Creationist Museum!

[Beowulf]

BEHOLD THE TRUTH! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1c0star/sets/72157600335006271/)

A while back I posted an image from a creationist museum in RWPW, well I looked around a bit and came up with the above. It's a collection of photos taken of the entire inside of a creationist museum. He even managed to get about 90% of the signs perfectly readable.
The insanity knows no bounds here my friends, no bounds at all.
Feel free to look about the images, I'm just going to link my favorites:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1101/538250023_818d21f991.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1278/538255903_845f6d417e.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1098/537840995_9b1595f981.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1119/538280163_e478b99ca3.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1211/538149378_c783b5be7e.jpg?v=0
^ Supposedly a reconstruction of the interior of the ark...ugh...

[h2orowe]

What the hell.. half man half dinosaur?!

[Micah the Great]

I guess you don't like creationism.... or at least crazy, over the top creationists.

[Beowulf]

I guess you don't like creationism.... or at least crazy, over the top creationists.
I don't like people saying that while science is not fact, genesis clearly is...

[Hatsumomo]

I love that. Evolution is only a theory while "Intelligent Design" is a valid alternative. Despite the fact that proof of evolution smacks one in the face every day while the "proof" of an ultimate creator is specious at best.

[Kfisher]

I love how they use the biblical story of the great flood to explain the existence of fossils. :P

I've believed evolution throughout most of my life, but since there may be some evidence coming out that goes against the theory of evolution, I'm starting to doubt whether which theory I should believe in... =\

[h2orowe]

Just because there's proof against evolution doesn't take away the proof against creationism, nor does the proof against evolution make there proof FOR creationism.

[Kwiz]

I've believed evolution throughout most of my life, but since there may be some evidence coming out that goes against the theory of evolution, I'm starting to doubt whether which theory I should believe in...

Where exactly would one find a momentous piece of evidence able to discredit the entire theory of evolution?

[Kfisher]

Where exactly would one find a momentous piece of evidence able to discredit the entire theory of evolution?

None really, but I do believe I've read small pieces of evidence somewhere that may discredit the theory partially.

[Ozero]

I have an alternative to the theory of gravity. Space aliens saw us, and are pressing a downward force on us so we don't go float out there and annoy them.

[Kfisher]

I have an alternative to the theory of gravity. Space aliens saw us, and are pressing a downward force on us so we don't go float out there and annoy them.

Unfortunately for you, gravity isn't a theory, it's a fully accepted scientific law.

[stsparky]

I love explaining to people that a global flood would mean the death of all the fish in the sea. Here are some links in the fight for common sense, though I am a Zionist hoodlum of the highest stripe:


Noah's Ark (http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html)
Problems with a Global Flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)
Flood Geology dropped by responsible 'Christian' scientists in the 1800s. (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html)
Evolution Education (http://pub14.bravenet.com/sitering/show.php?usernum=1126428282) - links

[Ozero]

Unfortunately for you, gravity isn't a theory, it's a fully accepted scientific law.


WHAT? Don't tell harvard, I'm trying to get a teaching job about aliens pushing us around. Maybe I should try to rally support from the scientologists.

[Eddie Echoplex]

The dino-man has that pot-head look that just made me laugh.

[Micah the Great]

I love how they use the biblical story of the great flood to explain the existence of fossils. :P

Personally, i've seen seashells on mountain tops and some sharks' teeth embedded into the walls on a cave. Though, i'm sure one can come up w/ very intelligent theories to how this exists, but the flood is pretty believable to me.

I like how evolution is a theory, and people believe and trust it just like its a religion... which is hilarious to me. It seems like to me if you believe evolution, you have to take it all... not just the possibilities of mutations advancing life, tho mutations tend to result in destroying genetic makeup, making the mutated creature worse off than the parent. You also have to believe that apparently, atoms (electrons, protons, and a nucleus) randomly began to exist for no reason. Virtually an infinite number of them in the universe. Then somehow there's randomly life today. Because if you just give it enough time, atoms can grow and learn and love and live. Has anyone heard of 'entropy'. Nice. There was no existence.... then there was. Nice theory, sounds about as believable as an alternate, higher being making us the way we are.

An even bigger problem i have is that humans think they're so awesome. We're way too full of pride. We think that we can explain the existence of the universe and the life within. Have you seen humanity lately? Look at the threads on these boards and you'll realize the things we worry about are so trite. Some 50 year old scientist will claim that a certain something happened millions or billions of years ago. Most of the people on these boards are late teens/early twenties or so. How can you conceive of BILLIONS of years... and just say it likes it's nothing. How can someone say that "Well, 50 million years ago... humans were like this." If evolution proves that things can change so significantly over the years of existence, what makes them think they even have the slightest fucking clue as to what was happening a billion years ago. I have science to prove it! Scientific theories change as new evidence is presented and older ideas are disproved. Think about how that you're gonna die without knowing 99% of what there is to know about life and the universe, yet you'll stick to you're story that petty humans can understand billions of years of existence b/c you read it somewhere.

We live in a reality that has causality. Every event that happens is an effect of a previous cause. So, what was the first cause? Does existence infinitely digress into nothing? So, gravity is a law. Inertia, action and reaction. These things existed how? Apparently just for no reason... out of nowhere. Nothing created them... hey.. it's just the way it is! It's science obviously. Love, art, society, passion, emotion, pain, ambition, good and evil just happen to be side effects of our ridiculously enhanced brains that we got by atoms jumbling around for millions and millions of years.

Man i sound like an ass. HA. There are people that are completely insane in every aspect of life, including Christianity. I know this and i have no hatred for people that don't believe in God. In fact i appreciate people that have a firm view on a subject rather than being wishy washy. If you like evolution and/or believe there is no god type of existence... fine. But just from me to you, you guys are being duped big time.

/prepares for flaming =)

[Digital Masta]

This lady that goes to my parents church is subtly trying to bring me into the church. Not that I don't believe their isn't a god, I stick with Agnostic, I just don't know. That and I have gripes (God sure did kill a lot of people in the old testament) with things in the bible that I'm not willing to get down with, among other things.

I will say this, people who are very into their faith (note, not religious crazy people) and study it can make just as good an argument for it.

My brother's friend is currently studying to be preacher, his dad runs a church and this was pretty much this kids calling. You better have your guns ready because this kid will own you if try to convince him that God doesn't exist and you don't have really, REALLY good reasoning.


Hell..this stuff makes more sense that Scientology...yeah that's right, I said it.

[Kwiz]

Here we go...

Personally, i've seen seashells on mountain tops and some sharks' teeth embedded into the walls on a cave. Though, i'm sure one can come up w/ very intelligent theories to how this exists, but the flood in pretty believable to me.

You find it believable that the total amount of water on this planet could have more than doubled in the space of a month and a half? Through rainfall?

I like how evolution is a theory, and people believe and trust it just like its a religion... which is hilarious to me. It seems like to me if you believe evolution, you have to take it all... not just the possibilities of mutations advancing life, tho mutations tend to result in destroying genetic makeup, making the mutated creature worse off than the parent. You also have to believe that apparently, atoms (electrons, protons, and a nucleus) randomly began to exist for no reason. Virtually an infinite number of them in the universe. Then somehow there's randomly life today. Because if you just give it enough time, atoms can grow and learn and love and live. Has anyone heard of 'entropy'. Nice. There was no existence.... then there was. Nice theory, sounds about as believable as an alternate, higher being making us the way we are.

When you get down to the ultimate "how" and "why" questions, nobody, not any of the most accomplished astrophysicists, not the researchers at CERN or other particle accelerators, have any fundamental understanding yet of how or why our universe came into existence. These are people who dedicate their lives and professions to uncovering such mysteries. Should your typical young-Earth creationist then hold any real chance of giving a comprehensive explanation?

Furthermore, in scientific analysis, a theory is called a theory because experiments and observations consistently support it. If you can show me how that resembles a religion, I'd be interested.*




*No, you see, I genuinely would be interested. That's the nature of constantly questioning ideas and applying reason to them.


An even bigger problem i have is that humans think they're so awesome. We're way too full of pride. We think that we can explain the existence of the universe and the life within. Have you seen humanity lately? Look at the threads on these boards and you'll realize the things we worry about are so trite.

How would you pin down an accusation as vague and meaningless as "humanity is arrogant"? Because if you want some prime examples of hubris, we can start cracking open the volumes of history from hundreds of years before the scientific revolution even began.

Some 50 year old scientist will claim that a certain something happened millions or billions of years ago. Most of the people on these boards are late teens/early twenties or so. How can you conceive of BILLIONS of years... and just say it likes it's nothing. How can someone say that "Well, 50 million years ago... humans were like this." If evolution proves that things can change so significantly over the years of existence, what makes them think they even have the slightest fucking clue as to what was happening a billion years ago. I have science to prove it! Scientific theories change as new evidence is presented and older ideas are disproved. Think about how that you're gonna die without knowing 99% of what there is to know about life and the universe, yet you'll stick to you're story that petty humans can understand billions of years of existence b/c you read it somewhere.

Believe it or not, there are people who can open up their wallets and look at twenty or forty dollars and fully understand the significance of what's there. These same people will never in their wildest dreams handle billions of dollars. Does this mean that they can't possibly comprehend national budgets - or even the bottom lines of some big corporations? Perhaps an inability to do so would go a long way toward explaining some of the problems faced by the United States today...

We live in a reality that has causality. Every event that happens is an effect of a previous cause. So, what was the first cause? Does existence infinitely digress into nothing? So, gravity is a law. Inertia, action and reaction. These things existed how? Apparently just for no reason... out of nowhere. Nothing created them... hey.. it's just the way it is! It's science obviously. Love, art, society, passion, emotion, pain, ambition, good and evil just happen to be side effects of our ridiculously enhanced brains that we got by atoms jumbling around for millions and millions of years.

Only irrational fools will hastily claim to know the answer to everything. It is generally accepted that worthwhile scientists are neither irrational nor fools.

[Digital Masta]

I always find those shows on the history channel that try to rationalize certain bible things really interesting.

They did natural possibility scenarios for the flood.

This other one was trying to show that early bibilical leaders were in fact incredibly capable military leaders, especially Moses.

[Kfisher]

They're called theories because they may or may not be true.

[Kwiz]

They're called theories because they may or may not be true.

Do you understand that the word "theory" has multiple meanings depending on context?

[Kfisher]

Do you understand that the word "theory" has multiple meanings depending on context?

Uhh...not really. Enlighten me...

[PopCulturePooka]

Lol Creationists.

People I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

How retard, believing in a MAGIC SPACE WIZARD making us out of DUST BUNNIES!

[Kwiz]

Kfisher, this is the part where you investigate on your own. I don't say this out of spite - it's only possible to learn something when you sort through the data independently.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Last I heard, gravity was still a theory...

Anywho, why can't evolutionists and creationists just get along? I mean, the Bible was written by man, who was inspired God. So let's say God is trying to explain to someone thousands of years ago about the creation of the universe, the world, and life.

God: First, there was a huge explosion...
Man: What's an explosion?
God: Well, there was darkness, and then a flash of light.
Man: 'Darkness, then light...', ok got it. What's next?
God: Then, a couple billion years later...
Man: Billion?
God: It's a really big number.
Man: Hmmm...I don't think anyone will understand that. We just measure in days and stuff.
God: Ok, just put one day.

And so on and so forth. Also, if you look at the order of creation in Genesis, it's pretty similar to the order evolutionists say, too. Personally, I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that God didn't have a hand in it. You just can't take the Bible literally. It was written by men, revised years later to suit the times, and translated how many times? Take the message, not the words themselves.

[Kfisher]

Kfisher, this is the part where you investigate on your own. I don't say this out of spite - it's only possible to learn something when you sort through the data independently.

Very well then.

And so on and so forth. Also, if you look at the order of creation in Genesis, it's pretty similar to the order evolutionists say, too. Personally, I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that God didn't have a hand in it. You just can't take the Bible literally. It was written by men, revised years later to suit the times, and translated how many times? Take the message, not the words themselves.

Co-sign 100%.

[Digital Masta]

It's always been my experience that people who don't believe in it are usually the first to criticize those that do (NOTE: MY EXPERIENCE) Usually believersare private enough about it and once someone who isn't comes along its "Oh man, how can you believe that stuff?"

Again, my experience.

[Kwiz]

Anywho, why can't evolutionists and creationists just get along?

This sentiment comes from the way people handle debate. As I was just saying in an AIM conversation, what makes debate worthwhile is the fact that it's a search for the objective truth. Otherwise intelligent people end up falling to the "us and them" mentality, which leads to idiotic shouting matches, which in turn gets nothing done and only buries the real facts beneath many layers of childish bullshit.

On the other hand, if you're asking for everyone to just forget the differences in their systems of thinking, that's wishful at best.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

I don't think they should forget their differences, but they're trying so hard to be different that on the one hand there's no God, and the other there are dinosaurs at the birth of Christ.

[RandomPasserby]

Heh, I remember when the creationists here used the "It's just a theory, not a law like gravity!". Still makes me smile :D

[Micah the Great]

Kwizard:

In all honestly... i seriously do not know if you're just making random comments off my comments or completely disagree with me. What i mean is that i don't know if your rebuttals to my statements were actual rebuttals or not, as they didn't really address issues i stated, but just made random commentaries on random scientific facts and societal views that were semi-related at best. You seem to be a fairly intelligent person... as i totally agree w/ your statement:

This sentiment comes from the way people handle debate. As I was just saying in an AIM conversation, what makes debate worthwhile is the fact that it's a search for the objective truth. Otherwise intelligent people end up falling to the "us and them" mentality, which leads to idiotic shouting matches, which in turn gets nothing done and only buries the real facts beneath many layers of childish bullshit.

On the other hand, if you're asking for everyone to just forget the differences in their systems of thinking, that's wishful at best.

But there are no solidarity to your other statements. Sorry, DO A BARREL ROLL!

PandaClair:
I have thought this about that before, and honestly, it still fits w/ creationism if your basis of creationism is that God has control and purpose and whatnot... so yeah.. i guess. =)

PCP:
Yes... your opinion is very rational. Witty comments that have nothing to do w/ anything help prove your beliefs very well! True logic.

Heh, I remember when the creationists here used the "It's just a theory, not a law like gravity!". Still makes me smile :D
I don't get it?

[RandomPasserby]

I mean we have gone through this debate here before and the "arguments" from the creationist side were the same ones pretty much.

[Micah the Great]

oh.. cool beans. Man i like mexican food.

[MeneerDijk]

Personally i don't give a flying whoop if someone believes in creationism. I just get really really pissed when they try to force it on others. I thought the bible said lying is a sin, and here they are taking the word of god and interpreting the hell out of it. They see the bible as evidence, but they don't take everything literally, just what suits them.

I guess what it comes down to is that creationists see everything as an attack on their faith. They know some things just don't make sense, and they are clutching every opportunity to make sense of reality.

Personally i think being a descendant from a primate is something to be proud of. They're wonderful beings that stand proof of evolutions ingenuity, and they have a good sense of humor. Wich god doesn't have, unless you can laugh about millions of starving people in africa, or wars etc. etc. etc. (and don't tell me it's gods way of teaching you a lesson <_<; )

And besides, if there was a god, i think he'd be pissed at the creationists for discarding billions of years of hard work and only giving him credit for the last 5000

p.s. I rarely rant about this just because i don't want to offend people in their faith. I realize i can't make anyone change their mind about their religion, so just see this as me ranting with foam at the mouth.

[PopCulturePooka]

PCP:
Yes... your opinion is very rational. Witty comments that have nothing to do w/ anything help prove your beliefs very well! True logic.

Why would I need to prove my beliefs to idiots that believe in fucking childrens fairy tales?

Would I have to prove otherwise to an idiot that believes in the tale of Red Riding Hood or Goldilocks and the Three Bears?

No.

Then why try and prove otherwise to bible bashing fairy tale believing idiots?

They are wrong, an anachronism, have no place in the modern world and are thankfully mainly confined to America.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

Personally, i've seen seashells on mountain tops and some sharks' teeth embedded into the walls on a cave. Though, i'm sure one can come up w/ very intelligent theories to how this exists, but the flood is pretty believable to me.

I like how evolution is a theory, and people believe and trust it just like its a religion... which is hilarious to me. It seems like to me if you believe evolution, you have to take it all... not just the possibilities of mutations advancing life, tho mutations tend to result in destroying genetic makeup, making the mutated creature worse off than the parent. You also have to believe that apparently, atoms (electrons, protons, and a nucleus) randomly began to exist for no reason. Virtually an infinite number of them in the universe. Then somehow there's randomly life today. Because if you just give it enough time, atoms can grow and learn and love and live. Has anyone heard of 'entropy'. Nice. There was no existence.... then there was. Nice theory, sounds about as believable as an alternate, higher being making us the way we are.

Bolded part - Yeah, you do have to believe this, if you put no fucking thought into it. Why do you assume everything has to be made? time is a creation of humans, time measures everything relative to the existance of humans. If all humans died, does that mean nothing exists anymore simply because no-one is alive to acknowledge it? i don't think so. So because humans didn't exist say 90000 billion years ago, that means nothing existed and it's completely inconcievable that all matter has existed forever into infinity, simply because you just weren't alive to acknowledge any kind of beginning? perhaps the notion that stuff wasn't just shit out of god arse doesn't suit your argument though.

I'm not gonna say much more, but i can see why you find creationist beliefs such strong and compelling arguments though, given that each point you've argued here holds the same calibre of retarded thought processes to conjure up. It's a fun submissive state of "i don't know but i'm not even gonna think about it" instead of looking for real answers you pull out some shithole nothing set of words of vagueness and intentional ambiguity, offering no real answers yourself, only trying to discredit anything with a real factual basis with the same crap arguments like "oh we don't have all the answers"..."how do you explain this then"..."if that's what happened, how come you're gay?"

In essence you're arguing with shit, the stuff you say is baseless, you attempt to justify by failing to acknowledge such basic things like the fact that evolution is very strongly proven, you make a retarded statement about mutations, which i can only assume comes from watching too much sci-fi and i can't help but feel you're not the first bird eating this worm, ie your argument feels a little regurgitated from someone else, who've you been listening to? professor Ezekiel Abrahams with a "degree" in metaphysics?

hmm... oh well, guess i lied, i said quite a bit more there.

[Micah the Great]

Personally i don't give a flying whoop if someone believes in creationism. I just get really really pissed when they try to force it on others. I thought the bible said lying is a sin, and here they are taking the word of god and interpreting the hell out of it. They see the bible as evidence, but they don't take everything literally, just what suits them.
Some of your argument i don't understand... but i get what you're saying. Half way is bullshit. The "just taking what suits you" blows my freaking mind.


