Creation vs. Evolution

[Wayne Gratiot]

MrktMkr1986 - Your remark in Post #675 on Page 34 about me needing help with MY reading skills is very funny. The very common and increasingly boring habit of fundie creationists trying to turn statements around and apply them to others when you are incapable of coming up with logical and realistic things to say just further singles out your extremely poor reasoning skills. You obviously recognize that my reading, writing and especially reasoning skills far surpass anything you have put forth in this thread.

Unfortunately for you, I will not only continue to play GT4 as you suggested I do, but will also keep posting in any forum I wish. I'm not going anywhere and I have logic, common sense and knowledge on my side.

It's not fair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but you continue to leave us no choice. Ramble on; I'll be reading everything.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'll gladly take the millions of bits of data. It's unfair to call that being "close-minded".
.

I totally agree... not believing Creationist tripe doesn't make you close-minded. Far from it. As a scientist, rationalist and skeptic, I am much more inclined to 'trust' Evolutionary theory over Creationism, but that does NOT mean that a rationalist who believes in Evolution does not also have the capacity to encompass religious belief or faith. Faith, to my mind, is about confronting the unknown (the afterlife, the purpose of the universe), questions that Science will never answer.... but faith and religion do not and cannot answer these questions either... they only provide a framework for coping with the fact that you will never know either way.

There are many great scientists who are also deeply religious people, but Faith and Creationism are NOT the same thing. Creationism has no credibility as a science, and therefore should not be treated as an equal science and taught 'along side' Evolution as if it were. Creationism attempts to 'know the unknowable', presenting 'facts' that are based on 'Faith' as opposed to actual evidence. This is dangerous, and their fabrications do not hold any water. By the same token, however, if a scientist claimed to prove the existance of the afterlife for example, I would similarly disbelieve them, unless they actually had solid proof.

Being anti-Creationist does not necessarily mean being anti-religious... even within the framework of Evolutionary Theory, and with a solid scientific and rationalist background, there is plenty that is not known and never will be, and that is where faith comes in. But Creationists are selling the role of faith short by trying to present various fabrications, like the age of Earth, as if they were fact. A truly religious and faithful person should see that Creationists are NOT their friends either...

 

[ledhed]

Can you say irony ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledhed

Swift approach this from another direction . What proof do you have (or know of) to show that the Earth was created by God ? What proof exist that there was ever a garden of eden ? use the same standard of evidence you are using to judge evolution to prove creation . Do you have anything at all ?


Again, why do I have to scientifically prove something that is not science? I don't ask you to prove why God "couldn't" have created the world and people in a spiritual or scriptural sense. So why should I have to play on the science field?

BTW this whole thing started because they want to TEACH CREATIONIST THEORY IN SCHOOL........so if it aint science WTF is it ? And why would you want to TEACH IT IN SCHOOL ?

 

[Touring Mars]

BTW this whole thing started because they want to TEACH CREATIONIST THEORY IN SCHOOL........so if it aint science WTF is it ? And why would you want to TEACH IT IN SCHOOL ?

Unfortunately, many people do want Creationism taught in US schools... but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against it... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/courtrulings.html#Evolution/Creationism - here's a quote - "In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held, 7-2, the Louisiana's "Creationism Act," unconstitutional. This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science." The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught."

Creationism isn't science. It's pseudo-science. It's also pseudo-religion. There is another word for it too, but I value my un-banned status..

 

[Tacet_Blue]

BTW this whole thing started because they want to TEACH CREATIONIST THEORY IN SCHOOL........so if it aint science WTF is it ? And why would you want to TEACH IT IN SCHOOL ?

GOD is back - at least in the science classrooms of rural America. The controversy over whether children should learn theological alternatives to the theory of evolution has reached feverish levels. Thirteen states are facing legal challenges over the issue. High-school biology textbooks in suburban Atlanta now carry stickers declaring "evolution is a theory not a fact". The school board in Dover, a town in Pennsylvania, has made the creationist theory of "intelligent design" mandatory in the biology curriculum.

