|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:11:20 PM | I'd like to add another link to that list:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion_2.html
...and highlight a quote from the greatest mind that ever walked the earth:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
excerpt from the link:
"Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion, moving towards deeper, simpler, and more elegant understandings of particles and forces, there will still remain a 'why' at the end as to why the ultimate rules are the way they are," said Ted Sargent, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Toronto.
btw: I'm only on page 2....ughh!! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:16:23 PM | Soulsmansion, you really, REALLY need to read this thread. The arguments you bring up have already been brought up and have been soundly refuted-- repeatedly. In all fairness, part of the problem with the Creation vs. Evolution debate is that it is a bit like apples and oranges, as one poster has already stated. Creation has the edge in breadth, as it addresses the origin of the universe, the earth, life itself, and all the species. Evolution only addresses speciation; it never attempted to address anything else. I think this is where many misunderstandings lie.
When it comes to scientific validity and evidence, however, evolution has a big, big edge over Creationism. In fact, evolution has already been accepted as scientific fact, with the theory that natural selection is the "organizing force." In your entire, huge post, only one sentence is on the right track, soulsmansion: "good science and faith are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE." However, the sites you reference do not even use good science! Good science uses facts and observations to lead to a logical conclusion. Creationism has already established a conclusion, and merely interprets facts to support that pre-established conclusion. Contradictory facts are ignored or downplayed. That is not good science!
Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, and therefor does not disprove the existence of a deity. Creationists tend to be the ones using propaganda techniques, while those concerned with good science continue in their unbiased search for scientific truths. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3228 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:19:15 PM | This one's good too:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0130_030130_originslife.html | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:42:48 PM | Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, and therefor does not disprove the existence of a deity. Creationists tend to be the ones using propaganda techniques, while those concerned with good science continue in their unbiased search for scientific truths.
I'm not Creationists but one that merely holds FAITH. I don't think that many average
day people can be persuaded to change their beliefs to adopt evolutionary perspectives
because we'll always bounce to the WHY??? And if those theological-scientist practicing
"good science" can't be persuaded, how will you attempt to
persuade the average creationists?
In the end, many of us creationists, admittedly, are riding on the coat-tails of those who are
in possession of greater intellect than we are. But the same can be said
to those who don't believe and are evolutionists.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3230 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:53:38 PM | "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein / 1879-1955 / Letter, 24 March 1954 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 12:01:39 AM | Don't worry, Late, I'm not gonna start a quote war with you beyond this message
but to complete the quote you dredged up:
Did Einstein believe in God?
So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Spinoza's God: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Now, how much is it a stretch from there for him to have been convinced
of a personal God?
Edit: arguably he could be an agnostic. But, it's sketchy for sure. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 3:03:29 AM | @Feral:
"It's already been concluded" by whom? And, what is it that prevents humanity from coming to a conclusion, when we evidently possess a distinct capacity to speculate, as well as no few tools with which to attempt to test our speculations? I would contend that, it is possible that, at this point in the growth of the human species, we lack some tools to explicitly define and measure all aspects of the presumed origins of the universe, but I do have an experientially-based belief that it is possible for humanity to plumb the depths of universal history.
Please entertain me with your speculation of the causation....now, no cheating you must
be vivid and if it helps, use the power-point to wow us. But, seriously, give it
a shot. Use all the resources of google if you have to and find a single
speculation.
Lacking tools to explicitly define?
Ummm.....nobody can define what is beyond finite as we know it.
And you possess what?....experientially-based
belief? 
You said absolutely nothing there. You said you have a belief is all and that
belief will see you to the truth.
Get some sleep, Feral. I can give Wonka some credit for not attempting
the impossible. You, Brainiac, tried....that's what I like about you. Can you
now bring out the dancing elephants? | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3233 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 3:50:02 AM | @soulsmansion
Moreover, there is a scientific principle known as "entropy" which correctly observes that any system that is not acted upon by an organizing force will decay from order to disorder. (A crude analogy would be your home: stop dusting and washing it and it will soon enough decay into a filthy mess, right?) Yet evolution tells us that the opposite of entropy has occurred, as the elements themselves have conspired to organize themselves from the randomness of the beginning to the beauty and order of today. Another WHOPPER.
