Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 444,721 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
- 29,231
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
You don't preach biology. You don't preach physics. You don't preach chemistry, or maths, or logic, or any other science. Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant - always has been, always will be.
When it comes to science, my only belief is that people should be not be taught fictions.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Yeah...It was going to be a funny. But you know how it goes in this thread. As soon as I post something in here people seem to think that I am putting on the gloves. We all now where each of us stand so I'd not dare try to post something in here that might contradict something you guys have to say.
You guys leeched on to that guy like an atheist in the bible belt of Alabama so I thought it would be funny to make a comparison.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Well, others might have thought it was funny. But you have to remember that the reason we respond in this thread is because we care. So to compare us to something that we obviously care a great deal to argue against is probably not going to come off well.
It's kinda like comparing Beethoven to Fitty Cent. Yes, they're both technically "music", but one of them is beautiful, and the other is just wrong.
- 29,231
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
To be fair, he initially posted as a response to a post of mine with the rather inaccurate claim that the Bible 'clearly explains' the origins of mankind when it actually does nothing of the sort. Hence I was pretty justified in challenging him, although I never got a direct response so that was the end of that...
For the record, let's get something straight about why scientists are defending evolution with 'evangelical' fervor... it is not because evolution theory is particularly special per se. It is because it is being attacked (viciously) by the religious right for their own agenda. If the boot was put on the other foot - scientists demand that evolution be taught at Sunday school - I'd expect a similar reaction.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Science doesn't prove the origin of man, nor does creation. To try and prove origins is futile. I have faith and therefore believe in what I hold to be true. How is that any different than what is stated from an evolutionist point of view? There is scientific or biblical documentation what leads ones belief to conclude one thing or another. Danoff, please don't come ripping this statement as I am not including you in either one of these groups as you have stated several time prior that you do not believe in anything.
Fair enough. You know me well.
- 919
Forgive me if I'm wading into a hot mess as I know I'm new to this thread, but ...
Is not the driving impetus of man, in any sense of this argument, to attempt to prove (or at least explain to some satisfactory degree) his origins and his place in this universe, whether it may be natural or "divine"? It's an endeavor that's lasted 4000 years and if man is wise, will last untold eons more. Simply to chalk it up to 'faith' and attempt to explain it no further suggests that what you hold to be true is of such little importance to you that it deserves no justification - look at the ideas of "faith" and "what I hold to be true" as you express them. Essentially, they are the same - you're using faith to support ... faith. To me, that seems like the epitome of intellectual laziness (or spiritual laziness, if you prefer), AND suggests that man is not WORTH the effort to seek a more clear understanding of his nature. Personally, I LIKE man.
Man is pretty cool. In fact, really damn cool. I want to know exactly why I am what I am, and resting on faith that I'm somehow "made" a certain way with a certain design and that I need not KNOW, or at least try to know, that design seems foolish and blind.
I won't get into the specifics of how this relates to evolutionary arguments as apparently according to several posts, that's been done to death already. I just can't understand the mentality that suggests that attempting to explain and understand the origins of our species is pointless.
- 15,487
- UK
Going back a bit, many people think that Scientists are guessing with the estimation of the earths age. I'm not entirely sure how they do this, maybe someone could enlighten me.
Also, could we accurately predict the age of the universe by the farthest away star and measuring the light?
Also, could we accurately predict the age of the universe by the farthest away star and measuring the light?
- 919
It's done by radiometric dating - measuring levels of lead in meteorites rich in uranium.
They aren't exactly guessing, but there is some speculation involved, which actually does involve the sun relative to other stars. The oldest materials found on earth are about 4.4 billion years old. Examining the sun compared to other stars has suggested that the solar system isn't much older than that - the oldest material found in the solar system is a bit more than 4.5 billion years old. Hence, the reasoned speculation that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
- 1,202
Isaac Asimov once described a prediction based on starlight, indirectly. It had been noticed that nearly every galaxy we could see was moving away from us. This would be true if everything was moving away from a fixed point... like shrapnel after an explosion. In other words, there's nothing special about our galaxy that's pushing the others away. You could go to any galaxy and notice the same thing (with a few exceptions). You could therefore make a calculation, going backwards, and find that everything meets in the same place at the same time in the past. He put in a quick estimate on how the motion would accelerate due to gravity as everything got closer and ended up saying age was somewhere in the region of 15 billion years. Earlier posts improve on this estimate, but it's not completely removed from the method in your question.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was driving at. I think curiosity is a good thing and I don't think we should stop questioning our faith or sciences. It's how we grow. My statement would produce a better understanding if I would have said, "proving my faith wrong is futile, likewise, proving your scientific theories wrong are futile". Basically, can't we assume that all scientific theories are wrong anyways? Otherwise it's a law..... Faith is not a finite conclusion to an end result. Contrary, it is the beginning of a spiritual journey/relationship.
