Evolution v Creationism

Yeah it was coming eventually. :tongue2:

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys :tongue2:).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

Well, the fossils are really old and such, so we don't know everything. They have traced it back fairly well though, I believe this is one of the common ancestors for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakalipithecus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yeah it was coming eventually. :tongue2:

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I but my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys :tongue2:).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

---

A biology class would be very helpful in your comparison of evolution and creationism.

Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)

Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.

EDIT: Does anyone want me to post the conversation from the EB Tavern between Rhy and The Celtic Viking about this subject? There are no swears or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Rhyfelwyr View Post,

---

I have trouble spelling his name too :laugh4:

Quote:

---

where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.

---

I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.

---

Well it spilled somewhat into a mixture of both in the EB Tavern social group. Him and TCV went into arguing about the significance of humans sharing 98% of their DNA with apes etc...

EDIT: Again, should I post the conversation from the EB Tavern, it could clear some things up about the origin of this thread.

If I remember correctly, one of the main evidences for ape -> human evolution is the similarity in our chromosome number and structure.

here is a quick link explaining the similarities

An example of this in the animal kingdom is the relationship between the wild Mongolian horse and modern domestic horse. Mongolian wild horses have 66 chromosomes and modern horses have only 64 chromosomes. Despite this, they are able to reproduce with each other due to their high degree of genetic similarity. http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/h...lski/index.htm

I believe in God, and believe the almighty could have created the whole shebang, whole-cloth, in 6 calendar days had God chosen to do so.

I do not believe that is the means God chose. "Let there be light," began the show and evolution has rolled onwards from there. Mysterious ways and all that.

Thanks for those links folks, I'll give them a good read tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)

---

I watched one of the episodes, but a lot of it was about how Darwin thought his children acted like monkeys, which just shows similarities not necessarily a direct connection. And then they started playing the flute to a worm which was just weird...

Watch the one with Attenborough, brilliant. Literally one of the best informative programmes I have ever seen.

While I absoutely and ardently hold to evolution (one does not 'believe' the leading theory of the day, one 'believes' religious dogma, one holds to a theory), it is depressing to me the number of people who claim it as fact without 1) understanding that it is an untestable theory can never be accepted as fact (indicating a woeful ignorance of science) and for the record, to the tests we can currently construct, gravity and electromagnetism (where I make my living) are still theories as well and 2) understanding the mechanism of natural selection (indicating a woeful misunderstanding of the theory put forth by Charles Darwin, and the 'evolution' it has enjoyed over the past 1.5 centuries).

If I hear one more person talking about frogs & ducks growing webbed feet to swim, or humans growing a thumb, as proof of evolution, I'm going to scream.

We ALL need to learn how much we have to learn in this field.

For example, it would probably surprise most people to learn that fossil evidence strongly indicates evolution follows a quantum/logarithmic, not a linear time scale, as most theories would have predicted.

For me, that 'spark' that generates the sudden burst of RNA energy, that is the fine hand of the creator at work. (Before you all mistake my last statement, I understand solar flares and the affect of algae blooms absorbing free radicals better than most of you, my point is, why does it all happen exactly when it does... I do not believe in 'luck', just randomness or determinism.).

I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot. :clown:

wheres Che?

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact ~:)


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact ~:)


CBR

---

Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

And how about debating things other than monkeys/Adam&Eve? There are too little facts in that. Are there any people in here who are young-earth creationists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.

---

For a quick read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...act_in_science

There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.


CBR

Tempt me not satan! :beam: :clown:

To understand this issue, people have to come to terms with the fact that we know very, very little. We don't have the truth. We will likely never know it. So, your options are to either come to terms with the fact that you'll never know the truth, or you can choose to listen to someone who claim they have it(ie., the religions with creation myths).

CBR: We call it a fact, but it's only a truth until we disprove it...

Inappropriate image removed

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

---

You posted that already. :inquisitive:

Maybe I will bring some of the stuff from the EB Tavern. The Celtic Viking sure knows how to fly off the handle when it comes to this, of course I would never do such a thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

For a quick read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...act_in_science

There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.


CBR

---

I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.

I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.

In all honesty, I don't really care if my ancestors were created by some supernatural creature or if I descend from monkeys.

I am here and now :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.

I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.

---

I think it has a lot to do with the political battleground between evolution and creationism.

Some of the stuff I've been shown doesn't really prove anything, animals acting like carnal humans doesn't prove anything.

The stuff on the skeletons of the common ancestors is much more useful, I will look into that in more detail..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot. :clown:

---

Actually, plenty of scientists believe that there is a role for a Creator in our universe, and your position sounds quite mainstream. When people refer to "creationism," they usually aren't talking about the notion that one accepts modern biology, geology and astronomy while reserving a role for a Maker. That's not really "creation science."

When I hear someone say that they believe in creationism, I usually check to see which manner of creationism they're talking about. Do they mean the Earth's age can be determined by tracing back the lineage of patriarchs described in the Bible? Or do they mean that they think God had a hand in shaping the universe? Big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact ~:)


CBR

---

Only till they find an orangpendek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.

---

And yet there is no real difference between them. If we humans were different from any other species then one would expect us to be genetically unique and yet everything points towards us being related to apes and that the process seems no different from what has happened in nature over several hundred million years.

If a god was indeed involved then it looks like he used a rib from a specimen in the Hominina subtribe in the creation of Adam.

I think that is still uncomfortable to some people though and I guess that is based mostly on their religious beliefs because scientifically it does not make much sense trying to put humans above evolution.


CBR

The thing is, we are clearly different from other species. I'm not saying this means we could not have evolved, but I think the differences are just too extreme to reconcile with evolution. Although on the other hand the scientific evidence apparently points otherwise.

But still, even Darwin had always thought that humans were unique from other species, until on his travels he came across some savage natives, which for him showed the link between humans and animals. Which is fine, sometimes when I look at people acting carnally I can see where Darwin is coming from.

But at the same time, we do things that animals do not. For example, we show restraint. It does not matter what % of our DNA they share, from gorillas to dogs to salmon they all act 100% on their desires/instincts. Gorillas jump about shreiking when they feel like it, animals mate when they feel like it, you get those birds that stuff their faces with maggots until they are too fat to fly and just die. But people are different, we act on much more than instinct. Of course its all a matter of degree. But then, how do you explain restraint in the evolutionary model? Human society is the polar opposite of the natural, wild life, and yet we are the only species which practice it. And this is not a matter of degree, you either live in such a society or you do not. Of course, some animals have their herds and whatnot, but even then they live purely base, instinctual lives. Us humans have always been doing the opposite, we are always coming up with ideologies which fight against this sort of existence. It doesn't have to be religious either, look at stoicism for example.

