Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[goodeyesniper]

Ok, time to tell the truth. The ONLY answer is : Inexplicable. I beg anyone to prove, and I mean PROVE, otherwise. We all 'believe' what we think is true, but there are no concrete facts to support either side. Creation has the bible, a book without a way to prove its writings are accurate, which is why it takes faith to believe it to be true. On the Evolution side, we have the THEORY of Evolution, meaning an 'educated' guess, scientifically speaking. So there's the eternal dilemma. Believe in one or the other. But Millions of scientists and theologans(sp?) stil cannot solve what BF members are going on and on and on and on to try and convince everyone that they are the one with the answer.

So I take it you don't believe in the THEORY of gravity either?

I think it's totally cool to question both. But can you seriously lump science in with an ancient religious text that tried to instill morals in a people simply because you don't know the definition of theory? because I can't.

If I want to try and better understand our world and universe, I'll pick science. If I want to know who a thirteen year old rape victim needs to marry to avoid the wrath of god, or where I can plant my veggies to avoid hellfire, or why wearing polyester is a sin, I'll read the Bible.

 

[GWashington1732]

On the Evolution side, we have the THEORY of Evolution, meaning an 'educated' guess, scientifically speaking.

No, that's not even close to right.

 

[Chris Pierce]

Ok, time to tell the truth. The ONLY answer is : Inexplicable. I beg anyone to prove, and I mean PROVE, otherwise. We all 'believe' what we think is true, but there are no concrete facts to support either side. Creation has the bible, a book without a way to prove its writings are accurate, which is why it takes faith to believe it to be true. On the Evolution side, we have the THEORY of Evolution, meaning an 'educated' guess, scientifically speaking. So there's the eternal dilemma. Believe in one or the other. But Millions of scientists and theologans(sp?) stil cannot solve what BF members are going on and on and on and on to try and convince everyone that they are the one with the answer.

I'm not trying to convince folks of one thing or another. They've got to convince them selves after looking at facts. All we can do is look at facts and interpret them the best way that we know how. I'm no so much as trying to convince folks, so much as I'm trying to collect data and different ideas on how to interpret it.
Yes, evolution is a theory, so is gravity. We can all observe gravity though, so it's easier for most people to take. The problem with evolution is that we know that all the tools for it to work exist, and it seems "logical" to our minds and it lines up with a lot of geological and genetic data. But we will never be able to "prove" evolution because we won't be able to go back in time and watch it happen to be use that it happened the way that we assume. It's the same problem that forensic detectives have. They need to prove what happened in the past by looking only at the facts afterwards. I think "beyond reasonable doubt" has a place in this discussion somewhere...


Also, I want to thank everyone again for being so cool. Thanks Guys! Only on Blade Forums.

 

[liamstrain]

These are not new arguments.

First. The burden of proof lies with those claiming deities exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Yes. Absolutely.

Assuming that
God is infallible
The Bible is the true word of God

It follows that to prove the bible inaccurate is to disprove the Christian god.

This is really terrible logic. At best, all he did was prove that the assumptions could not be true. Personally, I think trying to disprove any god (especially with their own holy books) is a waste of energy. You are not going to convince the believers, and you're going to annoy the atheists by using crappy assumptions at the get go.

 

[JParanee]

I don't usually get involved with conversations like this but I have some thoughts

Primitive man looked up into the sky and felt alone, frightened and insignificant. He therefore created something that would give him courage and help him feel not so alone....... FAITH. They prayed for rain a successful hunt etc.

Soon man because he is a naturally controlling creature realized that he could control other men thru a strong belief and conformed religion was born.

Conformed religion is dangerous and bad things can come of it........Spanish Inquisition etc

With that said I have done a lot of traveling and broke bread with man wonderful people from many different religious backgrounds and i respect all religeons and beliefs.

All i can say is that if believing in something gives you comfort and courage or makes you make the right decisions in life and helps you find a better place where you can be a truly good person than God Bless ya and more power to ya

All roads lead to one place

 

[sintro]

Cool thread Christ Pierce. You achieved your goal I guess! I still believe evolution is true while creationism is false. It was interesting to see why some people still believe in creationism. What you just said kinda soldifies it in my mind. You said for people to make a decision they need to look at the facts, which there are many more to support evolution than creationism.

Ever wonder what the world would be like without religion? Would we already have world peace now? Or would we still be disagreeing on opinions and such?

 

[sintro]

I don't usually get involved with conversations like this but I have some thoughts

Primitive man looked up into the sky and felt alone, frightened and insignificant. He therefore created something that would give him courage and help him feel not so alone FAITH. They prayed for rain a successful hunt etc.

Soon man because he is a naturally controlling creature realized that he could control other men thru a strong belief and conformed religion was born.

Conformed religion is dangerous and bad things can come of it........Spanish Inquisition etc

With that said I have done a lot of traveling and broke bread with man wonderful people from many different religious backgrounds and i respect all religeons and beliefs.

All i can say is that if believing in something gives you comfort and courage or makes you make the right decisions in life and helps you find a betteralce where you can be a truly good person than God Bless ya and more power to ya

All roads lead to one place

It think that's how a lot of us non religious people think about religion. It really helps sometimes, even though I'm non religious. If I'm about to do something stupid or unethical, there's always that little voice in the back of my head saying "DON'T DO IT". Religion is just a way for people to put a physical concept to morals.

 

[Chris Pierce]

Cool thread Christ Pierce. You achieved your goal I guess! I still believe evolution is true while creationism is false. It was interesting to see why some people still believe in creationism. What you just said kinda soldifies it in my mind. You said for people to make a decision they need to look at the facts, which there are many more to support evolution than creationism.

Ever wonder what the world would be like without religion? Would we already have world peace now? Or would we still be disagreeing on opinions and such?

Thanks. I'm glad that everyone has been so great. I really appreciate it.

A world without religion? Or a world with out Organized Religion? I don't think that it would be much different really. Folks would find another way to justify their bigotries and selfishness.

 

[Dan57]

Yes, evolution is a theory, so is gravity. We can all observe gravity though, so it's easier for most people to take. The problem with evolution is that we know that all the tools for it to work exist, and it seems "logical" to our minds and it lines up with a lot of geological and genetic data. But we will never be able to "prove" evolution because we won't be able to go back in time and watch it happen to be use that it happened the way that we assume. It's the same problem that forensic detectives have. They need to prove what happened in the past by looking only at the facts afterwards. I think "beyond reasonable doubt" has a place in this discussion somewhere...

Quoting from Wikipedia: Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.
A theory, by its nature, cannot be "proven," but if an idea has been tested thoroughly enough to qualify as a scientific theory, it's generally accepted as fact.

 

[Raymond1000]

First. The burden of proof lies with those claiming deities exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Nothing personal Sideways, and I’m all for evolution. But…

Let’s examine this rhetorical ploy. How does the argument work?

You make a statement.

I reply “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

Who decides if a claim is extraordinary?

I do.

Who decides if the evidence is extraordinary?

I do.

Who decides if the proof is extraordinary?

I do.

Who decides if the proof is extraordinary enough to validate the claim?

I do.

I may see this as truth triumphant.

You may have a different opinion.

Not long ago someone claimed to have measured a particle with mass traveling faster than light. Talk about extraordinary claims! A unicorn in the back yard is nothing to it. The unicorn challenges zoology. This result challenged all of physics. Nowhere, start to finish, did any of the scientists involved say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.” Nowhere. They just followed normal scientific procedure. They examined conditions. They tried to replicate the experiment. They looked for uncontrolled variables. They found a cause. They plugged the machine in. Einstein was safe.

If it’s good enough for physics, it’s good enough for me.

