Evolution v Creationism

[Sigurd]

Well I agree you don't have to believe the earth is just 6,000 years, I don't believe that anyway. But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.

I know you said that you should be wary of "private interpretations", but I would then ask; What authority do you need to make correct interpretations? Is there a correct interpretation? And why does 35 000 Christian denominations claim they have the correct interpretation? And finally, which one of them is right?
Your "God made many humans beside Adam and Eve out of dust" is not Biblical and is perhaps a private interpretation or a workaround on the question of how the human race came from Adam and Eve and their incestuous children?

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

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

That link had some interesting points. The lactose intolerance point especially. Is it true that the common trait for Homo Sapiens is to be lactose intolerant? Does that mean we in the north are a separate species? If so what to call us: Homo Sapien lactivorous ?

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.

I did read it, but couldn't find anything that refutes my point on the hundred year old practice of using physical similarities as proof of descent.
The DNA thing is becoming more promising as they are doing advances in that area. But they aren't there yet. You know I am an agnostic and like to jump of the fence now and then to stir the pot so to speak, especially on topics like these. The Cars, in case anyone still wonders, can't have offspring and are all created by a creator. I am not saying that I discard evolution and uphold the Creationist view. I made the analogy to illustrate my point of similarity does not prove descent.

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.

A debate between me and ATPG would result in walls of text and me crying : Argumentum Verbosium, Argumentum ad Plurium interrogationum and Argumentum ad Nauseam before my head exploded.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

You got to be kidding?

So basicly, we'd have to accept anyones truth as, well, the truth?

The freaky guy who is sure that aliens visit us, and they use anal probes... We have to take him seriosly as "he knows it is so".

You want a society where any idiot can claim something is true, and then it is the truth?

If not, why don't we stick to science, where we test stuff, and repeat the tests, and so on...

Again, I sincerely hope your post was a joke.

But to answer your question: NO that is not theoretically possible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You got to be kidding?

So basicly, we'd have to accept anyones truth as, well, the truth?

The freaky guy who is sure that aliens visit us, and they use anal probes... We have to take him seriosly as "he knows it is so".

You want a society where any idiot can claim something is true, and then it is the truth?

If not, why don't we stick to science, where we test stuff, and repeat the tests, and so on...

Again, I sincerely hope your post was a joke.

But to answer your question: NO that is not theoretically possible.

Well I'm glad you put so much thought into it, obviously the countless discussions on the matter are meaningless because you have the answer.

And no, nobody would have to support anyone making such a claim, because only the person making the claim would know if it was true, and they would be aware that only they could be expected to know that it is true. If someone tells me he has total assurance that aliens visit us, then I say fine go with it, I'll believe it if I am ever granted such knowledge myself.

[CBR]

That link had some interesting points. The lactose intolerance point especially. Is it true that the common trait for Homo Sapiens is to be lactose intolerant? Does that mean we in the north are a separate species? If so what to call us: Homo Sapien lactivorous ?

It appears to be around 75% of the worldwide population so it can be considered a common trait. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerant has a list of specific percentages in different parts of the world. I guess it is such a minor trait that it is not worth thinking in terms of a subspecies.

The DNA thing is becoming more promising as they are doing advances in that area. But they aren't there yet.

Hmm I'd say endogenous retroviruses(ERVs) are pretty good. Of course the die hards can still claim that their god just made it look like evolution was at work.


CBR

[Kadagar_AV]

Well I'm glad you put so much thought into it, obviously the countless discussions on the matter are meaningless because you have the answer.

And no, nobody would have to support anyone making such a claim, because only the person making the claim would know if it was true, and they would be aware that only they could be expected to know that it is true. If someone tells me he has total assurance that aliens visit us, then I say fine go with it, I'll believe it if I am ever granted such knowledge myself.

Exactly, and it's the same with religion.

Fine, go with it, I'll believe it if I am granted such knowledge myself.

Untill then, I'll stick to repeatable scientifical research :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Exactly, and it's the same with religion.

Fine, go with it, I'll believe it if I am granted such knowledge myself.

Untill then, I'll stick to repeatable scientifical research :)

Which nobody argued against.

But remember you came into this thread to tell me that I can never use science to prove my ideas.

[Kadagar_AV]

Which nobody argued against.

But remember you came into this thread to tell me that I can never use science to prove my ideas.

Have you tried?

EDIT: And if you tried, what was the result? And what method did you use?

[Adrian II]

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.

I don't want to debate, I want an answer from Sigurd because I appreciate his views. Sigurd never takes the easy way out and we never needed a moderator to keep us honest. So thanks for the offer. Besides, you'd kill us with your jokes and charades before we got to round three. You're quite an asset to this forum, Pizzameister.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Have you tried?