This is one thing which appears to seperate us from the animals, just as much from our 'close relatives' as much as any other creature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The thing is, we are clearly different from other species. I'm not saying this means we could not have evolved, but I think the differences are just too extreme to reconcile with evolution. Although on the other hand the scientific evidence apparently points otherwise.

But at the same time, we do things that animals do not. For example, we show restraint. It does not matter what % of our DNA they share, from gorillas to dogs to salmon they all act 100% on their desires/instincts. Gorillas jump about shreiking when they feel like it, animals mate when they feel like it, you get those birds that stuff their faces with maggots until they are too fat to fly and just die. But people are different, we act on much more than instinct. Of course its all a matter of degree. But then, how do you explain restraint in the evolutionary model? Human society is the polar opposite of the natural, wild life, and yet we are the only species which practice it. And this is not a matter of degree, you either live in such a society or you do not. Of course, some animals have their herds and whatnot, but even then they live purely base, instinctual lives. Us humans have always been doing the opposite, we are always coming up with ideologies which fight against this sort of existence. It doesn't have to be religious either, look at stoicism for example.

This is one thing which appears to seperate us from the animals, just as much from our 'close relatives' as much as any other creature.

---

Actually, I'd argue in many ways, primates and ceteceans show a remarkable amount of restraint and other "human" characteristics. I'm not that well versed on the latest in developmental intelligence studies, but I do know that toothed whales in particular have shown remarkable reasoning powers and human-like emotional responses. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that their intelligence is on par with ours, just that they don't have the same social constructs that we do (now that really is a hypothesis, I don't believer there's any hard data indicating toothed whales have human-level intelligence.... YET).

Wait a second...

The very BASIS of this discussion is utterly stupid. There IS no "evolution vs creationism".

One is a scientific theory, the other is a belief based on faith.

Just by bringing this UP, by responding to it as if creationism in any way had scientific claims means it's a lost battle.

Intellectual people must never try to meet creationism on an equal footing, as there is no equal footing.

This discussion might aswell be: "The stars, are they made of teapots?"

Why even respond?


Rhyfelwyr, just take a biology class, or so some related searches. The facts are all out there.

Kadagar:

Were you trying to assert that the argument is insoluble as the two points of view are predicated on entirely different systems for establishing the criteria to assess argumentation, or were you seeking to dismiss one of those belief systems as "stupid?"

Be careful sir, how you answer. The former is a legitmate concern relevant to argumentation in general. The latter would be offensive and might be construed as a personal attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

One is a scientific theory, the other is a belief based on faith.

---

If you say this 3 times in front of your bathroom mirror I´m pretty sure you can summon Navarros :laugh4::wiseguy:

Well I have self-authenticating knowledge that God, specifically the Christian God exists. Nobody has to believe that, to you it can be just as silly as believing there is an elf on your shoulder, but you can never disprove such claims.

So that is the framework from which I view things. I don't take that view just because I think God exists, but because I know. Debating whether or not that is possible is something else entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Actually, I'd argue in many ways, primates and ceteceans show a remarkable amount of restraint and other "human" characteristics. I'm not that well versed on the latest in developmental intelligence studies, but I do know that toothed whales in particular have shown remarkable reasoning powers and human-like emotional responses. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that their intelligence is on par with ours, just that they don't have the same social constructs that we do (now that really is a hypothesis, I don't believer there's any hard data indicating toothed whales have human-level intelligence.... YET).

---

That's interesting, but intelligence is not something that can seperate us from other species, since they all have it to some degree. But do these whales actually show human characterstics such as a rejection of the 'natural' way of life? Humans are the only creatures which I think actually show disdain for the natural world, and seperate themselves from it in search of the spiritual, as if we were not made for this world.

Why is social restraint not partly instinct too? Any herd animal would be split between its individual needs and the needs of the group and therefore not much different than humans. Chimps can figure out to live in a small tribe and yet hunt and kill chimps from other tribes. It's hardly that different from hunter-gatherers in say New Guinea.

Monkeys jumping up and shrieking is part of their communication. It looks silly to you perhaps but works for them.

I have yet to see any birds stuffing themselves the way you describe. I would have expected to see many dead birds in the garden if that was normal behavior. With the increasing levels of obesity in the world one could question just how good we are at restraining ourselves when it comes to tasty foods.


CBR

Us folk take the restraint thing way beyond any sort of use for resource management, to the point that it becomes plain unhealthy.

Also I agree people can become consumed in this world and become like animals but almost all our major belief systems have been about rising above that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I have yet to see any birds stuffing themselves the way you describe. I would have expected to see many dead birds in the garden if that was normal behavior. With the increasing levels of obesity in the world one could question just how good we are at restraining ourselves when it comes to tasty foods.


CBR

---

Seems like any birds prone to that activity would have died out long ago. Anyway, birds have pretty fast metabolisms and burn a ton of energy. They eat throughout the day I believe.

We seek out tasty foods because they are fattening and fatter used to equal more likely to survive. Current abundance of food and sedentary lifestyle results in mass obesity. One wonders if it will correct itself eventually?

This is a side note, I lost track of what you were talking about with that other guy.

I'd really love to hear what demarcates evolution from creationism so you can say that one is a science and the other isn't.

To Rhyfelwyr, if you want to learn about evolution in a detailed way, first take a general biology class and then pick up a copy of Futuyama's Evolution. Though you might want to take a class on evolution that uses that book (hard to get through). Will tell you all you need to know about principles and mechanics in general (unless you want to know the specifics of a certain organism's evolution).

There is just too much stuff in this world to learn about... history, philosophy, theology, biology, anthropology, politics... ugh. I'm starting to wonder how anyone can ever give a meaningful opinion on anything except their specialised subject.

The thing is they all tie together in a person's worldview so its hard to focus on one and know you might be missing something important in the other.

Like I used to say to my classmates when they talked about political stuff at school - "do you have a degree in economics?, and if not then maybe you should stop giving opinions and accept that other people know better". I would make a really inspiring teacher wouldn't I? :laugh4:

Seamus Fermanagh, I claimed the topic was stupid, not the OP. You can never compare science and belief, and by doing so you fool lesser intellects into believing there is actually a serious debate about it, where there are none.



