Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 446,126 views
- 2,767
- 29,317
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
If Creationists demand that we talk about religion in science class, why can't we also bring some scientific objectivity into religious class? Intelligent Design theory has no basis in fact (i.e. there are no observable facts that support the theory), hence, it doesn't belong in science class. The fact that ID theory can accurately explain the origin of life on Earth is a myth, therefore the name 'mythology' does apply to it very well.
- 1,151
Intelligent Design , sounds like something BMW should have done w/ the new 3-series .
- 29,317
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Well, I'm not going to this thing tomorrow night now as I have other plans, but we'd pretty much decided not to go anyway.
The problem is that we would not have the opportunity for a fair and meaningful debate/discussion...
The problem is that we would not have the opportunity for a fair and meaningful debate/discussion...
- 29,317
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Excellent programme on BBC last night, part of the series called 'The Story of God', presented by Prof. Robert Winstone... not only did he have Richard Dawkins on, he also had Ken Ham, curator (?) of the Creationist Museum in Kentucky...
I think Winstone managed very well to present the middle-ground stand-point, although he clearly thought that Ham was a nutter (I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw the Triceratops with the saddle in the museum
), but was also able to give Dawkins food for thought...
One thing that disturbed me greatly (well, in all seriousness, not really), was the guys at CERN, Switzerland, who are particle physicists trying to find the elusive Higgs boson particle... in a way, they are trying to recreate the conditions that led to the Big Bang. (Although I totally appreciate that it is perfectly safe...)...does anyone else here think that might be a bit dodgy?... and here's a sobering thought... maybe the present universe was created in a lab in a Switzerland from a planet that existed billions of years ago?
And we thought they only made nice watches... 
Anyway, I applaud the BBC for a brilliant and thought-provoking series...
Ironically (given earlier posts in this thread), they were showing 'The Wizard of Oz' on the other side at the same time as this show... coincidence?
Anyway, Merry Xmas/Happy Holidays fellow C v E debaters... see you next year
I think Winstone managed very well to present the middle-ground stand-point, although he clearly thought that Ham was a nutter (I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw the Triceratops with the saddle in the museum
), but was also able to give Dawkins food for thought... One thing that disturbed me greatly (well, in all seriousness, not really), was the guys at CERN, Switzerland, who are particle physicists trying to find the elusive Higgs boson particle... in a way, they are trying to recreate the conditions that led to the Big Bang. (Although I totally appreciate that it is perfectly safe...)...does anyone else here think that might be a bit dodgy?... and here's a sobering thought... maybe the present universe was created in a lab in a Switzerland from a planet that existed billions of years ago?
And we thought they only made nice watches... Anyway, I applaud the BBC for a brilliant and thought-provoking series...
Ironically (given earlier posts in this thread), they were showing 'The Wizard of Oz' on the other side at the same time as this show... coincidence?
Anyway, Merry Xmas/Happy Holidays fellow C v E debaters... see you next year
- 23,800
- Philippines
Hmmm... this has been quiet too long.
Food for thought... recreating the conditions existent at the time of the Big Bang... that's one great way to create a new Universe. What is unknown is whether we'll kill ourselves in the process, or whether we'll notice it at all (it may just bud off and form an isolated "baby" universe).
I'll have to look Ken Ham up... sounds very... interesting.
Food for thought... recreating the conditions existent at the time of the Big Bang... that's one great way to create a new Universe. What is unknown is whether we'll kill ourselves in the process, or whether we'll notice it at all (it may just bud off and form an isolated "baby" universe).
I'll have to look Ken Ham up... sounds very... interesting. 
- 2,614
- Metroider17
www.answersingenesis.org have at it...you guys will immediately discredit anything on their website anyway since it's pro-creation...
- 23,800
- Philippines
Actually, this seems like a very dangerous guy... he's telling Creationists to think before arguing.
I do like one point he makes: Creationists and Evolutionists merely have the same evidence to work with. Thus, the whole argument hinges on the interpretation of facts.
