Double Exposure, Inc.
  • December 01, 2020, 06:19:51 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science  (Read 8649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2008, 09:41:47 PM »

Calling Atheism non religion?  Accuate.  Calling it nn phiosophy?  Sorry no.  its a collection of beliefs based on faith not fact.

Umm... do you use the same dictionary I do? As noted, the label is applied variously, so I guess that allows for some confusion, but not believing in anything is not comparable to believing in something. That's... nonsensical.

As for your tired arguement that the lack of proof is proof sorry no its not thats a fallacy.  Lack of evidence is not evidence end of discussion.

Lack of evidence is, in fact, lack of evidence. The lack of evidence for such things existing, then, is why I comfortably assume they do not. I also assume you're not secretly a serial killer. I have no evidence to prove your innocence, but in absence of any evidence of your guilt, it's an assumption I feel comfortable with. You are confusing my position with something else, I think.

As for Dawkins being militant I didn't say he was a revolutionary I said if you went a little farther down the road of extremism he's on you wind up at Stalin's belief we need to murder every one who thinks their is a God.

Which Stalin are you referring to? The same one who opportunistically reached out to the clergy to help mobilize his country in war-time? Marxist-Leninist philosophy is militantly anti-religious, true, and Lenin and Stalin et al were authoritarian assholes at the end of the day, true as well. The philosophy was that religion was a tool of the capitalist to control the worker class, and that in order to free the worker, the tools of oppression must be abolished. Authoritarian assholes take all kinds of high-minded philosophies and twist them to suit their own ends once they are in power.

Without the addition of revolutionary Marxist-ish philosophy, I fail to see how the most outspoken atheist, however adamantly opposed, would somehow switch from a stuffy British professor to a bloody-minded authoritarian mass murderer.

As for the founding fathers never said you should be christian because they were.  What I did was point out that a country founded by christian men is a better place to live then any country run and founded by atheists.

Depends on who you are, and where you are, and when you are, really. Starving or dead or in jail is starving or dead or in jail. I happen to agree that the US is a better place to live than Russia, but I'm a bit biased - after all, I've lived in an had my thinking informed by the US for my whole life. It does not, however, follow that all Xtian-founded nations are superior to all atheist founded nations.

That would be a logical fallacy, as I am surprised you are not aware, given your tireless study of same.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2008, 09:46:11 PM »

PS: To those who may object to my profanity and combativeness in such discussions, isn't it better, more honest, to just call someone a stupid douchebag than all the snide, smug superiority dripping off my posts in this thread? It's weird that people like the veneer of civility more than the honesty.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2008, 02:39:34 PM »



Frigmorol you still don't get it. Not one peron in all of science or this board claims evolution is a perfect theory.  Theories are not perfect because science is endlessly changing.  In a century we migh drop evoution as we have other scientific theories.  Inteligent Design has no supporting evidence what so ever.  Take it fo granted the universe is only 6000 years old in wat way does that prove God or any thing else created it?  Maybe it simply popped into being exactly as it is now by a fluke of random chance.  Maybe all of reality is the psychotic delusion of some one from another universe we know nothin about.  We're all just halluicinations in his head not created at all.  For your religion to be science you need to show some evidence of its tenants.  Evolution says species change and adapt over time.  We know this, you've admitted it.  Creation says life just magicly appeared one day exactly the way it is because God said so.  We can't prove this because it only happened once and will never happen again.  The mechanisms by which it occured can not be seen, can not be tested, and can not be repeated.  Therefore its NOT science.  Like it or not the basic mechanism of evolution is testable, repeatable and observable.  You can't argue it you've admitted it yourself when you said species adapt over tme.  Thats evolution. 
There is a big difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution. Nobody disputes microevolution, the adaptation within a species. The part that is in debate is macroevolution, evolution between species. One does not prove the other. The reason I continually point out that evolution is flawed heavily is because so many seem to accept that theory and refer to it as science when it does not explain the the places where both theories have no valid scientific explaination. In both what happens from the moment creation ended is completely observable and calculable. The main difference is that Creationism states that the creation process is over and no new species will come about. There will certainly be changes within the species, but there will be no new ones of a higher order evolving from man or dolphins or whatever. Everything is observable in creationism except the moment of creation. The same can be said for the moment of the Big Bang, which also can't rationally be explained as we understand science now. To believe that someday we will understand it is Faith. Yet there are many that believe that only Creationists believe in something they have no evidence of. I will admit Creationism is not true science if you will admit that anyone who can not show concrete fact on their beliefs is also not science. As long as we both have the same shortcomings in this aspect don't try to say something else.
Logged