EDIT: And if you tried, what was the result? And what method did you use?

Personally, no. But then neither have most poeple who believe we evolved from ape-like creatures (or is it lemurs now?), they just accept what scientists tell them and then say OMG creationist ROFL.

Earlier on, you were arguing I have no right to try since I would be going into the study with presuppositions, and if I did I should be ignored.

[Kadagar_AV]

Personally, no. But then neither have most poeple who believe we evolved from ape-like creatures (or is it lemurs now?), they just accept what scientists tell them and then say OMG creationist ROFL.

Earlier on, you were arguing I have no right to try since I would be going into the study with presuppositions, and if I did I should be ignored.

Again: Repeatable and testable facts. That is why I believe science, oh, and of course because it makes logical sence.

You are more than welcome to have presuppositions, just try to leave them behind if you'r into science, mmmkay?

Did I just repeat what was said on page one and two? I think I did...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Again: Repeatable and testable facts. That is why I believe science, oh, and of course because it makes logical sence.

That's fine, but until people start doing it themselves and not just believing what they are told they should not be calling everyone else stupid.

You are more than welcome to have presuppositions, just try to leave them behind if you'r into science, mmmkay?

Did I just repeat what was said on page one and two? I think I did...

Why? Reenk Roink did a good job explaining why there's nothing wrong doing science with presuppositions.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's fine, but until people start doing it themselves and not just believing what they are told they should not be calling everyone else stupid.

Oh, but that's the great thing about sciende you know... You dont have to go by your own judgement, that is, if you accept the scientifical method.

Why? Reenk Roink did a good job explaining why there's nothing wrong doing science with presuppositions.

Of course, you have presuppositions whatever you do. You will however have to be objective.

Anyway, have you understood yet that creationism = requires faith and evolution = science?

[Che Roriniho]

Man, do people still argue against science? What idiots, frankly.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh, it's only been 150 years since Darwin... We know the church needs more time than that to adapt ...

Look at Galileo who got excommunicated... They "undid" his excommunication some hundred years later, when it was found ridiculous to still try and prove him wrong.

I wonder how that worked in effect, he popped up from hell and got into heaven, hm?

[LittleGrizzly]

That's fine, but until people start doing it themselves and not just believing what they are told they should not be calling everyone else stupid.

On those grounds you will have to stop using the word stupid... holocaust deniers can no longer be called stupid, except by those who saw it themselves because as far as the rest of the world knows... the holocaust deniers are right...

Edit: obviously the holocaust deniers are both stupid and wrong...

Or perhaps for a less contraversial one how about calling people stupid for thier lack of geographical knowledge... I can tell you Spain is below france (or perhaps i should say south of france) and any european adult who didn't know this would probably be thought of as stupid... but how many people have walked south through france to make sure... i certainly haven't...

[Rhyfelwyr]

@LG: I'm not suggesting that I'm just saying it's not very nice when people who don't know anything about a subject call other people stupid, because the majority of people agree with them, or an opinion is widely accepted. That's like some ignorant religious guy in the 16th Century calling someone stupid for being an atheist, even if they never thought about the possibility of God not existing themselves. In your example about Spain, the igorant person accepts that the majority are right but that he just doesn't know the answer.

Look at Galileo who got excommunicated... They "undid" his excommunication some hundred years later, when it was found ridiculous to still try and prove him wrong.

I wonder how that worked in effect, he popped up from hell and got into heaven, hm?

FAIL.

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

[Kadagar_AV]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

One was a result of the other, no?

[Rhyfelwyr]

One was a result of the other, no?

He didn't have to start attacking the Pope. Want to make a scientific discovery, fine. Want to be a Catholic and disrepect the Pope... obviously you can't stay in such a church. So now atheists like to use their misunderstanding of this to spread stuff about religioun causing backwardness or whatever.

[Adrian II]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

What nonsense is that? Jezus, can't I turn my back on an evolution thread for a couple hours without somebody starting to talk out of his lower dorsal aperture?

"I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords, Cardinals, General Inquisitors of the Universal Christian Republic against heretical depravity having before my eyes the Holy Gospels which I touch with my own hands, swear, that I have always believed, and, with the help of God, will in future believe, every article which the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome holds, teaches, and preaches.....Because it has been signified to me that the said doctrine that I held is repugnant to the Holy Scriptures.

Namely that, I held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and is movable. I am willing to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of every Catholic Christian, this vehement suspicion rightly entertained towards me, therefore, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the said Holy Catholic Church;...."

[Banquo's Ghost]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

One was a result of the other, no?

Actually chaps, Galileo was not excommunicated at all. He was denounced for heresy and recanted, whereupon he was imprisoned under house arrest.