I guess what it comes down to is that creationists see everything as an attack on their faith.
This is untrue. You should have said "some creationists" or "creationists might see.."


They know some things just don't make sense, and they are clutching every opportunity to make sense of reality.
Is evolution not the same? Oh wait, a supposed scientist supposedly said something on tv or in a book, thus making it a permanent universal fact.


Personally i think being a descendant from a primate is something to be proud of. They're wonderful beings that stand proof of evolutions ingenuity, and they have a good sense of humor. Wich god doesn't have, unless you can laugh about millions of starving people in africa, or wars etc. etc. etc. (and don't tell me it's gods way of teaching you a lesson <_<; )
So, you apparently know these creatures very well and have spent lots of time living w/ them to understand them so well. I often astrally project myself millions of years ago to experience the habitat of mutated bipeds.

Also, based on Christianity, God has nothing to do w/ starvation/wars/human plight as it's humans fault according to the bible. A Christian that says something like that may have good intentions, but they're just stupid.



And besides, if there was a god, i think he'd be pissed at the creationists for discarding billions of years of hard work and only giving him credit for the last 5000
Apparently you didn't read my other post. ???


p.s. I rarely rant about this just because i don't want to offend people in their faith. I realize i can't make anyone change their mind about their religion, so just see this as me ranting with foam at the mouth.
I don't know about other religions, but a Christian (not someone who just goes to church and/or says they're one b/c of random, half-assed beliefs) will not get offended b/c someone is speaking their mind. Their (by their i obviously mean mine too (if you haven't figured it out)) faith isn't based on people making comments to them about other religions or non-religion or anything for that matter. Tho i totally believe you're completely ignorant, that doesn't make your opinion any less worthy, since you made it YOUR opinion and asserted it.

Since this is shifting off topic (b/c i really like rum)... What i mean is that i AM SAYING that your's, and most of you other posters' comments on the subject are completely ridiculous too me. People love to side with popular belief and claim all creationists make crazy claims and are stupid and twisted. Believing creationism based on this attitude is as stupid as believing evolution based on the same thing: I DID TEh STUIDying anD FOUNdZ th3 INfoz to disPROVE it!!!!1!1

People believe things b/c they choose too, thus making it a valid decision. If they didn't believe it 100% and they're minds were changed so easily, did they really believe in the first place? Who cares what some wishy washy, politically correct drone thinks about an issue. It just odd that if you believe the idea of evolution 100% it's totally fine, but if you believe creationism 100% you're just a religious fruit cake.

[mawande]

Unfortunately for you, gravity isn't a theory, it's a fully accepted scientific law.

Well, so is evolution. The thing is that GRAVITY does not give anyone cause to argue about whether or not God did it.

[mawande]

This could be in the "What are we reading" thread, because I actually would like to recommend Terry Pratchett's "Darwin's Watch". Just for fun.

[Micah the Great]

Why would I need to prove my beliefs to idiots that believe in fucking childrens fairy tales?

Would I have to prove otherwise to an idiot that believes in the tale of Red Riding Hood or Goldilocks and the Three Bears?

No.

Then why try and prove otherwise to bible bashing fairy tale believing idiots?

They are wrong, an anachronism, have no place in the modern world and are thankfully mainly confined to America.
Again, you're type of argument avoids issues and consists of name calling and illogical connections.

I have a question... why believe anything that was written in history to be true if everything in the bible was a fairy tale, since it's a well know fact the old testament manuscripts were the most well kept, most numerous documents ever. Second to the account of Julius Caesar if i remember correctly.. oh well i was just a fairly tale anyway.

Bolded part - Yeah, you do have to believe this, if you put no fucking thought into it. Why do you assume everything has to be made? time is a creation of humans, time measures everything relative to the existance of humans. If all humans died, does that mean nothing exists anymore simply because no-one is alive to acknowledge it? i don't think so. So because humans didn't exist say 90000 billion years ago, that means nothing existed and it's completely inconcievable that all matter has existed forever into infinity, simply because you just weren't alive to acknowledge any kind of beginning? perhaps the notion that stuff wasn't just shit out of god arse doesn't suit your argument though.
1st bold: How is thinking everything came from nothing more logical than it coming from something. Everything in my existence that i've experienced came from something. The touch of the computer keys i'm using right now... someone made it. I feel of a emotion that came from a relationship i had created w/ a friend. The newness of a unusual society that was created by people in a different country... things are created.

2nd bold: You're just asking the same questions i was, but not answering them.


I'm not gonna say much more, but i can see why you find creationist beliefs such strong and compelling arguments though, given that each point you've argued here holds the same calibre of retarded thought processes to conjure up. It's a fun submissive state of "i don't know but i'm not even gonna think about it" instead of looking for real answers you pull out some shithole nothing set of words of vagueness and intentional ambiguity, offering no real answers yourself, only trying to discredit anything with a real factual basis with the same crap arguments like "oh we don't have all the answers"..."how do you explain this then"..."if that's what happened, how come you're gay?"
1st bold: Name calling certainly helps your argument good sir.

2nd bold: Nothing -> billion years -> atoms -> billion years -> matter forms together for no reason to make things -> billion years -> human society! And this isn't 'vague'?


In essence you're arguing with shit, the stuff you say is baseless, you attempt to justify by failing to acknowledge such basic things like the fact that evolution is very strongly proven, you make a retarded statement about mutations, which i can only assume comes from watching too much sci-fi and i can't help but feel you're not the first bird eating this worm, ie your argument feels a little regurgitated from someone else, who've you been listening to? professor Ezekiel Abrahams with a "degree" in metaphysics?
1st bold: Why?

2nd bold: Well you know, when you assume, it only makes an ass out of u and me.

3rd bold: I made my opinion. As any person has ever made one, they've listened to many people, read several things, and sat and thought a certain amount of time. I made the argument, no need to flame my "retarded" opinions onto someone else. =)

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

You clearly missed my initial point, i said there never was nothing, i'm quite certain i said that it was perfectly concievable that atoms have forever existed, they do not need to be created, there never was nothing, and the fact that you completely failed to grasp the points i made perfectly highlights why i didn't bother coming up with a counter argument to what you initially said. My opening paragraph posed hypothetical questions, implicit with answers, which you missed, then you've proceeded to again do exactly what i criticised about your argument. I was aiming ___ that low, but apparantly, that was still too high.

Baseless arguments why? - you opened up talkin about fossils on mountains, your answer great flood caused by god, evidence of devine intervention = 0, no evidence = no facts, no facts = no basis to your argument = baseless argument.

I've covered 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th points there, 6th - why assume? because once again, you made a statement about mutations which was false, what you did say was on par of credability with toxic waste giving humans super powers. So it was safe to assume you were basing off something on an equivalent level.

Last point, opinions all have to have a basis, i know people like to use the "well it's my opinion and that's what i believe" but people tend to forget that when their opinion is based on a book with minimal credability, their opinion is compromised due to it being baseless and relying on the ambiguities of a poor source. Essentially, the whole argument is "prove it," knowledge takes time, and faith is no substitute for knowledge, infact it stands directly in the path of it, as i previously stated, it's submitting to ignorance, instead of finding answers, it's taking the only ones available which are worthless.

[Kaji]

I take the middle of the road, personally. As a Catholic I am a creationist (however, not of the literal 6-day stripe). That said, I've never seen anything that puts the theory of evolution directly at odds with Creation, as only one purports to tell how everything came into existence; the other merely tries to explain what happened next.

In the end, what it boils down to for me, is that you can't create something from nothing. Matter had to come into being somehow, and the whole Big Bang theory doesn't explain it adequately for my liking (as summed up on 4chan once, "In the beginning there was nothing...which then exploded"). Creation by a god makes more sense to me than spontaneous generation of matter, especially since to the best of our scientists' knowledge there's no way to replicate said spontaneous generation.

Either way though, frankly, most of what active creationists put out there is bunk. If it's got "Answers in Genesis", "Dr. Dino", or "Kent Hovind" printed on it anywhere, I just tune it out and keep on going.

[MeneerDijk]

Well dear Micah. We could go on and on debating what i said, what you said, and why we think the other one is wrong. But i don't think we'll ever come to an agreement. What i said makes sense in my mind. But so does the spork.

[PopCulturePooka]

Again, you're type of argument avoids issues and consists of name calling and illogical connections.

I have a question... why believe anything that was written in history to be true if everything in the bible was a fairy tale, since it's a well know fact the old testament manuscripts were the most well kept, most numerous documents ever. Second to the account of Julius Caesar if i remember correctly.. oh well i was just a fairly tale anyway.

LOLZ

Its quite accepted parts of the bible happened. Don't doubt that.

I do doubt the hocus pocus magical mumbo jumbo shit though. Like the magic space wizards making people with floor sweepings. The talking reptiles. The attractive ladies turning in table condiments.

Its one thing to belive historical documents of human events. Another thing entirely to believe mystical crap like the creation myth.

Question, what makes the christrian creation myth any more believable than the Vikining one? The Aztec or Mayan ones? The Australia Aboriginal one that stated a giant, angry, rainbow coloured snake made the Earth and all life on it?

Why is a Magic Space Wizard any more believable than a Giant Rainbow Serpent?:liar:

[RandomPasserby]

What i don't get is who created God?

[Micah the Great]

Scollan:
Your points are obviously too much for me to handle and understand. Plz continue to complain about my non-understanding and more unanswerable questions. No need to actually try to answer one. Talking in circles helps prove you're intelligent. I literally can't follow your logic in this subject or your way of debating. To you this is me saying you're smarter than me and to me this is me saying i'm smarter than you. We win the internetz. Good job.

MeneerDijk:
Very well. *toasts

PCP:
LOL at magic space wizard. Although a more thought-out reply, still w/ no real consistency or facts or disproof of my statements.

RandomPasserby:
Considering God is supposedly a god/higher being... it will not be 'got'.

Noone wins here. w t f :karate:

[RandomPasserby]

RandomPasserby:
Considering God is supposedly a god/higher being... it will not be 'got'.

Yeah but that doesn't answer where did God come from? Nothing just appears out of nothing, right? Especially a god/higher being!

[Micah the Great]

I don't know.. ask him. Let's say God exists. He has the power and intelligence to create EVERYTHING. This is just an internet text thread and i can't understand Scollan. Imagine understanding an omniscient God. It's not possible.

Yeah but that doesn't answer where did God come from? Nothing just appears out of nothing, right? Especially a god/higher being!
This has been exactly what i'm saying. Which happened: A being came from nothing or matter formed beings that came from nothing. People like evolution... great. People like creationism... great. As far as this thread goes, i like how creationism's side is being bashed w/out logically explanation, yet the evolutionists apparently can't see that their argument is no better. I just said my beliefs and that i didn't believe the other... which makes me "retarded"... so you doing the exactly same thing, makes you enlightened. Double standards are great.

(and by you i didn't mean YOU Random)

[PopCulturePooka]

PCP:
LOL at magic space wizard. Although a more thought-out reply, still w/ no real consistency or facts or disproof of my statements.

Honestly, creationists aren't WORTH thought out debate with.

Would you have a thought out debate with an idiot who believes Wizard of Oz is real?

Problem with creationists and their 'points' is they try and fit science to amtch their lunatic belief. They have their insane nutjob idea and try and plug scientific 'facts' into it. Usually badly and laughably. Like the examples shown in this 'museum'.

Evolutionary scienctists, like most scienctists, adapt their ideas and theories when new knowledge comes to light. This for some reason weakens evolution in the eyes of creation crazies who don't seem to understand how science works (wow what a shock).

As my genetics and evolution lecturer once told me, creationists aren't worth the time or effort to debate (he suggested mocking, I idolise him). They don't have anything WORTH debating beyond this bizzare adherence to a dying idea.

[Micah the Great]

This is your 4th post in this thread. If are so confident in creationism being WORTHLESS, then stop debating.

[darighaz]

But flaming you is so much fun....

We dont need to teach you evolution, its widely researched and theres looots of supporting evidence. Theres not jack shit that says creationism is real, and a hell of a lot that says its not.

[RandomPasserby]

I don't know.. ask him. Let's say God exists. He has the power and intelligence to create EVERYTHING. This is just an internet text thread and i can't understand Scollan. Imagine understanding an omniscient God. It's not possible.


This has been exactly what i'm saying. Which happened: A being came from nothing or matter formed beings that came from nothing. People like evolution... great. People like creationism... great. As far as this thread goes, i like how creationism's side is being bashed w/out logically explanation, yet the evolutionists apparently can't see that their argument is no better. I just said my beliefs and that i didn't believe the other... which makes me "retarded"... so you doing the exactly same thing, makes you enlightened. Double standards are great.

(and by you i didn't mean YOU Random)
I'm trying understand the logic that an omnipotent being popping out of who knows where would be as logical or more logical than the universe starting from who knows where when facts point away from one to the other.

Also PCP probably has argued with creationists before and recognizes your arguments and he can guess from your dismissal of all scientific evidence that there is no point in arguing with you. You will either throw a fit when you lose or ignore the "winning post" or the whole thread if you follow the same road as the other creationists using the same arguments as you.

[Micah the Great]

Good... looots of supporting evidence seems useless when it's not supporting something solid in the first place. (aka A THEORY)

I'm assuming that by saying there's jack shit to support creationism, you mean you've never researched information on it yourself and/or refused to do so or take it seriously b/c it's automatically crazy.

I'm glad there's lots of people and things that "say" evolution is correct and others that "say" a lot against creationism (i wonder if there's also the possibility of vise versa existing.. hummm??). I guess you're amazing knowledge from watching tv and reading random books and whatnot, makes you an expert.... that or just some dude w/ his thumb up his ass.

[RandomPasserby]

There is the fit now.
But no, I have actually read some of the pro-creationism "evidence" few years ago and unless it has changed much, it mostly consists of "God of Holes"-type of stuff.

[Micah the Great]

Random:
Re: Logic. Nothing -> matter -> people. or God -> matter -> people. If you can't understand it as you said, then why argue against it? Nothing or God? If you don't think God is logical... that's fine, but how is NOTHING more logical? Also.. what facts? What winning thread? What fit did i throw? If i'm gonna make an argument then i'm gonna freaking do it. I've been totally calm and explained several times that other peoples' ideas are just as legitimate as mine, if they really believe. I haven't received the same in return. I'm INSANE OMG! Arguing about religion on the internetz!! STUPID MICAH! ( <--- clearly a 'fit')

PCP arguing w/ other creationists before doesn't make him an expert on universal theories or laws. Even if he IS... that's not what made him so.

[RandomPasserby]

Nothing -> matter -> people. or nothing -> a god -> matter -> people. is what I was comparing actually (how doesn't the god there make it more illogical?).
And you haven't been totally calm check this:


I'm glad there's lots of people and things that "say" evolution is correct and others that "say" a lot against creationism (i wonder if there's also the possibility of vise versa existing.. hummm??). I guess you're amazing knowledge from watching tv and reading random books and whatnot, makes you an expert.... that or just some dude w/ his thumb up his ass.

I think I didn't throw insults at you and also I don't think insulting others can be counted as totally calm.
If you want facts, check what science has to say on age of Earth, fossils etc. and what biologists have to say on origin of species etc. I'm no expert, but I never claimed to be, i just stated that I know that the real experts disagree with you (and no, I didn't see it on Bullshit/other tv shows like you seem to think).

[japanat]

Now, I'm not a church-going feller, but I won't knock people who believe in God and His hand in the creation of the universe. Nor will I attempt to say someone is right on either side. But the creationist/evolutionist dogma has reallllyyy been irritating me lately. So, I will attack logic flaws and specious argument.

Number one: What are the definitions? A hypothesis is a scientist's belief that something happens and will continue to happen when certain conditions are met. A theory, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that has withstood multiple checks without failure TO DATE. A theory can never be proven, only disproven. And although the term is often bandied about, there are no 'natural laws'. Did some kind of Congress meet and pass them? A law is a creation... of man.

A true scientist, not a dogmatic one, is studying the universe or their particular field in it. They shouldn't have any pre-conceived notions, no axes to grind. They should be attempting to look at what they find and explain it, not find something to explain their theory.

And an honest scientist will freely admit that evolution has not been proven; merely that all evidence to date, while sometimes causing modifications to the theory, has either supported it, or at least not disproved it. Example: 'men are descended from apes'. According to the earlier theory, men came directly from their near cousins, the chimpanzee. Well... the fossil record, and later DNA tracking, appear to show that man and the great apes separated much longer ago than that. But there are also large gaps in the record, which scientists world-wide will spend their careers attempting to fill.

But the common creationist argument that "it's in the bible, so this is how it happened" also gets to me. I have a book that says that God lives in the center of the earth. The Bible itself has contradictory explanations for some things. You can neither prove or disprove any of it. You certainly can't recreate any of it.

And why does belief in God have to equal disbelief in the sciences in the Falwellian universe? Your car works, don't it? The computer you're looking at right now continues to push them invidible liddle electron thingies around, even though you can't see them.

Doesn't anyone realize that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive? Many famous scientists have been/are believers in God (anyone remember the Jesuits?) or Deists (and many have not). Even Einstein said something like "I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe."

Personally, I find it just as easy to believe that a miniscule spot went 'KABLOOIE' and created all the universes as to believe that an omniscient God had always been there, but just decided to create all the universe 6000 some years ago. What the hell (sorry!) did he do for all that time until then? And why would he be built like a primate (we're made in his image, right?), with legs for walking and hands for grabbing shit, if he has always been here and never needed a planet until 6000 yrs ago.

But I accept the fact that I don't know. I would like to know, and hope that scientists will continue to explore and attempt to explain our universe. If that explanation includes God, then I will accept that as well. But don't just say something happened and expect me to take it on faith!

[Micah the Great]

You're doing it wrong.
Is this even real? What insults? I sarcastically implied the guy was an idiot. I'm sure he's pretty insulted. How about this. I publicly think he's an idiot in that post. I don't know the guy. What if i met him irl and we become bestest friends foreva! According to me... it looked like he had his thumb up his ass, just like according to you i'm definitely not calm. Since you know me so well you must be right. =) whooo genki!

Oh yea.. the topic (kind of). I'm arguing all this not to disprove science... but b/c i choose to believe things have purpose and aren't completely random. You believe otherwise afaik. Great.

The problem is you can argue forever about how this species became this other species, genetic changes, or Earths climate changes over X years. You could be the world's leading expert on this. Still God created things the way they are for a reason beyond the amount of understanding our grey matter can muster... or there's no god, no reason, no actually life.. just matter changing over time since forever. It's one way or the other. If God 100% created our reality, then science has to agree w/ it... if it 100% came from nowhere since no time, then science would support that. Science makes sense either way, you have to choose the beginning that makes most sense to you.

EDIT: Oh Japanat, i just read your post. You're opinion involves listening and understanding facts, views, faults, and possibilities. FINALLY, someone w/ reason. It could be one way, it could be the other, it could be a mix. Noone 100% knows. Claiming people are crazy retards for believing something that's exactly as crazy as something you believe proves you're close-minded on the other issue.

[Roxie]

huh.

I don't believe that evolution and genisis are multially exclusive. I mean...they can work together..1 day to God could be like 20 million years.

Honestly, I don't care... I mean the unraveling (sp) of how things and ppl on the planet came to be only affirms my faith...but I don't think I'd create a MUSUEM around it. I don't really understand that concept at all.

[RandomPasserby]

Japanat, yes, science and religions don't need to be mutually exclusive but there aren't that many religions that don't try to bend science/world&society to fit their beliefs which is why the these threads happen. Also personally I hate people who try to drag to science to same level as their (sometimes very ridiculous) beliefs.

Also, if a god is actually found, I won't say that doesn't exist, but before that, I believe gods are as reals as auras, ghosts, martial artists throwing fireballs from their hands and alien abductions.

[Micah the Great]

Man Ghostbusters is one of my favorite movies. Also, martial artists obviously can shoot fireballs... wtf have you been?

[Digital Masta]

Personally i don't give a flying whoop if someone believes in creationism. I just get really really pissed when they try to force it on others. I thought the bible said lying is a sin, and here they are taking the word of god and interpreting the hell out of it. They see the bible as evidence, but they don't take everything literally, just what suits them.

The parts of the bible are meant for interpetation. It even says in the bible to apply things to your current generation. Meaning, naturally times change, as such the way to do certain things will change as well.


PCP, can you get your point across without lowering to flames and insults regarding people who believe in creationism.


I'm under the impression that you've never had a good sit down discussion with someone who believed in creation, you know someone who has really studied their religion. I don't mean a debate or attack a simple, "Why is it that you believe in X". You aren't attacking them, you're just talking(it can be done), they aren't a religious crazy person (need to always throw this in). Just talk.


I've done this quite a bit and it helps to understand and develop a certain respect for their beliefs, even if you may not believe it yourself.

They aren't lunatics, they aren't foolish, and their beliefs aren't crazy.


Just to add my physics teacher said to the class "Scientist really don't have a damn clue about what happened at the start of the universe"


I've also heard personal accounts of people, where "god had his hand in their life". Sure they could've all been incredible coincidence but damn that's some freaky as coincidences.

Still, I'm still at an I don't know part of my life.

My parents and other people hope by the time I have kids I'll be out of that but I don't see that happening.

[PopCulturePooka]

See creationism in Australia IS a fringe belief mostly.
We dont have creation crackpots forcing its teaching in schools (thank god, I'd refuse to accept any curriculum that made me teach it), we don't have debate about it and we generally view creationists as... weird.

I'm going to put myself out there and say I cannot understand creationists. I cannot comprehend nor fathom how any so called smart person can be stupid enough to BELIEVE, seriously, that life was created by some magic being.

The whole idea that people actually believe such malarky really freaks me out.

When non Americans laugh at America, Creationism, and Americans belief in it, is one of the top reason.


I have talked to creationists before. I've done my readings and watched some online videos. Their science is bunk. It's strawman arguments, fallacies, misconcepts of scientific ideas, uses outdated studies and attempts to fit Science into their world view.

The only real world creationists I've met are batshit insane.

And I've come to the opinion that anyone that honestly truly believes that some fucking bearded SOB in the sky made us from dust is a lunatic, is foolish and does hold crazy beliefs to varying degrees.

I feel sorry most for the ones that have been brought up believing it. Their parents passed their nutcase beliefs down to their children. Wow.

I'm so happy that the insane idea of creation (from a biological viewpoint, Universe creation isn't my forte) doesn't really spread outside America.

Really, what makes The Creation Myth anymore right than the Rainbow Serpent? I'm sure with the money and resources I could make a Dreamtime Museum and show all my 'proof' that the world and life was created by the Rainbow Serpent and a fat laughing frog.

Or a giant space spider spinning webs.

Or the vikining myth.

I'm doing evolution with my year 11 class next term I believe. I know right now that I am not entertaining anything creationist in my class. it won't be mentioned, except to inform any kids with that belief that we are studying evolution, it will be science only, not flights of Harry potter-esque fantasy and that they need to do the unit if they expect to graduate. It will be great!

[Digital Masta]

The way I see it one of 3 things will happen when one dies

1)Nothing

2) If you are of the Judeo-Christian faiths you were right (give or take) and you face the consequences of that, whatever they may be, if you didn't believe it you are now like "fuck!"

3) One of the other religions were right and you face the consequences of their dogma unless its Buddhist which doesn't have dogma. If you didn't believe in anything or believed in something else you are like "fuck!"


It's like a big race to see who's right. Sadly the people who are dead already can't tell us anything.

[RandomPasserby]

The way I see it one of 3 things will happen when one dies

1)Nothing

2) If you are of the Judeo-Christian faiths you were right (give or take) and you face the consequences of that whatever they may be, if you didn't believe it you are now like "fuck!"

3) One of the other religions were right and you face the consequences of their dogma unless its Buddhist which doesn't have dogma. If you didn't believe in anything you are still like "fuck!"


It's like a big race to see who's right. Sadly the people who are dead already can't tell us anything.
Where is the "you end up as a Hollow option"?

[Digital Masta]

4) You end up as tormented soul and become a Hollow, thus you begin eating people.

[Kwiz]

Kwizard:

In all honestly... i seriously do not know if you're just making random comments off my comments or completely disagree with me. What i mean is that i don't know if your rebuttals to my statements were actual rebuttals or not, as they didn't really address issues i stated, but just made random commentaries on random scientific facts and societal views that were semi-related at best.

One of my responses was an analogy. Did that fly over your head along with the fact that the theory of evolution, unlike countless "alternatives," actually passes my bullshit tests?

Before I'm willing to take someone's assertions seriously, I have this dire need to know that they're capable of basic reasoning. I hope you'll understand that. So let's return to your mention of the flood story:

Personally, i've seen seashells on mountain tops and some sharks' teeth embedded into the walls on a cave. Though, i'm sure one can come up w/ very intelligent theories to how this exists, but the flood in pretty believable to me.

Where I replied: You find it believable that the total amount of water on this planet could have more than doubled in the space of a month and a half? Through rainfall?*

With only a glance at some hard numbers, your reasoning ability is thrown into question.

From a couple of universally accepted figures: the surface area of our planet is approximately 510,065,600 km^2. The lowest mountaintop of which I could find a record (please correct me if I'm wrong), is Devil's Bit in Ireland, standing at 478 m (0.478 km). In order to have a flood which tops the measly summit of Devil's Bit, you would therefore need something on the order of 243,811,356.8 km^3 of water. Discount the volume displaced by continental landmass, and you're still looking at hundreds of millions of cubic kilometers.

Where could all this water possibly come from? The fact that you seem to take the flood story at face value unsettles my ability to take you seriously.





*earlier, I shouldn't have said that the volume of the oceans would have to double - that would be a bit of an exaggeration. It's more like a 50% increase.

[Digital Masta]

This thread is going to get insane soon enough. It may be obvious but I'm still pointing it out.

[mawande]

Continental drift, plate tectonics, a heck of a lot of rain resulting in rivers and lakes overflowing their banks, major earthquakes, terrible volcanic eruptions that cause global cooling....

[Micah the Great]

Yes, apparently everything is going way over my head... i'm like WTF? I don't know how i could have gotten sucked into this magical myth nonsense. What was i thinking... you guys are totally right.

BAHA j/k. Have fun being wrong!
/runs away laughing hysterically while waving arms like the madman he is.

PCP:
Where is all this "magical" stuff coming from? Not just the Christian God, but most gods in other religions afiak are considered "supernatural". If in your vocab they're interchangeable, that's great... but they're not in reality. They're (supposedly) supernatural beings. Above the natural in thought, powers (no.. not magical powers (that's soo LOLZ ^_^)), and physical transcendence, etc. etc. I don't see how you can't at least considerate that a possibility. If you put ants in an ant farm they don't know wtf is going on, they don't know you put them in there and control there fate. If they're just biologically evolved creatures like us, and we are so superior to them we seem god-like, why isn't it possible the same could be true for us. Saying that a being having god-like power over another is "magical" doesn't make sense. And who said God had a beard and lived in the sky?

Look, here's what you're saying. Rather than even giving the idea above an even slight, remote chance to be possible, you choose to believe there was nothing since forever, and at some random point there suddenly were things like matter, cosmic forces, causality, and the inherent ability that this "nothing" made these things come together to make life as we know it.

You constantly continue to explain how that creationists are just crazy and that the idea is a myth according to you and your logic, but don't actually give any reasons. It's just crazy and that's that.

Kwizard:
Yes, you people should just continuously claim i'm incapable of basic reasoning or logic... yet, you keep debating w/ me.

Dude WHAT are you talking about? So, the flood is an idea in the creationist point of view, right? Yet you're applying reasoning from the evolutionist point of view. If evolution is what you're arguing, why are you trying to prove/disprove the flood. You don't believe in it remember! If it DIDN'T happen, why argue HOW it didn't happen?

It's a creationist/biblical concept on how the world is the way it is today. Land mass and rain fall have nothing to do with it, since you're dealing with GOD in this theory. If God made existence in the creationist theory, what is an amount of water to him? Nothing. (also known as "magic" by PCP)

I'm sure this text will be received by you at perfect head level, and i will receive a comment back that is way.. and i mean WAY over my head. Big timez.

EDIT: Oh yeah, i forgot. I love you guys. :)

[darighaz]

Making a flood that would require the amt of water it did, appear outa nowhere is magic. Also where did all the water go.

Its not evolutionist theroy... Its the FACT that stuff has to come from somewhere and go somewhere. If your reponse to the argument that creationists make no sense is "A god did it." then you truly aren't worth talking to.

[Kwiz]

Kwizard:
Yes, you people should just continuously claim i'm incapable of basic reasoning or logic... yet, you keep debating w/ me.

Yes... I'm still trying to hold an intelligent debate with you despite my concern that you're not applying all the necessary logic. Your point?

Dude WHAT are you talking about? So, the flood is an idea in the creationist point of view, right? Yet you're applying reasoning from the evolutionist point of view. If evolution is what you're arguing, why are you trying to prove/disprove the flood. You don't believe in it remember! If it DIDN'T happen, why argue HOW it didn't happen?

"Point of view" and "opinion" prove nothing by themselves. Anyone can make any number of batshit crazy claims. These untested ideas of how the world works can only be accepted as true after they pass logical examination. So why did I do a quick calculation on that volume of water? I was testing a hypothesis as set forth by the flood story, and it turns out that such an extra mass of water does not exist anywhere on this planet or, indeed, in the entire solar system.

That's a basic rundown of how the scientific method works. What about it do you find confusing?

It's a creationist/biblical concept on how the world is the way it is today. Land mass and rain fall have nothing to do with it, since you're dealing with GOD in this theory. If God made existence in the creationist theory, what is an amount of water to him? Nothing. (also known as "magic" by PCP)

This is such a broken hypothesis that it's not even wrong. If we can't possibly examine such a cop-out as "God did it" using logic, then what's the point of taking it seriously? You can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

I'm sure this text will be received by you at perfect head level, and i will receive a comment back that is way.. and i mean WAY over my head. Big timez.

You're just as capable of understanding as I am. That's why I'm bothering to do this.

[Micah the Great]

Making a flood that would require the amt of water it did, appear outa nowhere is magic. Also where did all the water go.

Its not evolutionist theroy... Its the FACT that stuff has to come from somewhere and go somewhere. If your reponse to the argument that creationists make no sense is "A god did it." then you truly aren't worth talking to.
So a person's view on a religious or scientific subject makes them not worthy to talk to? Wow.. that's real grow-up...

Yes. Magic. If you have trouble believing some water was created out of nowhere... what about all matter in the universe? So it's magic if a god created it, but if it randomly created itself out of nowhere for some unknown reason, it's not magic. God creates some water = magic. All matter creates itself = not magic. kthnx.

Yes... I'm still trying to hold an intelligent debate with you despite my concern that you're not applying all the necessary logic. Your point?
Oh yea, the point. It was that it's ironic you're still debating me while you think i'm crazy/stupid and you don't want to anymore. :)

"Point of view" and "opinion" prove nothing by themselves. Anyone can make any number of batshit crazy claims. These untested ideas of how the world works can only be accepted as true after they pass logical examination. So why did I do a quick calculation on that volume of water? I was testing a hypothesis as set forth by the flood story, and it turns out that such an extra mass of water does not exist anywhere on this planet or, indeed, in the entire solar system.

That's a basic rundown of how the scientific method works. What about it do you find confusing?
I'm trying to think of any easier way to explain this... i wish i had some props or something. I don't see how you missed this. If a creationist believes in a God as a creator, they believe he created everything in existence as far as they know. He's omnipotent, omnipresent, ...totally omniscient. This means they believe God has the ability to whatever he wants in our existence at all times. Scientific method is unimportant at this point in creationism. I know this is not what YOU believe... but that's what a Christian creationist believes. Thus saying to a creationist that scientific method can disprove a point is useless since they believe God is all powerful. God isn't greater than science... he's in control of it.

Look Kwizard, i'm really not trying to be smart-ass but you need to understand this. That's what they(I) think. In a universe of matter evolving w/ no higher purpose, science IS what defines the laws of that universe. Scientific study is what guides truth. In creationism, God is truth. Therefore i'm not confused at all. :) Guess i just didn't explain it thoroughly enough.


This is such a broken hypothesis that it's not even wrong. If we can't possibly examine such a cop-out as "God did it" using logic, then what's the point of taking it seriously? You can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.
As stated above, it's not a hypothesis or a cop-out, it's the belief of that theory. No... no i cannot disprove a giant flying spaghetti monster. :boggled:

edit: wtf.. way too many [/quote]'s there.

[Kwiz]

Oh yea, the point. It was that it's ironic you're still debating me while you think i'm crazy/stupid and you don't want to anymore. :)

If I really saw no point in continuing this conversation, I wouldn't have even initiated it.

I'm trying to think of any easier way to explain this... i wish i had some props or something. I don't see how you missed this. If a creationist believes in a God as a creator, they believe he created everything in existence as far as they know. He's omnipotent, omnipresent, ...totally omniscient. This means they believe God has the ability to whatever he wants in our existence at all times. Scientific method is unimportant at this point in creationism. I know this is not what YOU believe... but that's what a Christian creationist believes. Thus saying to a creationist that scientific method can disprove a point is useless since they believe God is all powerful. God isn't greater than science... he's in control of it.

Then where is the underlying reason for belief in an omnipotent being? Hasn't it occurred to you, or any of these people for that matter, that even a "supernatural" being would have to come from somewhere?

As stated above, it's not a hypothesis or a cop-out, it's the belief of that theory. No... no i cannot disprove a giant flying spaghetti monster. :boggled:

I brought up the example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because, by the system of rationalizing that you've laid out for us, His Noodly Appendage is no more outlandish than the notion of an all-powerful God.

[Micah the Great]

Then where is the underlying reason for belief in an omnipotent being? Hasn't it occurred to you, or any of these people for that matter, that even a "supernatural" being would have to come from somewhere?
Absolutely... now you're getting it. It's called a "belief" in God. You can flame me up and down all day b/c of it. I don't care. You have a "belief" that matter created itself. Whatever. I believe my side enough to argue about it this long, and you believe your side enough to argue this long. Neither of as are stupid and neither of us can disprove the other's argument nor prove ours 100%. They're theories based on belief. You think your's is more logical, i think mine is. WHEEEE!


I brought up the example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because, by the system of rationalizing that you've laid out for us, His Noodly Appendage is no more outlandish than the notion of an all-powerful God.
This is absurd and you know it. Hey, instead of making more rational explanations, i'll just make fun of his 'God' and call it "witty". Thousands of years of texts, historical accounts, religious debates, accounts of millions of people, personal experiences, etc. don't account to nothing. There been wars, revolutions, and lives taken b/c of the concept of questioning God's existence. Whether we have souls, whether God exists, whether he is good or bad... these things are embedding in art and entertainment all over the world throughout history. You may not agree with or believe in any of this, but a conjured up monster is obviously not equivalent. hmm...

Yes, anything could exists as for as we know. I can use that same concept to attack your theory. By your system of rationalizing, for all we know we descended from a flying spaghetti monster... or might evolved into one later.

[Psychochink]

I brought up the example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because, by the system of rationalizing that you've laid out for us, His Noodly Appendage is no more outlandish than the notion of an all-powerful God.

Now just hold on a second, here!

If you boys want to debate the existence of the Christian God, or evolution, or whatever...well, that's no concern of mine.

But don't you be comparing the Flying Spagetti Monster to that nonsense. Outlandish, pshaw! I'll let it go this time, though. May you be blessed by His Noodly Appendage.

Incidentally, Pastafarianism should be taught in schools.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Evolution, Relativity, and Gravity were all hypotheses at one point as well. However though vast amounts of study, research, and experimentation we have been able to collect the data necessary to move these from hypothesis into the realm of scientific theory. Note that none of these are "law" as some in this thread have said. These theories aren't law because despite our best efforts we do not know all there is to know about these subjects. While we have overwhelming amounts of data about these theories it is likely we will never have all of the information necessary to move these past theory into law. This doesn't mean that these theories aren't creditable though, as there is enough data available for these all to be widely excepted as scientific theory.

Sure there are some ignorant people (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm) out there who will use even the smallest amounts of evidence to try and debunk these theories to give more creditability to the hypothesis known as creation. People like Ellen Schempp prey on people's naivety of these facts and what defines a scientific theory in order to give their points more merit. Despite their best efforts creation remains a hypothesis with only faith in the divine to support it. Until there is a time when it is possible for us to do reasonable research and experiments to test the hypothesis of creation it never be any more than a hypothesis.

None of this means that higher beings do or do not exist it just means that there is currently no way to test the existence of such beings. Such beings may very well exist or they might not. Since the existence of such things are uncertain I prefer to be agnostic until a time when there is sufficient evidence to prove it one way or another.

[Micah the Great]

/slams head on desk

Why spaghetti anyway? Why not chocolate?

^Oh yeah. Good post btw. This onslaught needed a break.

[Psychochink]

Chocolate? Now you're just being silly.

Oh, so my belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster is ridiculous, is it? Care to explain why?

Edit: ALL HAIL HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE!