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2008, 08:38:04 PM »

Quote
What I did was point out that a country founded by christian men is a better place to live then any country run and founded by atheists.

So...What country would that be? : D

Really?  I am still missing the point...Ive been trying so hard to find your point...But it seems to evade me. 

But what I am getting is this...Lets say aliens did make human life and all other life on this planet...And in the question of where life came from.  Were just gonna assume something made us and then find where the creator of life came from irrelivant?

Dude I am tired of argueing with you...If you want...We can even say you win...Ive made my points to you...Have fun talking in circles with someone else.
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2008, 08:51:18 PM »

Anyway...Mack...

Quote
There is a big difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution.


Actually...These are my own observations...But you can honestly see that even though alot different most animals share parts...Everything has the same stuff for the most part.  I mean where I personally really noticed that 'hey! look'  Thats really different but almost the same is with feet...Look at a plantigrade skeliton (human) next to digitagrade skelliton.  Its pretty neat...So different.  But everything lines up.  Just a neat little thing to look at if you have the time.

Quote
The same can be said for the moment of the Big Bang, which also can't rationally be explained as we understand science now.

Actually.  Keep an eye on the LHC particle accleorator.  The further experimenting with stuff like the higgs particle may help to make or break the big bang theroy.  I suggest everyone throwing their ideas in this thread check it out.
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2008, 08:20:25 AM »

  Actually...These are my own observations...But you can honestly see that even though alot different most animals share parts...Everything has the same stuff for the most part.  I mean where I personally really noticed that 'hey! look'  Thats really different but almost the same is with feet...Look at a plantigrade skeliton (human) next to digitagrade skelliton.  Its pretty neat...So different.  But everything lines up.  Just a neat little thing to look at if you have the time.
Again not surprising. The fact that many animals and other creatures share a common environment, it makes sense that they would have similar traits. Similarities do not show macroevolution. It could be argued that since they have the same Creator, they would be made in similar ways, but with what they need for surviving in their environment.

Actually.  Keep an eye on the LHC particle accleorator.  The further experimenting with stuff like the higgs particle may help to make or break the big bang theroy.  I suggest everyone throwing their ideas in this thread check it out.
I agree, this is fascinating. I visited a collider with my Physics Seminar while I was going to Stockton. The science is fascinating and it has shown them some very unexpected results, like why there is not an equal amount of Dark matter and matter. Why did this process create so much matter and not more energy. Where did all of these particle come from initially. Are there other dimentions we have no idea exist. As I said fascinating. The key questions still exist and theories that are quite fantastic have come from them, however Quantum Physics is still a long way from being fully understood.
Logged

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #36 on: December 18, 2008, 12:17:29 AM »

Quote
Again not surprising. The fact that many animals and other creatures share a common environment, it makes sense that they would have similar traits. Similarities do not show macroevolution. It could be argued that since they have the same Creator, they would be made in similar ways, but with what they need for surviving in their environment.

Never said it proved it one way or the other.  Just shows that it is possible that all things that are compleately different all may of been verations of a species.  Or as you said all created by the same creator.
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2008, 03:14:04 PM »

So...What country would that be? : D

Really?  I am still missing the point...Ive been trying so hard to find your point...But it seems to evade me. 

But what I am getting is this...Lets say aliens did make human life and all other life on this planet...And in the question of where life came from.  Were just gonna assume something made us and then find where the creator of life came from irrelivant?

Dude I am tired of argueing with you...If you want...We can even say you win...Ive made my points to you...Have fun talking in circles with someone else.
One thing you said I can agree with.  I'm tired of arguing with you as well.  You remind me a lot of the IDers on the board.  Sure your not trying to call religion science but you're as determined to prove your philosophy is superior as they are and as bereft of evidence.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2008, 03:19:37 PM »

Frigemall,  let me try this again although it seems pointless.  Evolution is a scientific theory.  You yourself admit the existence of evolution is not in question.  You quibble by talking about microevolution but the key thing you're ignoring is thats still EVOLUTION.  Microevolution is an aspect of the theory of evolution that is testable, repeatable and observable.  If evolution is right you'd expect it to occur and the fact is it does.  Nothing in the religious belief of ID is testable, repeatable or observable.  Therefor nothing in the religious belief of ID is scientific.  Its not an alternative to Evolution any more then flat earth belief is an alternative to geography.  As for calling expecting one day we will understand things we don't know faith certainly.  Its faith just like I have faith the sun will rise in the morning, that our politicians will continue to be imbeciles and their will be no peace in the middle east in the forseeable future.  ITs faith based on evidence since the many other things we once didn't understand are now understood.  At any rate science is based on questioning NOT giving up and calling some thing unknown.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2008, 08:56:47 AM »

Frigemall,  let me try this again although it seems pointless.  Evolution is a scientific theory.  You yourself admit the existence of evolution is not in question.  You quibble by talking about microevolution but the key thing you're ignoring is thats still EVOLUTION.  Microevolution is an aspect of the theory of evolution that is testable, repeatable and observable.  If evolution is right you'd expect it to occur and the fact is it does.  Nothing in the religious belief of ID is testable, repeatable or observable.  Therefor nothing in the religious belief of ID is scientific.  Its not an alternative to Evolution any more then flat earth belief is an alternative to geography.  As for calling expecting one day we will understand things we don't know faith certainly.  Its faith just like I have faith the sun will rise in the morning, that our politicians will continue to be imbeciles and their will be no peace in the middle east in the forseeable future.  ITs faith based on evidence since the many other things we once didn't understand are now understood.  At any rate science is based on questioning NOT giving up and calling some thing unknown.
OK once more I will try to say it again. The origin of species debate is what holds water. Showing variations between types of species does not prove that one species developed from the other. That would be like my arguing that since I have watched the days get shorter each day since June, I can predict that by this time next year we will be living in complete darkness. There is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that backs up the progression from one species to another. Never has a case been shown where something was added to a DNA strand through mutation. Hoping it will be found is the same as believing God will change your view. It could happen but it is not likely. You also completely tend to focus on the idea of variation in species while completely ignoring the question of where did all the matter or energy come from that caused the Big Bang. ID theory can be measured all the way back to the precise moment of creation. The very laws of nature exactly support the theory of Creation. Noone doubts the observable data that has been found about the last 6 thousand years of observable theory. People do call into doubt the idea of millions of years of history where supposedly things were happening that cannot be observed or reproduced. It is astounding how you continue to make the same arguements and call them proof. They show nothing, except that God gave his creations the ability to adapt to their environments knowing they would do as he asked of them and "Go into all the Earth and multiply". He knew they would need the ability to adapt. I see why you get nowhere with the ID boards if this is all you can do is go over the same point which is pointless. No scientist can show exactly what happened at the moment of creation. Science can not demonstrate how all came from nothing. Both sides are starting from the same position. We are simply honest about it. The Origin of Species arguers simply have added more problems for themselves by saying that something that has never been shown to exist (the changing of one species to another) is true and that someday they will show it. No matter how much you believe a lie, it does not make it true, and their ideas come from the Father of Lies. However i will keep it from going too much into Religious Dogma and end it there. As soon as I have some more figures from the various books I am studying I will post more of the observed scientific evidence that supports the younger age of Earth, and the other problems with The idea of adding to Genes.
Logged

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2008, 11:40:12 AM »

Around and around an around we go.  You have still not managed to demonstrate why science should take creationism seriously.  You have a lot of reasons why we shouldn't take evolution seriously (even though you keep admitting species adapt) but not one why your religious beliefs should be taken as scientific theory.  ID is a religious idea end of discussion.  there is no evidence any external force created the planet Earth or life on it.  You can take it as truth if you like its a free country but since it rejects the methodology of science it has no place in the class room.   

How does it reject the methodology of science?  Do they try to reproduce the creation of life?  No they say its impossible.  Meanwhile actual scientists have been working to reproduce the factors that brought about the first bacteria for several years now.  They may not be completely sucsessful as yet but the very fact they are trying is what makes it science.  In science their are no questions that can't be answered, only questions that haven't been.   Physcists like Stephen Hawking question the origins of the big bang and the events that lead up to it, biologists study genetics to find common markers between species and different races of humans.  Science keeps questioning, debating, refuting and moving  on.  It holds nothing as sacred because its a matter of facts not faith.  To creationists the bible is the main source on their belief.  The universe is only 6000 years old because scripture says its only six thousand years old.  They went out to prove scripture, kept the minute evidence supporting it and threw out the rest.  For it to be correct we would need to dramaticly change our understanign of geology, physics, astronomy, anthropology (humans have inhabited the earth for longer then 6,000 years), chemistry (our dating methods in particular since most of them don't agree), and biology to name a few.  Could this many disciplines be so fundamentally wrong?   Sure.  Lets say it again science is NOT about absolutes, religion deals in absolute truth not science.  Is it probable? No.

Ockhaims razor comes in handy here.  In brief it states given the choice between two equal possibilites (and calling young earth and creationism equal with science is a big stretch), the simplest is usually correct.  More specificly though (in this context).  One that falls entirely with in the laws of science as we understand it is more likely to be true then one that requires changing them.  Admittedly this is a matter of logical reasoning rather then scientific testing but it supplies yet another reason creationism doesn't merit serious consideration as a scientific discipline.  Either creationists have it right or the rest of science does.  Since the rest of science has evidence instead of faith I'll stick with science.

If you want any one to take creationism seriously you need to drop your moaning about evolution.  It is a scientific theory.  You yourself call it a flawed theory, but a flawed theory is still a theory.  The only people who claim evolution is considered an absolute fact are creationists trying to debunk it.  Scientists call it the best theory that explains the facts to date.  Find a better theory with mroe evidence and science WILL take it seriously.  So I'll ask again.  What evidence is there for creation by God?  In what way can we test his ability to create matter?  When have we observed the spontaneous creation of life?  What test could be designed to prove that he didn't create the universe?  Answer these questions and science will take you seriously.  Otherwise its just another religious belief like how the Aztecs thought they needed to practice human sacrafice to keep the sun rising, or the Egyptians felt it necissary to bury their dead pharophs with servants and gold.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #41 on: December 22, 2008, 10:28:25 AM »

Sure your not trying to call religion science but you're as determined to prove your philosophy is superior as they are and as bereft of evidence.

When one's 'philosophy' (I don't personally think it counts as such, but you insist) is simply that parsimony should be observed, and that religions fail this test, I'd say there is ample evidence of that failure.

Or are you going to throw some more of your mis-recollection of some long-ago history class up as 'evidence' to the contrary?
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #42 on: December 22, 2008, 04:51:34 PM »

Quote
ID is a religious idea end of discussion.

FFS wernt you just argueing that it wasnt?!?  Pick an arguement and stick with it please.
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2008, 08:03:27 PM »

When one's 'philosophy' (I don't personally think it counts as such, but you insist) is simply that parsimony should be observed, and that religions fail this test, I'd say there is ample evidence of that failure.

Or are you going to throw some more of your mis-recollection of some long-ago history class up as 'evidence' to the contrary?
My recolection of historical information is fine I just lack any reasonable patience for the historical revisionism of liberals.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2008, 01:16:33 AM »

Given your own attempts at revisionist history here in this thread, where does that leave you?
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up