Rhyfelwyr, you know god exists, fair enough. Some people are equally sure aliens exist, or ghosts, or dragons or...

That is why we have science, science is not about what you believe, or even KNOW. Science is about what you can prove, and have others repeat the same experiments and come to the same conclusion based on the facts at hand.

So, you know God exists? Good for you! However, if you want to bring your own personal belief, or knowledge as you think of it, into a scientific discussion, you will have to accept to take the discussion on scientifical terms. IE, what you know is 100% worthless to others unless you can prove it (again, from a scientific perspective).

Quote:

---

Well I have self-authenticating knowledge that God, specifically the Christian God exists. Nobody has to believe that, to you it can be just as silly as believing there is an elf on your shoulder, but you can never disprove such claims.

---

SCIENCE has no interest in disproving God. It is followers of religion who have to scientificly prove gods existance, if they want to bring him into scientifical matters. Or, in this example, scientificly prove there was a creator. Untill you can do that, there is no debate creationism vs evolution, as you bring a football to a hockey game.



Reenk Roink,

Quote:

---

I'd really love to hear what demarcates evolution from creationism so you can say that one is a science and the other isn't.

---

Creationism is ATTACKING a theory, evolution IS a theory. Creationism in itself has no theoretical value if you substract a creator, and as that is not scientifical proven, creationism can't be called a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

That is why we have science, science is not about what you believe, or even KNOW. Science is about what you can prove,

---

Prove that the world around you exists and is not an illusion please.

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. In my head at least, its creationism v evolution, since creatonism is what I believe from a basic reading of the Bible, but I could think again if the evidence against it was overwhelming.

Evolution? Creationism? Nonsense! It is obvious that human beings descended from the British islands, which proves the superiority of their race!

There must have been like 50 of these posts the past 7 years...if not more.

So I ll sit this one out because the dread of deja-vu is overwhelming.

P.S I have prehensile toes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Prove that the world around you exists and is not an illusion please.

---

Impossible as that leaves to few factors to work with.



Rhyfelwyr,

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. In my head at least, its creationism v evolution, since creatonism is what I believe from a basic reading of the Bible, but I could think again if the evidence against it was overwhelming.

---

The evidence for evolution is strong enough for it to be seen as the only plausible theory.

However, why ask this question on a forum dedicated to a game? Sure there is where you get the best answer?

BBC and others have had some great programs lately, just watch them, judge for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

However, why ask this question on a forum dedicated to a game? Sure there is where you get the best answer?

---

This place is generally pretty good for getting level-headed responses. If I posted it on the Christian sites I use I would get very unreliable stuff, if I posted on the TWC or somewhere I would just get flamed.

I'm trying to find that Darwin series from the BBC on google video...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Creationism is ATTACKING a theory, evolution IS a theory. Creationism in itself has no theoretical value if you substract a creator, and as that is not scientifical proven, creationism can't be called a theory.

---

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions :shrug: These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions :shrug: These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

---

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

That is science strenght, the same results WILL show no matter if it is a christian, atheist, buddhist, daoist, muslim or whatever who repeats the experiments.



As an example, my personal belief or knowledge tells me mind reading exists, as I have witnessed things in my life that lead me, personally, to this conclusion. I can try to convince you too. However, I would NEVER say it's scientificly proven that mind reading exists just because I think/know so, as I can't have you repeat the same things I have been through.

It does not mean I am unsure about mind reading, it just means I can not prove it scientificly.

In my example, I believe science one day will reach the same conclusion I did, that mind reading to in fact exist.

And if YOU are sure God exists, then why oppose science? IF God exists, i am sure science will come to that conclusion sooner or later. As it seems today though, there is no evidence of a God, or a creator.

Did this make it more clear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

This place is generally pretty good for getting level-headed responses. If I posted it on the Christian sites I use I would get very unreliable stuff, if I posted on the TWC or somewhere I would just get flamed.

I'm trying to find that Darwin series from the BBC on google video...

---

Problem here is, none of us (I believe) is qualified to explain this to you.

This means that a failure to make you believe in evolution is due to OUR inability to explain the theory correctly, not because of the theory itself.

Get my point?

Quote:

---

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys :tongue2:).

---

Theistic evolution is possible. My father is a devout Muslim and is a biologist who accepts the theory of evolution.

/getsoutofthread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Impossible as that leaves to few factors to work with.

---

:coffeenews:

In fairness, biological evolution is a testable, disprovable theory. After over a hundred years of challenges and tests, it's still standing. All of modern biology is based on it. Reject evolution, and you might want to reject its products, such as antibiotics and most forms of modern medicine.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on faith, and thus untestable. You cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago.

So yeah, although Kadgar has been a little ... forceful ... in his arguments, the man has a point. You cannot hold a legitimate debate between creationism and evolution, since they operate in entirely different spheres. It's like saying let's have a debate between physics and oil painting, or a footrace between thermodynamics and communion. Although evolution and creationism address the same issue ("Where did all of this stuff come from?") they are playing by entirely different rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions :shrug: These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

---

What about Viking Creationism? I'm sure they have some good claims too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

That is science strenght, the same results WILL show no matter if it is a christian, atheist, buddhist, daoist, muslim or whatever who repeats the experiments.

---

I understand what you are trying to say Kadagar, if you do remove the metaphysical assumption of a creator, then creationism has the rug pulled from underneath it.

However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

In fairness, biological evolution is a testable, disprovable theory. After over a hundred years of challenges and tests, it's still standing. All of modern biology is based on it. Reject evolution, and you might want to reject its products, such as antibiotics and most forms of modern medicine.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on faith, and thus untestable. You cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago.

So yeah, although Kadgar has been a little ... forceful ... in his arguments, the man has a point. You cannot hold a legitimate debate between creationism and evolution, since they operate in entirely different spheres. It's like saying let's have a debate between physics and oil painting, or a footrace between thermodynamics and communion. Although evolution and creationism address the same issue ("Where did all of this stuff come from?") they are playing by entirely different rules.

---

You have given a demarcation criterion: testability (also falsifiability). Good.

But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.

Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect. In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor.

---

Not exactly. Evolution is a process, not a description of the world. You can test the evolutionary process with a jar full of fruit flies. It's tested every day in pharmaceutical companies. It's the law of the land. If viruses were not capable of evolving, drug companies would be in very bad shape, indeed. One antibiotic would do us for the rest of eternity.

The notion that we emerged from a common ancestor with the great apes is a logical thought once you've accepted evolutionary theory, but the theory itself is pretty neutral on the subject. If it turned out that we evolved from, say, stingrays, evolutionary theory would be fine with that. Or if we uncovered evidence that homo sapien had been around much longer than previously thought, this would do nothing to discredit the theory,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

---

Um, because evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean. Evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral. Understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview or religious/atheist positioning. Theism and scientific theory are perfectly compatible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

---

I have never, ever seen a young Earth creationist respond to evidence that contradicts the young Earth claim. At least, not in print, and certainly not in a peer-reviewed environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.

---

Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.

Quote:

---

However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.

---

You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"

Quote:

---

But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.

---

Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.

Quote:

---

Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

---

That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...

Quote:

---

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

---

Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.

Quote:

---

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.

---

Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.

Quote:

---

In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

---

Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

Yeah, the macro evolutionary claims are extrapolations. Take micro evolutionary claims as the one that are testable. The point is that the claims it makes are testable.

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.

It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, because evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean. Evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral. Understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview or religious/atheist positioning.

---

Yes it does...

One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I have never, ever seen a young Earth creationist respond to evidence that contradicts the young Earth claim. At least, not in print, and certainly not in a peer-reviewed environment.

---

Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.

Quote:

---

Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.

---

They are incompatible, sure.

But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.

The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on...

In this vein they are exactly alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.



You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"




Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.




That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...



Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.



Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.




Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

---

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

Quote:

---

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

---

No, that is only one version of what naturalism means in the intellectual society.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

nat⋅u⋅ral⋅ism   /ˈnætʃərəˌlɪzəm, ˈnætʃrə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
–noun 1. Literature. a. a manner or technique of treating subject matter that presents, through volume of detail, a deterministic view of human life and actions.
b. a deterministic theory of writing in which it is held that a writer should adopt an objective view toward the material written about, be free of preconceived ideas as to form and content, and represent with clinical accuracy and frankness the details of life. Compare realism (def. 4b).
c. a representation of natural appearances or natural patterns of speech, manner, etc., in a work of fiction.
d. the depiction of the physical environment, esp. landscape or the rural environment.

2. (in a work of art) treatment of forms, colors, space, etc., as they appear or might appear in nature. Compare idealism (def. 4), realism (def. 3a).
3. action arising from or based on natural instincts and desires alone.
4. Philosophy. a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

5. Theology. a. the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
b. the doctrine that natural religion is sufficient for salvation.

6. adherence or attachment to what is natural.

Quote:

---

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

---

If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.

Quote:

---

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

---

Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.

Quote:

---

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

---

Please do elaborate on this one...

Quote:

---

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

---

Must I again explain that empirical data has nothing to do with science of this level - what so ever.

Quote:

---

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

---

Are you even aware of what empirical means?

For maybe the fifth (?) time, empirical data is NOT, again: NOT worth a damn.

If we were giving in to empirical data, we would still have forests filled with trolls and goblins. We have advanced a bit since then, haven't we?

*with "we" I mean "me"*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.

---

Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.

---

You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. Thus your "outside our sensory perception" formulation trips over its own feet (and are there non-sensory perceptions?)

I think you're referring in an oblique and unclear way to spiritual reality versus the physical world. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).

---

Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.

---

From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.

---

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

Quote:

---

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

---

I second that.

But that does not mean you can dismiss my last post.

Please do attack it :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

I think it's pretty well known that young earth creations empirically claim things. There are many claims (some are linked below).

Enjoy:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-...g-age-evidence

Quote:

---

You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.

---

How am I seeming to believe any of these things you attribute to me by bringing up the fact that the theory of evolution by natural selection rests on the metaphysical views of naturalism and realism? :inquisitive:

Please provide the statement of my beliefs.

I have already defined these many times, but I will do it again (copy paste makes it easy):

realism: there exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it

naturalism: all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws

To believe in the conclusions reached by evolutionary theory you have to accept these positions in some form. They aren't empirically testable whatsoever. They can't be. They're metaphysics.

It makes no sense to say evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable as it rests on the untestable assumptions of naturalism and realism. Analogously it makes no sense to say that creationism is unfalsifiable as it rests on the untestable assumptions of a creator god.

What we check is the empirical claims of evolutionary theory. These are clearly testable. But then, so are the empirical claims of creationism

Quote:

---

Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.

---

But I have repeatedly stated them... :wall:

You seem to not like my explanations of them so here are some links:

Realism in the sense I speak of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism

Naturalism in the sense I speak of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Just consider what these metaphysical positions are and then maybe you will reconsider your positions that:

"evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean"

and

"evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral"

(what does "neutral" mean even)

and

"understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview"

Quote:

---

From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.

---

What exactly do you mean by "outside forces"? If you mean court decisions and what not, then yes, that is certainly part of it with the "intelligent design" movement and all (although this kind of stuff happens in the so called scientific community as well).

But they certainly alter their positions on other outside forces too, like data, evolutionary claims, and so on.

Quote:

---

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

---

But I already did? In the very next line after the one you quoted too... :wall:

"The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on..."

I have no idea how one can dismiss something as specific as creationist claims on the age of the earth as "vague generalities" but man, you did it.

But here, the link may satisfy you more than my word:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH311.html
and more...

I never thought it wasn't common knowledge that young earth creationists made claims that there was a global flood or that the earth is 10000 years old or such.

Now here is the kicker:

The claim "the earth is 10000 years old" is just as testable and falsifiable as the claim that "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" is it not?

If not, please demonstrate how...

This is why it makes absolutely no sense to just dismiss creationism as not being science by virtue of appealing to demarcation criteria like testability and falsifiability.

Better yet not to make this demarcation and I don't know, actually treat creationism like falsified theories like phlogistic chemistry?

After all, stating that the claim that the earth is around 10000 years old has been tested and falsified in many ways is a lot more convincing than saying that "creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable" when it demonstrably isn't. :rolleyes:

Finally, just so you won't go and claim I am a creationist or other misrepresentations, I linked to these sites because you asked for them. I'm not here to speak about how good or bad these tests are, how good or bad these empirical claims are.

I am merely demonstrating that creationists DO make empirical claims.

Kadagar, the reason I am more and more reluctant to respond to your posts is because unlike Lemur, you seem content to just parse my posts and be disagreeable in any way possible and throw in little snide comments that I don't care to respond to.

For example, why the heck did you bring up a dictionary to dispute what I meant by naturalism? For petessake the context is pretty darn clear. We obviously aren't talking about literature or art...

Do statements like these even dignify a response?

Quote:

---

If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.