The flare-up stems partly from the re-election of America's God-friendly president, but also from a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires the review of the science curriculum in every state over the next two years. Moreover, an amendment to that act recommends that schools should "teach the controversy" - in other words, teach all sides of the debate.

Calling creationists irrational will get you nowhere. Far better to understand how their beliefs arose and how they're being exploited

Science isn't religion. You can't use one to justify the other

 

[Pako]

So we all agree now that God created the universe and all that we see?
*wipes the sweat off my brow*

Sure glad we got settled.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

So we all agree now that God created the universe and all that we see?
*wipes the sweat off my brow*

Sure glad we got settled.

err...Ok Pako. That's the power of belief. In the face of overwhelming evidence...you can just choose to ignore whatever you like

If they teach Creationism in schools instead of evolution theory, that will be the end of any new American Anthropologists, or Biologists...good news for Europe 👍 Plenty of jobs will become available

If they teach it alongside evolution, then children can make their own minds up. Miracles and Magic is good fun when you're a child, but reality tends to sink in eventually.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

MrktMkr1986 - Your remark in Post #675 on Page 34 about me needing help with MY reading skills is very funny. The very common and increasingly boring habit of fundie creationists trying to turn statements around and apply them to others when you are incapable of coming up with logical and realistic things to say just further singles out your extremely poor reasoning skills. You obviously recognize that my reading, writing and especially reasoning skills far surpass anything you have put forth in this thread.

Unfortunately for you, I will not only continue to play GT4 as you suggested I do, but will also keep posting in any forum I wish. I'm not going anywhere and I have logic, common sense and knowledge on my side.

It's not fair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but you continue to leave us no choice. Ramble on; I'll be reading everything.

Your questioning my reasoning skills? OK...

You want to talk logic, let's talk logic:

As long as we're speaking Latin in this thread, have you ever heard of the phrase "Post hoc propter hoc"? Do you believe that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive?

By the way, the above questions are for everyone to answer, not just my old friend Wayne -- and my name is Brian if you didn't already know...

 

[ledhed]

As long as we're speaking Latin in this thread, have you ever heard of the phrase "Post hoc propter hoc"? Do you believe that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive?

As long as you use the same standard of proof for both I do not see why not .
But as it stands now I wont teach little blue men from Mars for the same reason I wont teach creationist theory...there's about as much proof for both.

 

[Famine]

As long as we're speaking Latin in this thread, have you ever heard of the phrase "Post hoc propter hoc"? Do you believe that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive?

Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive, for the reasons I outlined earlier (Evolution requires only life going into it and is unconcerned with where the life came from). Evolution could well act upon creatures all created in one instant to give us the different creatures we have now.

However, claiming that Evolution and Creation act on a post hoc propter hoc ("After this, so because of this") basis is irrational - not least because causality loops don't have to operate this way round - since one is scientific and the other is ascientific. There is no manifest physical evidence that even suggests that all life on Earth was created in one instant and a great deal of manifest physical evidence that more than suggests life arose from biochemical slurry and progressed through gradually more complex lifeforms, despite the odd occasional mass extinction, to where it is today.

 

[ledhed]

I said the same thing with smaller words you showboat !
Your starting to remind me of Alistair Cooke.

 

[Duke]

If they teach it alongside evolution, then children can make their own minds up. Miracles and Magic is good fun when you're a child, but reality tends to sink in eventually.

Just as long as we define 'along side' as 'in the same school' rather than 'in the biology classroom'. I've said it before, I fully support teaching a variety of creation myths as part of the history/social studies curriculum. But I'll go to war to prevent it being taught in a science class room.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive, for the reasons I outlined earlier (Evolution requires only life going into it and is unconcerned with where the life came from). Evolution could well act upon creatures all created in one instant to give us the different creatures we have now.

OK.