You believe its a WHOPPER because you dont understand entropy past your analogy.
The drive toward disorder from the point of the big bang event and onwards does not mean that orderly structures like stars, life forms, planets and houses cannot form. They can and obviously do. What the 2nd law of thermodynamics states is that in the formation of order there is an even greater overcompensation of disorder.
A human being is an example of a low entropy physical system in a highly ordered state. However to sustain this astonishingly ordered state there must be a more than compensating generation of disorder. And there is. Food, water and oxigen provide the raw materials from which a human being draws its life sustaining energy. In doing so they increase the low entropic state of food and water and convert it into a high entropic state. Furthermore, the energy that they take in they more than release back into the environment mostly in the form of heat and other waste generated from other metabolic processes associated with life sustaining activities.
A star for example is a highly ordered physical system that maintains its state by serving as a conduit that converts a huge amount of low entropy energy into an even greater amount of high entropy energy.
I would suggest that you read the ~130 or so pages to avoid posting redundant arguments. You should also familiarize yourself with the subject matter (at the very least beyond crude analogies) before making an argument. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 4:42:15 AM |
This point about an individual is the point I've tried to make about insulting a group of people.( mostly creation and I.D. supporters I think are the ones who get insulted)
I gotta dignify this with response. It is coherent and a legitimate point (as opposed to vague accusations of "ignoring, denigrating, and marginalising"). The point here is that, while a point may be made, there is no necessity to get personal or confrontational. I will endeavour to cease any activities that I may be doing to that effect. Kinda the whole "attack the argument, not the person" thing, only with a lot more "not the person," like not at all. One major consideration, however, is that, in pointing out that some supporters of creation and ID are the most frequent targets for these posts, it tends to beg the question as to why. Not speaking individually, necessarily, the answer to this does lie in the fallacious logic, repeated use of misquoted and out-of-context passages, and simple apparent falsehoods. It should be noted that I'm not the one who notices all of this; at least not all the time.
Please define what you mean by substantive debate and spurious logic. What exactly about my posts do you see as spurious logic and what would they require to meet your criteua for "substantive debate"?
Which ties into this. Simply put (and others may disagree with me), the point behind substantive debate is to request and provide information to define terms, explain concepts, and support positions. In the case of these positions that seem to conflict (although by no means do they have to), it is perfectly legitimate to challenge the logic or basis for a belief or interpretation. However, when one issue has been addressed, to rehash it as a valid argument is ludicrous (again, not everyone is willing to hunt down that argument on a thread as long as this - a little patience from all, please). To challenge the logic, however, must be recognised as such and will not be if it's worded in a confrontational manner. "X is wrong!" is not a valid method of asking whether, given more information or a new perspective X might be found to be inapplicable to the situation at hand. A lot of it is tone; much of it is personal bias (on both sides). I'd just go with validity wording and questions for stuff I don't quite understand.
Can you give a logical explanation of why it is not a scientific method of testing I.D. rather then simply saying Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me learn?
In precisely this way. Well done. Except that the quote did not suggest that evolution by natural selection was too complicated. The point was that there is a lot that goes into even formulating a theory in modern science, and it would behoove anyone with the intent of creating one to investigate (the study/research step of the scientific method) ways to test their own hypothesis. The question of validating scientifically whether or not ID is testable is up to the person making the claim. Rather, the responsibility lies with them to formulate a means to test the presence of intelligence and to do so, keeping in mind that patterns do occur naturally, and one would need to establish some more specific criteria for the testing of the presence of an intelligence.
Perhaps you can explain how those process are very well explained by the process of Evolution or direct me to where you have explained it before on this post if you have. If it is too complicated to be explained on this thread then how can you justify bringing something up that you will not explain. How does that facilitate discussion?
Science has managed this, in that it finds challenges to its propositions and investigates them. We have discussed the eye at one point, although not in explicit enough fashion for me to feel it necessary to go back through the thread to find that discussion. We haven't, to my knowledge discussed the bombardier beetle in any depth, but there is information available. Darwin's point behind the eye was that any sufficiently complex organ that had to have developed whole cloth would challenge the theory of natural selection. These organs do, and many who disagree with the assertions of evolution appear to delight in pointing out these challenges. One of the supporting arguments behind evolutionary theory is that it can account for these challenges. I also feel that this repetition of answered challenges does somewhat add to the antipathy in the debate, but I won't go into that. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3235 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 5:38:35 AM | Which brings us to the crux of the matter: evolution has been presented as "good science" while creationism has been presented as "religion". Actually, the OPPOSITES are truer. Evolution is a religion, while creationism will always be borne out by science (not referring to the pseudo-science that the media normally trumpet).
Evolution, in a biological framework, cannot be associated with religion because its hypotheses are wholly independent from the theories associated with Creationism.
Wikipedia: "evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. The living species of today are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years."
Creationism cannot be associated with science until its hypotheses satisfy the rigors of scientific methodology.
Answers.com "scientific method is an orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion."
Your conclusions are wrong by definition alone. It doesnt get much simpler than that.
When and if the hypotheses pertaning to Creationism, either whole or in part, satisfy the rigors of scientific methodology, then the contemporary theory of Evolution will be modified in such a way that they will be incorporated in its framework. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 6:29:15 AM | Well said ^^^ 
Geez, 148 years after the argument was lost and some people still can't accept the fact that they were wrong......
For those that believe that Creationalism, Intelligent Design, or whatever the flavor of the month is, should be taught in science classes across the country.....how would you feel about evolution being taught in your churches?
Exactly. That's not the place for it is it? Then please give up trying to force your beliefs on the rest of us.
And this is my main beef with much (not all) of organized Christianity....your beliefs are not under attack no matter how much you claim otherwise.
No one is suggesting that evolution be taught in churches.
No one is passing laws to ban personal prayer in schools.
No one is putting Darwinian quotes in courthouses (unlike the Ten Commandments)
No one is passing out leaflets on evolution asking you to 'convert'.
See the situation for how it really is?
SIDE NOTE: There are as many as 100 million different species of plants and animals. If Adam (of genesis) were to name every single species on Earth at a rate of 1 per second, it would take him roughly 3 years of doing this non-stop, without eating or sleeping. Estimate that he can name a species every 5 seconds for a 12 hour shift without rest and the task takes him 30 years. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3237 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 6:51:56 AM | how would you feel about evolution being taught in your churches?
I can just picture the sermon now...
and on the billionth or so day after the creation of single celled organisms, Evolution said "let there be sex" and Evolution saw that sex was goooood...a few billion years later there was evening and there was Eve making breakfast for Adam in the morning, of the first day.
This is just a joke guys and not intended to be a mean spirited insult aimed at anyone... | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3238 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 7:14:26 AM |
complete the quote Adding somebody else's analysis to a person's quote is not "completing" it. Especially when the original statement is about the misinterperatation of that person's statements by those with a religious agenda.
This is just a joke guys and not intended to be a mean spirited insult aimed at anyone...
Not a joke per se, but a correct analogy. You don't see people advocating for science to be taught in theology classes, the converse is just as ridiculous. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:35:09 AM | This is somewhat (meaning a lot) off-topic, and clearly a sloppy set of premises and conclusions, but I figured I would slap it down, and then have it slapped around a bit by other posters.
We constantly witness the efforts that many religious / creationist adovcates put forth to polarize the theory of evolution against the story of creationism.
Why would such a false battle be encouraged by certain religious people? Clearly, and as has been argued throughout this thread, evolution is not opposed to a Divine Creator. In fact evolution does not concern itself with faith based arguments; it is essentially neutral. Evolution as a science does not view religion as its enemy.
Is this us vs. them approach adopted by religious figures in an attempt to portray the battle as 'good' vs. 'evil'. Is the church using the 'cheer for the good guy' type method to gain support?
I have no idea...I just fail to understand why the parts of the Church are intent on portraying evolution as the enemy. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:55:51 AM |
I have no idea...I just fail to understand why the parts of the Church are intent on portraying evolution as the enemy.
You are correct Brain-In-A-Vat, it isn't all Christians or even a majority. Most Christians are perfectly accepting of an evolving world. They seem to see it as the means in which God's masterpiece is still being created.
Others believe in a static creation, that God created the Universe and all the life on Earth just as we see it today.
Why they do is beyond me. We see God's creation of the Universe, as described in the Bible as an unfolding event. It took six days to get the basics down. Eve didn't come till much later. The world is flooded thousands of years later. And Revelations describes how things will end.
To me, and this is strictly my opinion, they aren't giving God enough credit. Think of the static view of creation as the image of a newborn baby. Babys are both beautiful and a miracle in and of themselves. But now picture that baby growing up, learning to walk, to talk, to seek love and to give it. Then one day this baby will meet another, love that other miracle, and make its own miracle, raise it, love it, even try to better the world for it.
Isn't this more wonderous than just a baby? Isn't it more beautiful? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:59:06 AM | | When you say 'they' are not giving God enough credit, who is 'they'? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:06:01 AM | | Individuals with a static view of creation as opposed to an evolving creation. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 3243 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:06:04 AM | I just fail to understand why the parts of the Church are intent on portraying evolution as the enemy.
The answer to your question has to do with the fact that even though both science and religion strive for the truth....they go about it a different way....
scientists are always looking to disprove scientific laws...when they do so they revise the law accordingly so that it includes the newly discovered exception...rejoicing in the fact that science has taken yet another step forward towards explaining things a little more clearer ....
the church however, is not looking to disprove any of its tenets, just the opposite...they are constantly looking for proof that will reinforce their currently accepted framework....so when an event occurs which challenges their beliefs (usually due to a new scientific discovery) they get rather upset about it and subsequently do everything possible to retain as much of the original integrity of the encroached upon tenet whilst ensuring that the modified description remains consistent with the sacred scriptures...
So when a new dating method threatens to disprove the authenticity of the shroud of turin, they will try to disprove the authenticity of the dating device rather than that of the shroud...
But when newton's laws of motion could not accurately account for the perhileon orbit of mercury, scientists did try to disprove the authenticity of the observation, instead they they took newton's laws of gravity and went right back to the drawing board to try to revise them in a way that would include the new observations...this plodding along went on for a while until a guy called Einstein came up with a set of equations which when merged with Newton's, were able to provide a single framework that described the orbit of all the planets including Mercury's...
These gravity equations cannot currently describe what happens inside a black hole... so scientists are once again back at the ole drawing board feverishly trying to revise them so that they can account for this special case...
if science could no longer disprove its own theories, it would be dead
if religion could no longer disprove its theories, they would party like its 1999 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:13:27 AM | Wonderful example. We also hear a lot about the accuracy of Carbon-14 dating being questioned in regards to proto-human bones or dinosaur fossils.
The objectivity of science is what seperates it from religion. Science is the means to discover how the universe truly works, not how we'd like it to. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:41:33 AM | "I can give Wonka some credit for not attempting the impossible."
I have not addressed these issues, because they are IRRELEVANT to Evolution. You bring up philosophical issues that are wholly unrelated to the scientific theory. What is beyond finite? Do you honestly think this is a scientific question? That is philosophy, and, I am well studied in that discipline as well, so if you want to go off on unrelated philosophical tangents, fine, but I'll tell you right off the bat that the reason it's under the purview of philosophy and not science is because it remains speculative. There is no way to test such speculations as the "existence of the infinite," which is not what Feral said anyway.
Now, let's address your other response to Feral-
"Please entertain me with your speculation of the causation....now, no cheating you must
be vivid"
"No cheating"- you mean like picking up on words in the thread that others have used, and using them in the wrong context? What do you mean by "your speculation of the causation?" How is that remotely related to what Feral said:
"I would contend that, it is possible that, at this point in the growth of the human species, we lack some tools to explicitly define and measure all aspects of the presumed origins of the universe, but I do have an experientially-based belief that it is possible for humanity to plumb the depths of universal history."
How does your meaningless question even follow from this? All Feral is saying is that he personally believes that methods will be developed in the future that will bring the question of universal origins under the purview of science. I'm assuming by experientially-based, he means to say that, predicated upon how science has subsumed many issues that were formerly untestable, he thinks it follows that this will be as well. Now tell me what "your speculation of the causation" means, or has to do with the price of tea in China. Did you just like the way it rhymed?
"Get some sleep, Feral."
Seriously, I think it's time for YOU to go to bed, and let the adults talk.
"In the end, many of us creationists, admittedly, are riding on the coat-tails of those who are
in possession of greater intellect than we are. But the same can be said
to those who don't believe and are evolutionists."
Here's the crux of the issue, which you have just admitted- you don't know what you are talking about. I have studied the relevant issues, and I am not simply parroting others arguments. Many have already explained to you and others that the people you are parroting are promulgating misinformation, and, being ignorant of science, you lap it up like a dog lapping up vomit. Educate yourself on the actual theory, and then, perhaps you will understand the hostility you receive. Nobody likes dishonesty and prideful ignorance. And again, you are equating lack of spiritual belief with Evolution, after it has been clearly explained to you that they are unrelated. Many scientists are atheists or agnostics and many hold various spiritual beliefs. It is a separate issue.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:54:55 AM |
you can't solve an equation with poetry
Yes you can:
Inch worm, inch worm
Measuring the marigolds
Could it be, stop and see
How beautiful they are
Two and two are four
Four and four are eight
Eight and eight are sixteen
Sixteen and sixteen are thirty-two
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:02:01 AM | Okay Trewq- you got me!
Well, technically that is an equation contained within a poem, but poetic technique is not employed in solving the equation. That's mathematics. I suppose I could write a poem about Relativity, but alliteration, assonance, rhyme and consonance have nothing to do with space and time being relative to the observers frame of reference and the speed of light being a universal constant. Still, nice poem. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:16:11 AM |
I have no idea...I just fail to understand why the parts of the Church are intent on portraying evolution as the enemy.
Wow, a question I can help answer here! Sites like answersingenesis answer this question as well. They basically admit their bias on the issue upfront.
Brain, many, if not most, church-going folk oppose evolution because it contradicts the Genesis account of the Bible. For fundamentalists, this calls into question the inerrancy of the Bible. Even more so, it contradicts how human beings came into existence, which is the real crux of the debate. With human evolution, there is no Garden of Eden, no original sin, no fall of man, etc. Many neatly explained concepts of why human nature is what it is today is greatly challenged.
When people put their whole identity in their interpretation of the Bible, anything that challenges that interpretation is seen as "the enemy." Claiming that evolution doesn't disprove a deity does not really help, because it still disproves the Genesis account of man's origins. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:36:26 AM | | Flyguy- you are absolutely correct in your assessment. It is clear that it is the contradiction of a literal interpretation that motivates their agenda to try to discredit science in the eyes of the average person. Since the average person has little familiarity with scientific methodology, they are easily fooled by someone "sounding" scientific. Honestly, though, how many educated Christians honestly take the bible literally word for word? How many Christians honestly believe that Noah crammed millions of species on an ark including the means to feed and house them, and keep them all separate enough that they didn't eat each other? What about the carnivores? He would have had to bring plenty of extra sheep and/or pigs to feed them. How about all the bacterial life? Viruses? Clearly, the account of the flood is a metaphorical parable. Clearly the earth is not 6000 years old; to claim so is tantamount to asserting that the earth is flat or that the solar system is geocentric. I would venture a guess that most Christians are educated enough to understand the bible as metaphorical in many places, and that these creationist nuts represent a small minority. I would have to agree with the statement above by Deagleninja that if you believe in God, to disregard science is to do him a tremendous disservice. Why ignore the majesty and wonder of his creation as revealed by science? It's no different than rejecting the immensity of the universe, because you can't wrap your head around how vast it actually is, so you adhere to the notion that the sky is truly a canopy filled with tiny pinholes through which the light of God shines. Honestly, what is more respectful of his majesty and wonder? Appreciating the absolute vastness of his creation and the forces that form stars and galaxies, or the notion of a canopy filled with pinholes? The latter would be representative of a poverty of imagination, and a disrespect for the complex wonder of creation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:16:39 AM | When it comes to Biblical interpretation, it doesn't just boil down to literal and metaphorical interpretation. There are many degrees of both types, and a combination of the two. The main sticking point is the origin of man. The vast majority of religious people will not concede that man has evolved.
If you want to lose some hope in the willingness of US society to learn about their origins, read this:
magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html | |
|
|
| Page 130 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