---

Quote:

---

Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.

---

You're just throwing snide comments and making really oversimplified strawmen. It's just boring to be honest, I don't see the need to waste my time. :shrug:

Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

Yes, you're quite right, accepting scientific theory involves a great many assumptions, such as, "I exist," and "I will give some credence to what I perceive with my eyes," and "I will look for some answers in what I accept as consensual reality," etc. And guys like Hegel made a (rather poor) living by classifying and giving strata to all of the positions, some of which you have cited from Wikipedia. You're making the assumption that you are not, in fact, in Plato's cave, looking at shadows. Or if you are, you're going to play along. That works too.

So yes, accepting any scientific method involves a "metaphysical view," although a rather common and incomplete one, and much the same "metaphysical view" required to get through your day, park your car or cope with work. A reality-based view, but hardly an all-encompassing one. You need to trust your senses and your logic a bit to park your car, but you can still believe that unicorns guide your heart to love. Likewise, you can believe in the scientific method and still have theist tendencies.

But this isn't at the crest of the definitional hill you've chosen to defend to your last breath. No, it appears to be this false equivalence you're drawing between a tenet of faith and a scientific theory.

As you are probably aware, in science you start with reality, hypothesize why something works how it works, and then you come up with a repeatable test to see if you're right. With creationism, on the other hand, you start out with received knowledge (the holy book), and you look for ways to justify the literal text by shoehorning fact and evidence to fit your original notion. The two are fundamentally different.

Do young Earth creationists make disprovable claims? Looking at your links, it appears they do, and then get debunked. Which does nothing to slow them down, which speaks to why they are operating under a completely different set of rules.

Where are the legions of Lamarckians? Oh, right, he was disproved decades ago, and is now a footnote in history. Where are the vocal supporters of the aetheric theory of light transmission? Oh, yeah, that turned out to be completely bogus. Once again, nothing but a footnote for science geeks. How about phrenological theory? Where are the phrenologists' websites?

Theories can be disproved. Faith (by definition) cannot. So you can have a meaningful and productive debate with people who hold theories, but argue with someone about faith? That's a dead-end street I try to avoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

The claim "the earth is 10000 years old" is just as testable and falsifiable as the claim that "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" is it not?

If not, please demonstrate how...

---

Gladly. If a geologist and an astrophysicist disagree on the age of the earth, they both produce their evidence, and one of them is more right than the other. This settles the matter (and in fact, geology got a bad name for a while for being wildly off about the age of the earth, while the astronomers got to say "Nanny nanny boo boo").

A creationist, on the other hand, will move right on from a disproved claim, since proof does not matter to him. He knows the correct answer, and will stick to it, no matter what evidence is presented. He doesn't do this because he is stupid or a bad person; rather, he is operating under a different set of rules. This is a fundamental difference that you seem to be at pains to deny.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.

Quote:

---

Kadagar, the reason I am more and more reluctant to respond to your posts is because unlike Lemur, you seem content to just parse my posts and be disagreeable in any way possible and throw in little snide comments that I don't care to respond to.

---

Fair enough, I am happy if you just answer the posts in a scientific way, no flames needed. That ok mate?

Quote:

---

For example, why the heck did you bring up a dictionary to dispute what I meant by naturalism? For petessake the context is pretty darn clear. We obviously aren't talking about literature or art...

---

I really had never heard about naturalism used in that context before, and I wanted to make sure I didnt get you wrong. "Naturalism" is a very vague word indeed.

Quote:

---

Do statements like these even dignify a response?

---

I would hope so! I am sorry, but being raised as an agnostic and educated in a world where facts matters, I struggle to understand the perspective of people led by a one-thousand-nine-hundred-fifty year-old book says.

Oh, and that is me being positive. If we go by the last edition of the bible it is much younger than that, as the church leaders of that time realised the original writing really wasnt enough to convince the masses.

Quote:

---

You're just throwing snide comments and making really oversimplified strawmen. It's just boring to be honest, I don't see the need to waste my time.

---

Don't get me wrong. I do assault your arguments but not you as a person. Heck, come over to the alps and I'll buy you a beer or two!

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two. It does not, however, mean I am against those individuals, I am against their arguments.

Do you want to challenge me about religion?

Say I believe the world is run by "pink invisible unicorns".

Prove me wrong, please.

Now, all that is needed to believe in pink invisible unicorns is a bit of faith... much the same as believing in god.

If YOU prove pink invisible unicorns does not exist, I might start to give you some credit for whatever "god's" existance.

If you can not prove that pink invisible unicorns does not exist, can we please keep this topic on a scientific level?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two.

---

But faith, by definition, is not provable. If it were provable it would be a fact, not a faith. So you're taking what seems to be a needlessly antagonistic approach to the vast majority of your fellow human beings who have some sort of faith or another.

I have the same attitude toward religion that I have toward drugs: As long as it doesn't mess with your ability to do your job, or function within consensual reality, it's not a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

But faith, by definition, is not provable. If it were provable it would be a fact, not a faith. So you're taking what seems to be a needlessly antagonistic approach to the vast majority of your fellow human beings who have some sort of faith or another.

I have the same attitude toward religion that I have toward drugs: As long as it doesn't mess with your ability to do your job, or function within consensual reality, it's not a problem.

---

Agreed.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to sit at home and chant at whatever altar you have, FINE!

However, if you want to get out on the internet (again, INTERNET, not socialnet) you ought to have one argument or two as to why your belief is the "correct" one.

Welcome to the internet!

Here we have buddhists, agnostics, muslims, christians, daoists, budhists, atheists.... must I go on?

So if you really, really, for whatever reason, think "your" religion is the correct one, even if you are a minority in the world (like christians), you ought to back it up with a proof or two.

If you have no "proof" except the proof granted by your own religion, it mights be a wise thing to lean back and listen to others. Not necessarily believe what others say, but at least listen, and learn.

I am swedish, we used to have the Norse mythology.. However, the church came and transferred their religion into ours, so they could tame the vikings, and stop them from plundering England.

In sweden, half of the national holidays are still the original norse-mythological ones. The pape and catholic church has given their blesings.

It is quite interesting that swedes still dance around a HUGE penis stuck into the ground, with the virgins in the inner circle, to celebrate that spring is here.

All this is christian, of course, who could dream of anything else?

Again, I have nothing about religion as such, but if you want to claim YOUR religion is the correct one, you really have to back it up with scientifical arguments, if you want a debate about science.

OR you just say "I know this is so because god told me", if that is the case, what else is there to discuss?