 

[liamstrain]

Not long ago someone claimed to have measured a particle with mass traveling faster than light. Talk about extraordinary claims! A unicorn in the back yard is nothing to it. The unicorn challenges zoology. This result challenged all of physics. Nowhere, start to finish, did any of the scientists involved say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.” Nowhere. They just followed normal scientific procedure. They examined conditions. They tried to replicate the experiment. They looked for uncontrolled variables. They found a cause. They plugged the machine in. Einstein was safe.

If it’s good enough for physics, it’s good enough for me.

Carl Sagan popularized this quote. But it comes from Laplace and Hume. It's hardly some new invention, or unheard of (or unreasonable).

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[Laplace]
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence" [David Hume]

And some did...just as they do every time someone claims to have created cold fusion. "Show us data, your experiment, your methodology!" are the first words out of the mouths of scientists worldwide (well, maybe after "really? cool!"). And the more beyond the pale the claim is, the louder those cries are. The intent is clear enough.

But we can play this game. Let's follow the ordinary scientific procedures for the existence of a deity. Or a miracle. What methodology do you recommend we follow? How do we replicate the conditions and variables involved in a supernatural claim to test for it?

These are claims that are so far divorced from reality that they cannot be tested by ordinary scientific procedures. Despite this, theists continue to press the point - so maybe extraordinary ones need to be requested.

 

[Raymond1000]

Carl Sagan popularized this quote. But it comes from Laplace and Hume. It's hardly some new invention, or unheard of (or unreasonable).

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[Laplace]
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence" [David Hume]

And some did...just as they do every time someone claims to have created cold fusion. "Show us data, your experiment, your methodology!" are the first words out of the mouths of scientists worldwide (well, maybe after "really? cool!"). And the more beyond the pale the claim is, the louder those cries are. The intent is clear enough.

But we can play this game. Let's follow the ordinary scientific procedures for the existence of a deity. Or a miracle. What methodology do you recommend we follow? How do we replicate the conditions and variables involved in a supernatural claim to test for it?

These are claims that are so far divorced from reality that they cannot be tested by ordinary scientific procedures. Despite this, theists continue to press the point - so maybe extraordinary ones need to be requested.

As a maximum I have no problem with it. As a life attitude it’s fine. As scientific caution, when people are playing fair, it is a good thing.

As a rhetorical ploy it should be on the list of logical fallacies.

I’m all for science. I’m not all for everything about science. What I love the least is scientism. The claim that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge. If it is not testable by scientific methods, it’s not knowledge. Not real knowledge.

Other kinds of knowledge, like personal experience, are sort of trivial. Not real the way the hard sciences are real. The soft sciences, the squishy ones, having to do with people and other uncooperative subjects, they only sort of count. Not Quite Our Kind of People—I mean Science.

The farther and further events and experiences get from hard science, the less applicable the tools of hard science are. What has science to say about Gone With the Wind? It can tell us about the size of the book, the composition of the paper, the formula for the ink. Can it put a spectrometer to Scarlet’s hair?

The methodology for understanding the book is to read it. Think about it. Understand it. Discuss it with others. None of these are scientific methodologies. Not unless you use science in the prescientific sense of knowledge. That is not the same as saying that the book is empty of content. If you say it’s about the American Civil War and I say it’s about young computer bloggers, one of us is right. It’s not me. No spectrometer needed.

This is a big enough bite for a single entry.

 

[liamstrain]

While I don't disagree with you (science doesn't have much of a role in determining artistic value, for instance). Science does have a role to play in the knowledge of what is real and what is not.

A theist is making a claim about reality (which is often at odds with other supported claims about it), but then not providing a method to test that claim. Everything else we know about the stuff of reality, so far, has been something we could test.

 

[Raymond1000]

While I don't disagree with you (science doesn't have much of a role in determining artistic value, for instance). Science does have a role to play in the knowledge of what is real and what is not.

A theist is making a claim about reality (which is often at odds with other supported claims about it), but then not providing a method to test that claim. Everything else we know about the stuff of reality, so far, has been something we could test.

When religious claims are properly meat for science, wheel in some science. When Christianity or any other religion, makes factual claims, test those claims. Shroud of Turin? Have at it. Joseph Smith’s golden book? Check it out. Do be sure that the religion in question is making factual claims. Not all religions make claims that are sciences' meat.