But he still falls back on the Bible and a literal interpretation thereof. Ironic, huh? Pick apart empirical evidences regarding dating and fossil formation (some arguments of which are well-founded) but ignore others that cannot be disproven. I see mention about Coal formation, but not Oil formation... Opals (that's very interesting) but not Diamonds, and various interpretations of fossil records.
Of note: the fact that many fossils require catastrophic conditions to form is not new. That's one reason we have massive fields of fossils in some areas, merely because many of them were formed in the same catastrophic event. The numerous fish fossils he cites may be in relation to the great PreCambrian extinction... excuse me, the theoretical extinction... that wiped out a large part of prehistoric marine life. The dry savannah which is thought to have spawned mankind doesn't provide much in the way of fossil-forming, due to the number of predators and environmental conditions.
Back to the "Ironic" point. What makes the Bible free from empirical and historical study, then? That's one thing Creationists cannot defend, but which modern religious scholars are devoting themselves to with zeal.
Much of the site relies on attacking scientific assumptions with anti-proofs... but there's a reason they're called assumptions. Many scientists are dogmatic, but they will change their mind given irrefutable proof to the contrary.
As for his ideas regarding the "same evidences, different interpretations" argument... it would be interesting to see what a non-Catholic (surprise, surprise, he was), non-dogmatic (no scientific preconceptions) Charles Darwin would think if left in isolation with all the present evidence...
I do like one point he makes: Creationists and Evolutionists merely have the same evidence to work with. Thus, the whole argument hinges on the interpretation of facts.
But he still falls back on the Bible and a literal interpretation thereof. Ironic, huh? Pick apart empirical evidences regarding dating and fossil formation (some arguments of which are well-founded) but ignore others that cannot be disproven. I see mention about Coal formation, but not Oil formation... Opals (that's very interesting) but not Diamonds, and various interpretations of fossil records.
Of note: the fact that many fossils require catastrophic conditions to form is not new. That's one reason we have massive fields of fossils in some areas, merely because many of them were formed in the same catastrophic event. The numerous fish fossils he cites may be in relation to the great PreCambrian extinction... excuse me, the theoretical extinction... that wiped out a large part of prehistoric marine life. The dry savannah which is thought to have spawned mankind doesn't provide much in the way of fossil-forming, due to the number of predators and environmental conditions.
Back to the "Ironic" point. What makes the Bible free from empirical and historical study, then? That's one thing Creationists cannot defend, but which modern religious scholars are devoting themselves to with zeal.
Much of the site relies on attacking scientific assumptions with anti-proofs... but there's a reason they're called assumptions. Many scientists are dogmatic, but they will change their mind given irrefutable proof to the contrary.
As for his ideas regarding the "same evidences, different interpretations" argument... it would be interesting to see what a non-Catholic (surprise, surprise, he was), non-dogmatic (no scientific preconceptions) Charles Darwin would think if left in isolation with all the present evidence...
- 1,620
Science is inherently incompatible with creationism. Any attempt to use "science" to supposedly support creationism is ALWAYS laughable and shows a gross misunderstanding of the scientific process.#17
I know you're being rhetorical (hopefully) but this has been covered SO many times...
What the hey, lets go round in circles a few more times until everyone gets dizzy and goes away again...
@Famine: ewww!
- 2,615
- Germany
- Wangan01
- Wangan01
#17
Probably not
... wtf this sthread is still alive... Just wanted to say hello, I do myself a favor and dissappear again immediately... it is a shock again... really hard for me to understand the ignorance of science here... you won't meet many people in Europe, must be an American thing. imo a good proof that too much freedom can mislead people 
Happy holidays to all of you, if you believe in creation or evolution
- 87,292
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Duke
Harsh.
On the upside he's cousin to the grandfather of Holly Valance.
But if it's comedian war you want, it's comedian war you've got. Martin "Everything about white people is hilarious and it's not racism in any way" Lawrence. Bam!
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Famine
Hey! Everything about white people is funny. But then again, so is everything about every other color of people as well.
Besides, Martin Lawerence is weak. He can only play one character and he just keeps doing the same thing over and over. Like Steven Segal, but with comedy.