I personally ascribe to Terry Pratchett's philosophy. Small Gods was probably the seminal work on the subject. Gods are shaped by Men and in turn shape Men.

I liked the Founding of Life thanks to Rincewind's Sandwich in one of the other Books of Pratchett.

Time did not have quite the same meaning, but Rincewind did rise from the dead as well as having a detour for some time around the afterlife.

To be honest I feel as a view point it has as much evidence behind it as any other - barring scientific facts.

~:smoking:

From TalkOrigins FAQ: Evolution and Metaphysics

Quote:

---

Conclusions of this FAQ
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory dealing with scientific data (Berry 1988:139), not a system of metaphysical beliefs or a religion. It does, however, set the sorts of general problems biology deals with, and also acts as a philosophical attitude in dealing with complex change.

---

Now obviously the FAQ is a bit longer than the quoted conclusion and too long to quote here me thinks.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I personally ascribe to Terry Pratchett's philosophy. Small Gods was probably the seminal work on the subject. Gods are shaped by Men and in turn shape Men.

---

A superb work, better than many "classics" I've read, and Pratchett's contribution to "literature". Both in the details and in its overall span, Small Gods gets it right everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

...


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.

---

Well, studying philosophy certainly improves ones reading comprehension :bounce:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But that's ok. Most people make mistakes. *pats on head*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

~:rolleyes:

Long post Lemur, but many strawmen and non seqiturs. Let's briefly restate my position once more so that you aren't able any more to misinterpret it.

I asked: what demarcates science from non science so that you can say evolutionary theory is a science and creationism is not?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To be honest, while I was expecting the boring and inadequate answers of testability and falsifiability, I was hoping for something better.

Maybe a very detailed account on basing oneself on certain metaphysical world views but not others or maybe what I consider to be the best, if somewhat arbitrary one, that science is what scientists say it is. :2thumbsup:

Instead I got the answers of testability and falsifiability which have been knocked down as possible criteria for a while... :shrug:

Testability and falsifiability you say. All right.

I gave many examples (which you first called vague and then just ignored when the links were given (Reenk < links :sad:) of creationism making many empirical claims that were testable and falsifiable just like the claims of many scientific theories.

The claim that the age of the earth is 10000 years old is as testable as the claim that it is 4.6 billion years old amirite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

---

Um ok. This really has nothing to do with philosophy, because the discussion is not about which metaphysical worldview one should hold at all. Rather I made a claim that scientific enterprise relies on metaphysical assumptions (to make the larger point about separating science from non science) which took quite too long for some to admit...

Quote:

---

Yes, you're quite right, accepting scientific theory involves a great many assumptions, such as, "I exist," and "I will give some credence to what I perceive with my eyes," and "I will look for some answers in what I accept as consensual reality," etc. And guys like Hegel made a (rather poor) living by classifying and giving strata to all of the positions, some of which you have cited from Wikipedia. You're making the assumption that you are not, in fact, in Plato's cave, looking at shadows. Or if you are, you're going to play along. That works too.

---

Who the hell said I wasn't looking at the Forms? The Forms!

You have to stop attributing things to me Lemur. Focus on my argument on the demarcation criteria you gave, that's where I'm keeping it.

Still it is good to see you have nuanced your previous views that:

Quote:

---

evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world"

---

Quote:

---

understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview

---

We can now move on.

Quote:

---

So yes, accepting any scientific method involves a "metaphysical view," although a rather common and incomplete one, and much the same "metaphysical view" required to get through your day, park your car or cope with work. A reality-based view, but hardly an all-encompassing one. You need to trust your senses and your logic a bit to park your car, but you can still believe that unicorns guide your heart to love. Likewise, you can believe in the scientific method and still have theist tendencies.

---

Well, this isn't an argument about whether you can be a theist and believe in the scientific method at all so I'm not sure what you're going at.

This is a critique of your demarcation criteria that testability and falsifiability. Namely, you said that evolutionary theory was testable but creationism wasn't, but then you went and made the most bizarre argument against it testability by using the criteria on its metaphysical assumption that there is a creator - this is not how it works.. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

But this isn't at the crest of the definitional hill you've chosen to defend to your last breath. No, it appears to be this false equivalence you're drawing between a tenet of faith and a scientific theory.

As you are probably aware, in science you start with reality, hypothesize why something works how it works, and then you come up with a repeatable test to see if you're right. With creationism, on the other hand, you start out with received knowledge (the holy book), and you look for ways to justify the literal text by shoehorning fact and evidence to fit your original notion. The two are fundamentally different.

---

More attributions?! :drama: No I am certainly not doing what you attribute to me. Perhaps if I haven't mentioned it enough, what I am criticizing is your criteria for demarcating science.

But anyway, you have an absolutely idealized view of science going here, and an idea of creationism that even a non creationist like me would flat out say is a grossly oversimplified strawman.

Science doesn't occur in a vacuum. The naive inductionist view of science you paint here is not how it works. Scientists begin with existing theories, they are inspired by (admittedly non scientific areas like art and imagination and myth). You cannot gather the facts without having a scope on what facts are relevant. One will have a vague idea of his hypothesis before even gathering the relevant data...

Quote:

---

Do young Earth creationists make disprovable claims?Looking at your links, it appears they do, and then get debunked. Which does nothing to slow them down, which speaks to why they are operating under a completely different set of rules.

---

So they do make disprovable claims! Finally you are coming through. :2thumbsup:

Now, the second part of your argument deals with behavior of scientists and creationists (why do I like the demarcating factor to be the consensus of scientists again? :2thumbsup:) and not with the methodology so I don't see the need to continue (though later I will mention how creationists have changed their views).

Quote:

---

Where are the legions of Lamarckians? Oh, right, he was disproved decades ago, and is now a footnote in history. Where are the vocal supporters of the aetheric theory of light transmission? Oh, yeah, that turned out to be completely bogus. Once again, nothing but a footnote for science geeks. How about phrenological theory? Where are the phrenologists' websites?

Theories can be disproved. Faith (by definition) cannot. So you can have a meaningful and productive debate with people who hold theories, but argue with someone about faith? That's a dead-end street I try to avoid.

Gladly. If a geologist and an astrophysicist disagree on the age of the earth, they both produce their evidence, and one of them is more right than the other. This settles the matter (and in fact, geology got a bad name for a while for being wildly off about the age of the earth, while the astronomers got to say "Nanny nanny boo boo").