You two can't win this debate against me, I have pirates on my side.

[Micah the Great]

I have a cowboy, X ninjas (x is unknown!), a samurai, and 2 medieval knights on my side. GTFO!

[Kwiz]

Absolutely... now you're getting it. It's called a "belief" in God. You can flame me up and down all day b/c of it. I don't care. You have a "belief" that matter created itself. Whatever. I believe my side enough to argue about it this long, and you believe your side enough to argue this long. Neither of as are stupid and neither of us can disprove the other's argument nor prove ours 100%. They're theories based on belief. You think your's is more logical, i think mine is. WHEEEE!

How many times must I repeat this? Scientifically developed and supported theories do not require belief.

This is absurd and you know it. Hey, instead of making more rational explanations, i'll just make fun of his 'God' and call it "witty". Thousands of years of texts, historical accounts, religious debates, accounts of millions of people, personal experiences, etc. don't account to nothing. There been wars, revolutions, and lives taken b/c of the concept of questioning God's existence. Whether we have souls, whether God exists, whether he is good or bad... these things are embedding in art and entertainment all over the world throughout history. You may not agree with or believe in any of this, but a conjured up monster is obviously not equivalent. hmm...

No, nobody has started a war, had a vision, or painted a painting based upon any interpretation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm not claiming that our two mystical beings are similar in this sense.

They are disturbingly equal, however, in their qualifications for being "real." Those who advocate the existence of God as well as the proponents of the FSM are both making a positive claim. (i.e.: such-and-such does exist) While the burden of proof therefore lies on them, they do not bring up any genuine evidence, instead saying that "(other explanation of natural phenomenon) is just a theory like mine" or "it's all a matter of belief." Belief is not and furthermore should not be an essential part of an explanation.

[Psychochink]

they do not bring up any genuine evidence

Excuse me, I can show a direct, inverse relationship between the global average temperature and number of pirates over the last 200 years. That's scientific, that is.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

Global warming can be battled by more piratey goodness. Simple case of cause -> effect.

[darighaz]

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2473 + the next 4-5 comics sum up my latest contribution to this thread.

[mawande]

Making a flood that would require the amt of water it did, appear outa nowhere is magic. Also where did all the water go.

One: The water did not appear out of nowhere. Water covers most of the surface of this planet. Where did it all go? Hint: Water covers most of the surface of this planet.

There've been heavy rains where I live. Heck, there've been heavy rains probably at different times where everyone lives. In a mere one hour of heavy rain, the roads I was driving on were inches deep in water. There were WAVES.

Back in ye old wayback, humanity was not all over the planet. Humanity also was not living in any place they couldn't survive owing to lack of food or freezing their behinds off. They were living where the land was fertile, for the most part. Flood plains, etc. Near RUNNING WATER, rivers. And, for humanity much of the time, the world has never been larger than the horizon.

[mawande]

Sure there are some ignorant people (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm) out there who will use even the smallest amounts of evidence to try and debunk these theories to give more creditability to the hypothesis known as creation. People like Ellen Schempp prey on people's naivety of these facts.

I hated to cut your post, but I really think you should read these things all the way through before you start sneering at the author. Like to the part where it says: "A different version of this parody article appeared in The Humanist magazine for Sept/Oct 2006. Used by permission of author."

See that word up there? Parody?

[darighaz]

mawande - there is not enough water on the planet right now in any form, to create a flood of the proportions described in the ark myth. hence... where did it come from.

[stsparky]

Lazy Micah. Check the links I posted on page one. What is humorous to me is that you think Noah's is the original story. It isn't. I'll wait for you to catch up.

The Torah is literature that points the reflective soul to thoughts of cosmology. It's not literal truth. The Gospels try and fail to capture that sense in my informed opinion.

[japanat]

mawande - there is not enough water on the planet right now in any form, to create a flood of the proportions described in the ark myth. hence... where did it come from.
Now, I don't believe in the Flood or most of the stories of the Bible (sorry, guys); but it actually is possible to posit, not to prove, just posit, that the Flood may have actually happened.

Some credible scientists believe that the Flood story was created when the Atlantic Ocean breached the land bridge between Spain and Morocco. The resulting deluge would have buried anyone in today's Mediterranean in hundreds of feet of water. Also the end of the last ice age is believed to have raised coastlines by as much as 300 feet, but through water flow from melting glaciers and increased rainfall (freezing air doesn't carry moisture, warm air does). Where were most peoples, certainly most cultures capable of at least a lasting verbal record? Along flood plains as earlier stated, and coastlines.

Others believe that at the end of the Earth's life all the water will be bound up in molecule chains in the rock and air, and that there will be no liquid water at all. After all, most of the water we have today actually was released through volcanic action. When the Earth gets old and the core has cooled, there won't be any tectonic action and no flowing magma.

I'm not religious, and don't believe in Creationism one iota, but I don't need to ridicule to make myself feel better. Some of the evolutionists on this thread are really rude beyond belief and remind me of my Shakespeare: "Methinks thou doth protest too much." I also study what is known before I shoot off my mouth (and this applies to both sides). No way in hell would I let my kids go to a public school in Kansas that teaches Creationism, but I have no objection to them learning about the idea and making their own informed choice.

BTW, belief IS a part of science. I know that when certain conditions are met, such-and-such happens. This has happened many times. But the belief comes in as soon as I say it WILL happen next time as well. And the next 10,000 times. Schroedinger's cat... Quantum mechanics

[Buckwheat]

Creation Science 101

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs

[Kwiz]

I'm not religious, and don't believe in Creationism one iota, but I don't need to ridicule to make myself feel better. Some of the evolutionists on this thread are really rude beyond belief and remind me of my Shakespeare: "Methinks thou doth protest too much." I also study what is known before I shoot off my mouth (and this applies to both sides). No way in hell would I let my kids go to a public school in Kansas that teaches Creationism, but I have no objection to them learning about the idea and making their own informed choice.

Agreed. The first step toward holding any kind of meaningful discussion is being civil. I've seen too many debaters, here and elsewhere, who seem to think that flaming and mockery can persuade others. Treat people as if they're only hopelessly ignorant and there won't be any respect involved.

BTW, belief IS a part of science. I know that when certain conditions are met, such-and-such happens. This has happened many times. But the belief comes in as soon as I say it WILL happen next time as well. And the next 10,000 times. Schroedinger's cat... Quantum mechanics

"Belief," in this case, doesn't describe the expectation of a future outcome. When we say that iron melts at 1538 degrees C, this is because fragments of the metal have been melted so many times with the same result that uncertainty has become only a tiny factor. Repeated experimentation requires just the opposite of saying "it absolutely WILL happen again" - you must keep your mind open to the possibility, however ridiculously small, that the iron might melt at a significantly higher or lower temperature. Then it's time to investigate further and learn why that anomaly happened.

[MeneerDijk]

That's actually a pretty good point that Buckwheats video makes: IF you're going to teach creationism, you'll also have to teach it from the standpoint of other religions. Jedi included.

[stsparky]

Now, I don't believe in the Flood or most of the stories of the Bible (sorry, guys); but it actually is possible to posit, not to prove, just posit, that the Flood may have actually happened...

It's not the global flood which fundies insist happened. The Noah story was always an allegory upon the flood myth first recorded in the epic of Giglamesh. Literalists are unable to wrap their heads around the fact one can't get 7 pairs of 'clean' animals and 2 of the 'unclean' on a single boat. And they ignore the ramifications of what a global flood would do to our oceans by making the world unlivable.

We can be generous to those who don't take 'world' to mean the actual world. There were no extant human beings when the Mediterranean flood happened 8 million years ago. The Black Sea deluge is just one of the many Neolithic great floods that did happen, and indeed may be the last one. It happened sometime 10,000 years ago.

Fundies need to understand that Creationism is stupid and stop forcing it onto those who prefer science to fables.

[Eddie Echoplex]

Fundies need to understand that Creationism is stupid and stop forcing it onto those who prefer science to fables.

You know the christian fundamentalists can use that exact same phrase?.

Atheists need to understand that Evolution is stupid and stop forcing it onto those who prefer God to science.

Personally, I think extremes are hideous, and fundies give christians a bad name, and given it a bad name since the Roman Empire took christianity as the official faith (remember kids, never mix a war-like civilization with religion).

[RandomPasserby]

You know the christian fundamentalists can use that exact same phrase?.

Atheists need to understand that Evolution is stupid and stop forcing it onto those who prefer God to science.

Personally, I think extremes are hideous, and fundies give christians a bad name, and given it a bad name since the Roman Empire took christianity as the official faith (remember kids, never mix a war-like civilization with religion).
It doesn't really work well when the fundies use it, Cyggie. The way you put the creationist version sounds really anti-intellectual.

[Zugzwang]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/FSM_Pirates.jpg

I love how the numbers on the x-axis are intentionally deceptive, proving that correlation does not equal causation.

Global warming's obviously in effect, but there's no concrete proof on the subject, going both ways; i.e. we're the sole purpose; we're not involved in anyway, or we're just minimally having an effect. I mean: what's a rise in CO2 going to do that's so unhealthy compared to what people do to themselves every fucking day? Krakatoa anyone? Let off at least two centuries worth of CO2 compared to our industrialization. Climate change happens, sure we may speed up the process, by what though; .1 percent, waflrofl.

I'm all for cleaning up the environment and whatnot, but I loathe the self-important dicks who flaunt the whole 'global warming' guise around as fact, when nothing's concrete (Republicans/Democrats want it proved and debunked for their own needs and scientists will lie for the right amount of money.) and all they want is fucking praise or something. Assholes...

Let's focus on more pressing matters, and put money into more pressing matters...

Aids; depleted uranium, etc.

Things that matter.

:blank:

Yeah... completely different topic and whatever. I just had emotions of the said event stirred up...

Anyway, yeah, creationists are bleh.

[Micah the Great]

How many times must I repeat this? Scientifically developed and supported theories do not require belief.
You are wrong. You have a theory, and it is supported. I don't see how this make it a fact. Since it's not a fact, you're "believing" it to be truth.


Belief is not and furthermore should not be an essential part of an explanation.
This is also wrong. Again, since there's not 100% factual, perfect way to explain something, you're using the best way you can. It's not a fact. Thus you "believe" it's correct.

Lazy Micah. Check the links I posted on page one. What is humorous to me is that you think Noah's is the original story. It isn't. I'll wait for you to catch up.
Lazy stsparky. Check all my posts. I can't seem to spell this out any clearer. I'm not saying there's not thousands of obviously things that can be argued about scientifically in creationism or Christianity. Each theory has a base and beginning to it, while it also has plenty of smaller topics to discuss. If the main base of the theory is being discussed... why try to prove/disprove the smaller issues. If you don't like creationism, then it's fine to argue how a higher-being doesn't exist. If you don't believe in God, of course you're not going to think he created flood waters out of nowhere, it doesn't matter how God scientifically didn't do it if he DIDN'T do it since he doesn't exist.

I love scientific study. If the finding of the studying of fossils and genes leads you to the conclusion that evolution is what is real, ..then that's awesome. Discussing how the temperature of water would do this, or how if would take more time to do this, or how natural selection works, doesn't matter when discussing the entire base of you're theory.. which is apparently atoms and cosmic forces existed since an indefinite time and nothing created them. If a creationist is wrong and crazy, it's not b/c he's trying scientifically prove a bible story, it's b/c he actually believes in and bases all of his theory on this crazy magic "God" thing. That's what i'm saying to you about evolution. Many parts of evolutionary study are very logically and totally scientific and of sound reasoning. My problem is w/ the important/base part of the theory.

I KNOW there are plenty of crazy creationist that have completely, utterly stupid ideas and theories. And them using these smaller, insignificant studies and findings to try to disprove the totality of evolution is just as dumb and is actually what i'm talking about it the previous paragraph.

In the end of it all, i'm saying that existence is a creation. You are saying it's not. Why is it insane to choose the first possibility? You can't scientifically disprove a high-being existing, nor can i prove one exists. You can't scientifically prove matter and force came from nowhere, while i can't disprove it. Of course creationism theory isn't going to make sense if you're using the methods of another theory to test it.

I had read thru those links... but it just did it again more thoroughly for your pleasure. The second one had some good facts, while the first and third consisted mostly of people complaining about how they don't like the Christian God b/c he's mean and stupid. Why would he do this or that? or.. this is dumb and doesn't make sense. As i've said so many time now, of course it doesn't, you're trying to explain it w/ a different theory's logic. I don't know how many time i've said this: If a higher-being/God doesn't exist in you're universal theory, OF COURSE you can disprove its relation to every point you make.

CygnusDarius: You beat me to it.

EDIT: Hey, let's all discuss politics next. :)

[Kwiz]

You have a theory, and it is supported. I don't see how this make it a fact.

Then I really can't help you any further.

[Micah the Great]

I'm going to ask my friend Dictionary.com for help.

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Get back to me when the word theory is changed to fact. When i hear the "Fact of Evolution" i guess i'll take out my highly evolved thinking organ and punt it across the room.

EDIT: Before someone complains about this, i'm not using this argument to claim the worth or truth of any of the points of scientific study of evolution. Just saying something is a "theory" or not doesn't make it inherently correct or incorrect. I'm making this argument b/c THIS is exactly what you're doing to the theory of creationism. You're saying since evolution is a theory it's 100% true, but although creationism is a theory, it's 100% false. This is on par with the craziness of a fundamentalist.

[Kaji]

Micah, as a fellow creationist I'm going to kindly suggest you quit while you're only 50 miles behind. I've debated this with people of your ilk before, you're not going to convince people who don't already believe in God if you use the bible as your sole reference and rely on hairsplitting words with very concrete definitions thereafter.

Someone pantsed the extremist fundamental community on what they teach about creation, oh well. Before you got in here it was just something to chuckle about, but your lack of coherent posting goes to show that there are people who take that stuff seriously, and that impedes your chances of being taken seriously by them a great deal.

[darighaz]

Evolution points to what has happened in the past and uses that to support itself. Creationism says "God did it" and calls it a day. Thats the difference between the 2 theroys and why one is looked down upon.

[Micah the Great]

Kaji:
I'm not trying to convince them God exists. I've said several times that it's OK. They're not bad, stupid, or illogical for not believing it. I think dinosaur people are funny too, it's ridiculous. It was light-hearting and funny, but the conversation changed over 4 pages. Honestly, it's still not that serious.

Why are my postings incoherent? I read peoples' arguments, post their words back to them, explaining (in long detail mostly of the time) why i disagree. I already assumed making LOTS of posts at long length on a highly questionable subject was gonna make me look like a crazy, aggressive fool. Nevertheless, i don't see why i should quit debating just b/c there's more of them and they ALSO continue to comment. We're on a forum.. we talk about stuff. If someone doesn't like my comments or thinks i'm trying to force something on them... just skip over my posts! It's not going to hurt my feelings... come on.. i'm not a TOTAL madman!!
/runs around crazy :duh: :bang: :boggled:

darighaz:
Correct. Actually, i totally agree with everything you just said. That's what evolution thinks.. and it's what creationism thinks. At this time in history, creationism is definitely looked down upon comparatively, just as creationism was the most believed scenario at some points in the past. In the future..?? Who knows. Some of you think creationism is completely baseless and lacks proof, fine. But just claiming it's stupid just because, will get you nowhere.

[Kwiz]

EDIT: Before someone complains about this, i'm not using this argument to claim the worth or truth of any of the points of scientific study of evolution. Just saying something is a "theory" or not doesn't make it inherently correct or incorrect. I'm making this argument b/c THIS is exactly what you're doing to the theory of creationism. You're saying since evolution is a theory it's 100% true, but although creationism is a theory, it's 100% false. This is on par with the craziness of a fundamentalist.

Nobody is speaking in such absolutes here. Yes, there are some parts of natural history that evolutionary theory can't yet explain. No, creation is not a scientific theory in the same sense that biological evolution is.

[Fred]

Kwizard made a good point when he said that scientifically developed and supported theories do not require belief.

The simple version of the scientific method goes something like this:

1. Someone notices an observable occurrence.
2. Someone invents a tentative explanation (hypothesis) to explain the occurrence.
3. Someone uses that tentative explanation to make predictions.
4. People test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the explanation as necessary until there are no discrepancies between the explanation and the observable data.

At this point, there is no way I know of to measure, isolate, or even directly observe God and so there is nothing in science that either proves or disproves the existence of God.

Faith is the belief in something for which there is no empirical proof. Faith is about finding meaning in the non-empirical world.

What is the meaning of life?
What is the difference between right and wrong?
Is sex better for men or for women? (well, maybe science can help us with this one.)

Evolution belongs to the providence of science.
God belongs to the providence of faith.

[Micah the Great]

Nobody is speaking in such absolutes here. Yes, there are some parts of natural history that evolutionary theory can't yet explain.
Thank you. This is all i wanted to hear. We don't understand everything, thus making other alternatives to our current understanding possible. The belief in a higher-being or Christian God is the same way. It's not absolute and can't be totally explained.


Evolution belongs to the providence of science.
God belongs to the providence of faith.
Oh.. thanks also. I guess i should have just said this instead of writing pages of posts. :) However, both of those sentences there are bases of 2 universal theories of existence. Thus the base arguments have to be compared.. but you're right. providence of faith isn't involved in the science of the evolution idea, and providence in science isn't involved on the faith in God(or higher-being) idea.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

Get back to me when the word theory is changed to fact. When i hear the "Fact of Evolution" i guess i'll take out my highly evolved thinking organ and punt it across the room.



When I go to nuclear power school, I expect to take a course entitled something like "Atomic theory." There will be no time that it'll be renamed "Atomic fact," because there are billions of atomic facts. It's the theory of how they relate to each other, and to be able to predict their behaviors. When the facts don't support the theory, it's revised. Nothing like that in religion.

Electricity, BTW, is a theory too. No one really knows all the facts about how it works. Yet, you use to to cook you meals, write on the internets, watch tv, tell you when to get up and go to sleep... etc.

How is supernatural different than magical, anyway?

[Micah the Great]

These types of theories are called so b/c that's the English language. Look at definitions 3. and 4. The two in which i didn't bold anything, b/c the word in speech by this manner of definition is applied to areas not concerning my arugment.... (aka what you are mentioning).

I guess that depends on you're definition of "magic" and if it even exists. To a person i guess it wouldn't look, feel, or seem different, but the context of the words apply to different things in general speech.

[Buckwheat]

Another nice thing about scientific theories is that they can change as more evidence is presented.

The theory of evolution has had some major revisions and improvements since Darwin's day.

Mendel didn't publish his work on genetic inheritance until after he read Origin. Rosalind Franklin as well as Watson and Crick figuring out the structure of DNA and then going on to discover it's role in synthesizing proteins. The Human genome project and the enormous role that has played in identifying and beginning to treat genetic disorders.

