Evolution and Creationism

[Ummon]

Originally Posted by Darth Wong

And for the umpteenth time, if it can conceptualize it as an abstract mathematical concept, that's good enough. Plenty of things cannot be directly visualized. Quantum mechanics for example, or length/time dilation at relativistic speeds. But that does not exclude them from human analysis or consideration; we have developed the ability to think in abstract terms.

This is a pseudo-conflict. I have acknowledged that mathematics is a valid method. It is, simply, artificial and not natural (being a product of human intelligence).

Originally Posted by Darth Wong

Why? The topic is creationism vs evolution. I see no reason to accept that you should be making arguments which are totally irrelevant to that.

My argument is, we might say, simply an objection to a corollary statement.

Originally Posted by Darth Wong

No, I'm saying that there is no evidence that God exists, therefore the idea is of absolutely no scientific value whatsoever and can be ignored in any evolution vs creation discussion.

Which is of course true. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that the argument had deviated a bit on the lines of the nonexistence of God.

Originally Posted by Darth Wong

We have enough characteristics to know that no candidates are observable.

The fact that you personally refuse to recognize the principle of parsimony in logic does not erase it from the textbooks.

I do not refuse it, but who knows if logics is applicable to this item (God)? From the point of view of evolutionism vs. creationism, though it surely is: that is why creationism and ID are not scientific theories.

[Louis XI]

Faith is just the denial of reason and a quite an easy but invalid attempt of explaining the world phenomena. Science rules, even if man tries to corrupt it reason will still be reason while religion can be entirely changed and faith can be lost. The humans will never lose heart in reason, while religions come and are extinct as political situation, human needs and views of the world change. Religion is much more of an instrument than something that can acceptably explain what happens in the universe and how we were created.

[Ummon]

Faith has nothing to do with world phoenomena, as far as I can tell.

[Louis XI]

"Faith has nothing to do with world phoenomena, as far as I can tell."

Are you serious? Faith can deal with everything and also tries to explain everything that happens or can happen. Do you really know what faith is?

[Ummon]

You perhaps are referring to "faith when used in a brainless way". Infact, faith is not about external objects, but internal ones, and not about certainties, but about doubts. Although I reckon that this is not a very common way to intend it.

[Louis XI]

Faith, IMHO, was ever used as and still means a way of finding conclusions for what happens in the world and in the nature. It always has some sort of "truths" that must be accepted if you want to be a member of a certain religious doctrine, and these truths are inquestionable. There relies the major weakness of faith, because these "truths" probably will be or already have been sucessfully proven false with scientific investigation. This is the case of Creationism (both with Jews, Muslims and Christians), so if God created everything as they are in 4000BC now what about the evidences we have about dinossaurs who lived millions of years ago and about the creation of earth just billions of years ago?

" Infact, faith is not about external objects, but internal ones, and not about certainties, but about doubts. "

So would you say that faith still can be used to explain the doubts we didn't solve with science? This is a very uncommon way of applying it, I don't understand... But certainly saying that imposing truth by faith is brainless is certainly a correct thing, altough it may be only history in the years to come. But what would be faith without imposing truth?

[Darth Wong]

You can have faith in things which are not necessarily anti-scientific. For example, I have faith that my wife is not having sex with the grocery stockboy while I'm at work. It is possible that I am wrong, but it is certainly not the kind of faith which is necessarily opposed to science.

[glorfindel87]

Originally Posted by Darth Wong

Why should we believe that God can just speak a world into existence?

...........Why do you think that question is a good one? God is God is God. If there is a God, he can do whatever he feels like.

Somewhere along the line, you seem to have confused the evolution vs creation debate with a theological debate. It is a scientific debate, not a theological one. If you want to reject all of empirical thought and scientific reasoning, go ahead and do so, but this sort of tiresome attempt to alter the parameters of a scientific debate into a theological debate is of absolutely no value.

Way to go throwing this at me when it was you asking me why God doesn't manifest himself after the "Bible Age".

According to the Bible, God was able to demonstrate his existence outside peoples' own thoughts. If he only "demonstrates" his existence in peoples' heads now, then he is of no more objective value than any other delusion.