A creationist, on the other hand, will move right on from a disproved claim, since proof does not matter to him. He knows the correct answer, and will stick to it, no matter what evidence is presented. He doesn't do this because he is stupid or a bad person; rather, he is operating under a different set of rules. This is a fundamental difference that you seem to be at pains to deny.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.

---

Firstly, you were unable to note any distinguishing factor between the two claims themselves, and once again resorted to making an argument between the behavior of scientists and creationists... Disappointing.

Even going on this point you make:

Sorry to burst your very idealized bubble of science, but the entire history of science proves you wrong. It takes a LOOOONG time for theories to just be scrapped. One or two falsifications don't cut it. Rather than the theory being scrapped, auxiliary hypothesis are first scrapped.

A well supported heliocentric model was around for over 2000 years in the Western world. It was generally adopted about 500 years ago as the geocentric model prevailed over that span.

Levasseur had the foundations of modern chemistry set in the 1600's providing a complete model, but it was in the late 1700's when the scientific community rejected phlogistic chemistry.

Instead of explaining the odd findings inconsistent with gravitational theory by saying that parts or all of the theory is mistaken, most scientists postulate a new, absolutely ad hoc and unobservable entity: dark matter. Only recently have some voices come out advocating a revolution in the field.

Lastly, creationists like I have said, have vastly changed their claims in the past 100 years. I know you will not take my word and ask for links, so when I'm at school, if you wish, I can give you journal articles documenting these changes.

Just a last note so I may not be further misrepresented.

I'm not saying creationism is good science (or even science). I don't think it should be taught in classrooms. But as someone who is studying evolutionary biology at the moment, I am going to point out that these attempts to draw a strict demarcating line between it and scientific theories fail, miserably.

It is much better for proponents of evolutionary biology to take the empirical claims made by creationists and show how they have been tested and falsified.

As for the teaching both side by side, the argument should be that we should not teach creationism just as we should not teach say phlogistic chemistry or Fresnel's theory of optics and light as these have failed many tests. Not that creationism is some kind of different beast altogether (because that will be well nigh impossible to show).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

We can now move on.

---

Indeed. Since none of my answers appear to satisfy, engage or aid the discussion according to you, I'll bow out. I have no desire to "misrepresent" you, to build strawmen, to sow the fora with "non-sequiturs," or engage in any of the long list of misdeeds you say I have committed. Whatever it is that you're trying to accomplish, I wish you the best of luck!

You shall be added to a very long list of people who have argued with Reenk about something and made zero headway reaching any sort of common ground. :laugh4:

I admire his ability to argue, but at times I have no idea what he is talking about, or what precisely he is getting at. He seems to be saying that you cannot prove anything and that it takes belief to have evidence, therefore everything is exactly the same as religion and there's no difference between religion and science. He says, if I remember correctly, that that is NOT what he is arguing, but that's the best I can come up with. I freely admit, I haven't a clue what he's on about sometimes. He may one day be up there with the greatest philosophers of all time, arguing about metaphysics and whatnot and defeating people or drawing countless debates over definitions and demarcations and all kinds of proofs and rebuttals until the opposition loses the will to argue.

In the end, it's almost like he's arguing there is no difference between hot and cold, because cold does not exist. It is all simply levels of how much heat energy there is... there's no negative force, just positive. So in the metaphorical sense, science and religion are the same because they both rely on various amounts of "faith" as he defines it.

However, science requires very few assumptions, such as "I exist" and "other things exist, and I can prove it to a reasonable degree", which are assumptions every single sane person on this planet makes. So they are hardly incredible assumptions which must be dismissed. Religion and faith require assumptions such as

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"God's name is Jehovah and he exists everywhere at once while being invisible and watches everything you do and is a force of good and mercy and compassion but he does nothing to stop war or genocides and he will burn you forever and ever in a burning pit of agony should you fail to exercise the free will that he gave you and the mind that he gave you and the independent spirit that he gave you to question the assumptions of men in funny robes and hats who claim to talk to God, because it's absolutely for sure that they know what they talk about but the man on the street corner who babbles about God doesn't know what he's talking about at all because that's somehow different from Revelation and of course the earth was created in 6 days and an all-powerful God needs to rest once a week and likes animal sacrifice and will destroy the earth using an ARMY someday rather than just poofing the evil out of existence like a God would and he must physically capture satan and put him in the lake of fire because somehow with his infinite Q-like power he can't just obliterate Satan using his mind."

To be fair, that's a bit more of an assumption to make than "If I see the ground, feel it, hear things impact it, smell the flowers on it, and taste the fruit that comes from it, it might, just might, be real."

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that the scientific method is on the same level of assumption as religion. And, religion does not blink in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, whereas science, in order to be credible, must revise the theory.

Note how Rhyfelwyr "knows" that God exists. He has no proof and there is no reason for him to know this scientifically. It is a belief, and he erroneously uses the word "know" instead of "believe" as if to put this "special" knowledge on a higher pedestal than stuff he hears, smells, tastes, sees, touches, and feels. It's much better knowledge because it requires no proof whatsoever, and doesn't rely on the senses or even intuitive logic. Much of what his God does is rather counter-intuitive, like his Word being divine, but he is also capable of lying to people. How does that work? Does his lie become true when he speaks it? Can he simply override his previous truth and make it a lie? What's the deal with that? This "special" knowledge that believers refer to is not knowledge by any definition I can find or think of, not one that we commonly agree on, nor use as a scientific definition.

You cannot compare scientific theory with "spiritual knowledge" because they don't exist as anything related to the other in any way, shape, or form. However, because science yes involves the belief that we exist... Reenk can correctly say it is a form of belief. However I think that whitewashes science and faith as being the same thing when they are polar opposites. The energy from fusion at the center of a star is much hotter than the background radiation of the universe, in the extreme. However, both are forms of energy. Faith involves so numerous and so counter-intuitive assumptions that it is the reason it's classified as belief, not knowledge. Science involves assumptions so basic and so self-evident that it not only doesn't require much in terms of belief, on the contrary it challenges all assumptions, all data, all theories, and all methods, but the few assumptions that we make in order to call it science are so essential to sane living in this universe, that if you countered those assumptions, you'd be liable to die pretty quickly and have your radical theories disproved by the force of a Mack truck hitting your face.

The more unfounded and unreasonable the assumption, and the more of these types of assumptions you make, the less likely it is for it to be true. I'd refer people to my Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box theory of existence... it's not science because it's based on nothing but assumptions and wild and counter-intuitive statements which are in direct contradiction of the scientific method or any system of self-evident logic. However, it's in the same category of knowledge as any other religion, because the evidence that it could be true (you can't disprove it) is once again, the primary argument in its defense.

