Evolution v Creationism

[Askthepizzaguy]

The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .

Yes, and I've taken them to task on that point, repeatedly, and at length. However, I do draw the line at insinuating that they are stupid for believing in something that isn't proven and saying they know it is proven, because I get that same rolling eyes reflex whenever I hear theoretical physicists talk about how wormholes are real and they can take you to other dimensions, and they think they can prove it using math.

Of course, since our understanding of the universe changes every day, and math has been based on false premises before, claiming to KNOW there are other universes that we can interact with, in spite of the fact that if matter and energy are flowing from one reality to another, that makes them part of the same overall reality.... and we don't know much about theoretical physics because it's theoretical to the extreme. The dirt under your feet is much less theoretical, and I can buy claims that we know it is there. But forgive my skepticism when scientists claim to KNOW some pretty bizarre and unprovable things. They used math to "prove" how massive the universe was... and then later had to refine their math because it was wrong.

That kind of over-reaching is what we need to avoid, both in science and in theology. People need to admit there isn't much we can be reasonably sure about when we can't prove certain things.

[Incongruous]

The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .

No, alot of them don't, but some of them are mighty sure that certain other explanations are absolutely wrong, when in fact they are at the moment niether provable or otherwise.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Those videos were about young earth creationism and weren't even about people just the age of the earth etc.

[Kadagar_AV]

ATPG>>>

The dirt under your feet is much less theoretical, and I can buy claims that we know it is there. But forgive my skepticism when scientists claim to KNOW some pretty bizarre and unprovable things. They used math to "prove" how massive the universe was... and then later had to refine their math because it was wrong.

But that is the difference isn't it?

Scienctifical theories can be wrong, they are even quite often wrong! Parts of them are usualy right though, and science takes one step further. So what is the difference? Well, when science is wrong, science correct it.

Christianity, however, have been more or less stagnant for some two thousand years. Only ever giving ground to new evidence when the situation became so absurd they were laughed at.



Let's make sure to separate two things here, so as not to confuse.

1) I will laugh at creationists just like I would laugh at someone believing the world came to exist when he was born. This has nothing to do with religion as such. This has to do with people believing in something that again and again been proven wrong.

2) I would however never laugh at someone with a belief. I am agnostic, I would have to laugh at myself.

So, if someone says "The earth was created 6000 years ago"... Why shouldn't I laugh? In this modern society quotes like that does indeed seem laughable.

However, if someone say "I believe there is more to the creation of life than suggested by science"... Then I would have no reason to laugh at all, science hasn't been able to explain how life started.

So mods and others, make sure to separate laughing at individuals who support a false theory, and laughing at people for having a faith.




PS: I still wonder how far christianity can retreat. Can it handle big bang being explained? Can it handle extra terrestial life? What does it take for a christian to wave the white flag?

[Tribesman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those videos were about young earth creationism and weren't even about people just the age of the earth etc.

So obviously you didn't watch them did you

[Rhyfelwyr]

So obviously you didn't watch them did you

In the first video talks about the flood, then about water on other planets, and then the shape of the orbit of the earth....

The next one it is the about the sun and eclipses, then the next one is about a theory on the flood, the next one is also about the flood, the next one is also about the flood, the next one is about calculating the age of the earth, the next one is about how evolution doesn't necessarily make you bigger, the next one it about whether DNA is too complex to have developed itself, the next one is about creationists misrepresnting scientists, the next one is about if there's more than one way for life to come into existence.....

Che himself said it was aimed at young earthers.

[Kralizec]

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

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

I'm not extremely well versed in scientific philosophy, but I'll give it a shot.

You mentioned the naturalistic axiom somewhere, i.e. the world can be explained and understould in terms of cause and effect without resorting to metaphysical explanations. This axiom is one of the cornerstones of science- while creationists argue that many things, in particular the existence of mankind, can't be explained in purely physical causes and effect and that you have to resort to divine intervention to make sense of anything. That's what demarcates science from non-science. (and I am aware that axioms are unprovable) It's not unscientific to question the theory of evolution, adhering to theories that contradict scientific axioms is.
More generally, creationists challenge any method used to falsify their derived claims (like that the Earth is 6.000 year old, thus carbon dating has to be false). People may try to formulate their ideas about creation such that they sound objective, but ultimately won't ever accept that their claims have been proven false.

Theistic evolution stands or falls with "regular" evolution and isn't logically inconsistent, but the claim that "God did it" is still non-scientific precisely because it relies on metaphysical explanations.

[Che Roriniho]

The latter videos answer your question better. Sorry about not mentioning that.

And yes, we do have an holier-than-thouattitude, for the same reason most peole do wheen confronted with someone who claims to have pixies living in his Y-fronts. It's the exact same thing, except there are more of you than there are with Y-front dwelling Pixies. That is the only difference.

[InsaneApache]

The latter videos answer your question better. Sorry about not mentioning that.

And yes, we do have an holier-than-thouattitude, for the same reason most peole do wheen confronted with someone who claims to have pixies living in his Y-fronts. It's the exact same thing, except there are more of you than there are with Y-front dwelling Pixies. That is the only difference.

Well said that man.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The latter videos answer your question better. Sorry about not mentioning that.

And yes, we do have an holier-than-thouattitude, for the same reason most peole do wheen confronted with someone who claims to have pixies living in his Y-fronts. It's the exact same thing, except there are more of you than there are with Y-front dwelling Pixies. That is the only difference.

Having a holier-than-thou attitude implies that you believe you had choice in being an atheist and in not believing in pixies...but that is an irrational belief, no?

[Rhyfelwyr]

If there is no more reason to believe in God than pixies or leprechauns or whatever, then it is a great coincidence that He has so many followers.

When I was an atheist I thought religion was stupid, but at least I admitted there was something behind it, even if it was just an evolutionary function.

[Ironside]

Depends on the animal.

Intelligence is the defining human factor.

Well, beating an amoeba in intelligence will hardly make intelligence a remarking trait that makes humanity special so I'll think I go with the most intelligent animals, like dophins, apes, parots, crows (they're surpricingly intelligent) and simular.

How much more intelligent must humans be to be special compared to the rest of the animals? Do they need to break the average human intelligence or simply to most stupid humans? Is there's an average amoung the specie or only the most brilliant mind that's needed?

Personally I would go with the complex language, but like with all human traits, the basic framework excist in other animals, only expressed much stronger in humans.

Are blue whales special because they're huge?

If there is no more reason to believe in God than pixies or leprechauns or whatever, then it is a great coincidence that He has so many followers.

When I was an atheist I thought religion was stupid, but at least I admitted there was something behind it, even if it was just an evolutionary function.

So does Shiva. Pixies and leprechuans have the downside of actually needed to leave some physical proof behind, at least occationally.

Anyway, the elusivness of the gods by being poor of true supernatural miracles leaves at least the religion and science free from eachother. If the way any god work is thruogh natural means, then science works great to describe the world, no matter the existance of any god. The downside is of course proving that they exist, but it's fairly certain that they don't plan to make it easy on that matter.

btw, self-restraint is the framework whom Stoism stands on. Without it, you're slave under your passions. And animals do show self-restraint for other things than food, it's just that it's the easiest and most non-personal thing to test.

Did you know that (at least some) religious experiences seems to be located into a speciffic center of the brain? For whatever reason, but it certainly indicates that religiousity has an evolutionary function.

Seamus, evolution and big bang theory thrown together?

[Reenk Roink]

I'm not extremely well versed in scientific philosophy, but I'll give it a shot.

You mentioned the naturalistic axiom somewhere, i.e. the world can be explained and understould in terms of cause and effect without resorting to metaphysical explanations. This axiom is one of the cornerstones of science- while creationists argue that many things, in particular the existence of mankind, can't be explained in purely physical causes and effect and that you have to resort to divine intervention to make sense of anything. That's what demarcates science from non-science. (and I am aware that axioms are unprovable) It's not unscientific to question the theory of evolution, adhering to theories that contradict scientific axioms is.
More generally, creationists challenge any method used to falsify their derived claims (like that the Earth is 6.000 year old, thus carbon dating has to be false). People may try to formulate their ideas about creation such that they sound objective, but ultimately won't ever accept that their claims have been proven false.

Theistic evolution stands or falls with "regular" evolution and isn't logically inconsistent, but the claim that "God did it" is still non-scientific precisely because it relies on metaphysical explanations.

If I understand correctly you are making a demarcation criterion based on a certain metaphysical axiom (i.e: naturalism among many). Is this correct?

If so then I would certainly agree with you that this is a much better demarcation than say a naive testability or falsification. I gave this and another criterion based on the consensus of the scientific community as alternatives to the testable/falsifiable distinction.

Of course there remain problems with such an attempt (I nuanced it to avoid the charge of blatant circularity that a scientific theory is one that relies on the scientific axiom) and it may not eliminate all forms of "psuedoscience" but I feel that alternative criteria like these are the much sounder way to go, as opposed to what is generally argued in court cases today (relying on the testability/falsifiability criteria).

One day, should the creationist lobby not botch the case badly and get a guy who can argue convincingly against this usually used but fatally flawed demarcation principle, it would be an embarrassment for evolutionary biology...

This is an journal article from Science, Technology, and Human Values following up on a certain court decision on creationism a while back that talks about this issue pretty concisely and convincingly:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/688928

(might not be viewable in public domain)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, beating an amoeba in intelligence will hardly make intelligence a remarking trait that makes humanity special so I'll think I go with the most intelligent animals, like dophins, apes, parots, crows (they're surpricingly intelligent) and simular.

How much more intelligent must humans be to be special compared to the rest of the animals? Do they need to break the average human intelligence or simply to most stupid humans? Is there's an average amoung the specie or only the most brilliant mind that's needed?

Personally I would go with the complex language, but like with all human traits, the basic framework excist in other animals, only expressed much stronger in humans.

Are blue whales special because they're huge?

Special is a vague word. Restaurants have specials.

You're questioning the anthropocentric view, yes? Rather than asking about the differences between people and animals your asking what the significance of the differences is?

[Che Roriniho]

@ Sasaki Kojiro:

Yes, you do. It's called thinking, and my Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is particularly good at it (hell, it's in our name! Sapiens = wise). We have in fact, over the years developed a couple of remarkable ideas: logic and reason. Work very well in rooting out faeces of a bovine nature.


@Rhys

No, it's not a coincidence, it's just that your imaginary friend happened to be a cosmic Jewish Zombie whose views at the time were very liberal, and so a large amount of followers surrounded him and his legacy. They only worshipped him because that's what people tended to do at the time: worship people who did good, and there is no doubting that Jesus, historical or not, but probably historical, did some good.
The sole reason that your version of lunacy was adopted by Constantine the *ahem* Great, the leader of the biggest single nation in the world at that point, and so got some influence out.

So yes, it is entirely coincidental that so many believe in your Cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his Own Father (and yet also not his own father, whilst still being... you can see where that's going).

To believe otherwise is a mixture of two logical fallacies, and is, therefore, insubmitable as an argument: Argumentum ad numerum, and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. I also notice a nice icing of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, to add to the sponge sandwhicch of the previously mentioned logical fallacy recipes.










Oh, and +5 points if you have any idea where I was going with that last analogy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wouldn't normally quote from this site, but it came up on a Google search and it seemed pretty funny.

It does raise some good points - surely the fact that we even question the meaning of our existence seperates us from the animals?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

To believe otherwise is a mixture of two logical fallacies, and is, therefore, insubmitable as an argument: Argumentum ad numerum, and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. I also notice a nice icing of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, to add to the sponge sandwhicch of the previously mentioned logical fallacy recipes.

@ Sasaki Kojiro:

Yes, you do. It's called thinking, and my Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is particularly good at it (hell, it's in our name! Sapiens = wise). We have in fact, over the years developed a couple of remarkable ideas: logic and reason. Work very well in rooting out faeces of a bovine nature.

For someone who loves pointing out logical fallacies...

Since you like logic...

"The past controls the present and future.
You can't control the past.
Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future.
So, you can't control the present and future."

So, how did you choose to be an atheist?



Btw, do you think saying "99% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused in part by man" to be a rational argument?

[Sigurd]

I so want to participate here, but I have no access to the org at work except via my cell phone. Yes I am typing this on a mobile.

Just to put the animals vs. Humans to rest, the bible ( the proclaimed sole source of doctrine in Christianity ) distinguishes humans and animals on one parameter only. It says that man was made in the image and likeness of God. Interpret it however you want.

If any of you remember I did an exercise with Genesis ( again the proclaimed sole source of creationist doctrine ) and showed how you could interpret it very close to the scientific theory of how our world was made. What the young earth creationists are thinking, is beyond me. They have absolutely no suport for their ideas anywhere in the Bible.

I want to make a longer reply, but there is just no more time today.

[Askthepizzaguy]

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The stars in the heavens, the sun and the moon (lesser light? It's just a light-reflecting surface, not a light source) came after the plants and fruits and grasses and seeds?

What drove their photosynthetic processes, if there was no sun? Granted, the simple cure-all answer is "God did it, that explains it, that's the end of it" but that's absolutely inverted from the scientific theory of the origins of the universe.

That is what the Young Earth literalist creationists are on about; they think it happened precisely as it is written, in the exact order of Genesis. And of course they have to believe that because if Genesis was wrong about the order of creation, it's not the word of God.

*sigh* Maybe Moses made a typo? Editor's error? Or non-literal interpretation might work...

[rory_20_uk]

Asking which bibile I always find is a good place to start.

Odd that the absolute and irrefutable works of God can have so many different absolute and irrefutable ways of being written, often contradictory.

[Sigurd]

If I could have linked the thread in question I would. Genesis speaks only about the creation of this world and possibly this solar system. I am sounding like a believer aren't I?
The order of things can seem confusing, but I did explain a possible solution.
The entire creation is viewed by Moses with an earthly perspective. The first light in verse 3 is the ignition of the Sun, while the later verses speaks of seasons and earthly motions. The stars, which existed prior to this solar system, become visible when at last the sun has pushed all the dense dust and ice away for them to become visible from this planet. And there is waters in the deep which is uncreated. Check verse 1. You do know what the ancients called Hydrogen?

[Askthepizzaguy]

If I could have linked the thread in question I would. Genesis speaks only about the creation of this world and possibly this solar system. I am sounding like a believer aren't I?
The order of things can seem confusing, but I did explain a possible solution.
The entire creation is viewed by Moses with an earthly perspective. The first light in verse 3 is the ignition of the Sun, while the later verses speaks of seasons and earthly motions. The stars, which existed prior to this solar system, become visible when at last the sun has pushed all the dense dust and ice away for them to become visible from this planet. And there is waters in the deep which is uncreated. Check verse 1. You do know what the ancients called Hydrogen?

Sigurd, you're a wise fellow and a respected friend.

I find that this explanation however, is grasping at straws. There's far, far more in Genesis that doesn't make sense, and even if we create wild theories as to how it does, the criticism is not with people who make the Bible adhere to science, it's people who make science adhere to the Bible. Changing the order of things so that it matches their interpretation of Genesis is entirely unscientific, and they create entire museums dedicated to showing how men walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

That is the real problem. I honestly, honestly don't care about the rationalizations ex post facto making the Bible conform to science. (especially when the Bible is full of supernatural miracles and amazingly, the human species being viable after the first two people had a bunch of male offspring. Not only is that genetically unhealthy, but you really have to wonder where all the women came from, and why they weren't worthy of having a backstory) At that point it is religion, and religions can say whatever they please.

What I care about is when people take a great idea like science, and then take a big poop all over the concept of science by mixing it with religion by making science conform to religious texts even when it's completely wrong to do so. It's not science, it's fairy tales at that point. There's a Biblical explanation, yes.... and a scientific one. Where they are compatible, fine they are. However, there are places where they aren't, and rewriting science to make it seem kosher doesn't make any sense. If science has to conform to the Bible, why have science to begin with? Since everything can be explained by prophets, why bother learning anything else, I wonder?

[Sigurd]

Respect right back at you ATPG.

That was the point I was trying to make last time too. You can't really use anything in the bible as "evidence" for reality. The creationists use Genisis as basis for their arguments against what they call Darwinism. I used the same record to show that it does in fact conform to the last scientific theory we have on the origin of our solar system. Some believers evem aplauded it. And some non believers got offended. It was a typical exercise in what is commonly kmown as the Aquinqas fallacy. Which you incidently descibe in your last paragraph. They forget that religion is more about faith than evidence and that religion and science never mix well.
The Bible does not support creatio ex nihilo. Nor does it support a metaphysical deity or a young earth theory. And as you pointed out, it does not really support an orgin of man with Adam, Eve and Cain. Abel was slain, remember? besides, Cain was cursed.

[Che Roriniho]

For someone who loves pointing out logical fallacies...

Since you like logic...

"The past controls the present and future.
You can't control the past.
Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future.
So, you can't control the present and future."

So, how did you choose to be an atheist?



Btw, do you think saying "99% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused in part by man" to be a rational argument?

I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.

And even if I did, then as I said, it would be through reason:

People say that god exists.
God is against Nature (Natural sciences)
People are Nature
Therefore is against people, and therefore irrational.

Not brilliant, I know, but I'm tired so can't becopulated to make anything more advanced.

The human mind has remarkable decision makin properties, and the decision (or not, see above) to become an athiest is because of the frankly utterly ridiculus ideas from the other side.

Let me get this right: You think that there is a Jewish deity-figure who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 cents about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.


And while that argument could not be used as an argument in itself (argumentam ad numerum and argumentum ad verecundiam), it COULD be used in argument, provided that was not the only evidence submitted, and that the evidence given justifies the use of a line. On it's own, however,it is insubmittable.

Asking which bibile I always find is a good place to start.

Odd that the absolute and irrefutable works of God can have so many different absolute and irrefutable ways of being written, often contradictory.

My thoughts exactly. If we accept the King James version, then we must asume that James I was a messiah. Otherwise, how could he translate it from latin perfectly, and still contain the word of god?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.

Let me get this right: You think that there is a cosmic Jewish Zombie who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 faeces about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.

I've always been an atheist...I'm not arguing for the existence of god. For all we know, if one did exist, he'd send all the atheists to heaven and the religious people to hell

But I think taking a holier-than-thou attitude towards all religious people paints them with too broad a brush. First I would say it's hypocritical.

If you go back 200 years you see that the people then believed all sorts of silly things, yes? So why would you assume that 200 years from now people won't be laughing at your beliefs? Also, most people are atheist because of their upbringing. Either their parents were atheists or they were overbearingly religious.

Secondly, you can't simply say "that which is rational and logical is better that the irrational and illogical". Humans are naturally irrational--it is essential for our mental well being.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Humans are naturally irrational--it is essential for our mental well being.

DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. HTTP 404. REJECTING PARADOXICAL STATEMENT. PURGING MEMORY FILES. PURG-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Image loaded. Systems shutting down. Admiring mystical bovine. Absorbing zen qualities. Purging desire and the Self. Attaining Nirvana.





Adding patriotic symbolism for good measure.

[Che Roriniho]

DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. HTTP 404. REJECTING PARADOXICAL STATEMENT. PURGING MEMORY FILES. PURG-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Image loaded. Systems shutting down. Admiring mystical bovine. Absorbing zen qualities. Purging desire and the Self. Attaining Nirvana.





Adding patriotic symbolism for good measure.

Now THIS is a guy you should pray to.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Prayers are fine, but I prefer cash.

[Che Roriniho]

Prayers are fine, but I prefer cash.

How about virgins Blood?

[Askthepizzaguy]

How about virgins Blood?

I drink a nice cold glass of it every day. Keeps my hair shiny and manageable.