This thread is getting to deep for a Thursday afternoon.....
- 919
Gotcha, makes much more sense from a faith-based standpoint 👍 I don't necessarily see such a link between disproving faith and disproving theories though. Theories are built on empirical observation and quantifiable concepts and as such can be proven or disproven, at least to a degree satisfactory enough to use them in practice. On the faith side of the equation though, you're right. Faith, as I'm sure has been discussed to no end in this thread at some point, is basing belief on things unprovable and intangible. As such, it can't be proven or disproven in any way - pointless to try.
I do tend to disagree that we should always assume scientific theories are wrong. If we did so on a consistent basis, there'd be no point to enlightened theorizing in the first place. Doubt them when there's a reason to do so? Yes. Investigate alternate avenues? Hell yes. As you said, that's where progress comes from. Assume they're wrong? I'd say no. Then, they become useless. I'm imagining that's pretty much what you meant anyway, though.
- 5,071
- Panama City, FL
And yet from the Universe's expansion, that would be the appearance at any point in the Universe.
Someone at that quasar we see 14.5x10^9 lightyears away would not be at a quasar, he would be at the apparent center of a field of galaxies, with older and older stuff further and further away, looking at a quasar or something about where we are (or any other direction.)
And all that light started in place 6000 years ago. Now that's powah!
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
How does the bible and creationists explain Black people, white people and asian people.
How did they become "different?"
Im sure i dont have to cover myself but these days you never know, while their are differences, that doesnt make anyone inferior... I love everybody and we are all equal...
How did they become "different?"
Im sure i dont have to cover myself but these days you never know, while their are differences, that doesnt make anyone inferior... I love everybody and we are all equal...
- 919
The biblical interpretation of that, at least in a literalist sense, traces back to the story of the Tower of Babel, where God is said to have split the nations into differing groups speaking different tongues, so they could never again coordinate an effort so huge as to build a tower attempting to reach God. Apparently he found this to be an affront... personally I think I'd get a bit lonely up there, and some company might be nice.
To quote Stewie Griffin,
"I LOVE this God fellow! He's so deliciously evil!"
To quote Stewie Griffin,
"I LOVE this God fellow! He's so deliciously evil!"
Joey D
Premium
- 47,407
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Doesn't it have to do with the different tribes of Abraham? At least thats what I've been told.
- 919
Joey D
Premium
- 47,407
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Meh most Christians I talk to have no idea about their own faith. But this site should explain it.
http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm
- 919
Gah... it hurts my brain to read all that... that dude honestly believes he can trace the descendants of a people who all began in one place building a massive God-offending tower-city and that these people somehow managed, in the course of just a thousand-ish years to propagate across the entire globe and develop enough genetic diversity to account for ALL human differences? All of this flying in the face of established archaeological and historical record, of course. Owie.
<edit> Never mind the course of a thousand years. Even more fallaciously, he believes these distinguishing characterstics emerged over the course of JUST A FEW GENERATIONS. And he rejects Evolution. Wow.
<edit> Never mind the course of a thousand years. Even more fallaciously, he believes these distinguishing characterstics emerged over the course of JUST A FEW GENERATIONS. And he rejects Evolution. Wow.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
You misunderstand the definition of scientific theory and law. A scientific law describes what we observe; a scientific theory describes an explanation for the observations. For example, Newton’s third law of motion states what happens when you push on a wall, but doesn’t explain why (mostly electromagnetic forces). By definition, you can’t “graduate” a theory to a law, because they’re different categories and really have no relation to their colloquial usages.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Thank you sage. Saved me the trouble. I'm pretty sure this, also, has been covered in this thread.
Just in case anyone missed it, a theory will NEVER be a law because theory and law are two completely separate categories.
The law is natural selection (describes observations)
The theory is evolution (explains observations)
Evolution will never be a law, and natural selection will never be a theory.