None of this would have come about if we just looked to religion to answer all our problems.

[stsparky]

That's what evolution thinks...

The story of Creation is a myth. It's not a truth. It also pretty much got laughed at once we understood geology. Which is why 19th century Christian scientists stopped claiming the flood was responsible for fossils. Only the gullible are being fooled today. It has no place in any science class anywhere. You seriously need to take a simple "Bible as Literature" class once you get to college. Just because some textbooks pander to idiotic and spineless politicians doesn't erase the fact that evolution is both real and true. You can go to a barber next time you're sick - but I think the majority of us are going to live in the 21st century with doctors and medicine.

If you're just playing the idiot here —

I can show you where the "Bible" is in error so you can avoid that that crutch and actually learn something.
We've the complete fossil record of the sea mammal known as whales that document evolution.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

No, I am referring to the first definition, "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity"

Coherent being the important word.

You know, Einstein's theory of relativity posits some really weird ideas, such as gravity travels at the speed of light. There's no proof of that, that's just how the math works out, and it may or may not be true. we've proven bits of the other oddities of relativity, like time is relative to speed... put an atomic clock on an airplane, send it flying around at 500 knots for a while, land it and compare the two. that experiment has been done, and indeed the two clocks are different at the end. Without relativity, that's just an oddity, a fact.

But gravity? I wouldn't know how to test how quickly gravity travels. We have yet to see the mechanism that gravity works by, a particle that quantum physicists call a graviton. If some bright physicist develops a way to test how quickly gravity travels, and its speed is less than the speed of light, then relativity, at least in part, is wrong.

perhaps some other time I'll argue that I think that there is more hard evidence for evolution than for gravity, but I'm getting sleepy and unfocused.

[Micah the Great]

Ok ok. I've think we've about seen enough here. I've laid about all i can on the table (or at least wish to). I finally see what the problem has been here b/c i was moving to fast (thanks Fred). There's two debates going on here:

1. Evolution vs Creationism (anonymous higher-being, not bible God)
2. Christianity's view of science (including theories of existence(1.)) and disproof of those views.

1 is about proof of views and reasoning; 2 is about about the bible God and him making sense or no sense.

Possibly a reason my post may have been incoherent (as Kaji said) is b/c i've been trying to reply to both, tho my main focus was 1. Also i'm very sarcastic. :watson:

The story of Creation is a myth. It's not a truth.
Using absolutions such as this prove nothing to you're argument. I could just simply say "The story of Creation isn't a myth. It is a truth." It's you're opinion you're saying is an infallible fact. If everything is so absolute, why would we continue to study science?... or the Bible?


It has no place in any science class anywhere. You seriously need to take a simple "Bible as Literature" class once you get to college. Just because some textbooks pander to idiotic and spineless politicians doesn't erase the fact that evolution is both real and true.
I have no problem with this. If the class is to study Science, then the first day you'd be like "So, there's a theory of everything that includes a higher, supernatural being creating everything". After that, it's faith. Thus the rest of the semester, you study science (geology, physics, chemistry, biology) you're supposed to be studying. Also, i don't want/need a spineless politician to argue my points for me.... i tend to dislike them.


If you're just playing the idiot here —

I can show you where the "Bible" is in error so you can avoid that that crutch and actually learn something.
We've the complete fossil record of the sea mammal known as whales that document evolution.
You're 1. is in the category of 2. in my list. As your 2. is w/ 1 on mine. I don't want to discuss 2. here, as is it wasn't my focus (but if people wish, start a thread on Christianity and ask questions, i don't care to answer). Having faith in God doesn't prevent one from learning and studying the facts of afore mentioned types of Science.

As for 2., it's one of millions of possible things to discuss in debate 1. (existence). I have neither the knowledge nor desire to discuss fossil records when the base of the entire theory is still in question.

Tactical Grace:
I don't know what you're looking for. Our problem is apparently w/ grammar and context. I don't really care how you personally choose to use the a word.
If some bright physicist develops a way to test how quickly gravity travels, and its speed is less than the speed of light, then relativity, at least in part, is wrong. That would be freaking awesome. I love scientific studies of this nature b/c it tries to take it to limit.

[Beowulf]

If the bible is 100% true and right in all things, including the flood, then prove it.

Show me where the flood waters first started rising.

Show me how life managed to propagate so insanely fast after the flood occurred.

Show me how the organisms that left Noah's ark spread out and evolved so quickly into the organisms we know today.

Show me evidence of humans/humanoids who were mass-killed by a massive flood (that was the whole point to begin with right?).

Show me the genetic trees being able to trace all respective species on earth to two individuals. Keep in mind that all trees must go back to exactly the same time period, and you will have to account how inbreeding didn't occur on a massive scale.

Provide me with physical proof, not made up, not taken out of context, and not using "god did it" for any of the above. Do this and I will become a creationist.

[stsparky]

... I have neither the knowledge nor desire to discuss fossil records when the base of the entire theory is still in question.
Micah? You started this nonsense. I see you want to play the idiot. Other smarter people have disproved Creationism. It is a fraud. It's designed to stop those who might have wanted to think from doing so. I see it has succeeded marvelously in your case. I cribbed the below:

Evolution as theory and fact

Evolution is both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is popular among biology literature. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Moran)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-gouldfact)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Lewontin)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Campbell)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Curtis-Barnes)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Futuyama)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Muller)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-0)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Lenski)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-1)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Sagan)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Mayr)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-Simpson)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-2) In scientific terms, the word "theory" differs widely from the common, vernacular conception of the same word.

The Terminology of Science - "fact" vs. "theory"
A "fact" in science is an observation.

A "theory" in science is an explanation of the observations.
Scientists use many specialized terms, frequently attributing to common words meanings foreign to the layperson. In particular,
A fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#.22Fact.22_in_science)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-3) is an observation or a piece of data. It is a measurement or some evidence or the result of an experiment. For example, there are many observations of gravity and measurements of gravity. Every time an apple is dropped and it falls, an observation of gravity has been made. Gravity is measured every time something is weighed. So gravity can be described by scientists as a fact. This is because there is a collection of gravity observations that need to be explained. And observations are facts in scientific language.
Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&redirect=no#_note-4) in science are different from facts. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity. That is, scientists ask what is gravity, and what causes it. They develop a model to explain gravity, a theory of gravity. Predictions can be made based on this theory. Many explanations of gravity that qualify as a Theory of Gravity have been proposed over the centuries: Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle)'s, Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo)'s, Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton)'s, and now Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein)'s. So gravity is also a theory. In science, current theory is the theory that has yet to be falsified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsification), that is there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it (see Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)). In no case did gravity disappear when a new theory was created; instead, the explanation for gravity was refined and improved.Carefully examining these two descriptions of the words "fact" and "theory" in a scientific context reveals a source of confusion when discussing gravity. Gravity is referred to as both a "fact" and a "theory". Gravity is a "fact" because it has been observed, and observations are "facts" in scientific language. Gravity is also the name of the explanation for this "fact" and other evidence, or "facts". And scientific explanations are called "theories" in the language of science. So gravity is also a "theory", as well as a "fact".
The word "gravity" has been assigned to two different things, a "theory" and a "fact". It might appear confusing and disingenuous to refer to gravity as both a "theory" and a "fact", but it is accurate. Gravity is an observable "fact". How and why gravity pulls on objects is the subject of a Theory of Gravity. A Theory of Gravity is subject to rigorous scientific study, and it might be replaced with another "theory" (see paradigm shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift) or scientific revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution)). It is common to refer to the currently accepted "theory" of gravity as The Theory of Gravity. The validity of the statement that gravity exists remains unchanged, no matter what "theory" is most widely accepted, or even if no "theory" exists at that moment.

Evolution
Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.
Evolution is a "fact".
An explanation for the "facts" of evolution.
Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism), Transmutationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutationism) and Orthogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations.
refinement. Darwin's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin) explanation of evolution is approximately correct, but required refinement.
The Neo-Darwinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism) explanation is a refinement of Darwin's explanation of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution.
The Neo-Darwinist explanation of the "fact" of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution.
Therefore, evolution is a "fact" and a "theory."


Scientific terminology applied to evolution
The terms "fact" and "theory" can be applied to evolution, just as they are to gravity.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Moran) This terminology has been used to dispute the validity of evolution, which results from a misunderstanding of how those terms are applied to evolution.
In the study of biological species, the "facts" include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a "fact" (using the scientific meaning of the word "fact"). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_flies), the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-5)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-6) The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a "fact", using the scientific meaning of the word "fact". So evolution is a "fact", at least using the scientific meaning of the word "fact". These "facts" need an explanation, just like the observations of gravity did.
In biology, there have been many attempts to explain these observations over the years. Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism), Transmutationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutationism) and Orthogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) were all nonDarwinian "theories" that attempted to explain the observations of species and fossils and other evidence. However, the explanation for all relevant observations regarding the development of life is called the Theory of Evolution. The "theory" of evolution is based on a model that explains all the available data and observations. Thus evolution is not only a "fact" but also a "theory", just as gravity is both a "fact" and a "theory".[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-7)

Evolution as theory and fact in Scientific literature
This confusion between "fact" and "theory" in the study of evolution was explored in a well-known quote by paleontologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology) Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould):
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-gouldfact) Similarly, Neil Campbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Campbell_%28scientist%29) writes in his 1990 biology textbook,
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Campbell) Biologist Ernst Mayr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr) states,
The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. How else except by the word evolution can we designate the sequence of faunas and floras in precisely dated geological strata? And evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Mayr) Biologist Richard Lenski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lenski) writes,
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Lenski) This theme arises over and over again in the biological literature in different guises. Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) wrote "Evolution is a fact, not a theory".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Sagan) American zoologist and paleontologist George Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson), stated that "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Simpson) R. C. Lewontin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._C._Lewontin) wrote, "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Lewontin) Douglas Futuyama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Futuyama) writes in his book, "the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Futuyama) H. J. Muller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._J._Muller) states, "If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Muller) Kenneth R. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller) writes, "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-Miller)
In spite of the forceful statements in these excerpts, considerable confusion remains in some circles.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-8)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-9)
The issue was brought before the courts In 1986, when an amicus curiae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae) brief asking the US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana) state law requiring the teaching of creationism in the case Edwards v. Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard) was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies. The brief provides a detailed argument which it summarises in the following statement:[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-amicus)
The Act's unconstitutional purpose is also evident in its requirement that both "creation-science" and "evolution-science" be taught as "theory" and not as "proven scientific fact." To a scientist or a science educator, the distinction between scientific theories and scientific facts is well understood. A "fact" is a property of a natural phenomenon. A "theory" is a naturalistic explanation for a body of facts. That distinction permeates all fields of scientific endeavor. It is no more relevant to discussions of the origin of the universe and life than to any other area of research. By singling out one topic in science – "origins" – for special treatment, the legislature conveys the false message that the prevailing theory of "origins" – evolutionary theory – is less robust and reliable than all other scientific concepts. This misleadingly disparaging treatment of evolution confirms that the Act favors a particular religious belief.

Related concepts
Speculative or conjectural explanations are called hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis). Well-tested explanations are called theories.
"Theories" are not "true" in science, at least in the regular sense of the word "true". "True" "theories" only are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_note-gouldfact)
"Proof" of a theory does not exist in science. Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof) only exists in mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics).
A scientific law is a concept related to a scientific theory. Very well-established "theories" that rely on a simple principle are often called scientific "laws". For example, it is common to encounter reference to the "law of natural selection" or the "laws of evolution."Footnotes:
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Moran_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Moran_1) Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, Laurence Moran, Talkorigins, 1993 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-gouldfact_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-gouldfact_1) c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-gouldfact_2) Stephen Jay Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, Volume 2, Number 5, May 1981, p. 34-37 (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html), reprinted in Speak Out Against The New Right, Herbert F. Vetter (Editor), Beacon Press, 1982, ISBN: 0807004863, Beacon Press, January 1982, ISBN: 0807004871 and by Fenestra Books, October 31, 2004 ISBN: 1587363577 and also in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, Stephen Jay Gould, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, editions printed April 1983, November 28, 1984 and April 1994, pp. 253-262 ISBN: 0393017168
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Lewontin_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Lewontin_1) R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in "Evolution versus Creationism,", Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Campbell_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Campbell_1) Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Curtis-Barnes_0) Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Futuyama_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Futuyama_1) Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Muller_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Muller_1) H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in "Evolution versus Creationism", Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-0) Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in "Evolution versus Creationism", J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Lenski_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Lenski_1) "Evolution: Fact and Theory", Richard E. Lenski, American Institute of Biological Sciences, 2000.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-1) Fact and theory misconception, Adrian Barnett (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html)
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Sagan_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Sagan_1) Carl Sagan, "Cosmos," Random House, Page 27.
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Mayr_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Mayr_1) Mayr, E. (1988), "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA USA.
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Simpson_0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Simpson_1) George Simpson, a famous American zoologist, stated that "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact," quoted in G. Bowden & J. Collyer, "Quotable Quotes for Creationists," Creation Science Movement, Pamphlet # 228, 1982-JAN, Page 1.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-2) Nobel Prize Winner German biologist Hermann J. Muller, circulated a petition entitled: "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?", in May of 1966: There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its “tree of life,” that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established. (Bales, James D., Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line, Lambert, Shreveport, LA, p.71-72, no date.) This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists. ( The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible Science) (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1981)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-3) A scientific fact is obtained by objective observation or measurement, usually under controlled conditions. However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty in science. Facts can have error bars due to measurement errors.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-4) A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and empirical observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-5) T. Dobzhansky, & O. Pavlovsky, "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophilia", Nature 23, P. 289-292 (1971)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-6) The fish tilapia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilapia) has also been observed to evolve in the field (Franck et al, 1990; M. Losseau-Hoebeke, 1992).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-7) Fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) and theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) denote the epistemological status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) of knowledge; that is, how the knowledge was obtained, what sort of knowledge it is. For more information, see the article on physical law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-Miller_0) "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution," Kenneth R. Miller, Cliff Street Books, HarperCollins, New York, NY USA, 1999.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-8) State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504: Schools; requiring all textbooks to have an evolution disclaimer; codification; effective date; emergency. (http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/2003-04hb/hb1504_int.rtf) states that evolution is "just a theory".
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-9) Refuting Evolution II, Jonathan Sarfati, Michael Matthews, Master Books, a division of New Leaf Press, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2002. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chapter3.asp)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#_ref-amicus_0) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES, ROBERT A. KLAYMAN, WALTER B. SLOCOMBE, JEFFREY S. LEHMAN, BETH SHAPIRO KAUFMAN, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, One Thomas Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 862-5000, Attorneys for Amici Curiae (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html)Links
Not Just a Theory (http://www.notjustatheory.com/) Discredits the assertion that evolution is "just a theory", with an explanation of the meaning of the word 'theory' in a scientific context.
Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html) Response to the claim that no examples of speciation have been observed.
Four-finned dolphin an 'evolutionary throwback' (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/fourfinned-dolphin-an-evolutionary-throwback/2006/11/05/1162661544728.html) - Scientists say fins may represent throwback to ancient land-dwelling ways============
I added the dolphin link in case you felt that fruit flies don't count.

[Digital Masta]

You guys realize this is getting nowhere, right?


I believe the two can possibly co-exist in some way in a huge shade of grey. This is why I stick to my "I don't know territory" because I like shades of grey.

[stsparky]

While Micah may be a lost cause - we may save others. :cop:

not just a theory . com (http://www.notjustatheory.com/)

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 (http://www.notjustatheory.com/#1) That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 (http://www.notjustatheory.com/#2) It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 (http://www.notjustatheory.com/#3) happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 (http://www.notjustatheory.com/#4) Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.



Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
1 Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)
2 Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science - National Academy Press (http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html)
3 A standard, scientific definition of evolution is: In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Biology - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, W H Freeman
4 Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. Evolution as Fact and Theory (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)"Evolution is just a theory."
What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically." Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word "theory" in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Newton's Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

From the PBS series on evolution (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html):
When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.

The book The Top 10 Myths About Evolution (http://www.toptenmyths.com/), by Cameron M. Smith and Charles Sullivan, has a chapter entitled "Myth Two: It's Just a Theory":
...calling evolution "just a theory" involves a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Evolution is a fact, and the three main processes that make up evolution - replication, variation, and selection - are observable and undeniable.

Understanding evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)
A collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.

FAQ

Q. But lots of people say that evolution is just a theory. Are they all wrong?

A. They are wrong in the sense that they are trying to argue that evolution is not real by exploiting the multiple meanings of the word theory. If they are supposed to be knowledgable in this area, then they are doing it deliberately and disingenuously. If they want to argue against evolution, they shouldn't have to resort to what is essentially an untruth. The Theory of Evolution has over 150 years of actual, scientifically tested and verified supportive evidence. In science, things don't get proven, they get supported.

[Digital Masta]

I don't doubt evolution at all and even with my issues with religion I still hate the that people who believe in creationism and like always I'm refering to the normal ones who don't shove it down others throats and all that, are often seen as unintelligent, foolish, silly, etc for their beliefs.

Why?

I just realized while typing this that just as some people like to shove religion down people's throats, atheist aren't any better as they try to shove it down the throats of those that believe.

This whole thing first started because Micah basically posted his own thoughts on the subject in the start of the thread and how he believes in creationism but of course he's wrong so you all went out to shove it down his throat. At which point a debate beings because he now has to defend his beliefs and the cycle continues.

[Disney's doug89]

*edit: Don't flame doug, posting pics like that contributes nothing to this thread.

[MeneerDijk]

True, i guess it's just a very volatile topic these days. Creationists are feeling threathened in their right to excersize their faith, and i guess the evolutionists are putting their heels in the sand because they feel like religion is being pushed onto them.

I'd rather see schools stay neutral in this matter. Teach science in science class, and teach religion in religionclass (can't find a better word, but i had religionclass on my school)

[Digital Masta]

And doug...you've helped to prove my point. Honestly...I find atheist to be even worse with the "throat shoving" because while usually people who believe in creationism can accept other's views (they don't have to agree with it but they accept it as that persons views), Atheist cannot, so often times it comes down to ridicule, like doug just did. Japanat posted some post back about how rude some of you guys are in regards to this.


I can do discussions on religion, in fact I really like to dig my hands into religious discussions. It helps me get a better understanding of things as a whole. I can't do debates because they turn into the stuff in this thread.

