Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Creationism/Intelligen Design

  1. #1 Creationism/Intelligen Design 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    This is merely a pointless debating topic, enjoy. Oh, by the way, flame all you want!

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, if one looks at evolution with the same analytical and critical eye that one should look at all of science, one would realize that the evidence for evolution is shakey at best.

    If, on the other hand, you accept every scientific concept on face value because it is espoused by someone claiming it is science, then I can understand the whole hog swallowing of evolution.

    If your starting point is that God does not exist, then evolution is the only plausible explanation available.

    In the short sound bites we get here, it is virtually impossible for anyone to actually develope a significant argument for or against any issue. We merely provide conclusory capsules.

    The problems in evolutionary theory are numerous and significant. Science attempts to resolve the problems while evolutionist try to justify them or ignore them.

    Obviously offers this formula for religious evolutionary belief: "I believe 1+1+1=1."

    If I recall my long ago high school advance algebra class, there was a "proof" for such an equation. My restatment of the formula for what evolution believes would be, "I believe A+?+?+?+CDX+?+?19 missing links+L/V*3millionyears+???=today's tabby cat>God."

    Actually, I agree with those giants of mathematical wizardry, the Beatles, that "one and one and one is three." But I doubt we will "come together" on this issue.
    My starting point, or any scientist for that matter, is that there's a natural explanation for the vareity of species we see today. As for all these "problems", I have seen none significant [enough for your side]. The formula I provided merely shows the ignorance of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution, which is timescale.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    This is what you said, Obviously:

    "They [creationists] misrepresent what they're fighting against and ignore the fact that they've been proven wrong on every account. Evolution is a fact, and creationism doesn't make any sense whatsoever as a viable theory of the variety of species you see to this day."

    To creationists, this is role reversal. What you say is almost exactly what creationists feel about evolutionists. (Let me say that to me evolutionist is a pajoritive term denoting a person who is not involved in any field of study related to evolution, who has probably never read Darwin's study, who has read only writings exclusively from only those who support evolution, has never read works from those who remain skeptcal and is not even aware of the many remaining questions and puzzles which real scientists recognize and continue to investigate in an effort to find answers.)

    I'm almost convinced if there was a thread about bread dough here, some atheist would someplace along the line figure out some way to throw in an anti-creationist comment.
    Let's look a little closer at this quote-mining. What did I actually say that made my post, according to me, consistent with the OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    You will always be ridiculed for not believing what other people believe. There's nothing wrong with being yourself, but I'd advice to stay away from creationism. They misrepresent what they're fighting against and ignore the fact that they've been proven wrong on every account. Evolution is a fact, and creationism doesn't make any sense whatsoever as a viable theory of the variety of species you see to this day.
    That was merely an opinion.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    oooh flame war, lets keep it simple to start with

    the universe has been around for far longer than 6000 years, in fact its been around for far longer than a billion...

    show me im wrong


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Creationism/Intelligen Design 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    just lifted out 3 for comment

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, if one looks at evolution with the same analytical and critical eye that one should look at all of science, one would realize that the evidence for evolution is shakey at best.
    which raises the question to daytonturner : are you satisfied that you understand evolutionary theory well enough to pronounce yourself on the matter, or are you at one with 99% of the creationists that you're attacking windmills ?

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If your starting point is that God does not exist, then evolution is the only plausible explanation available.
    not so - evolution is not the default alternative to belief in god
    do you know of any science that requires belief in god ? and if not, does that make the whole of science atheistic, or merely as Blaise Pascal famously stated, that it does "not have any need for that hypothesis"

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Let me say that to me evolutionist is a pajoritive term denoting a person who is not involved in any field of study related to evolution, who has probably never read Darwin's study, who has read only writings exclusively from only those who support evolution, has never read works from those who remain skeptcal and is not even aware of the many remaining questions and puzzles which real scientists recognize and continue to investigate in an effort to find answers.
    i consider myself to be an evolutionist, but i don't recognise myself in the definition you employ - in fact most biologists that i know of are evolutionists, because not being one would be a matter of lack of personal integrity
    we are probably more aware of the remaining deficiencies in the theory of evolution than you are, and they definitely don't include the fake objections raised by creationists, which by now have been refuted for the past 150 years
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Actually much of evolutionary theory is pseudo-science as it
    is largely based on untestable hypotheses.