I do find it interesting that Reenk feels he is being intentionally misrepresented... frankly I don't see it. I do believe that people are honestly, and without spite or any other motivation, simply misunderstanding what you're saying, why you're saying it, and what relevance it has to anything if it puts everything under the label "belief", and in such a case there's no point in arguing anything because you can always disagree without giving a reason besides "that's YOUR opinion."

I find it to be radical skepticism, not legitimate theory, but Reenk has disagreed that that is his position, and instead asks his debate opponents to "prove" certain things in order to prove their case, and when they fail to "prove" that science is not the same as belief under his definitions, he declares the argument won. That is what appears to be going on, to me, but once again I have probably misinterpreted his positions. However, I will never understand his positions, so forgive me if this is the best I can come up with; I feel it is pretty darn close.

Under Reenk's standards of proofs, there is no proof of anything nor is it possible to prove anything because it relies on "metaphysical assumptions" he disagrees with and "sensory perception" which he apparently also disagrees with. As such, there is no point in the argument because eventually, you will have to make a metaphysical assumption or a sensory perception to prove a thing, or a logically self-evident and non-contradictory statement, and in all cases, it will not be enough because it all involves some shred of belief, and therefore invalidates it under Reenk's standard of proof.

As such, I haven't a clue how to argue with him. And I don't fully understand his argument, so he can over and over, correctly, point out how what I am saying doesn't quite respond to what he wants me to respond to, or satisfy his standards, or claim that it is a misinterpretation and it isn't what he means. Yet he fails to dumb down the argument so I can keep up with and respond to his arguments, so I once again sit baffled and can't really debate him. But at the same time, I feel he does demand an unreasonable standard of proof and is radical in his position that science is on the same level as faith, based on reasonable definitions of both. But he claims that isn't what he's arguing, and so I am lost and we make no headway.

It's a vicious little circle. I still think that somewhere, somehow, there is a loose end which if tugged, proves that such thinking unravels all reasonable thought and undermines the existence of knowledge at all, and if followed to it's logical conclusion, would destroy the human mind as we know it. As such, even if it were somehow true, there would be no point in believing in it because it would be wholly destructive and disconnect us from the ability to live together in a civilized and enlightened society, because we could never agree on laws or ethics or have any frame of reference from which to build the ability to communicate.

But that's probably a strawman or something, and as such, I respectfully withdraw it and apologize. There's a reason I stayed out of this one until now, and would be happy to bow out once again.

Faith (creationism/religion) versus reason (science); we had this debate already. I made a strong case for reason, and demonstrated using my opponent's own words that they undermine their own arguments and the logical conclusion of their argument is the destruction of reason, and as such, absolute faith is incompatible with reason and inherently dangerous. However, my opponents simply disagree and argue using different definitions and avoid my points, and as such, there is no progress to be made.

This topic, creationism versus evolution, at least focuses on two different specific theories, but the underlying argument is the SAME. Faith does not rely on evidence, and exists in spite of evidence. Science is a different animal entirely, but some compare the two as equals and call one a scientific theory when it is not, and the other a religious theory when it is not. Because we are comparing apples to unicorns, there will be no common ground, no consensus, and no forward progress for the human mind. The discussion was a dead end before it began... religion is not science and religious theories are not based in science and cannot be compared to science. They are different things.

If I said one thing weighed 200 pounds and you countered that pineapples are juicy, I doubt that we would be talking about the same thing and while I am arguing about weight and you are arguing about juicy, we will make no headway. It's a fruitless exercise, no pun intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions:shrug: These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

---

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

---

I know you guys have carried on along this line, but this is the point where it's easiest for me to address. Science does indeed rely on certain assumptions about the nature of the universe: assumptions which cannot be proven, however difficult it may be to imagine them being wrong.

We assume the existence of cause and effect. We assume that, other factors remaining constant, causes will have the same effect regardless of place and time. And so forth.

A religious approach to the natural world requires more assumptions than 'pure' science, and thus according to Ockham's razor (itself an assumption of sorts) is less preferable. The real distinction is that we all, religious or otherwise, accept the assumptions on which science is predicated. Religious assumptions, however widespread, are not universal.

Personally, I have opinions similar to Seamus and Don Corleone on the matter. I think theistic evolution is entirely possible. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't really matter whether I think that spark of randomness comes from some metaphysical being. I rely on science to know the what and the how of it all.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two. It does not, however, mean I am against those individuals, I am against their arguments.

Do you want to challenge me about religion?

Say I believe the world is run by "pink invisible unicorns".

Prove me wrong, please.

Now, all that is needed to believe in pink invisible unicorns is a bit of faith... much the same as believing in god.

If YOU prove pink invisible unicorns does not exist, I might start to give you some credit for whatever "god's" existance.

If you can not prove that pink invisible unicorns does not exist, can we please keep this topic on a scientific level?

---

This makes no sense to me. Why should I need to prove my religion to you? What does it matter to you? I hate fish. Do I need to prove to you that fish are abominable, or can't I just hold that as a personal opinion, even express it in a public setting, and be tolerated for it? I have no interest in proving your pink invisible unicorn belief wrong. I really don't care whether you believe in them.

If I was proselytizing you, or trying to convince you my faith is correct, then I could see a reason for you to take issue with me. But just refusing to tolerate me for my mindset? :thumbsdown:

Ajax

Interesting discussion, though most of it has been done a million times already.

Here's a link to a fairly comprehensive database of claims made by creationists and rebuttals to them: http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html

And here is a list of counter-rebuttals: http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

Finally, to quote something specific to this discussion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Claim CA301:
Science is based on naturalism, the unproven assumption that nature is all there is.

Response:

1. The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

2. The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day lives. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible has not changed since the last time it was read.

3. Naturalism works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than for historical curiosity.

4. Supernaturalism is contentious. Scientific findings are based on hard evidence, and scientists can point at the evidence to resolve disputes. People tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and all too often the only effective way they have found for reaching a consensus is by killing each other.

---

Hopefully this is helpful to someone.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested. I don't think Reenk was suggesting so much that evolution has dubious foundations, rather that creationism's own foundations does not mean that science cannot be applied to it.

Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong. :shrug:

Also ATPG, please do not attack Christianity, especially when you don't understand the basics of the religion. You can hardly hope to understand it by reading the Skeptics Annotated Bible. :no: