Results 1 to 30 of 387

Thread: Evolution v Creationism

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,830

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Askthepizzaguy; 05-02-2009 at 11:22.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  2. #2

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    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: 
    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.

  3. #3
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Rhyfelwyr; 05-02-2009 at 10:55.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  4. #4
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,830

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    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.
    Perhaps he was saying that. I honestly got lost somewhere in the middle of it all. Maybe you could translate for me.

    Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong.
    Or, perhaps not.

    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.
    Where was I attacking Christianity?

    Even if I were, if Christianity is allowed to attack that which it disagrees with (i.e. condemning people to hell for not accepting Jesus) I can criticize it all day long under the rules of a fair argument and, by the way, freedom of speech.

    And I would be delighted to tell you how I really feel about religion. I've been pulling my punches to be civil and productive...


    Quote Originally Posted by InsaneApache
    Excellent post ATPG.
    Many thanks! Sometimes I get drowned in posts from my critics, I almost forget some people agree with me on stuff. The support is much appreciated.
    Last edited by Askthepizzaguy; 05-02-2009 at 11:21.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  5. #5
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    ATPG your contributions are always very good and well thought out, but you do have a tendency to attack religions when it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What was the point with the bit in spoilers in your main post here? Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread, and while there is nothing wrong with attacking Christianity, it has a time and a place.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  6. #6
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,830

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    ATPG your contributions are always very good and well thought out, but you do have a tendency to attack religions when it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What was the point with the bit in spoilers in your main post here? Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread, and while there is nothing wrong with attacking Christianity, it has a time and a place.
    The point was obviously to highlight the many unsupported assumptions one must make when accepting as fact a religion's teachings. You not only must believe there is a God, but his name is Joe (Jehovah) and he sleeps only on Sundays, and he's really nice unless you believe he didn't kill his own son, in which case he burns you forever and ever, while being infinitely merciful. Look, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that it's right or wrong to BELIEVE it is true, but it is wrong to state it like it's a known and proven fact. It's belief, not knowledge, by the definitions of both.

    A long string of increasingly strange assumptions, wild and counter-intuitive ones... hey, maybe it is the truth! Maybe the universe does exist precisely as your interpretation of a religion says it does! That's one heck of a lottery winning. I don't dispute that it could be true. I dispute that it's an established fact, and it most certainly isn't knowledge. For it to be knowledge you believe it to be true, and it has to be true, and there should be some neutral way of using evidence to prove it to be true. For example, I can prove using evidence what my actual name is. I can't prove using actual evidence that God's name is Jehovah. One Bible says "Jehovah" another calls him "Allah". He's got many names, apparently. In many languages. It's not an attack on Christianity to point out that it has unsupported assumptions to a much larger degree than what we call science. It's a fact, and facts are usually quite neutral things.

    If I say my name is Daniel and you say it is not, I wouldn't get angry, I'd use facts to prove it. If you say God's name is Jehovah and I say that you can't know that, you could use facts to prove it; but there aren't any facts about God. That's why it's not knowledge, it's belief.

    It's not an attack; it's reality.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread
    PS- not in this thread, no. In others, yes. It doesn't disappear. You can condemn people to hell in one thread, but you cannot get mad at a criticism of religion in another, which discusses the difference between religion and science, which involves pointing out the unfounded assumptions of a particular religion as an example. One is a bit more hurtful than the other, might I add, but that's beside the point. I'm a big boy and I can handle whatever God dishes out as punishment for using the free will, critical mind, and independent spirit that he GAVE me as a gift and then expected me not to use.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  7. #7
    Clan Clan InsaneApache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Grand Duchy of Yorkshire
    Posts
    8,636

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Excellent post ATPG.
    There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.

    “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

    To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.

    "The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."

  8. #8
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post
    "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."
    The problem is that so much there is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem with people attacking the idea of Christianity, but if they want to go into specifics then they should get it right.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  9. #9
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,830

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    The problem is that so much there is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem with people attacking the idea of Christianity, but if they want to go into specifics then they should get it right.
    Perhaps there is hyperbole in there, but so far as I'm aware most of it is correct. However, if you'll agree to the definition of knowledge and belief as found in a mutually agreed upon dictionary, I'll agree that the teachings of your religion are precisely what it says in your Bible and no one else's, and especially not what they teach to children or to people who attend church.

    Also, we're now quibbling over the specifics of a religion, but you don't deny that the religion's teachings are a long series of assumptions which aren't supported by fact in the way science does. So you concede that it was a relevant example, even if some data was flawed. I'll use the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box religion next time as an example, to avoid confusion, misinterpretation, or offending anyone's sensibilities.

    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  10. #10
    Clan Clan InsaneApache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Grand Duchy of Yorkshire
    Posts
    8,636

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.
    There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.

    “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

    To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.

    "The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."

  11. #11
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,830

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by InsaneApache View Post
    I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.
    To be honest, I find much of what the religion teaches to be of value to people of that era. Some of it not so much.

    These days we have education, philosophy, freedom of religion, ethics, law... many things which fill in the goal of a church or especially a state sponsored church. And I say people can believe in the ramblings of a man from thousands of years ago... some philosophers who lived around the time of classical Greece were valuable thinkers, some men were saintly, some men held belief but also made logical sense and contributed positively. People can also freely choose to join the church of Scientology if they want, or start their own religion. Doesn't bother me; just don't call it "knowledge" and speak as if you know something the rest of us do not, because you can't. You don't have access to something the rest of us do not unless you're claiming to actually BE God or Godlike. In which case, a simple demonstration of your power would convince me. Cure all the world's diseases in the next 24 hours.

    I am timing you. And...... go!
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  12. #12
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by InsaneApache View Post
    I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.
    Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  13. #13
    Clan Clan InsaneApache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Grand Duchy of Yorkshire
    Posts
    8,636

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?
    My view is brainwashing.
    There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.

    “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

    To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.

    "The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."

  14. #14
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by InsaneApache View Post
    My view is brainwashing.
    So I brainwashed myself?
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  15. #15
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    ATPG>>> I applaud your first post...

    ajaxfetish>>>
    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.
    Yes AND no. "Rely" is the wrong word to use. If we would all one day wake up and realise that we are all someones imagination then science could deal with it. Again, science is neutral. Change the facts and science will change with it.

    religion however is static, why else would religion have fought against science so hard?

    There is some assumptions such as: "I think, therefor I exist". These are NOT universal TRUTHS, but something we can universably agree on. Religions assumptions is something the world as a whole can NOT agree on. No matter what religion you choose you will always belong to a minority.

    So to compare the basic assumptions of religion and science is not doable. And they are def not on an equal footing.

    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?
    Where did you get that from? You might want to re-read what I had written.

    My point was: religion is based on faith *am I repeating myself, I think I am*. If you want a scientific debate, you will have to leave faith out of it.

    We can either have a discussion where you base your arguments on a faith in god, and I base my arguments on the belief in a invisible pink unicorn... Or we can decide to leave faith out of the debate and instead back our arguments up with scientific arguments.


    Rhyfelwyr>>>
    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.
    Science can never prove that a faith is wrong. And since creationism is based on faith, science can't prove it wrong. Science can only adress the scientifical claims creationism makes, however, science can never attack the foundation of creationism (and have no intent on doing it either).

    If some people want to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, or in God, or Allah, or Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box and so on, fine... Science has nothing against it! In fact, very many scientists belong to one religion or another.

    Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?
    Who cares? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

  16. #16
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    I didn't get shot into an acidy hole, beat out 100 million look alikes, force my way into an egg and lose my tail to get shot out of said hole and then immedaitly worry about the meaning of life and why we are here. I'm going to secs and booze have fun playing Plato.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post

    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.
    No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

  18. #18
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?
    Such as?

    "there is a creator?"... or?

  19. #19
    Master of useless knowledge Senior Member Kitten Shooting Champion, Eskiv Champion Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,902

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?
    And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.

    And they are also often forgetting the most important thing to remember about science: Most hypothesies will be wrong and are always incomplete (due to not being sure about ever reaching THE correct answer), thus you can find flaws in the theories. But usually it's a modification that's needed and not the complete rewriting that creationists wants to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post

    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.
    Personally, it makes perfect sence. It is how life acts: It always tries to adapt, no matter how the deck is stacked (the genes). So rapid changes gives rapid adaptation. There's also some quite fresh research about the expression of genes, that's very influencial and flexible. Shows signs of Lamackism for example. Wouldn't surprice me if that's a major part of the development of new species.
    We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

    Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
    Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
    TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

  20. #20
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironside View Post
    And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.
    Yes! The best way to proceed against creationism is to show that its claims have certainly been put to the test and falsified.

    For example, young earth creationism's claim on the age of the earth has not held up very well against the testing. Is this not more convincing then saying creationism is not testable and occupies a whole other division than science?

  21. #21
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    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.
    No this is indeed part of my position.

    My interest at this point is about the demarcation from science from creationism, the problems that exist with certain criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?
    Exactly!

    This whole discussion isn't about the correctness of the assumptions anyway, I merely pointed the metaphysical assumptions of naturalism and realism to make the point that when a system (I hesitate to say theory because I must speak of creationism here and some people get mighty riled up about that) is said to be testable and falsifiable, it is NOT speaking about the testability and falsifiability of the metaphysical assumptions it rests on.

    This is why I haven't bothered to address Kadagar anymore, who I think sees me as some sort of creationist and believes I am using the bible when I haven't even so much as referenced it until now.

    Or Askthepizzaguy who despite noting my denials of things attributed to me sees my position as some kind of radical skepticism and makes me out as having the claim that science and religion are the same because neither can be proven.

  22. #22
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    reenk roink,

    A) Do you agree that creationism as a model totally fails if you remove god from it?

    B) Do you agree that the idea of a god is un-testable and a matter of own belief?

    Simple yes/no answers is quite ok :)

  23. #23

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
    reenk roink,

    A) Do you agree that creationism as a model totally fails if you remove god from it?

    B) Do you agree that the idea of a god is un-testable and a matter of own belief?

    Simple yes/no answers is quite ok :)
    Kadagar, how carefully have you read the thread?

    Simple answer on a scale of 1 to 10 3 is quite ok :)

  24. #24
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Evolution v Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    Kadagar, how carefully have you read the thread?

    Simple answer on a scale of 1 to 10 3 is quite ok :)
    I fail to see your point?


    Rhyfelwyr, are you american?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO