Evolution v Creationism

[Adrian II]

I present this as the "Lucky Design" theory, as an alternative to Intelligent Design and Evolution.

[Fwapper]

What we need is a poll for this, over 200 posts is just getting too rambly.... :P

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yawn the old randrom diety stories are fun to make up but they don't help much, nobody has felt the fiery presence of the leprechaun god.

What we need is a poll for this, over 200 posts is just getting too rambly.... :P

I wonder what the opinion of the man from officialy the most atheist city in the UK might be?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yawn the old randrom diety stories are fun to make up but they don't help much, nobody has felt the fiery presence of the leprechaun god.

I have. I am witness to the awesome power of His Lucky Charms. I know it to be true. Random Deities beat randrom diety any day of the week. And it's not random, it's LUCKY. There's a difference.

One, two, three, four, I declare a holy war!

[Ironside]

Yawn the old randrom diety stories are fun to make up but they don't help much, nobody has felt the fiery presence of the leprechaun god.

God is a bit dull on the fiery presentations nowadays isn't he? A shame as large scale miracles would be really convincing stuff.

Instead he goes around, poking around in the "godly presence center" in the brain for people to feel his fiery presence.

Makes sence if He planned to get to humans through evolution, how else would He keep humans to be prone to belive in Him while keeping the low profile he does by not doing obvious wonders.

[Askthepizzaguy]

HEY!!

Hey, hey hey. They found Jesus on a Cheeto. Don't tell me there aren't miracles.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have. I am witness to the awesome power of His Lucky Charms. I know it to be true. Random Deities beat randrom diety any day of the week. And it's not random, it's LUCKY. There's a difference.

One, two, three, four, I declare a holy war!

If you were being genuine, there would be no reason not to go with it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have already declared a Chee-had against the infidel. However, just like in other religions, when you declare a Chee-had, it is instead an inner, spiritual struggle. We fight using our minds.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(Psychic powers)

[Sigurd]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Fellows, it's clearly obvious we were poofed into existence from the massively hot breath of the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun, lucky be thy name. IMO we were fashioned together out of horseshoes and rabbits feet and four-leaf clovers. Then the Magic Box closed and we can no longer see the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun. However, he placed a symbol in the sky to remind us of our true origins: The Rainbow. It is said that at the end of the Rainbow, you will find the Pot 'O Gold and become rich beyond mortal dreams. It's clear that the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun created two people, and only two people, who then had a bunch of sons. Those sons then reproduced with what I assume to be unicorns, because there were no women besides their mother. And that is why men have a prominent "unicorn" below their stomach. My guess is that the women were just unlucky and theirs fell off somehow. Probably from kissing the Blarney stone.

I present this as the "Lucky Design" theory, as an alternative to Intelligent Design and Evolution.

However, beyond the physical evidence of the Rainbow, the Clover, the Horseshoe, and Rabbits, not to mention gold and blarney stones, there's no scientific basis for this theory, and I readily admit it is far, far more of a stretch to conclude that everyone was created by a divine being in a supernatural method which directly contradicts fossil and DNA evidence, and using a family tree which could only result in incestuous couplings and severe birth deformities and infertility, involving imaginary women.

Have a pint anyway. Surely there is room enough for our personal religious views AND science in this world, but we have to admit, they are based upon different ideas: One is the idea that we know something we cannot possibly know except "with our hearts", and the other is the idea that we don't really know anything, but we have strong evidence which leads to some fairly reliable conclusions. The two ideas do not mix and cannot be compared to one another, otherwise some fairly ridiculous notions can be associated falsely with science, such as the idea that some ethnicities are not human beings because they look slightly different from us, and we know this because we looked at them and saw a slight difference and so therefore they aren't human beings.