When you ask “How can I measure God?” I say you are using the wrong toolbox. You think otherwise: “Everything else we know about the stuff of reality, so far, has been something we could test.” Science investigates reality. Reality reveals itself. Case closed.

May I suggest that your statement is true about anything that is subject to the methodology of science? Are there truths and realities not subject to scientific methodologies? Yes. That is exactly why I object to scientism.

As a thought experiment imagine some deity/power/consciousness/something which is capable of encompassing the whole universe in its consciousness. Even as we speak it is creating a galactic black hole nine billion light years from here. Do you seriously suppose that present day science has a clue how to detect it? How do you put that into a control group and an experimental group? Again, I’m not asserting any such thing. I’m just asking, how would science know? How would science get its attention?

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Well, it's more the belief that there are no gods.

I go for good old fashioned agnosticism. I just happily go about with an utter lack of belief:

"Do you believe in God?" No.
"Do you believe there is no God?" No.

Proudly stand tall and shout "I don't know!!!" to the heavens.

Just carching up and being a bit pedantic, you are an athiest based on your first answer. You are an agnostic based on the second. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can identify either way, personally, I identify as both. I am an athiest because I don't believe god exists, I am an agnostic because you could change my mind with sufficient evidence.

 

[Klok]

[youtube]DTepA-WV_oE[/youtube]

 

[JCavSD]

Atheist since birth here. It's not that I trust science/scientists, it's that the application of scientific methodology consistently produces sound results over time. This is a little simplistic but it's similar to driving on city streets in rush hour traffic...I don't necessarily trust the other individual drivers but I do think that the process works really well (speed limits, stop signs, driver courtesy, no texting, etc.) when it's followed really well and everyone ultimately ends up safely at their destinations.

 

[Faiaoga]

Without trying to start arguments, there is no Christian Evolution, Non-Christian Evolution or other misleading labels. There is simply science trying to explain the world, and there is religion that explains the world in an entirely different way. As a scientific theory, modern evolution is the best explanation we have for the variety of living things that exist today. As it is a scientific theory, it is modified as new evidence is found. It is not religious dogma.

As a science teacher, I have often told students that they are not required to accept evolutionary theory. Students do need to understand the theory, evaluate the evidence and make up their own minds as critical thinkers.

 

[liamstrain]

When you ask “How can I measure God?” I say you are using the wrong toolbox. You think otherwise: “Everything else we know about the stuff of reality, so far, has been something we could test.” Science investigates reality. Reality reveals itself. Case closed.

May I suggest that your statement is true about anything that is subject to the methodology of science?

Would you agree that creationist claims as they apply to the biologic world around us fall under the "proper meat for science?" If so, they are roundly and soundly defeated. If not, they have no place in a science classroom.

I certainly agree there are things science does not know, and maybe cannot know. The problem comes in when someone else tries to claim that THEY do. What methodology do we use to assess the truth of statements like "God is eternal and created the universe." I accept that science cannot currently peer into the origin of the universe, but why should I give any credibility to a religions point of view on the same issue, especially when it rejects whole-cloth many of the things we can evaluate.

 

[smokey616]

Without trying to derail this thread, I've noticed that every time this discussion comes up it is brought up by a believer. I'd think that in a room full of non-believers, one would find other things to talk about than whether or not man and ape have common ancestors. Because ultimately, if you don't believe in an all-powerful creator of all things, then that question doesn't really matter - just like the myriad of other scientific theories out there that don't affect the average non-believer in a direct way.

Anyhow, I'd like to think that if everyone realized just how lucky we are to even exist on this rock in the middle of the vast emptiness that is space, and how because a million things had to go right, over millions of years for us to be here - well maybe then people would start caring more about this fragile ecosystem we, and every other animal out there, are a part of. But I guess 'God has a plan - and when all goes wrong: RAPTURE!' is a cozy way of seeing things too.