Interestingly (since it got brought up) the Papacy was using the same Biblical authority to which creationists appeal in order to shut Galileo up. In spite of observational evidence, scripture (astonishingly, depending on translation) states that the earth does not move.

Why then does heliocentrism get a free pass where evolution does not?

EDIT: Adrian gets there first again!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Which is all after he had to go causing controversy.

Really religion wasn't so oppressive as you want it to be. We have this idea nowadays that in the past if you spoke out against the church/general religious norms of the day, then everyone would be jumping in to cut his head off.

It's making the exact same mistake people do with Islam nowadays, saying it is completely anti-progress/whatever, without looking at the bigger picture or taking other factors into account. Most of the time you'll see their bark is worse than their bite.

[Adrian II]

Which is all after he had to go causing controversy telling the truth about his observations.

Fixed it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Pope had allowed Galileo to discuss his ideas for years, in fact he even gave his approval (the RCC was never big on literal readings of the Bible anyway as we know), it was only when Galileo deliberately misattributed something the Pope said to somebody else that he ended up on trial for heresy.

[Kadagar_AV]

Banquo's Ghost, you are right, he was found "vehemently suspect of heresy". My point, however, remains. Doesn't it?



Rhyfelwyr,

He didn't have to start attacking the Pope.

Oh, he attacked the pope? How stupid of me, here I thought he was presenting scientific research.

And I do find it humorous that you refer to the bigger picture. What have you learnt about religion vs science browsing through this thread, in reference to the bigger picture that is.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh, he attacked the pope? How stupid of me, here I thought he was presenting scientific research.

Not much to do with religion really. So his theories disagree with the scripture, note how nobody cares and he goes about his business for years. But then he starts writing lies about what the most important man in the world said... yeah power politics and all and disguised in the name of religion he gets made to apologise for heresy.

And I do find it humorous that you refer to the bigger picture. What have you learnt about religion vs science browsing through this thread, in reference to the bigger picture that is.

The bigger picture being that you keep blaming things on religion as if religion is one big bad thing and you never stop to think.. hey, maybe the Pope was really just keeping himself in power, because if you look at the situation its not really about religion. Just like with Islam nowadays... people say its all killings and bombings but any sane person will look at all the cultural baggage etc and only then can it make sense.

[Adrian II]

The Pope had allowed Galileo to discuss his ideas for years, in fact he even gave his approval (the RCC was never big on literal readings of the Bible anyway as we know), it was only when Galileo deliberately misattributed something the Pope said to somebody else that he ended up on trial for heresy.

G. was sanctioned for his heliocentrist views, not his satirical Dialogo.

He was lucky he wasn't murdered like Giordano Bruno.

[Rhyfelwyr]

G. was sanctioned for his heliocentrist views, not his satirical Dialogo.

He was lucky he wasn't murdered like Giordano Bruno.

Again, power politics. The whole heliocentric/geocentric debate wasn't a case of poor genius scientist being oppressed by big nasty religious institution. The conflict was well rooted within the Papacy, for that reason the Pope was happy so long as Galileo kept his ideas away from the church, which is not that unreasonable.

In the end the only way the Pope could appear to justly sanction Galileo was on religious grounds, but the reality is pretty clear, I'm sure it was at the time as well.

[Adrian II]

The conflict was well rooted within the Papacy, for that reason the Pope was happy so long as Galileo kept his ideas away from the church, which is not that unreasonable.

Not unreasonable?

It would have been reasonable if the Church had kept away from Galeleo Galilei. But they had pestered him since 1615, threatened him with torture and death like they had imposed on Giordano Bruno only thiry-odd years before.

It was power politics indeed, the weight of the institution was cast against an individual at the cost of science, conscience and freedom of expression. How profoundly silly to try and blame that charade on Galileo instead of on the kangaroos, and this nearly four hundred years after the fact.

Phooy!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not unreasonable?

It would have been reasonable if the Church had kept away from Galeleo Galilei. But they had pestered him since 1615, threatened him with torture and death like they had imposed on Giordano Bruno only thiry-odd years before.

It was power politics indeed, the weight of the institution was cast against an individual at the cost of science, conscience and freedom of expression. How profoundly silly to try and blame that charade on Galileo instead of on the kangaroos, and this nearly four hundred years after the fact.

Phooy!

I'm not blaming it on Galileo (though he didn't exactly help himself), I'm just saying you can't blame it one the apparently singular evil entity that is religion. It's just power politics, just like when Hitler banned Darwin's works (yes you're getting a Godwin), or when any authoritarian institution bans stuff that threatens its authority.

A reason to moan about religion? I don't think so. You have to look at what was really going on (and you know there's something else going on when I'm defending the Catholic Church )

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhyfelwyr, I was not refering to Galileo and the pope, but creationism and evolution... What the therad was about, remember?