However, claiming that Evolution and Creation act on a post hoc propter hoc ("After this, so because of this") basis is irrational - not least because causality loops don't have to operate this way round - since one is scientific and the other is ascientific. There is no manifest physical evidence that even suggests that all life on Earth was created in one instant and a great deal of manifest physical evidence that more than suggests life arose from biochemical slurry and progressed through gradually more complex lifeforms, despite the odd occasional mass extinction, to where it is today.

I wasn't claiming that both Evolution and Creation act on a post hoc propter hoc basis -- just the theory of Evolution itself.

 

[ledhed]

" Caveat emptor " is the latin phrase that comes to mind with creationism .

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I've said it before, I fully support teaching a variety of creation myths as part of the history/social studies curriculum. But I'll go to war to prevent it being taught in a science class room.

If anywhere, it should be taught in a Religious Studies lesson, or similar...but...you'd better man those battle stations

The school board in Dover, a town in Pennsylvania, has made the creationist theory of "intelligent design" mandatory in the biology curriculum.

Imagine a Biology Graduate from Pennsylvania, trying to get his paper peer reviewed. I'd be able to hear the laughter from here.
They might be a little miffed, that they spent 4 years getting a degree that can't secure them any decent jobs...

 

[PS]

Not quite... your explanation sounds strikingly similar to biblical creation theories. The only difference is, the explanation you gave is more detailed and modern.

How is it in any way similar to creationist theories? You're aware that when 2 atoms strike, with a hard enough force, they either swap electrons and are now joined producing a molecule, or explode, right? The force of an atomic reaction is immense, and couple that with the fact that quadrillions of them may have been exploding simultaneously plays a huge factor into the further reactions of elements in a given environment. I see relevance what so ever, unless you want me to explain more.

I'm just done. Totally bored at 2 things. One, the nonchristians inability to expand their minds to what they CAN'T see and Two, the christians not standing up for themselves. Just weak. I was willing to fight and go down fighting if needed. However, this is not a thread of evangelism. Since it's obvious none of you are at the point that you would consider the fact that there's a greater power then what we can analyze with a carbon dating system.

Have a good one guys. Believe what you will.

That was the last straw. You just proved to me that you completely ignore or skim over my posts, 90% of which have been for your benefit or to clear things up. Simply ridiculous. This is over, I'm gone. Goodbye.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

How is it in any way similar to creationist theories? You're aware that when 2 atoms strike, with a hard enough force, they either swap electrons and are now joined producing a molecule, or explode, right? The force of an atomic reaction is immense, and couple that with the fact that quadrillions of them may have been exploding simultaneously plays a huge factor into the further reactions of elements in a given environment. I see relevance what so ever, unless you want me to explain more.

Can you explain to me what caused quadrillions of atoms to come together and explode simulataneously?

 

[code_kev]

Stuff.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Stuff.

In other words, you can't explain it.

 

[PS]

In other words, you can't explain it.

To come together? The collapse of a previous universe (over 1 trillion years ago). It imploded, formed a small incredibly dense ball full of octillions of octillions of atoms, pressure got too great, and it blasted outwards with incredible force.

It was those atoms hurled out with explosive force that formed the universe we currently have. Is it really that difficult to conceive of?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

To come together? The collapse of a previous universe (over 1 trillion years ago). It imploded, formed a small incredibly dense ball full of octillions of octillions of atoms, pressure got too great, and it blasted outwards with incredible force.

It was those atoms hurled out with explosive force that formed the universe we currently have. Is it really that difficult to conceive of?

Not if you can explain to me how the previous universe was created?

 

[PS]

Do you know how the caramel get's inside a cadbury bar? No, but you'll find out, and so shall we.

But it's likely a cycle of the past few universes which have collapsed on themselves, and then bursted outward again. Famine probably knows more about it, but I think his forté is more biological, so don't expect a Stephen Hawkingesque explanation.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Do you know how the caramel get's inside a cadbury bar? No, but you'll find out, and so shall we.