Way to go. If you're dead, and haven't written any books/papers, you didn't exist, and the ideas you might have started came from science in the first place. [/quote]

Yes it does; in a few short centuries the modern scientific method has accomplished more to advance the human condition than thousands of years of religion.

Define "advance the human condition". Sure, we live longer and healthier, but are we happier? More content? More peaceful? More loving and kind? I think not.

That's a lie; scientists do, however, know their own fields, unlike the religious people who presume to judge fields of science that they have never studied.

I'm not talking about the "experts" in different fields. They usually care less about these things. It's the "half-scientists" of the world that make real scientists look foolish through association. And believe me, there are many such people.

In case you didn't notice, they're still biologists, so they're still qualified to have an opinion. The fact that he knows more than his colleagues does not mean that they are no longer his peers, or that biology doesn't work because his colleagues offered suggestions. Of all the attempts I've seen to discredit science, this is probably the worst.

........I'm an electrician. A commercial electrician. So, a residential electrician has no business telling me how to do my job. I was not discrediting science, just backing up the "half-scientists thinking they are experts at everthing" thing.

Have you ever bothered speaking to real geologists and biologists, or are you content to believe what creationists say about them? You will never find a geologist who has to rely on biology to establish the age of the Earth, or a biologist who says you have to rely on geology to establish the validity of evolution theory. You're either lying or grossly misinformed.

Or both...... Did I say geology needs biology to know the age of the earth ?? No. And if the theory of evolution is proved in biology alone, then it's news to me.

Last, but not least, despite our other disagreements...........SITHS RULE!!!

[chimera1715]

Originally Posted by glorfindel87

Define "advance the human condition". Sure, we live longer and healthier, but are we happier? More content? More peaceful? More loving and kind? I think not.

I am so sick of people proclaiming that in our modern world people are less kind, loving, content or peaceful. Besides your own opinion, can you provide any real proof of your statement. You really need to study history if you think we live in a violent age where everyone is spirtually bankrupt. Take a great spirtual age such as the High Middle Ages. According to your logic even though 90% of all people in Europe were feudal serfs or peasents who lived miserable short lives, well at least they were spiritually content right? Wrong. They might have in their own way been somewhat content, but that is only because of their profound ignorance and acceptance of their lowly and thankless position in society.

When studing history people tend to forget that while a select few historical individuals (usually part of some kind of ruling elite) are making history, the vast amount of the human population is poor agricultural peasents who have no hope of upward mobility or of living a long life. Thus it is easy to proclaim that some time period was more spirutal and happy, but in reality you are only talking about the people who were noticed and studied during this time period. (ex. the clerical, economic, and ruling elite.) Only in the last 120 years or so have we truly broken out of this societal structure.

And nations are much more peaceful today than ever. Can you name a time in history when there were international institutions to which nation states could debate and air grievences in a common forum. Where the most powerful states (the liberal democracies) enjoy an almost guaranted peace simply due to the nature of their common economic and political systems. Of course there is still conflict and war in our world, but can you really say that it is worse now than it was in the past, when ideas like human-rights and protection of minorities didnt even exist, let alone as major policies of nation-states.

[Nicanor of Sparta]

This is asinine. It's like arguing over whether the earth is flat or not. Proof of evolution? Besides pointing to traditional fossil forms or DNA polymorphisms or tonsils or domesticated animals or gene sequences or male nipples or common sense, I guess the creationists have it. The reason scientists don't stand up to defend evolution is because it's not even up for debate. It's laughable.

Lest we forget flu virus vacines. Every year the virus mutates, meaning we need to make a new vacine formula. While the mutation is only part of the evolutionary process, it's proof enough for even the simplest minded person that it's at least plausible. Maybe if people had to agree in writting to evolution before they got a flu shot we wouldn't be so short every year...

[viteLius]

Originally Posted by Ummon

This is a pseudo-conflict. I have acknowledged that mathematics is a valid method. It is, simply, artificial and not natural (being a product of human intelligence).

Are you saying that mathematics is unnatural? Maths is very much natural. Everywhere in the universe, 2+2 equals 4, for example. It is the only universal language.

[Tom Paine]

But it doesn't, because 2+2 includes three human ideas; 2, and plus. and the answer, 4, is human as well.