    Evolution itself appears to be sound, but the mechanisms
    used to explain it should not, in my opinion, be regarded
    as anything other than possible answers until we are
    certain that they are.

    There is a whole mass of evidence and logic that goes
    against the classic Darwinian model
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    There is a whole mass of evidence and logic that goes
    against the classic Darwinian model
    Which is why it is not the standard interpretation of the mechanics of evolution among biologists anymore, but some of it's tenets are still in working order, like natural selection.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Actually much of evolutionary theory is pseudo-science as it is largely based on untestable hypotheses.
    Cite three examples.

    (Plus, as New Scientist points out in an article in the current issue Popper's falsifiability is becoming passé, and arguably never was practised to any great extent.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Actually much of evolutionary theory is pseudo-science as it is largely based on untestable hypotheses.
    Cite three examples.

    (Plus, as New Scientist points out in an article in the current issue Popper's falsifiability is becoming passé, and arguably never was practised to any great extent.)
    OK..like "What selective pressures might have been involved to produce this adaptation and what if....etc etc etc...

    As Prof Rupert Sheldrake has said:

    "Darwinism allows endless stories to be spun".

    It is not based on objective, reproducible experimentation...the
    very basis for science.

    It is just endless speculative conjecture lacking any real
    substance.

    I have noticed how Darwinists use sophistry instead of reason
    to explain their positions. They spend more time criticizing people
    like me who dare to dsipute their "findings" than proving their
    hypotheses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    When I said 'cite three examples' I meant provide references to specific papers that propose an evolutionary hypothesis that is not falsifiable. Quoting a generic remark out of context is meaningless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    When I said 'cite three examples' I meant provide references to specific papers that propose an evolutionary hypothesis that is not falsifiable. Quoting a generic remark out of context is meaningless.

    How the giraffe got its long neck

    www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf

    There are no less than 30 untestable hypotheses that try and
    explain it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Regretably access to this site is restricted by company software which classifies it as a ""Social Networking and Personal Sites".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Regretably access to this site is restricted by company software which classifies it as a ""Social Networking and Personal Sites".
    Try the html version


    http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    "Darwinist"

    These terms somehow always make me laugh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    "Darwinist"

    These terms somehow always make me laugh.

    Well then laugh at Dawkins for calling himself a "Neo-Darwinist".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Well then laugh at Dawkins for calling himself a "Neo-Darwinist".
    Neo-darwinism is defined:

    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
    a theory of evolution that is a synthesis of Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neo-darwinist
    That doesn't sound bad. Is that supposed to prove a point or something? We all know Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Certain terms, such as Darwinist, evolutionist, macro-evolution, etc have been used perjoratively by creationists. These are perfectly sound terms, introduced by practising scientists for good reasons, and still having value today. However, the misuse of these terms by creationists has led to some people incorrectly believing they are somehow flawed, inappropriate and unscientific. This is definitely not the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Certain terms, such as Darwinist, evolutionist, macro-evolution, etc have been used perjoratively by creationists. These are perfectly sound terms, introduced by practising scientists for good reasons, and still having value today. However, the misuse of these terms by creationists has led to some people incorrectly believing they are somehow flawed, inappropriate and unscientific. This is definitely not the case.
    goes to show : mud sticks
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Certain terms, such as Darwinist, evolutionist, macro-evolution, etc have been used perjoratively by creationists. These are perfectly sound terms, introduced by practising scientists for good reasons, and still having value today. However, the misuse of these terms by creationists has led to some people incorrectly believing they are somehow flawed, inappropriate and unscientific. This is definitely not the case.
    goes to show : mud sticks
    Marnix

    Purely as a pedantic point regarding an earlier post of yours - I don't believe it was Pascal who said that about the hypothesis. It was actually (unless apocryphal) Pierre-Simon Laplace. Pascal was more famous in this field for his 'Wager' that proposed it was probabilistically sensible to believe in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Purely as a pedantic point regarding an earlier post of yours - I don't believe it was Pascal who said that about the hypothesis. It was actually (unless apocryphal) Pierre-Simon Laplace. Pascal was more famous in this field for his 'Wager' that proposed it was probabilistically sensible to believe in God.
    oops, you're right - that's what you get when you quote from memory without checking your sources
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    I dont know why people bother to debate this.
    Religios people believe in fairy tales. WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID ?
    They never had nor will bear any more weigth then santa clause, eastern bunny or transformers.