As sad as that theory is, it's very similar to the idea that human beings are completely disassociated with the animal kingdom, because we are more intelligent. Nevermind our biological processes are nearly identical, we share almost identical DNA with a very small margin of difference, in our embryonic state we develop almost exactly the same way as other vertebrates, our fossils appeared in the record millions of years ago along with many others, the fact that we are born and then we die... in other words, virtually identical in every way to the nearest primate, but some believe we were given different, exclusive to human-beings, otherworldly supernatural origins poofed out of dust, rather than evolving like all other species have done, in spite of a lack of supportive evidence and physics that doesn't involve what amounts to magic.

Argumentum ad Hominem with the sub fallacy; Refutation by Caricature.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have already declared a Chee-had against the infidel. However, just like in other religions, when you declare a Chee-had, it is instead an inner, spiritual struggle. We fight using our minds.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(Psychic powers)

I hope you haven't abandoned the fiery little leprechaun god.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Pizza, you have some strange beliefs

[Askthepizzaguy]

I hope you haven't abandoned the fiery little leprechaun god.

HE ABANDONED ME FIRST!!! I leave him messages on his answering machine saying things like:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Hi, it's the pizzaguy. Love that green outfit. What are you doing Saturday Night? By the way, can you please let my local sports team win the pennant? Thanks. -Amen"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Hey it's me again. I'm sorry I forgot to add that I'd really love to win the lottery. Could you make that happen? Thanks. -Amen

Oh, PS- where does life begin?"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Hello Leprechaun. it's me, Pizzaguy. I am doing some soul searching and I want to know why you created Free Will and Evil and also a place to punish people for using their Free Will to create Evil even though you're infinitely compassionate and the one responsible for designing us intelligently. Thanks. -Amen"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Hey it's me. Why don't you ever return my phone calls? I mean, what's up with that? -Amen"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Ok, I'm really starting to get ticked off now. I don't treat you so coldly. Haven't I been a devoted worshiper ever since I converted to the faith? Be a nice, friendly God and talk to me or I'll convert to Invisible Pink Unicorn Religion or the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Ok sorry about the last phone call... I was feeling all stressed out. Will you forgive me? Love you. Kisses."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Quick question... why do we have vestigial organs?"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"You still haven't answered my question as to where life begins."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"How come people are gay if they choose to be gay and it makes them unhappy to be different and to be persecuted? Wouldn't they just switch back? And why would they be born gay if you created them in your own image but you also say that it is a sin?"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"What should we do about underage women being forced to marry against their will in other cultures? What gives us the moral right to intervene?"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"I saw you on a box of Lucky Charms today. I LOL'ed!"

As you can see, since he doesn't return my phone calls, he abandoned me first. Or he's dead. But the important thing is that even though he doesn't talk to me, I continue to pray to him and ask him to change his Divine Plan, even though it wouldn't be much of a Divine Plan if he changed it to suit my whims.

Argumentum ad Hominem with the sub fallacy; Refutation by Caricature.

Much of the religious argument against evolution comes from the argument from ignorance. See also "God of the Gaps".

[Rhyfelwyr]

Heh, well Yahweh is very real to me, in everything I do. It follows that since the message of the New Testament is so real to me, so is that of the Old Testament, Jesus was fulfilling those scriptures after all. Plus, you've got to admit, Daniel didn't do bad predicting the year of Jesus' death, and all the prophecies concerning Israel etc.

On a side note, if you were comparing your prayer to the Christian version, it's not quite like that. Trying to work through prayer is like trying to do stuff in the Matrix - Jesus says you have to know your prayer will be answered, otherwise you were not in accordance with God's will in the first place! Stop trying to hit me and hit me... see what I mean?

[Sigurd]

Much of the religious argument against evolution comes from the argument from ignorance. See also "God of the Gaps".

Argumentum ad Hominem Tu Quoque

[Askthepizzaguy]

I always knew Christianity was like the Matrix. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm just having fun, I believe that the real arguments have been passed back and forth, and ultimately since Creationism is a religious argument not based upon science but upon Scripture, there is nothing that can be said to change one's mind.



To call it a debate is silly because there is one side of the issue which won't budge regardless of evidence or argument, if it is based upon religion, because religion requires faith and faith isn't really evidence, and is considered superior to evidence by the faithful. I'm willing to discuss the real facts, but there is no alternative theory at the moment grounded in science and based upon evidence. There is only religion and skepticism. Skepticism I buy, because that is simply the position that we cannot know. However, even then, one should not totally dismiss evidence. As for religion, it hasn't advanced our knowledge of the universe, only our belief in aspects of it, and beyond, so they are different unrelated things.

As for prayer, in all honesty it can't hurt. However, it shouldn't be relied upon instead of medicine, for example.

Argumentum ad Hominem Tu Quoque

You win the argument by default because your vocabulary is superior to my own. Curse my distaste of Latin!

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's fair enough, but remember a lot of people who argue against religion do so because they don't like some of its (debatable) effects. Things like holding back science, causing wars etc don't really do anything to prove whether the belief system is right or not.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Whether it is right or not is not knowable by any living being.

If one can remain skeptical of science, one needs to rely on the argument that we don't know everything, which puts religion on equal or lesser footing than science, because science relies on a foundation of impartial reasoning and evidence rather than a series of unprovable assumptions involving the supernatural.

If we aren't discussing whether it is true or not, we can discuss that the unwavering certainty of any viewpoint, and the intolerance of those who hold that view to opposing viewpoints, does usually result in negative effects on mankind, regardless of the truth of the message.

If I were set out to prove that 1+1=2, regardless of how true it is, would I be right to go to war over it, or to attempt to stop all attempts to research alternative theories, or to persecute those who believe there could be other answers? No... even if we "know" we are right, we have to accept that "being right doesn't give us the right" to do wrong. One can freely argue for intelligent design, or debate any scientific viewpoint. However, it rarely stops there. It usually ends when the offending viewpoint is abolished or declared heretical or illegal, if we base this on historical precedent. In recent years, it has reared its head once more, to infringe upon the rights of the individual.

Science and religion can coexist, but just like voodoo and astrophysics, they belong in different books.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think there's a bit of debate about whether or not it could be "knowable" by a little human such as ourselves. I came across a discussion once about whether religious experiences could be self-authenticating, in that they give a person 100% (no 99.999's) assurance of their truthfulness, beyond even the certainty you could place in your own minds reliability.

That's a horrendeously complicated debate, and again I suppose it wouldn't prove Christianity, just perhaps, if won, prove that some of its claims are possible.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

If there was ever "design", it sure as hell was of the stupid kind.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think there's a bit of debate about whether or not it could be "knowable" by a little human such as ourselves. I came across a discussion once about whether religious experiences could be self-authenticating, in that they give a person 100% (no 99.999's) assurance of their truthfulness, beyond even the certainty you could place in your own minds reliability.

That's a horrendeously complicated debate, and again I suppose it wouldn't prove Christianity, just perhaps, if won, prove that some of its claims are possible.

Using the same argument some use against the idea of proof, how can you use a religious "experience" as evidence of anything? The mind can dream, the mind can forget, mis-remember, misinterpret, misdiagnose, not to mention hallucinate. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if someone has a religious experience, it doesn't count as scientific knowledge unless the results can be repeated, predicted, and observed by neutral observers. I can see that there are cheetos that look like jesus, and I can also see that a closet door once closed "on its own" and a light bulb coincidentally turned off "on its own" within seconds of one another. However, given the billions of cheetos out there, it is almost a certainty that some will resemble other things, and the closet door in question had slightly changed shape due to changes in temperature, and while it usually would experience little friction when opening or closing, on that particular day it was open but experiencing pressure, until it moved enough that it suddenly popped closed. Coincidentally, at the same time the light bulb in that room turned off because it was a bulb that was inside a small hollow part of the ceiling, and it overheated.

You can bet that odd coincidences like that make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, because even though I'm a person who thinks scientifically I am just an animal with instincts and unintelligent fears and/or phobias. Until I figured out what was going on, I felt a little freaked out. And if "God" appeared before me and started raining lightning bolts on me, I'd feel freaked out too. But then again, if I regained my composure, I might think that it would be possible I ingested something hallucinogenic, and I'd still need more proof than that to say conclusively that God exists. Bottom line is that I could also be insane. Which, if you were, you would have no way of knowing conclusively. Maybe everyone else is insane and you're the only one who sees clearly.

Things that we "know" and are certain of can be wrong as well. We might find out one day that we were adopted. We might find out our birth certificate gives our middle name as "Jose". We might discover that the mole on our neck isn't a mole after all, but a malignant tumor. We could also find out one day that our ideas about science and/or God are all total baloney. I am always leery of the idea that one person knows something with absolute certainty, because that is almost certainly wrong.

I place more trust in things that don't come from our little weak opinions, such as things we all agree we can see with our eyes, hear with our ears, taste, smell, touch, etc. I also trust when we can repeat an experiment over and over again with the same results. I also trust when we find stuff in the ground that was never touched by human beings before, encased in a layer of solid rock, that it is not a fabrication by someone trying to sell some crackpot theory. Especially if thousands of people across the planet can find similar rock pieces. I also trust what seems to follow from logical examples of something similar... bacteria and viruses totally changing randomly, such that the ones who survive in their environments are the ones who just happen to be more resistant to our medicines and our immune systems. From that, one might conclude that if the environment of an ecosystem changed that trees which once had white bark now had black bark, now certain color adaptations tended to survive because they were better hidden from predators than before. We observe key changes in the population of the species and each succeeding generation having differences which allow them to survive better, until the species flourishes and spreads across the planet and changes once again by natural selection and adapts to its new surroundings... until you have very different looking animals.

So, we have proof of natural selection, and we have proof of genetic mutation. And we also can see, just from changes in species over time, just from the time frame of our own human observations, that certain species change so much they can no longer mate with former members of their own species, and they are now considered different species.

Once we see this, and we add that to what appears to be billions of years of fossil evidence showing these changes, species appearing and disappearing, with logical steps being taken for one species to radiate and change into several over time, and some species going extinct... and of the surviving species, we can see that there is a genetic similarity between species which seem to have the closest ancestry, and a genetic dissimilarity between species which have more distant ancestry... we have ample evidence that species radiate, change, adapt, and become new species over time, and others disappear. Which directly contradicts the idea that all species were created at once using magic and dust.

If there were evidence that a trillion species appeared suddenly billions of years ago, and since then, they have done nothing but disappear, we might reach a different conclusion. Then creationism might have more merit. But as it stands, there is literally no evidence which supports that theory over the theory of evolution or natural selection.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

One could pragmatically argue that a religious belief is 100% true.

Pizza, I see the problem with religion being that it is to dogmatic. That's the only real problem I can think of. But you are being quite dogmatic yourself...

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am arguing that you cannot know for certain something which is unprovable. I am also arguing that faith and science are different systems of thought. One exists in spite of evidence, the other requires evidence and often changes based upon that evidence. That's not a dogmatic viewpoint unless language itself and agreed upon definitions are dogmatic. In which case... praise the dogma!

We have a separation between art and science in our universities and so forth; painting for example is an art form, not a scientific discipline. While sciences and art sometimes overlap, they are distinct concepts. Religion and science have a similar relationship that art and science do; they are different schools of thought, based upon entirely unrelated things. If we teach religion as science, we are doing a disservice to both. If I take everyone's Bible and cross out everything which is not based in science, and try to pass it off as religion, that would also be a disservice to both.

Basically, they have no business intruding upon one another. What is dogmatic is trying to force one discipline upon another, and not respecting the boundaries of both, and the rightness of both existing independent upon one another. When you cross science with faith, you destroy both. Can they coexist? Sure! A religious person can easily be a scientist and believe in God and the afterlife and even Jesus' resurrection, because that is his personal belief. And at the same time, he can believe in evidence and science, and keep them separate in his mind. He could also hold out hope that one day science would conclude that his religious theories are correct, and not be necessarily wrong to do so. Or he might see it as a non-issue... it doesn't really matter if science validates his faith or not... he believes in it and that should be good enough for a person of faith. After all, it is faith.

Dogmatic is pushing your personal beliefs, in spite of evidence to the contrary and with a lack of a logical foundation or a lack of evidence, upon the scientific community. Dogmatic is attempting to abolish religion altogether or being intolerant of those of faith. I am not dogmatic. It is impractical to combine two unrelated things which are built upon foundations alien to one another to satisfy one's religious or non-religious convictions. I think you are confusing holding a strong opinion on an issue and believing in it strongly with being dogmatic. I readily admit the theories could be wrong, as all scientists do, and I am waiting patiently with an open mind for evidence to the contrary.

That's not dogmatic. Saying "I do not know" is the opposite of being dogmatic. I find often in these debates people use words which mean the exact opposite of how they are being used. If you want to say I am being dogmatic, you might do me the courtesy of saying how.

[CBR]

There you go - and what is the current status in this debate? And we have DNA samples of this common ancestor which proves that both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are descendants of this common ancestor?

I think some of the latest would be from March this year:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...enome_released

Analysis of the genome reveals that humans and Neandertals share genetic roots stretching back at least 830,000 years.

And since the article use the term Homo neanderthalensis I guess they are considered a separate species.


CBR

[Adrian II]

Argumentum ad Hominem with the sub fallacy; Refutation by Caricature.

Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?

I mean, I know Askthepizzaguy has been running circles around you, tying your shoelaces together and stealing your Volvo model 74. Or model 84. Or 92. But did you see where he crashed it?

That's right, into post #208. DA ROCK.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sigurd is one of my friends and a respected badass when it comes to mafia, so I hope he forgives Adrian II's exuberance.



I am dead certain that in a highly formal, technical argument, Sigurd would utterly annihilate me. I believe I have the superior and correct side of the argument, however I am without the tools to defeat a master such as Sigurd. He would knock my head off with his awesome Battle Axe and feed my entrails to his pet dragon.

[Adrian II]

Sigurd is one of my friends and a respected badass when it comes to mafia, so I hope he forgives Adrian II's exuberance.



I am dead certain that in a highly formal, technical argument, Sigurd would utterly annihilate me. I believe I have the superior and correct side of the argument, however I am without the tools to defeat a master such as Sigurd. He would knock my head off with his awesome Battle Axe and feed my entrails to his pet dragon.

Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest.

[Tribesman]

If there was ever "design", it sure as hell was of the stupid kind.

It was a rush job, there is only so much you can do in a week , after all god isn't infallible is she.

Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?

Give him a chance will ya , OK perhaps he can't answer that from the KJV of scripture but given enough time and enough versions of the one book an answer will be forthcoming.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest.

If you two are willing to debate, I would moderate. And I like both of you, and believe it or not I can be very fair and impartial.

[Kadagar_AV]

*yawn* Is this thread still alive?

Has it moved forward since my post on page 1 explaining there is no way to debate evolution vs creation as one is based on facts and the other on faith?

No?

If all the combined evidence of evolution still does not satisfy the people who prefer to believe a 2000 year old book rather than modern scientifical research, then I am quite sure a topic in the backroom wont either.

You can never beat someone religious by using logic, as they don't see the world in a logical way.

And if you open up for a non-logical argumentation they already won.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Using the same argument some use against the idea of proof, how can you use a religious "experience" as evidence of anything? The mind can dream, the mind can forget, mis-remember, misinterpret, misdiagnose, not to mention hallucinate. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if someone has a religious experience, it doesn't count as scientific knowledge unless the results can be repeated, predicted, and observed by neutral observers.

But the debate is whether or not the knowledge can be self-authenticating. It wouldn't need to be proved or tested, but is instead made valid by it's own inherent truthfulness. I'm not arguing whether or not this has happened, but whether or not it is theoretically possible.