating of specimens can tell us something, but if you understand how the dating system works, you will soon see that anything beyond known history (about 5.7 thousand years) is quite inaccurate. The reason is that CO2 is a very small fraction of our atmosphere. Things like volcanos that release lost of CO2 can alter the balance between C14 and C12 rather quickly. Thus specimens from a volcano active area, or from limestone rich areas have to be corrected when calculating calendar years.

And of course, the world may actually be older than 6,000 years.

The big flood is another topic of hot debate. There certainly is good evidence for a large flood around Mesopotamia, approximately 5,000 years ago. But a world flood....that's huge. A creationist by the name of Walt Brown has a hydroplate theory that does seem to fit with a global flood. On the other hand, we can't tell if the Biblical version of a great flood meant the global flood, or just a flood of the known world. That would mean that the mountain tops of the known world, not the globe, would have to be covered. This would drastically reduce the amount of water needed.
Interestingly, the great coal and oil fields of the globe are not well explained by uniformitarian assumptions. Dead organic material will rot unless it is buried quickly. Swamps, which might provide a soft enough surface for the material to sink, don't grow much. And sinking organic material doesn't form coal streams that are meters thick. Coal (not charcoal) can be formed overnight, under the right conditions. The gas and oil fields are under pressure, and thus must eventually find their way to the surface. Why are they still under pressure after millions of years. The arctic has underground oil. How did that get there? It's far too cold there to grow anything, not to mention a severe lack of sunlight. Finally, lakes in Antartica are still freezing, under the ice. When contributions of heat from the earth (e.g. volcanos) can be ruled out, the freezing lakes would seem to indicate that the ice hasn't been there very long.
I'm personally not sure about all these things--just from what I have read about.

??

The decay rates of radioactive materials have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. However, the age of the earth which follows from these decay rates does nicely correspond with the one the theory of evolution requires.

In other words: two completely different and unrelated fields of science yield very similar answers to the question of the age of the earth. As do several more fields, like e.g. geology.
Creationists however like to lump all these unrelated things together and call it all "evolution" because they all contradict their 6000 year claim. We need to be wary of such underhanded tactics.

Carbon dating of specimens can tell us something, but if you understand how the dating system works, you will soon see that anything beyond known history (about 5.7 thousand years) is quite inaccurate

You know perfectly well that carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating.

Not true at all. Surprise and science are quite compatible. But what is incompatible is a theory that cannot be fitted to the evidence. If you want to take the approach that 'yes, it may not fit now, but just wait, and we will find something', then fine, but at least to be consistent. You cannot rule out creation, at that rate, because who knows, perhaps science will find god, or the easter bunny!!!
If we do, it won't be science. Once again, God= Supernatural. Science = Natural. Natural =/= Supernatural. There's no way for science to find any such thing.

The science is bad if it refuses to let go of a theory despite it being shown to be useless or incompatible. Good science, rather, is a lot more open minded. If our current understanding of the human mutation rate is so high, perhaps it is because the human race isn't so old. Or is that too unthinkable?

You found a hole in one small part of the theory, but that doesn't knock the rest of the theory down. There's far too much evidence to support that humans are far older than 6,000 years.

Secondly, such calculations based on deposited algae layers are not a direct evidence of the age of the earth. Rather, it is an inferred evidence, the confidence in which is based heavily on repeatibility. Limitations to the method (even if you don't consider the disputes over the methodology) include the assumptions upon which the numbers are derived and converted into calendar years.
How about zirconium? That's a pretty handy method of showing the Earth's age right there.

For example, there is no known mechanism for evolution apart from the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. How would we falsify the idea of macroevolution? It cannot be observed.
Er, we already have. Look up nylon eating bacteria. There's macroevolution in action.

We can't do any experiments that would confirm or deny it. The best we can do is look for evidence that seems to be consistent with it, such as the fossil record or homology in living organisms. But despite the multiple claims that the fossil record supports macroevolution, there are probably just as many claims that it doesn't. The same goes for genetics. It all depends on the arguments and speculations, and these cannot falsify a theory.
Show us this evidence that goes against it then.

If we observe something for which we cannot find an adequate cause, I propose that we do not commit ourselves to finding a natural explanation. Rather, we should have to freedom to follow the truth. If God did create, naturalistic explanations would never lead to the truth.
Once again, you fail to grasp that science only works within the natural world. Until you get that point, you're just going to sound foolish.

If the intelligent design model fills the gap, then why not allow such a conclusion? Or is that too unthinkable?
Because ID's answer just IS "God did it". Science says, "We don't know, but we're going to look at it and see what we can find out." Just saying "God was here" isn't science.

Creationists do present alternative theories, but they have a hard time doing this in peer reviewed journals because of the prejudice against it.
Nope, they have a hard time presenting because what they are doing is not science. It's pretty simple, you have a science journal, you want sound science in it. Creationism is neither sound nor science and has no place in said journals.

And I have read enough about this to be convinced that their alternatives are not based on the Bible, but on real data.
*Piff* No, their conclusions are based upon what they have read in the Bible and then they have cherry picked the data to get to the conclusion they had in the first place.

It is only your view point that convinces you that Evolution is the best possible theory, because you have accepted the philosophical assumptions upon which the theory rests.
What philosophical assumptions?

Interestingly, the great coal and oil fields of the globe are not well explained by uniformitarian assumptions. Dead organic material will rot unless it is buried quickly. Swamps, which might provide a soft enough surface for the material to sink, don't grow much. And sinking organic material doesn't form coal streams that are meters thick. Coal (not charcoal) can be formed overnight, under the right conditions. The gas and oil fields are under pressure, and thus must eventually find their way to the surface. Why are they still under pressure after millions of years. The arctic has underground oil. How did that get there? It's far too cold there to grow anything, not to mention a severe lack of sunlight. Finally, lakes in Antartica are still freezing, under the ice. When contributions of heat from the earth (e.g. volcanos) can be ruled out, the freezing lakes would seem to indicate that the ice hasn't been there very long.
I'm personally not sure about all these things--just from what I have read about.
You seemingly have missed out on the whole theory of plate movements and modern geology. They explain why all of the above has happened.

And of course, the world may actually be older than 6,000 years.

No shit Sherlock. Radiocarbon dating is calibrated against other methods of dating and can easily be used to accurately date things far older than 6,000 years ago that you so disingenuously suggest.

Firstly, I never said anything about the age of the world. Most creationists are not in the strict 6000 year category.

So what did you mean by

So far, there isn't anything I have read in any science journal that convinces me that God didn't create the world six thousand years ago.

if you weren't suggesting that the Earth was created six thousand years ago?

Secondly, such calculations based on deposited algae layers are not a direct evidence of the age of the earth. Rather, it is an inferred evidence, the confidence in which is based heavily on repeatibility. Limitations to the method (even if you don't consider the disputes over the methodology) include the assumptions upon which the numbers are derived and converted into calendar years.
Furthermore, just because we think we know all the causes for the varves, it doesn't really mean that we do. If they find out something new about it tomorrow, the conclusions will need to be reworked. At least, I'm not about to conclude that the world *must* be older than 36,000 years because some fellows found a way of deriving numbers from varves. I don't think any body else should either. That being said, I find the research itself rather interesting. And I certainly can accept that the world may well be rather old.

We shouldn't derive conclusions from one piece of evidence, but when independent measures of age match up then it's a fair bet that they're accurate; the only other possibilities are that they're both independently wrong while still coming to the same result (very unlikely) or that they're not independent (in which case the burden of proof is on the Young Earther to show how they're linked).

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.gif

The graph shows a tight correlation between C14 dating and varves; we wouldn't expect that if they were both independently wrong. The Young Earth Creationist doesn't just have to show how individual dating methods could be wrong, they also have to provide a plausible explanation for how they could all be wrong while getting the same result.

For example, there is no known mechanism for evolution apart from the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. How would we falsify the idea of macroevolution? It cannot be observed. We can't do any experiments that would confirm or deny it. The best we can do is look for evidence that seems to be consistent with it, such as the fossil record or homology in living organisms. But despite the multiple claims that the fossil record supports macroevolution, there are probably just as many claims that it doesn't. The same goes for genetics. It all depends on the arguments and speculations, and these cannot falsify a theory.

'Macro evolution' is simply 'micro evolution' over a long period of time. If a fossilised homo sapien, or a rabbit, or a porcupine, or just about anything other than a primitive jellyfish or a sponge was found in precambrian strata then this would conclusively falsify evolution.

You've said several times that you're a scientist, so you should know that it isn't the quantity of claims that's important, it's the evidence behind them. However much Creationists complain, they have yet to explain why the fossil record shows such a clear progression from simple life to complex life. Why haven't homosapiens been found in the same layer as dinosaurs? Why is grass pollen found in every single layer after the Cretacious but in none of the layers before that? These are all discoveries which evolution predicts and which conclusively falsify the Genesis Flood. We can also observe 'macro-evolution' through genetic comparisons such as the one I posted earlier and in the light of this overwhelming evidence it's entirely reasonable to extrapolate from an observed mechanism.

The arctic has underground oil. How did that get there? It's far too cold there to grow anything, not to mention a severe lack of sunlight.

Continental drift would explain this very well.

Creationists say that geological strata were laid down by the Flood.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb222/agenda07/ARZ1-Clrd-Horseshoe.jpg

So presumably the raging flood waters came pouring down, cutting an enormous groove in the Earth, before performing a hand-brake turn and heading back the way it came. Anyone care to explain this?

So what did you mean by

if you weren't suggesting that the Earth was created six thousand years ago?

Suggesting and implying are not the same as actually saying. Bru is actually quite good at that game.

Suggesting and implying are not the same as actually saying. Bru is actually quite good at that game.

He's clearly had a lot of practice.

Interestingly, the great coal and oil fields of the globe are not well explained by uniformitarian assumptions. Dead organic material will rot unless it is buried quickly. Swamps, which might provide a soft enough surface for the material to sink, don't grow much. And sinking organic material doesn't form coal streams that are meters thick. Coal (not charcoal) can be formed overnight, under the right conditions. The gas and oil fields are under pressure, and thus must eventually find their way to the surface. Why are they still under pressure after millions of years. The arctic has underground oil. How did that get there? It's far too cold there to grow anything, not to mention a severe lack of sunlight. Finally, lakes in Antartica are still freezing, under the ice. When contributions of heat from the earth (e.g. volcanos) can be ruled out, the freezing lakes would seem to indicate that the ice hasn't been there very long.
I'm personally not sure about all these things--just from what I have read about.
Good grief, what were you reading? Just about every question in that paragraph demonstrated a misunderstanding of basic Earth Science, and every statement was wrong. I suggest consulting your local bookshop.

Continental drift would explain this very well.

And a warmer climate in the Carboniferous period. *nods*

Evolution vs. CreationOK then.
Final Summary: Evolution wins and Creationism is bullshit.

Because ID's answer just IS "God did it". Science says, "We don't know, but we're going to look at it and see what we can find out." Just saying "God was here" isn't science.


Nope, they have a hard time presenting because what they are doing is not science. It's pretty simple, you have a science journal, you want sound science in it. Creationism is neither sound nor science and has no place in said journals.


*Piff* No, their conclusions are based upon what they have read in the Bible and then they have cherry picked the data to get to the conclusion they had in the first place.


What philosophical assumptions?

Science is humanity's way of discovering the workings of the universe. The answer to origin is in front of us, we simply need to ask the right question. There is no such thing as simple life; all life is complex. The "simpilist" form of DNA is highly ordered. Every thing in the universe at it's base, as we know it, has a ordered system in place.

The way I see it is simple: we cannot prove wether or not there was a hyper intelligent being(God) that created "everything"(?!). Since we are inside a time and space may be created by God :gundge:and 'god' must be outside of the box and we can never discover or know what is outside our world(since time won't let us escape it's grasp) we should stop debating since we won't find the answer by talking it over and there may be less wars:mp5: because we'll never find the answer or the answer must come to us.
:headbang:
I may be wrong but hey, who am I?God?

Science is humanity's way of discovering the workings of the universe. The answer to origin is in front of us, we simply need to ask the right question. There is no such thing as simple life; all life is complex. The "simpilist" form of DNA is highly ordered. Every thing in the universe at it's base, as we know it, has a ordered system in place.
And this has what to do with the price of beans?

The way I see it is simple: we cannot prove wether or not there was a hyper intelligent being(God) that created "everything"(?!). Since we are inside a time and space may be created by God :gundge:and 'god' must be outside of the box and we can never discover or know what is outside our world(since time won't let us escape it's grasp) we should stop debating since we won't find the answer by talking it over and there may be less wars:mp5: because we'll never find the answer or the answer must come to us.

I may be wrong but hey, who am I?God?:headbang:

Originally Posted by Deus Malum
Immensely so.

NEWS FLASH: It's impossible to "prove" a theory true. It is only possible to prove a theory false, or to show that all attempts to disprove a theory have failed.

The fairy tale notion of "proving" evolution is about as ludicrous as claiming that years of application of Newtonian mechanics "proved" Newtonian mechanics. Guess what, it's wrong, or at the very fucking least DAMNED incomplete.

This is why we have such things as "General Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics"

So the 1500's Christians were right!!Gravity isn't real!!!!:eek: If ine person doesn't like the idea of something, despite the opion of thousands of scientists,profesors,and school tachers (not to mention anyone with a little common sense) you can't teach it in public school.


Imagine if..... 'You can't prove gravity, I fall back to Earth everytime.So what?The airplane doessn't!?!?!' "Um sir you have to understand the physics behind air pressure and....' 'Buh hu ahhh....shut up I say it isn't real, IT ISN'T REAL!!!':rolleyes:
*scientist punches moron*
____________________________________________________________________

The state of Kansas'(churces) alternate theor yto evolution ---- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmvlZQZzFts&mode=related&search=

You know perfectly well that carbon dating is not the only form of radiometric dating.

As far as I know, uranium and all the others (K, Th, Rb, Re, etc.) have half lives that are far too long to be useful for dating within the last 10,000 years--which is why I presumed that they would have stuck with carbon dating.

The only other way to date such 'recent' things as human civilisations is to measure how deep the specimen is under the earth, and then to estimate how long it takes for the soil to accumulate on top, assuming uniformitarian rates.
Equally unsatisfactory.


If we do, it won't be science. Once again, God= Supernatural. Science = Natural. Natural =/= Supernatural. There's no way for science to find any such thing.


I don't recommend working with such a division. For example, consider the question of whether man has a soul. If the soul is eternal, is it natural, or supernatural? If eternal, it cannot be natural, according to our understanding of the natural world. I understand that many people claim that there is no such thing as a soul. But my way of looking at the world is that there is such a thing. So I simply do not categorize it as either natural or supernatural. In fact, the whole natural/supernatural thing is almost useless to me. So your assertion that science must deal with the natural doesn't work with me, because we have currently no way of knowing what is natural and what isn't.

What I work with is science that can deal with testible things. That means that even if there exists things in the natural world that I cannot test, I don't try to test them--at least until I find a way to test them. Therefore, while you are working with the natural/supernatural division, I would rather use the testable/nontestable division.


You found a hole in one small part of the theory, but that doesn't knock the rest of the theory down. There's far too much evidence to support that humans are far older than 6,000 years.

At least you sound pretty confident. What makes you think it is a small hole? And as for all the other evidence, what makes you so confident that the experts have got it right?


How about zirconium? That's a pretty handy method of showing the Earth's age right there.

Most radioactive dating depends on uniformitarian conditions (long ages, relatively few interruptions), uniform rates of decay, assumptions about daughter isotope levels, and even the depth of the rock in the earth. None of these can 'show the earth's age'. What we can do is measure the daughter isotope levels, and the parent levels, and when put together with the known decay rate, generate some numbers. The interpretation of the number and calculation of calendar years is the critical point. Yes, different methods and radioisotopes can be compared and numbers that agree in each case can be selected as 'reliable'. But in each case, so long as the uniformitarian assumptions are underlying each calculation, it isn't so surprising when they come out with the same answers. So, no, not even the most stable radioisotope (93Zr) which has a half life of 1.53 million years can 'show the earth's age'.


Er, we already have. Look up nylon eating bacteria. There's macroevolution in action.


I have been looking it up. It's actually not macroevolution. There appears to be a form of rapid mutation, an inbuilt function, somewhat analogous to antibody generation that allows adaptation. Clearly a microevolution phenomenon.


Show us this evidence that goes against it then.


Do you mind if I just post links. Saves me lots of time. Try this one for starters.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm


Once again, you fail to grasp that science only works within the natural world. Until you get that point, you're just going to sound foolish.


But surely you must get my point about the 'natural world'. Until you get it, you are going to sound like you are deliberately not comprehending any other view point but your own.


Because ID's answer just IS "God did it". Science says, "We don't know, but we're going to look at it and see what we can find out." Just saying "God was here" isn't science.


Actually, my experience tells me that the evolutionary answer is 'evolution just did it'. Real science does say 'we don't know how'. But most of the ardent supporters of evolution seem to think that while they cannot agree on the details, at least they do know that it was indeed evolution. But how do they know that it was through evolution? Not through the science, that's for sure. It really gets up my nose when they accuse the religious people of doing the very thing they themselves are doing. I can only call it blindness.

And ID, so far as I understand it, takes precautions against saying 'God just did it'. In fact, a lot of their literature is devoted to exactly that point. One wonders how you missed it.




Nope, they have a hard time presenting because what they are doing is not science. It's pretty simple, you have a science journal, you want sound science in it. Creationism is neither sound nor science and has no place in said journals.

How would you know if it is science or isn't? So long as you consider any reference to God as being non-science, you will never really know if the methods are following good scientific procedure. That may mean that you will never learn the truth (wherever that is) simply because of a prejudice. It's like you have refused to even consider. Have you ever heard of creationism that is based on experiments, not the Bible?


*Piff* No, their conclusions are based upon what they have read in the Bible and then they have cherry picked the data to get to the conclusion they had in the first place.


OK. That's good evidence for a real prejudice right there. Congratulations. Creationism, broadly defined, is the idea that God (or god) had something to do with the origins. That isn't necessarily based on the Bible.


What philosophical assumptions?


Crumbs! Now you ask! How about the idea that all the origins can be explained through natural causes? Do you hold a naturalistic assumption? Or do you reject it?