So just because you don't have the answer to something, does that make it wrong? No. So why invalidate and reject Creation? Evidence? Is that the reason?

But it's likely a cycle of the past few universes which have collapsed on themselves, and then bursted outward again. Famine probably knows more about it, but I think his forté is more biological, so don't expect a Stephen Hawkingesque explanation.

So the universe has always existed?

 

[ledhed]

show me one atom of evidence that the world was created . Just one little itty bitty micron of evidence that creationism is valid as a scientific theory. Use the same burden of proof you are using to argue for/ against evolutionary theory and the big bang or any other SCIENTIFIC theory . we can at least explain why or how we come to believe in science . creationist simply expect you to believe screw the reasons. in fact lets just create a theory called the "theory of no reason " .

 

[Duke]

Not if you can explain to me how the previous universe was created?

Nope, I freely admit I can't, and so will any other real scientist. That's what science is - the quest to continually refine and improve our understanding of the universe. Science is not the claim to have an infallible and all-encompassing understanding of everything.

And given the exponential advance of science and technology thoughout most of recorded history, I'll go with the current rational 2005 physical thought over the irrational 2500-year-old mystic thought every time.

 

[Famine]

So just because you don't have the answer to something, does that make it wrong? No. So why invalidate and reject Creation? Evidence? Is that the reason?

Exactly what I said to Swift... But the other way about, obviously.

So the universe has always existed?

Current thinking has it that... *breathes in*

The universe was created as a result of an 11th-dimensional interaction between p-branes in the big, wide multiverse. The result was a wibbly-wobbly brane bubble - commonly referred to as a singularity - which then expanded into the 10-dimensional space available to it (the "pressure" acting on the singularity was less than the expansive potential forces within it) and is still doing so with the same force it did at the start - c. The 11thD brane is not limited by space-time and so there is no set maximum "size" of our universe. If indeed the universe has a size - which it both does and doesn't.

In a sense, since the universe contains all space-time in the universe, yes, it has always existed. In another sense, the universe started out as a singularity resulting from the brane-brane interaction 18.5 billion years ago (using current calendars).

Many other 11thD branes have been postulated and calculated, but it's safe to say we don't know what the multiverse contains since we have no current frame of reference. Or at least I'm not familiar with any research which could enlighten us further.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm just done. Totally bored at 2 things. One, the nonchristians inability to expand their minds to what they CAN'T see and Two, the christians not standing up for themselves. Just weak. I was willing to fight and go down fighting if needed. However, this is not a thread of evangelism. Since it's obvious none of you are at the point that you would consider the fact that there's a greater power then what we can analyze with a carbon dating system.

Have a good one guys. Believe what you will.

We covered this ground in the religion poll thread. They do not have the dimensional capacity to percieve it without being saved and baptised with the Holy Spirit.

 

[ledhed]

I was baptised with holy water in church and according to my parents the Holy spirit was invited . I saw no extra dimensions .

 

[Danoff]

The universe was created as a result of an 11th-dimensional interaction between p-branes in the big, wide multiverse. The result was a wibbly-wobbly brane bubble - commonly referred to as a singularity - which then expanded into the 10-dimensional space available to it (the "pressure" acting on the singularity was less than the expansive potential forces within it) and is still doing so with the same force it did at the start - c. The 11thD brane is not limited by space-time and so there is no set maximum "size" of our universe. If indeed the universe has a size - which it both does and doesn't.

That would be the replacement theory for the big bang - and I think it currently has better evidence than the big bang theory. But the bottom line is science still hans't really settled on an answer as to how the universe started.

 

[Duke]

That would be the replacement theory for the big bang - and I think it currently has better evidence than the big bang theory. But the bottom line is science still hasn't really settled on an answer as to how the universe started.

...which, I feel compelled to explain yet again, is THE WHOLE POINT of science - to continually question and refine our understanding of the universe and everything in it.