[viteLius]

Yes, but I don't mean the signs and the symbols, I mean the physical reality. When you add a couple of somethings (2) to another couple (2) you have 4 things. When you have 2 physical objects e.g. planets and another 2 planets nearby, then there is 4 planets in the sample group, not 3 or 5, Only 4.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus

But it doesn't, because 2+2 includes three human ideas; 2, and plus. and the answer, 4, is human as well.

In English, two plus two is four. In German, zwei und zwei ist vier. The words are different, but the message is the same, and stays the same throughout the universe, in any number system, anywhere.

[Rolanbek]

You been everywhere?

2+2 = 4 makes certain assumptions of the value of 2 and its relationship with 4.

For example you assume that you are counting in base 10, you assume that every culture uses linear intervals rather than geometric.

You further assume that everywhere uses the same analogous methods.

Anyway why is this here? Evolution won fall by two falls and a submission several pages back.

R
(hanging on but not by much)

[Lee1026]

Folks, 2+2 does not have to be 4. Ever taken linear algebra? Different vector spaces have different rules.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Rolanbek

(hanging on but not by much)

Just came back for fun, and all I have to say is that evolution have "won" about 1000 times in that topic, and that I was pretty tired of arguing just to repeat the arguments for people who had not read previous pages. For anyone who wants to argue, read the... 10 first pages and you will probably have a good summary of the whole hundreds of pages...

[O'brien the Protector]

amen brother

[Talbaz]

didn't know if you guyz knew but there have been recent findings that fish and such weren't the first animals to walk on land the giant sea scorpion with a primitive lungish like structure( it absorb oxygen though is skin and processor though a organ)was the first animal to walk on land insects win again darn them. If you want to know what one of this look like it basically a 3 to 5 ft long scorpion (modern outer appearances haven’t change all that much such gotten smaller). Also there was a time in earth history were there more Oxygen in the air because there was a crap load of plant (that coal belt yeah that’s them right there) and this lead to the redevelopment of bigger insects but thx again to the highly viotile natural of oxygen rich enviros and a good amount of volcanism near the end of this time everything dried up give rise to the first reptile domination of Crouse the continue of the this drying ended up kill off the first big guyz and then it kinda of started all over again.(dinos come in about here and you know the rest)

also knowing people don’t like being sad to evolve from a common ape ancestor gotta question can we go back and little bit and say we and all mammals evolve from a common ratish like ancestor I think that **** people off more

[glorfindel87]

Originally Posted by chimera1715

I am so sick of people proclaiming that in our modern world people are less kind, loving, content or peaceful. Besides your own opinion, can you provide any real proof of your statement. You really need to study history if you think we live in a violent age where everyone is spirtually bankrupt. Take a great spirtual age such as the High Middle Ages. According to your logic even though 90% of all people in Europe were feudal serfs or peasents who lived miserable short lives, well at least they were spiritually content right? Wrong. They might have in their own way been somewhat content, but that is only because of their profound ignorance and acceptance of their lowly and thankless position in society.

You yourself are forgetting the rest of the world at this present time. Please explain to me how the starving millions in Africa and Asia are more content and happy than before. You are also confusing "prosperity" with pure human character. Sure, American's are probably happier now than 200 years ago, but only because we have gotten more porsperous, not from some magic, science-based character change. Happiness is almost directly linked to the individual's success. You only have to look around to realize that the character of the individual has not changed in thousands of years. No, we are not worse than before, but we also are certainly not any better.

When studing history people tend to forget that while a select few historical individuals (usually part of some kind of ruling elite) are making history, the vast amount of the human population is poor agricultural peasents who have no hope of upward mobility or of living a long life. Thus it is easy to proclaim that some time period was more spirutal and happy, but in reality you are only talking about the people who were noticed and studied during this time period. (ex. the clerical, economic, and ruling elite.) Only in the last 120 years or so have we truly broken out of this societal structure.

And you also are only looking at the "ruling class" existing today. How is the average, poor, ignorant construction worker any different than the average, poor, igonorant peasant 500 years ago? Both live from day to day, not really caring, both rely on alchohol and drugs to ease the pain of their life, and both are not happy. Sure, there are less of these people than before, but only because we are a more prosperous country than before, not because people somehow got better.
[/quote]