On mother's day my family went out with this other family from my parent's church (my dad and the husband have become very buddy, buddy) and we're talking and religion comes up (I kept my mouth shut) and I realized that the wife is very into her faith and somewhat preachy, not in a negative way and she's not crazy but give her an opening and she'll take itand she knows its something she has to work on...and what did my dad do? He said "Oh he (me) has issues with the church"

HE OPENED UP THE DAMN FLOOD GATES! I wanted to knock my dad right on his ass. Here I am enjoying great Brazilian food NOT even thinking about getting into a debate about religion and her she comes. I didn't have my guns loaded...hell I didn't even bring them, I wasn't ready for that and it was a discussion I would've rather not had.

It wasn't a debate so to speak but I just wasn't in the mood or ready to have to defend my position on religion with lots of meat in my mouth. Plus I can't really get into as deep as I want to go with my parents around because they'll think I'm being rude.

She has now made it somewhat of a priority to talk to me. Which is why I avoid going to their house and luckily I leave for Japan in a week.

[stsparky]

Meneer? It's called Comparative Religions in the States.

Masta? /sarcasm/ Maybe we should cull those who want to force ID onto kids and stop them from thinking? It'd prove our point and allow them to be matyrs for Zombie Jesus. /end sarcasm/ I don't push garbage as science onto Micah; I can see he doesn't want to be educated here. Can't you? And you know I'm no atheist. So let's stop with the false labeling of people.

[Digital Masta]

Meneer? It's called Comparative Religions in the States.

Masta? /sarcasm/ Maybe we should cull those who want to force ID onto kids and stop them from thinking? It'd prove our point and allow them to be matyrs for Zombie Jesus. /end sarcasm/ I don't push garbage as science onto Micah; I can see he doesn't want to be educated here. Can't you? And you know I'm no atheist. So let's stop with the false labeling of people.

I wasn't labeling you per say. I just happened to post after you. It was more of a general statement that happened to be sparked by all the effort to prove Micah so very wrong.


I can't wait for all the questions I'm going to get when I have my first kid. I'm probably going to get interrogated in regards to "how are you going to let the child know god" and all that to which I will respond. "If he/she gets curious about it and wants to know more, I will point him/her in the right direction to where they can get answers"

Assuming mom isn't into religion.

[Kwiz]

And you've helped to prove my point. Honestly...I find atheist to be even worse with the "throat shoving" because while usually people who believe in creationism can accept other's views (they don't have to agree with it but they accept it as that persons views), Atheist cannot, so often times it comes down to ridicule, like doug just did. Japanat posted some post back about how rude some of you guys are in regards to this.

Please don't over-generalize about either major group. I identify myself as atheist and while I frankly can't accept creationism at all, I can tolerate creationists. People such as Micah see me and talk to me every day - we get along just fine. Unless the matter is unavoidable we don't spend time and energy on extensive debates.

Something for everyone to consider: common sense should dictate that it's not in your interest to insult or degrade the very people you're trying to persuade. Good business is done with courtesy and honesty, not shouts and threats. It's a lot like marketing.

[Digital Masta]

People such as Micah see me and talk to me every day - we get along just fine.

I never said they can't get along with each other.


All I'm really trying to say is "shoving it down" goes both ways. A lot of times it's the religious folk who get the heat for doing it but it goes both ways.


Anyway...Creationism vs Evolution is the least of my gripes the Christianity and the Bible. I just can't get down with how apparently cut and dry God is. I refuse to believe it's that cut and dry, and if it is...well everyone who thinks Sunday is the Sabbath day has failed...possibly.

[PopCulturePooka]

So
I've decided to become a creationist.

I truly now believe that.

The earth started flat and lifeless. A grand creator, being a giant rainbow serpent slithered across the land. In its wake it left the rivers. Where it slept it made oceans. When it was angry or agitated it made hills and mountains.

As it traveled it lost its scales, these scales became the rocks of the earth. It created people and plants behind it.

One day it travelled back to one of the groups of its people and tricked to young men into taking shelter in its mouth and ate them. Full and satisfied it went and slept.

The villagers, angry that the Rainbow Serpent ate their men, chased the Serpent. They found it sleeping and cut open its belly to free the men, but the men flew out as two beautiful birds.

When the serpent awoke and found it had lost its meal it grew angry and thrashed around in a great rage for many nights. Its angry turns and roards created more mountains, more seas, more rocks.

Eventually the rainbow serpent thrashed so much that it broke apart, becoming all the animals of the world today.


Thats what I believe. Obviously Evolution is WRONG and my belief story can be proven by the fact that rivers flow like snake trails, that rocks are multicolored and that people fear snakes.

SCIENCE PROVES THIS!

Evolution is a lie, Rainbow Serpent is reall.

[Disney's doug89]

I'm just going to say this: We are all atheists, some just take it one god further.

[Ivor's Tinfoil Bandana]

I only believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) !

[Disney's doug89]

I only believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) !

I do as well. I even own a copy of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Buckwheat]

this is a much more thorough and accurate article

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spagetti_Monster

[Trump]

I think part of the problem between Creationism and Evolutionism involves the origins of each theory. Creationism is really based only on a book that was written 3000+ years ago. It seems to require blind faith to support it. On the other hand Evolutionism has risen from scientific observation and experimentation. (Most) Evolutionists have put thought into their viewpoint and can rationalize their stance.

So why do Creationists close their mind and refuse to accept any contrary evidence? Why do Evolutionists shut out anything science can't explain? I don't know.

All I know is it pisses me off when people are so close minded as some of the people posting in this thread are.

Creationists... The bible is a book written so long ago we don't even know what some of the words mean any more. I was reading a study bible not long ago and there are tons and tons of notes scattered around where it says "meaning of hebrew uncertain". And yet you can take the English (or whatever) translation word for word? Give me a break. Open your mind and think for yourself. The bible, while likely based on actual events, was meant to be interpreted and applied to life in order to make life better. If you can't step back and think about it you are missing the entire point.

Evolutionists... Why is there no room for additions or modifications to your theory? If you look at the path of evolution (human and other life) how can things have ended up the way they did? What were the odds that humans ended up walking on two legs instead of four? Other forms are faster, stronger, more dexterous, and more useful, so why did we end up the way we are? Even taking it based off total random chance, the odds are stacked totally against us. There has to be more than current science can explain. So step back and use your imagination for a little while and see what you find.

[Beowulf]

Creationists... The bible is a book written so long ago we don't even know what some of the words mean any more. I was reading a study bible not long ago and there are tons and tons of notes scattered around where it says "meaning of hebrew uncertain". And yet you can take the English (or whatever) translation word for word? Give me a break. Open your mind and think for yourself. The bible, while likely based on actual events, was meant to be interpreted and applied to life in order to make life better. If you can't step back and think about it you are missing the entire point.
Not to mention anything that got added in/editted to fit the whims of whatever religion was in control of it at the time...


Evolutionists... Why is there no room for additions or modifications to your theory? If you look at the path of evolution (human and other life) how can things have ended up the way they did? What were the odds that humans ended up walking on two legs instead of four? Other forms are faster, stronger, more dexterous, and more useful, so why did we end up the way we are? Even taking it based off total random chance, the odds are stacked totally against us. There has to be more than current science can explain. So step back and use your imagination for a little while and see what you find.
There is room for additions and modifications. Just not crazy ones. When legitimate scientists make legitimate conclusions based on legitimate evidence, then it will change. And humans evolved on top because we have self awareness, tool use, and thumbs. Sabertooth tigers were stronger, faster, bigger, and more stable then us. But all the pointy teeth in the world can't save them from a pointy stick used at the right opportunity...

[stsparky]

... Evolutionists... Why is there no room for additions or modifications to your theory? If you look at the path of evolution (human and other life) how can things have ended up the way they did? What were the odds that humans ended up walking on two legs instead of four? Other forms are faster, stronger, more dexterous, and more useful, so why did we end up the way we are? Even taking it based off total random chance, the odds are stacked totally against us. There has to be more than current science can explain. So step back and use your imagination for a little while and see what you find.

Micah was pretending to be a dork about how the word 'theory' is used in science. I assume he actually knows better. To repeat:

Lots of people say that evolution is just a theory. Are they all wrong?

They are wrong in the sense that they are trying to argue that evolution is not real by exploiting the multiple meanings of the word theory. If they are supposed to be knowledgable in this area, then they are doing it deliberately and disingenuously. If they want to argue against evolution, they shouldn't have to resort to what is essentially an untruth. The Theory of Evolution has over 150 years of actual, scientifically tested and verified supportive evidence. In science, things don't get proven, they get supported.

Creationism is a sham that got gussied up like a cheap whore and renamed "Intelligent Design" which Christian Fundies want to shove down your and your kids' throats. If you let them stop you from thinking - they've won. So you must mock them with facts.

[Disney's doug89]

I myself have nothing but respect for someone that believes that god created the earth and life, and designed Evolution to be a tool for that. This is a sensible idea. Its doesn't even have to be a God, it could be a super advance race of aliens (Stargate anyone?).

However I have nothing but contempt for someone that believes that the bible is fact. The bible was used for a long time to try to explain the mysteries of the universe to us because we didn't have the means to discover it for ourselves. But now we do, so we should no longer use the bible as an explanation and only a guide on how to live a good and moral life.

Another thing. Earlier in the thread the pro-creationists argued that a God that always existed makes more sense than nothing suddenly exploding creating the universe. The big bang is a theory, and could be proven wrong. What if matter always existed? Then that argument is easily dismissed.

I cannot stress enough that Evolution is FACT. It happens. PERIOD. It isn't complicated at small-scale, such as viruses becoming resistant to antibiotics. When this happens on a Grand Scale ie. Single Cell organisms to Humans, people can't grasp it because of the amount of time it took.

YOU DECIDE

Evolution: The heretical theory of the development of life on earth over millions of year by means of spontaneous genetic mutations.

OR

Creation: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if your symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him your accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

[Fred]

I like the Japanese Creation story. It involves a god repeatedly thrusting his spear into the ocean. The drops from the tip of his spear form islands. For some reason (I don’t know why) it reminds me of sex.

[Hatsumomo]

The Egyptian (I believe) creation story involves a god masturbating.

[Fred]

I suppose even a god has to make do with what is available.

[setrict]

Trump said it perfectly.

I cannot stress enough that Evolution is FACT. It happens. PERIOD. It isn't complicated at small-scale, such as viruses becoming resistant to antibiotics. When this happens on a Grand Scale ie. Single Cell organisms to Humans, people can't grasp it because of the amount of time it took.


I agree with everything in your post, except for this part. It's self-righteous psuedo-science statements like this that bug me. Evolution is a great theory. On a small scale it's observable. On a large scale there is definately evidence to support origin of life theory. It's a logical, and thoughtful concept. However, the timeline required to apply scientific principles just isn't practical when trying to extend it to evolutions explanation of the origins of life.

Trying to lump every evolution-related topic into one term Evolution which blindly called Fact is just arrogance. It's the same as a bible thumper who point to singular facts in the bible and use that as a basis to claim truth for the whole thing. Extrapolation is a valid technique, but if you go too far with it you're just making stuff up. Biology book or Bible.

The body of knowledge called Evolution is a primordial soup of facts, observations, logic, leaps of faith, human interpretation and bias. Maybe some day a truth will emerge from the pool and enlighten us all. No matter how inarguable that truth is, the know-it-alls and the can't-know-it-alls will still be arguing. That's really the root of this entire discussion. The religious folks argue you can't possibly know it all, so any kind of conclusion requires a level of faith. The scientists argue that scientific theory will allow a close enough approximation of correctness that faith is unneccessary. Personally, I find both approaches with merit. The problem is the number of people who take them to extremes. Arrogance is just as dangerous as blind faith in my book.

[Micah the Great]

Has anyone tried those new (i think they're new) 99 cent beef and cheese quesadillas from taco bell? ...pretty freaking good. This fact CANNOT be disproved, i have faith in its tastiness.

[Fred]

That is not a fact. It is a judgment.

I suppose the accuracy of your statement regarding your judgment of the 99 cent beef and cheese quesadillas from taco bell can be investigated.

For example, if I presented you with a 99 cent beef and cheese quesadilla from taco bell and recorded that your saliva output increased 3 fold, producing, in total 3 ounces of liquid, and that you made loud “yummy” sounds while jumping up and down and clapping your hands like a 20-something Japanese woman, then I would be inclined to think your description of your judgment was accurate.

On the other hand, if I presented you with the same 99 cent beef and cheese quesadilla from taco bell and you instantly vomited (missing me entirely) and ran away from me screaming “I hate Taco Hell” until you ran into a wall and knocked yourself out, then I would likely conclude that you had inaccurately described your judgment regarding your taste experience of the 99 cent beef and cheese quesadillas.

If I could not detect any physical response at all, then I would just make up some data and call it good.

[Trump]

Evolution is fact. Things evolve and we see that in many different cases from bacteria to insects to plants.

Evolution(ism) is a theory. Personally, I have never seen an explanation why things are so distinct. If humans and apes came from the same genetic ancestors, why do we not see anything in between? Why aren't there humans with opposable digits on all four feet and why aren't there apes who can speak? Survival of the fittest wouldn't mean those lines would completely die out since they are still "more fit" than most other species on the planet.

Like creationism, there are many things evolutionism cannot explain either so I choose not to believe in either.

[stsparky]

...
1. If humans and apes came from the same genetic ancestors, why do we not see anything in between?

2. Why aren't there humans with opposable digits on all four feet and why aren't there apes who can speak?

3. Survival of the fittest wouldn't mean those lines would completely die out since they are still "more fit" than most other species on the planet. ...

1. Humans are primates, I suggest you look at Bonobos. It's hard to argue with 99.6% DNA match.
2. Plenty folks have prehensile toes. Apes speak but you don't recognize what they say as speech.
3. We killed our closer genetic cousins. There was a Scientific American that detailed about 20 extinct near-human species back in the late 90s.

[mawande]

1. Humans are primates, I suggest you look at Bonobos. It's hard to argue with 99.6% DNA match.
2. Plenty folks have prehensile toes. Apes speak but you don't recognize what they say as speech.
3. We killed our closer genetic cousins. There was a Scientific American that detailed about 20 extinct near-human species back in the late 90s.

Shh! Stop bringing reality into this! I mean, where do facts fit in here? Honestly!:eyepop:

[Micah the Great]

Ok.. it's too hard to go back thru all my posts and try to re-explain what i've been tyring to explain... so let's just go back to a simple question. I believe this a philosophical question, rather than scientific or religious.

Does scientifically proving evolutionary changes exist disprove the possibility that a higher-being far beyond our understanding exists?

[stsparky]

Ok.. it's too hard to go back thru all my posts and try to re-explain what i've been tyring to explain... so let's just go back to a simple question. I believe this a philosophical question, rather than scientific or religious. Does scientifically proving evolutionary changes exist disprove the possibility that a higher-being far beyond our understanding exists?
I'm not an atheist. But that has nothing to do with refusing to understand semantics.

[Micah the Great]

I guess that's a no. Ok, second question.

If it might be possible for said being to exist, since we cannot, at this point, scientifically explain how matter and universal forces came into existence, is it at least possible that this being created them?

[Buckwheat]

About as possible as a butterfly causing a tornado on the otherside of the world by beating it's wings.

It might be the case but there's no way to prove it.

[Micah the Great]

Exactly. It can't be proven...eh, but it might be. So..

If evolution uses scientific study for proof, how can you perform scientific study on an idea that has no way of being proven? Why try to tear down the theory that this being could have created everything (creationism), if you can't explain it with science? It's not a scientific question. It's a question of possibility. If you can't explain it, how can you be for sure is or isn't true?

What i'm saying is, even if you can perfectly prove evolution of matter occurred in an exact manner over time, that still doesn't effect the question of this higher-being being possible, nor that it did or didn't create everything.

[Buckwheat]

Exactly, evolutionists aren't out to disprove god. They just don't respect creationism as a science because it's not possible to test.

Same thing happened with the geocentric model of the universe. Galileo said something other than what the church was teaching and people flew off the handle. Some said it was heretical and was an affront to god, others considered his evidence and thought it was a good idea. Hundred some years later the church is hanging on to the geocentric universe and most of the world has moved on and accepted Galileo. It wasn't until 1992 that the pope apologized for imprisoning him in 1633 and banning his work until 1758.

[Disney's doug89]

Ok.. it's too hard to go back thru all my posts and try to re-explain what i've been tyring to explain... so let's just go back to a simple question. I believe this a philosophical question, rather than scientific or religious.

Does scientifically proving evolutionary changes exist disprove the possibility that a higher-being far beyond our understanding exists?

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Russels Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russels_Teapot)

[Micah the Great]

Doug, you've already missed the point. I'm not talking about what science can prove or what a certain religion believes. It's about opening your mind to possibilities.

Exactly, evolutionists aren't out to disprove god. They just don't respect creationism as a science because it's not possible to test.
It's totally fine they don't respect it. I don't even see how a creationist studying science can even help prove it as a theory. They just like to do it b/c they're bored for all i know. As i keep saying, i'm talking about creationism as belief of how the universe came about, not how some scientists are also creationist and use their point of view to study science. If someone doesn't believe in a certain religion's "God", arguing w/ the science of its followers has no point. They're no points that you couldn't disprove, since you don't believe in the base of the idea. The Christian's "great flood" should be a non-issue to an evolutionist, atheist or not.

If evolutionists aren't trying to disprove a god, why do they try to disprove the way a particular religion studies science. Stsparky and all his links are full of people doing this. I personally don't like evolution as a science... but that has NOTHING to do with whether or not i believe some generic higher-being created the universe. You can believe in a higher-being, yet also believe evolution. You can believe in a higher-being, and also believe creationist science.

The part i'm having trouble understanding is... why bash a certain religion's view points, if you don't even believe a high-being exists? Who cares? It should be a non-issue. Also, how can your purpose be to disprove a religion with science, when the point of you doing so is to prove that the science and religion are unrelated?

At any rate, claiming that evolution and all you're personal view points are completely infallible doesn't even make sense. Evolution IS change! The theory has changed and will continue to do so. Using it at its present point to try to completely disprove another theory is inane.

As long as we don't understand everything, nothing is concrete and other things are possible.

My point: If you're an evolutionist, there's no point in trying to disprove a religion. If you're a religion, there's no point in trying to disprove evolution. They're non-compatible.

[h2orowe]

Alright some points I'm about to make may have been made, but lemme just make them again anyway.


I have nothing against creationism. I "believe" in evolution. I've heard arguments on both sides countlessly, and not just online debating. I've gone to our school's Christian club where an ex-USC professor (maybe he still was? Not sure. His name is Bill Morgan, IIRC.) who used to be an evolutionist but turned creationist spoke. I went there to be an asshole and heckle him, but I realized that that is just immature, and I figured that it would be best to sit there and bring up questions/comments that would give him a little sweat to prove/disprove, but in a polite manner.

Now, the one MAJOR thing I had wrong with what he said, was his like.. catchphrase for it was "Bacteria comes from bacteria, humans come from humans." He said that if you believe in evolution, you believe that your grandpa was a single-celled organism. He didn't want to state that evolution occurred over a VERY VERY LONG period of time. He just said that "Your grandpa isn't bacteria is he?" and all the kids laughed, and my friend I went with, who is quite the devout Catholic, looked at me and laughed (not in a HAHA JERK way, but in a like "See? :D this guy's cool/funny." way. This kid seriously remind me of a Catholic Moral Orel, I love the guy. He's nice/cool.). They're like "Oh those silly evolutionists".

He began taking questions and I asked him about how carbon dating says that our Earth has been around a lot longer than just 6,000 or whatever years. He said "Carbon dating is a flawed testing blahblah" and he gave two or so examples where carbon dating fucked up.

He said that there are no "missing links" so how could evolution be possible? Then I brought up the Archaeopteryx. He said "That's not a missing link. That's just a bird with dinosaur like features." That was one of the single most.. irk me statements I've ever heard. I was just like "Are you forfreakingreal?!"

However, I got the book he was handing out, and I borrowed a DVD from my teacher who was hosting the class (which I forgot to turn back >_>; I'll do it next year). The book is Refuting Evolution 2. It basically says "Here's some 'facts', use these to convert people.", and it insults atheists very much. The DVD was some debate that Bill Morgan was in with Michael Arbib at USC.

I've read a bit of that book, and it brings up SOME interesting points, which might fool some people, but most of it, if not all has been disproved. Hell, the book says that we think we come from Chimpanzees. It's just Christian propaganda. It's REFUTING EVOLUTION, not PUSHING CHRISTIANITY, yet it's giving EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRYTHING from the Christian perspective.


I have nothing against Creationism. I have nothing against Jews, Muslims, etc. I have nothing against Christians. However, I very much so dislike lots and LOTS about Christianity. I, personally, believe it was just a tool used to manipulate people when it was first conceived, and now is still somewhat being used as that, and is somewhat just a lie that's been continuing.

I have nothing against Christians because I know plenty of them who are good people, but just believe in.. well.. crap. I don't blame them for so, because their parents have instilled it from their parents, and so on and so forth.

The Jews do believe that there will one day be a messiah, however, it will bring a golden age amongst the people. What did Jesus bring? More war through religion. Far from a golden age.

I've heard a bunch of people say that Jesus was alive for God to see what it's like to be a human, however, if he's ALL knowing, then WHY the hell would he need to become a human to see what it's like to be a human?

Also, the Old testament has been altered by Christians. WHY?! If it's SUPPOSED to be the old testament, why fricking throw your Christ in there? Shouldn't he be ONLY in the new testament?!

I also don't understand how the hell God, the holy spirit, and Christ are all one. Why say that he's the son of God? Why not just say.. he's God in human form? As a child, I believed that God and Jesus were two separate beings.

That brings up another thing. Christians say that some parts of the bible are meant to be confusing, and that you should follow them anyway because God said that there are some things we cannot understand about him, so follow it anyway, without questioning.



I'm not exactly sure, but in the Christian old testament version of Adam and Eve, isn't Satan the one who tells them to eat the apple? Well, in Judaism, there is no real Satan. It was of Adam and Eve's own free will (at least, IIRC, not positive, if I'm wrong about this please tell me so) in the Jewish version to pick the apple.

Which brings up ANOTHER thing. If there is such thing as free will, then HOW does God know exactly what we're going to do before we do it? Does that mean that there's no free will? Does that mean that God DOESN'T know what we're going to do? :watson: If so, does that mean that he, truly, is not all knowing?



ALSO, I forgot to mention this in my post earlier, but if the Golden age was promised by God when the messiah came, and the messiah TRULY came, then that means that God contradicts himself, because the Golden Age DID NOT COME; God, also, contradicted himself by saying that thou shalt not kill, when he's killed many people. God is also very vain if he REQUIRES that you must believe in him and only him if you must get into heaven. God is also a thief, because he's stealing the will to learn out of MANY people. It's one thing to have been educated in different religions and sciences, and then CHOOSE Christianity, but it's a whole different thing to believe in and ONLY in Christianity without testing the waters of something else.

To be honest, my favorite religions right now are the reform sect of Judaism and Buddhism. Buddhism, well.. there's obvious reasons there, but reform Judaism seems a bit more open to interpretation, and a lot more laidback than most religions. I went to temple last Friday with a friend of mine, and I must say, I've been to like 3 or so churches, and I like temple SO much better. I had no idea what was going on during certain things (people were bowing at certain parts [mostly the Barukh Ata parts, I was notified], there were some parts we had to say/sing in Hebrew, and some other stuff), but no one criticized me or looked at me weird.

When the Torah came around, we took our prayer books, touched it to the Torah, and then kissed them. My friend explained that to me when I was looking confused.

Anyway, I digress.. I completely forgot my original point. Oh it was something like we should all be tolerant of each other. And Christians, for the love of God, stop being SO GOD DAMNED ARROGANT WHEN YOU ARGUE FOR CREATIONISM. CREATIONISM ISN'T JUST CHRISTIANITY. Bring up OTHER faiths, too, and maybe you'll have some allies.

[stsparky]

... And Christians, for the love of God, stop being SO GOD DAMNED ARROGANT WHEN YOU ARGUE FOR CREATIONISM. CREATIONISM ISN'T JUST CHRISTIANITY. Bring up OTHER faiths, too, and maybe you'll have some allies.
I piss off Fundies from everywhere. I'm a trained primatologist who had a Jesuit as his advisor. I'm dogma proof.

[Buckwheat]

If evolutionists aren't trying to disprove a god, why do they try to disprove the way a particular religion studies science.


Therein lies the problem. If you're not using the scientific method, it just isn't science. There's only one way to approach science.
Observation>Hypothesis>Experiment>Results>Conclusion>Ask new questions about the results. Repeat as necessary.

The way I see the christian science going is this
Observation>Hypothesis (usually based on scripture)>Conclusion set in stone

not really a good way of going about.

[PopCulturePooka]

Therein lies the problem. If you're not using the scientific method, it just isn't science. There's only one way to approach science.
Observation>Hypothesis>Experiment>Results>Conclusion>Ask new questions about the results. Repeat as necessary.

The way I see the christian science going is this
Observation>Hypothesis (usually based on scripture)>Conclusion set in stone

not really a good way of going about.
Exactly.

Regarding the can't prove theres no God, so there must be idea.

Micah prove to be taht there is NOT a large, invisible, intangible, pink elephant in your bedroom right now.

It's invisible, so you can't see it.

It's intangible, so you cant feel it or hear it.

It, by its nature, won't come up on any Infre-red, UV or similar tests.

But it's there.

Prove it isn't.

If you can't prove 100% to me that the elephant is NOT there then you must accept it is.

[Disney's doug89]

Creationism is really based only on a book that was written 3000+ years ago. It seems to require blind faith to support it. On the other hand Evolutionism has risen from scientific observation and experimentation. (Most) Evolutionists have put thought into their viewpoint and can rationalize their stance.

Therein lies the problem. If you're not using the scientific method, it just isn't science. There's only one way to approach science.
Observation>Hypothesis>Experiment>Results>Conclusion>Ask new questions about the results. Repeat as necessary.

The way I see the christian science going is this
Observation>Hypothesis (usually based on scripture)>Conclusion set in stone

not really a good way of going about.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9620/sciencevsfaithhc2.jpg

[japanat]

Does scientifically proving evolutionary changes exist disprove the possibility that a higher-being far beyond our understanding exists?No.

But it does give credence to the belief of many posters on this thread that the development of life on Earth as described in the Bible is not the literal truth. Can you acknowledge that? American Creationists of the Kansas schoolboard-/Jerry Falwell- type can't.

I'm not religious at all, but I like how my Catholic roommate in college put it: "The bible may or may not have been written from the word of God, but it was written by men, and is therefore as fallible as mankind."

And offensive or not, this comment by doug89 made my day (I'm thinking about sig-ing it, but I'd probably piss some people off): Creation: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if your symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him your accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.So wickedly cynical!:)

[mawande]

Evolutionists... Why is there no room for additions or modifications to your theory? If you look at the path of evolution (human and other life) how can things have ended up the way they did? What were the odds that humans ended up walking on two legs instead of four? Other forms are faster, stronger, more dexterous, and more useful, so why did we end up the way we are? Even taking it based off total random chance, the odds are stacked totally against us. There has to be more than current science can explain. So step back and use your imagination for a little while and see what you find.

Well, as far as I know, evolution is pretty much random. Let's try something else. Darwin's Law was not "survival of the fittest" meaning the most powerful, etc. etc. as far as I know. It doesn't matter how powerful you are if you don't leave decendants. The more you leave, the more variety you get, and the more adaptations will occur. The odds were never stacked against us more than any of the other animals on the planet. We lived where we could, and got smart enough to live where we normally couldn't. That's why we're all over the place. Not unlike cockroaches.... Heehee.

[Trump]

Well, mutations happen in individuals not in an entire species at once. Genetics and reproduction says that this mutation would get folded back into the species and each offspring of the mutation would have a chance of having this mutation (based on dominant and recessive genes). So unless the mutation caused sterile offspring (which can't be true if one closely related species has this attribute, like opposible digits on the foot) the mutation should be randomly distributed around the entire species and we'd see more instances of it than we do now. It is similar to the way humans have blue eyes and brown eyes and every color in between. Just my wierd thought process.

There was also a poster who said that the old testament was changed by the church many times. Actually, they have found the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint and other documents that date from before the church was even created (400AD and before for the documents), and they have correlated many of the passages almost word for word. The discrepancies are on an individual word basis and seem to be more translation errors than actual modifications. It is interesting since the older stories make more sense. I've heard this argument used to show that the work is divine because it hasn't changed after so many translations over the past 2 millenia. That however is not my concern.

Futhermore, the problem with Creationism isn't the possibility as described by Micah, it is the probability. Sure, you can argue till you are blue in the face that it is possible that all of this happened exactly as written in the bible, but what you cannot argue is that these events as written are terribly improbable. That is why scientists have such trouble believing in it. Sure it is possible that there is an elephant in your room, but it such an insignficant probability that you can rather safely say it isn't so.

[Micah the Great]

PCP, this is from post #147:
...I'm not talking about what science can prove or what a certain religion believes. It's about opening your mind to possibilities.

...I personally don't like evolution as a science... but that has NOTHING to do with whether or not i believe some generic higher-being created the universe.

...The part i'm having trouble understanding is... why bash a certain religion's view points, if you don't even believe a high-being exists? Who cares? It should be a non-issue.
My belief in God isn't based on what science can or cannot prove. It's base on faith. You obvious don't have faith in any higher-being or "god", and that's your decision. If one day you did begin a faith in pink elephant, spaghetti monster, of chocolate cake face man... it's not my business. It's not a question of scientifically proving it, it's faith. I get that you don't like it! ..and that's good for you.

Doug, again, you're going the wrong way. From the same post:

...Also, how can your purpose be to disprove a religion with science, when the point of you doing so is to prove that the science and religion are unrelated?

My point: If you're an evolutionist, there's no point in trying to disprove a religion. If you're a religion, there's no point in trying to disprove evolution. They're non-compatible.
Science exists whether you have faith in a "god" or not. They're not mutually exclusive since one is based on observing facts and one on faith. But the picture is comparing them as such. We've already established science can't prove or disprove a "god", so why continue to make the argument.

Japanat, you said:
But it does give credence to the belief of many posters on this thread that the development of life on Earth as described in the Bible is not the literal truth. Can you acknowledge that?

From post #36: ...People love to side with popular belief and claim all creationists make crazy claims and are stupid and twisted. Believing creationism based on this attitude is as stupid as believing evolution based on the same thing.

From post #54: If you don't think God is logical... that's fine...

From post #74: ...I believe my side enough to argue about it this long, and you believe your side enough to argue this long. Neither of as are stupid and neither of us can disprove the other's argument nor prove ours 100%.

...Yes, anything could exists as for as we know.

From post #95: ...I'm not saying there's not thousands of obviously things that can be argued about scientifically in creationism or Christianity.

...If you don't like creationism, then it's fine to argue how a higher-being doesn't exist.

...If the finding of the studying of fossils and genes leads you to the conclusion that evolution is what is real, ..then that's awesome.

...Many parts of evolutionary study are very logically and totally scientific and of sound reasoning.

I KNOW there are plenty of crazy creationist that have completely, utterly stupid ideas and theories.

From post #100: I'm not trying to convince them God exists. I've said several times that it's OK. They're not bad, stupid, or illogical for not believing it.

If someone doesn't like my comments or thinks i'm trying to force something on them... just skip over my posts! It's not going to hurt my feelings

From post #103: We don't understand everything, thus making other alternatives to our current understanding possible. The belief in a higher-being or Christian God is the same way. It's not absolute and can't be totally explained.

Their side has merit. I've already said so. I'm not trying to convert anyone to any religion or explain the Bible, i just want them to realize they're being close-minded. Discussing why i think God is more probable to exist than not, or that i believe the Bible, is a COMPLETELY different topic.

[Buckwheat]

You completely missed the point of doug's picture and my post. Creationism is not science, it's a guess, and a bad one since it can't be tested.

People will always have faith in something but when that faith prevents them from listening to reason then we're in trouble.

[Micah the Great]

Why did i miss the point? I've stated several times my views on creation aren't based on science. I've said several times it's just a possible guess and it isn't absolute.

Yes, letting faith get in the way of reasoning can cause trouble, it happens all the time in various aspects of life, but bashing people and a religion doesn't help someone come to a scientific reasoning (i don't think you've been doing this Buckwheat, but plenty have).

EDIT: p.s. Let's start taking guesses on what page this thread will end. :)

[Kenkenchan]

Most people who believe in Evolution isn't out there to disprove the existence of God or anything like that. As stated many times before Science and Religion are two completely separate things, and should be kept separate. The problem arises when religion gets in the way of science. What I mean is, when religious leaders and what not try to prevent science to be taught in schools because it's against their religion. That's like trying to ignore the fact that there IS a pink elephant in your room (this time it's not invisible and is tangible) just because you don't believe it exists. Also, a lot of creationists believe in details that is obviously wrong, such as the world being only 6000 years old (or whatever it was).
The theory of Evolution is science, based on facts. If you don't want to believe in the theory, fine, but don't ignore the FACTS. I won't deny that there is a possibility that maybe (and for me this is a big MAYBE) the creationists are right, and that God just planted those fossils for us to fine and whatever else just to test our faith. Maybe the world is only 6000 years old. But just because that possibility exists, I'm not just going to ignore the scientific evidence that we find.
Besides, if God really did do that, he'd be quite a silly God and I don't know if I would even want to worship him.

Oh yeah, also...my first post, yay!

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm not trying to say the Christians are the only ones in the wrong here. A lot of people who believe in evolution can be assholes. Also I have a lot of Christian friends who either believe in evolution or have no problem with it.

[Fred]

I think there are a lot of religious people who view science as a religion. They infer a contradictory theology from scientific theory. In addition, they tend to view the bible as the only legitimate source of a moral code, so they see proponents of “scientific theology” as being immoral. I think that is why they have such strong opposition to the teaching of evolution and seek to have the Christian version of Creation taught in science class. The issue of moral authority also explains the tenacity and animosity that frequently characterize these types of discussions and the positions people take. Questioning a person’s moral code is a very personal attack.

Personally, I do believe there is more to life than I can understand or witness empirically. That belief encompasses the existence of God. I have no clue about the nature of God. I know the bible is not the literal word of God, although it may be a tool for understanding the nature of God.

[Micah the Great]

OMG Fred! ^I think i have to agree with every sentence here. This is what i've been trying to say this whole time. If Fred's statement makes sense to anyone, i would have thought mine would to, but i admittedly speak gibberish sometimes like an idiot and it's hard to understand.

I guess it's hard to understand the intentions of a random person you don't know typing over the internet. :boggled: BLAH!

[Annoying MSN Person]

I'd encourage the reading of Darwin's Watch (the science of discworld 3)


(entirely fair use.)

THE SCENE: A RADIO CHAT-SHOW in the Bible Belt of the United States, a few years ago. The host is running a phone-in about evolution, a concept that is anathema to every God-fearing southern fundamentalist. The conversation runs something like this:



HOST: So, Jerry, what do you think about evolution? Should we take

any notice of Darwin's theories?

JERRY: That Darwin guy never got a Nobel Prize, did he? If he's so

great, how come he don't get no Nobel?

HOST: I think you have a very good point there, Jerry.



Such a conversation did occur, and the host was not being ironic. But Jerry's point is not quite the knock-down argument he thought it was. Charles Robert Darwin died in 1882. The first Nobel Prize was awarded in 1901.

Of course, well-meaning people are often ignorant about fine points of historical detail, and it is unfair to hold that against them. But it is perfectly fair to hold something else against them: the host and his guest didn't have their brains in gear. After all, why were they having that discussion? Because, as every God-fearing southern fundamentalist knows, virtually every scientist views Darwin as one of the all-time greats. It was this assertion, in fact, that Jerry was attempting to shoot down. Now, it should be pretty obvious that winners of Nobel prizes (for science) are selected by a process that relies heavily on advice from scientists. And those, we already know, are overwhelmingly of the opinion that Darwin was somewhere near the top of the scientific tree. So if Darwin didn't get a Nobel, it couldn't have been (as listeners were intended to infer) because the committee didn't think much of his work. There had to be another reason. As it happens, the main reason was that Darwin was dead.

As this story shows, evolution is still a hot issue in the Bible Belt, where it is sometimes known as 'evilution' and generally viewed as the work of the Devil. More sophisticated religious believers - especially European ones, among them the Pope - worked out long ago that evolution poses no threat to religion: it is simply how God gets things done, in this case, the manufacture of living creatures. But the Bible-Belters, in their unsophisticated fundamentalist manner, recognise a threat, and they're right. The sophisticated reconciliation of evolution with God is a wishy-washy compromise, a cop-out. Why? Because evolution knocks an enormous hole in what otherwise might be the best argument yet devised for convincing people of the existence of God, and that is the `argument from design'.[1]

The universe is awesome in its size, astonishing in its intricacy. Every part of it fits neatly with every other part. Consider an ant, an anteater, an antirrhinum. Each is perfectly suited to its role (or 'purpose'). The ant exists to be eaten by anteaters, the anteater exists to eat ants, and the antirrhinum ... well, bees like it, and that's a good thing. Each organism shows clear evidence of `design', as if it had been made specifically to carry out some purpose. Ants are just the right size for anteaters' tongues to lick up, anteaters have long tongues to get into ants' nests. Antirrhinums are exactly the shape to



[1] So called because it starts from the phenomenon of design and deduces the existence of a cosmic designer.





be pollinated by visiting bees. And if we observe design, then surely a designer can't be far away.

Many people find this argument compelling, especially when it is developed at length and in detail, and `designer' is given a capital `D'. But Darwin's `dangerous idea', as Daniel Dennett characterised it in his book with that title, puts a very big spoke into the wheel of cosmic design. It provides an alternative, very plausible, and apparently simple process, in which there is no role for design and no need for a designer. Darwin called that process `natural selection'; nowadays we call it `evolution'.

There are many aspects of evolution that scientists don't yet understand. The details behind Darwin's theory are still up for grabs, and every year brings new shifts of opinion as scientists try to improve their understanding. Bible-Belters understand even less about evolution, and they typically distort it into a caricature: `blind chance'. They have no interest whatsoever in improving their understanding. But they do understand, far better than effete Europeans, that the theory of evolution constitutes a very dangerous attack on the psychology of religious belief. Not on its substance (because anything that science discovers can be attributed to the Deity and viewed as His mechanism for bringing the associated events about) but on its attitude. Once God is removed from the day-to-day running of the planet, and installed somewhere behind DNA biochemistry and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is no longer so obvious that He must be fundamental to people's daily lives. In particular, there is no special reason to believe that He affects those lives in any way, or would wish to, so the fundamentalist preachers could well be out of a job. Which is how Darwin's lack of a Nobel can become a debating point on American local radio. It is also the general line along which Darwin's own thinking evolved - he began his adult life as a theology student and ended it as a somewhat tormented agnostic.

[Annoying MSN Person]

Also, my beef with the creationist museum concept is the outright brainwashing of kids to reject what 99% of the rational western world is telling them and go with the rest of their cult. There is no thing as a christian child, only a child of christian parents.

To boot, for the abundance of them in these parts, atheists are usually percieved as an untrustworthy bunch.
Though I'm surprised the homosexual vote is higher. Go progress.... sorta.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g186/hellib/galvotefor.gif

[Beowulf]

I just found a great comic relating to all the uber christians who say that we should "Teach Both Theories and Let The Kids Decide"

http://freeforum.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/teach_both_theories.png

[manrush]

Have you guys heard of the latest find in Sci-Am?

Apparently it states that evolution did not originate with RNA self-catalysing its own reactions as once believed. The article said that some simple molecules were naturally selected to survive while others "died" I'll send a link if I can find the article.

P.S. One can be of the Christian faith and still believe that evolution occurred. I am an example. Some creationists say that it takes more faith to believe in evolution. That cannot be true, because we have seen evidence of evolution through the years. And we are seeing evidence of evolution now. How else could you explain the resurgence of TB and the ever-growing resistance of the influenza virus?

[mawande]

P.S. One can be of the Christian faith and still believe that evolution occurred. I am an example. Some creationists say that it takes more faith to believe in evolution. That cannot be true, because we have seen evidence of evolution through the years. And we are seeing evidence of evolution now. How else could you explain the resurgence of TB and the ever-growing resistance of the influenza virus?

Clearly God is testing the Believers and the Unbelievers will perish by the sword of their own Theories!

Getting a blood transfusion is NOT the same as drinking blood, goldarnit!

[Annoying MSN Person]

http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0701/friendsofgod012707.mov [Fixed location. Perhaps. dargg.]
The weird australian guy who lies to children. Through the power of song, no less. :( Of course there were dinosaurs with people.
The interview with the kids at the end is just sad. "I'mma get a nobel prize in creationism!"
I was a child raised to believe such (more sane, but still) bs, reinforced every day by my teachers, the molesting parish priest, and the nuns who came in to teach us. I would do the sign of the cross every night before I said my prayers - "it's like a telephone line to god," I firmly believed. Except when I forget to do it again when I was finished. I sincerely believed that I had somehow disturbed the divine forces but not ending the call.

I love the theory that god put all this evidence on the earth just to test the believers' faith. What kind of a mindfuck megalomaniac do they think they are worshipping?

[Disney's doug89]

I have no idea which side Godlibubbles is on.

[Vincent]

pre-emptive TLDR lewl, 7 pages is too much, but...

I HAVE BEEN TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE

http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodledoodle1280_1024.jpg

edit: spelling

[RandomPasserby]

I have no idea which side Godlibubbles is on.
She is on the side of science pretty clearly to me? Posting videos of creationists brainwashing children and feedign them lies isn't exactly anti-science?

[Annoying MSN Person]

I'm a god unto my own bubbles, obviously.
Fuck religious bullshit. For the sake of clarity.

[Jetsetlemming]

lol dinosaurs.
My science teacher in 11th grade frequently brought up religious points and perspective in class. :O It was interesting.

[Micah the Great]

Whoa.. ppl are still in here.. haha.

Vincent: LOL, yeah, you missed that boat several pages ago.

JSL: ^Huh... my high school chemistry and physics teacher was a preacher but never mentioned creationism as far as i remember... just taught science.

[manrush]

I personally believe that creationists are, at best, misguided. But I'm willing to debate them, only if I do my research beforehand. (I suck at arguments and debates).

And the proposal that the molecules themselves used to be naturally selecting each other tells me that there is evolution at a much grander scale than once realised.

[stsparky]

I know all Creationists are misinformed nitwits who mean harm to me and my family. I will treat such as zombies after warning them that I regard them as braindead. That is their first and last chance to reconsider their folly.

God doesn't gift people brains to think with and want them stupid. The only irrational thing on this planet seems to be 'special' religious types.

[manrush]

I know all Creationists are misinformed nitwits who mean harm to me and my family. I will treat such as zombies after warning them that I regard them as braindead. That is their first and last chance to reconsider their folly.

God doesn't gift people brains to think with and want them stupid. The only irrational thing on this planet seems to be 'special' religious types.

I personally think that they are mistaken and misguided in their opinions. I'm not willing to actually be harsh with them, because I see it as counter-productive. Yes, it does seem that I am an apologist for creationism, but I'm not. I attack the idea, not the people who perscribe to it.

Note: I was just stating my opinion. I was in no way attacking you. So please don't take any offence.

[Angelyne]

Felt like posting this, didn't feel like starting a new thread:

Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

By Philip Pullella in Loranzago di Cadore, Italy

July 26, 2007 07:49am

Scientific proof "in favour of evolution"
Humans must "listen to the Earth" or die out
Can Pope Benedict really have it both ways?

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.

“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“

His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22136550-5006003,00.html?from=public_rss

[Roxie]

Ok, now if he only he can admit that birth control is a good thing.

[Balain]

There was a time while I was going to University I thought about becoming a physical anthropologist, or at least a minor in it. I took about 6 anthro courses and 2 of those were strictly on evolution and the others used evolution a lot. There are flaws in the theroy of evolution. For example asians can't be counted for (at least when I took the course) BAsed on their skull ans jaw shapes they don't fit into any path of evolution (something like that any ways it has been about 12 years since I even study in school) there are some other animals that defy evolution.

Anyways I still believe evolution has some valid points. I'm also kind of religious, Catholic. I believe in God. I don't see one idea countering the other. You can't take the bible too literally. You need to understand when it was written and find the real truth in the parts that are fables.

Oh well I'm tired and probally making little sense to anyone but myself now.

Have a good night all.

[mawande]

Um... I am extremely confused by the "Asians can't be counted based on their skull and jaw shapes" bit. Especially because then you go "there are some other animals that defy evolution." The number of typos wants me to ask if you meant some kind of animal or Asians as in human beings.

Now, what animals defy evolution? And man created the Internet, and someone created Google. http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/animaloddities.htm

It seems that Darwin once said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" and the Creationists are hoping they can use that to do it. *snort*

[Kyletherealninja]

Hmm. I grew up in a youth-earth creationist environment but after I got interested enough to study up, I changed my mind - I think YEC is totally bogus. Science stuff usually doesn't interest me that much so I can't say whether or not there's legitimacy to specific claims about evolutionary problems, but the bottom line is that evolution really isn't hostile to Christian faith and are based mostly on bad biblical interpretation that also rears its ugly head with pop eschatology (Left Behind, anyone?)

I should point out that I'm a pretty conservative Christian as well, and I understand why a lot of people buy into YEC/evolution is evil stuff, but it would be really nice to see a change eventually.

[Beowulf]

Um... I am extremely confused by the "Asians can't be counted based on their skull and jaw shapes" bit. Especially because then you go "there are some other animals that defy evolution." The number of typos wants me to ask if you meant some kind of animal or Asians as in human beings.
Clearly you haven't of the incredibly precise science of PHRENOLOGY!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/Phrenology-journal.jpg/421px-Phrenology-journal.jpg

[Balain]

I'm a little more awake now. It's been years since I study anthro, but yes Asian people don't seem to follow any evolutionary path. Based on their skull and jaw bone shapes. It's been years since I actually studied this stuff, I guess I could go dig out my old evolution text book.

I guess my point is evolution is a theory and not everything can be proven using evolution. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the world was made in 6 days and is only a few thousand years old. That would be a fable trying to explain things the best way they could back then.

It bugs me to no end when I hear people say we evolved from monkeys. If we evolved from monleys there would be no monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor related to monkeys. they went down one evolutionary path we went down another.

[Beowulf]

I'm a little more awake now. It's been years since I study anthro, but yes Asian people don't seem to follow any evolutionary path. Based on their skull and jaw bone shapes. It's been years since I actually studied this stuff, I guess I could go dig out my old evolution text book.
Your theory sounds like BS and I'd love some sort of link or other proof, I mean you do realize how close you're venturing into phrenology territory don't you?

It bugs me to no end when I hear people say we evolved from monkeys. If we evolved from monleys there would be no monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor related to monkeys. they went down one evolutionary path we went down another.
I have never actually heard anyone say we evolved from monkeys.

[Balain]

Your theory sounds like BS and I'd love some sort of link or other proof, I mean you do realize how close you're venturing into phrenology territory don't you?

Phrenology was used to determine personality based on bumps on your head. The text book went on about the shape of jaw bones and the skull of asians based on fossil records there is no link to asians and fosils something like that like I said it's been like 12 years or more. I'll go find my text book and try and find it.


I have never actually heard anyone say we evolved from monkeys.

I here it all the frigging time.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

Now, what animals defy evolution?
I had a math tutor who was absolutely firm in her belief that bats defy evolution. I believe her arguement went something like, if bats' ancestors could fly as well or couldn't hear as well as the bats today, then they'd be useless.

I say, Bats are about as improbably as humans. meh.

[RandomPasserby]

I had a math tutor who was absolutely firm in her belief that bats defy evolution. I believe her arguement went something like, if bats' ancestors could fly as well or couldn't hear as well as the bats today, then they'd be useless.

I say, Bats are about as improbably as humans. meh.
Heh, to my understanding, there are bats which have sucky hearing (by bat standards) and also bats that can't get off the ground after gorging on fruits (or was it blood?). At least I'm sure that all bats don't have same level flying and hearing abilities (fruit bats and normal, insect eating bats are quite different in those afaik).

[japanat]

I had a math tutor who was absolutely firm in her belief that bats defy evolution. I believe her arguement went something like, if bats' ancestors could fly as well or couldn't hear as well as the bats today, then they'd be useless.

I say, Bats are about as improbably as humans. meh.When the people who are trained in any particular field complain about its inadequacies (and some do), I'll gladly listen to their arguments. But I can't see that a math tutor knows dick about evolution.

[Kfisher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI

[Beowulf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI
That is the single most annoying thing I have ever seen in ages. The rhyming just makes me want to kick him in the nuts.

[Balain]

So I found my text book. Damn I forgot how boring that particular text book was. What I rememberd was a little diffrent than what is in the book. The current theory(at the time of the publishing) was that a common Ancestor ("eve") to all homo ........... (so many diffrent classifications listed) started in Africa and there was an africian invasion. Those ancestors taking over or reproducing with the locals. A few anthropologists said this was bunk. Based on the thickness of cranial bones, size of teeth and shape of forehead of fossil records and the current population of areas like Asia and Austrilia. These areas would have to have a diffrent source than "eve"

[stsparky]

Please stop being stupid. Perhaps you've misunderstood a mangled retelling of The Seven Daughters of Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve)? Anyhow here:

The seven "clan mothers" mentioned by Sykes each correspond to one (or more) human mitochondrial haplogroups (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html).
Ursula: corresponds to Haplogroup U (excluding its subgroup K)
Xenia: corresponds to Haplogroup X
Helena: corresponds to Haplogroup H
Velda: corresponds to Haplogroup V
Tara: corresponds to Haplogroup T
Katrine: corresponds to Haplogroup K
Jasmine: corresponds to Haplogroup J

Sykes is currently using the same methods to identify the nine "clan mothers" of Japanese ancestry, "all different from the seven European equivalents." I suspect they are "Fufei, Ina, Aiyana/Ai, Yumi, Nene, Naomi, Una, Uta, and Emiko?"

[Balain]

Please stop being stupid. Perhaps you've misunderstood a mangled retelling of The Seven Daughters of Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve)? Anyhow here:

The seven "clan mothers" mentioned by Sykes each correspond to one (or more) human mitochondrial haplogroups (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html).
Ursula: corresponds to Haplogroup U (excluding its subgroup K)
Xenia: corresponds to Haplogroup X
Helena: corresponds to Haplogroup H
Velda: corresponds to Haplogroup V
Tara: corresponds to Haplogroup T
Katrine: corresponds to Haplogroup K
Jasmine: corresponds to Haplogroup J

Sykes is currently using the same methods to identify the nine "clan mothers" of Japanese ancestry, "all different from the seven European equivalents." I suspect they are "Fufei, Ina, Aiyana/Ai, Yumi, Nene, Naomi, Una, Uta, and Emiko?"

I don't know what you thought I meant by "eve" I'm not talking Adam and Eve here. I'm talking about the remains they found and called "eve"

The text book is called The Order Primates By M.e. Stephens and my prof J.D. Paterson. Page 115 to 124.

[mawande]

I don't know what you thought I meant by "eve" I'm not talking Adam and Eve here. I'm talking about the remains they found and called "eve"


You are aware that the chances of the woman whose remains they found and called Eve being ancestor to every human being is, shall we say, 0%?

[mawande]

I don't know what you thought I meant by "eve"

Aside from mis-remembering your text-book, you never gave any indication whatsoever that you were referring to that particular Eve.

"The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottleneck or first couple. They co-existed with a large human population. Some of these contemporaries have no living descendants today, and others are ancestors of all people alive today. No contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve is an ancestor of only a subset of people alive today, because she lived much longer ago than the identical ancestors point."

"Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[4] after Eve of the Genesis creation story may be considered unfortunate in that it has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time — she was not. Had she been the only living female of her time, humanity would most likely have become extinct due to an extreme population bottleneck.

Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. They may have left descendants via either son or daughters (and grandsons or granddaughters, and so on). Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve may be present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them are not."

[MeneerDijk]

I'm actually pretty pissed of by creationist crap in my own country.

There is an evangelical public TV organisation (paid for by tax dollars, there are different organisations depending on political or religious manifest) that is broadcasting nature documentaries made by the BBC.. They cleverly censored every reference to the evolution theory though. I can understand that they want to broadcast stuff relevant to their Christian beliefs, but i don't like them censoring stuff paid for with my fucking tax dollars. How'd they feel if i started censoring the bible for stuff i didn't like?

Seriously, it just frustrates the hell out of me. To me it feels like the churches are trying to nanny people in their religious beliefs more and more. Taking notion of the evolution theory doesn't make a Christian go to hell, being a shitty person makes a Christian go to hell.

//rant over

[AssButt.]

The thing that pisses me off about these debates is, even more than the creationists and fundamentalists, all the fence-sitters. These are the people whose line of reasoning goes something like this: "Well, extreme atheists who force evolution on people are just as bad as extreme fundamentalists who force creationism on people. Forcing your beliefs on someone is wrong."

This argument is deceptively appealing. It's the argumentative version of a referee, someone who pulls aside the opposing forces and tells them to accept their differences, and not to fight over it. Let each man believe what he wants to. Well, the problem lies in the assumptions that are implied by this line of thinking. It is a scientific debate, NOT a religious or theological one. This means that, in this case, there is ONE correct answer to the question of "Where did humans come from?", and it is evolution. If there were any competeing scientific theories for evolution, I would mention them here, but there are none. There are no competing theories of gravity, or motion. And when there are two theories that compete, like quantum mechanics and general relativity, they both offer explanations and predictions in certain specific fields that the other cannot explain by itself. They are complementary.

But, alas, creationism is not, nor will ever be, considered a science, and should automatically be expelled from any scientific debate. This is not a mere opinion, or belief. It is a fact. Charles Darwin did not come up with his theory of evolution by reading books of ancient mythology and finding evidence that fit the descriptions in Greek, or Norse legend that tell of the world's creation by means of a dead frost giant, or a war between gods. He observed actual evidence occuring in the natural world, and, using intellectually sound principles, tried to explain them with the theory that traits desireable to survival will be passed on to further generations of animals. It makes sense, it's logical, and what's more, it's been supported by literally millions of years of evidence.

Creationism, on the other hand, has taken events in an extremely old book, written when people thought the Earth was flat and every natural phenomenon was caused by a deity, and have attempted to fit square pegs of evidence into round holes of creationist assumptions. Creationism, almost by definition, cannot be true. If science were to prove that God created the world, and therefore exists, there would be no point to religion. Religion is a leap of faith, to believe things that are difficult to believe in order to reap eternal rewards. If it could be proven that God exists, there would be no point in religion. We would cease to believe in God, because it would be a proven fact that he exists.

In short, creationism is wrong, it's an insult to science AND religion, it's an irrational, illogical idea that, in a much better world, would have died with the publication of the Origin of Species. Science has the power to disprove religious ideas that are factually wrong (like thunder being caused by cosmic hammers). We have scientific explanations for these phenomena that are even more amazing than simply attributing them to an arbitrary divine presence. Quantum mechanics sounds crazy! Particles in two places at once? Not being able to measure speed and location at the same time? And, of course, the particles in question are so small, we can't even see them with the help of microscopes! But quantum mechanics works. It has been proven, time and time again, with experiments and technology and verifiable facts. TVs, radios, lasers - if it were wrong, these things couldn't exist. But creationism is an intellectual void that proves nothing, predicts nothing, and does even less to enrich humanity. It is, quite simply, a crock of shit.