    Flying Spaghetti Monster
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    do you want ID to win by default because no-one bothers to counter their twaddle ? before you know it, you and your children will be asked to subscribe to the ID 10 commandments, and all because you couldn't be bothered to contain them before it got out of hand
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Sadly I must agree with you. I used to view arguing with creationists to be nothing more than a form of lighthearted entertainment. I am coming to view it as a duty of any rational human being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Sadly I must agree with you. I used to view arguing with creationists to be nothing more than a form of lighthearted entertainment. I am coming to view it as a duty of any rational human being.
    Proposed, seconded, and carried. Vide Reg Vardy and his bringing of Creationsim into a state funded school, thanks to Tony "I'm not a Catholic, I'm just a liar" Blair...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Creationism/Intelligen Design 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    My starting point, or any scientist for that matter, is that there's a natural explanation for the vareity of species we see today. As for all these "problems", I have seen none significant [enough for your side]. The formula I provided merely shows the ignorance of the difference between micro- and macro-evolution, which is timescale.
    I wouldn't go with just time. If the seas are horribly overpopulated, so like, 9 out of 10 fish are dying of starvation, the first few born with a genetic mutation allowing them to get a few more feet into the shallow waters to get food are going to have a tremendous advantage.

    It's kind of like how patents accelerate the process of technological advancement.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    This is what you said, Obviously:

    "They [creationists] misrepresent what they're fighting against and ignore the fact that they've been proven wrong on every account. Evolution is a fact, and creationism doesn't make any sense whatsoever as a viable theory of the variety of species you see to this day."

    To creationists, this is role reversal. What you say is almost exactly what creationists feel about evolutionists. (Let me say that to me evolutionist is a pajoritive term denoting a person who is not involved in any field of study related to evolution, who has probably never read Darwin's study, who has read only writings exclusively from only those who support evolution, has never read works from those who remain skeptcal and is not even aware of the many remaining questions and puzzles which real scientists recognize and continue to investigate in an effort to find answers.)

    I'm almost convinced if there was a thread about bread dough here, some atheist would someplace along the line figure out some way to throw in an anti-creationist comment.
    Let's look a little closer at this quote-mining. What did I actually say that made my post, according to me, consistent with the OP?
    Role reversal is because both sides think the burden of evidence should be set against the other. To a creationist, the evolutionists are guilty of error until proven innocent. To the evolutionists, it's all about the digging and carbon dating, which the creationists don't have a lot of.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If your starting point is that God does not exist, then evolution is the only plausible explanation available.
    not so - evolution is not the default alternative to belief in god
    do you know of any science that requires belief in god ? and if not, does that make the whole of science atheistic, or merely as Blaise Pascal famously stated, that it does "not have any need for that hypothesis"
    I'm not sure it's really an alternative. It kind of rules out the bible's version of God, but you could believe in other versions, like a highly advanced race of aliens who take personal interest in our development as a society, either out of pity, or because they really think we might become valuable allies someday.

    They don't have to have created us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fort Meade
    Posts
    5
    In the beginning the Church denies new findings, just to be later proven wrong. The Earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, and it is not a couple thousands of years old.

    Give it time, they'll accept evolution eventually.
    "The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Well, that's all right then, the CofE apologizes to a dead man.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...evolution.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Well, that's all right then, the CofE apologizes to a dead man.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...evolution.html
    Wonderful story.

    Proves to me that, if one has to have a state religion, it might as well be the agnostic Church of England...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    I dont know why people bother to debate this.
    Religios people believe in fairy tales. WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID ?
    They never had nor will bear any more weigth then santa clause, eastern bunny or transformers.

    Flying Spaghetti Monster
    We debate it so that people who are uncertain will see creationism/ID for what it is. Garbage. If we neglect our responsibility in that regard we will find it in our schools and find it informing government policy. We're already struggling with the twin problems of scientific illiteracy in the public and social aloofness in the scientific community. A problem that is fuelling the decline in vaccination rates and the rise of holistic medicines. We need to present reason in the face of irrationality wherever it shows itself or we'll become victims of that irrationality ourselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •