Evolution vs. Creationism: A Never-Ending Debate

[Dave]

Shark, I agree with 1, 2 and 3, but 4?

How can you say Creationlism doesn't exist with certainly?
You could have been lied to by all those books you read.

 

[Shark]

There are thousands of members here - surely some will sound like others.

With that said - claims can absolutely be proven. You are mistaken.

Below you define a fact.

A fact is something that has been proven.

Thus if X is a fact (by said definition) than X is proven.

It is that simple.

Evolution meets the requirements of the definition of fact - and thus it is proven.

Originally posted by Another God
Shark does sound an aweful lot like PhysicsRocks88...

Whatever.

Um, Nothing can be proven. A fact, is: Quoting Stephen J Gould:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

In other words, it is not Proven, it is not absolutely certain...it is provisionally accepted as true, because it is unreasonable not to.



"We know nothing other than the things that we know we don't know. And we could even be wrong about them."
-me

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Shark
AG - Exactly. I am with you all the way. This maximus character obviously has some sort of issue. And so does Cube.

dismissing someone else's ideas as "obviously wrong" is a very convenient way to get through life. here, we listen to each other and try to help everybody. you are being needlessly rude and egotistical. i find it a strange coincidence that you are showing up in this thread after the departure of another jerk, physicsrocks88. maybe you two are one and the same.

personally, I'm ****ing tired of dealing with assholes, pardon my french.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Shark
4. In is indisputable that someone who accepts the claim of creationism and has the same knowledge available to them, is surely much less knowledgeable (and probably less intelligent) than someone who accepts the claim of the (proven theory of) evolution.

I don't believe this at all.
I believe that they have just been brainwashed with an entirely different metaphysical world view to the metaphysical worldview that we have all been brainwashed with.

Of course there is a chance that our stance is entirely rational and theirs isn't...but nothing is certain.

"facts" are only our subjective interpretations of the world... And our subjectivity is known to be very very wrong. We have to accept this.

"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable."

Hmmm...two TOOL quotings in one day. This is good...

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Dave
Shark, I agree with 1, 2 and 3, but 4?

How can you say Creationlism doesn't exist with certainly?
You could have been lied to by all those books you read.

How?

Because evolution has been proven - and anyone of many evolutionary proofs cannot exist if creationism were true.

Thus creationism is false.

Books I've read?

I have performed research which inadvertently proved evolution myself. Science does not lie.

 

[Shark]

Maximus - You've been put on ignore. It's obvious you contribute nothing here. You can't seem to stand anyone being forward. So you've been dealt with.

AG - Using quotes is not an intelligent way to communicate. One could quote any number of idiots. Secondly, using quotes from a drugged up band is not a good means to conduct science.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

You guys didn't seriously think I was gone did you?

Oh no, I've been here a while and will continue to be. I do have to go eat you know - I am human!

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Shark
Below you define a fact.

A fact is something that has been proven.

Thus if X is a fact (by said definition) than X is proven.

Well, if you choose that to be the definition of a fact, then we know no facts. Simple.

Equating two words, and then claiming to be in possesion of one, and therefore of the other, doesn't mean you actually have possesion of either.

Definiton: $10 is something which is the same as $10000000
This if I have $10, then I have $10000000
Well, i have $10 in my wallet.. I am a $10000000aire

So what?

personally, I'm ****ing tired of dealing with assholes, pardon my french.

Yeah, i was having fun for a while, but I have a bloody final exam tomorrow on Molecularl Biology of Nucleic Acids that I really should be studying for... I'm out for the day I think.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Shark

I have performed research which inadvertently proved evolution myself.

Please share the details of this research.

Originally posted by Shark
Science does not lie.

I guess not, but your brain might- seen the matrix? Is it not possible your brain is getting information from a source other than your body and if that is a possiblity then maybe everything you know is false.

That's one reason why evolution isn't definately true. I mean it probably is correct. But who knows...

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
You guys didn't seriously think I was gone did you?

Oh no, I've been here a while and will continue to be. I do have to go eat you know - I am human!

LOL, and suddenly "shark" is no longer "Online"

 

[maximus]

that's odd, physicsrocks88 arrived here seconds after shark left.

too bad, you two would get along wonderfully.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Shark
One could quote any number of idiots.

I've proved your theory

 

[maximus]

i repeat my proposal that we simply ignore physicsrocks88 and his alter ego 'shark'. i think we can all see that what little he does add to the discussion is greatly overdone with his rudeness and ego.

(wait, i am perdicting he will relpy to this with something very rude!)

 

[Shark]

So now we've got AG citing drug bands and Dave citing drug movies.

I am here and not signed off. My name doesn't even appear as it's hidden.

If you think I am such a spammer maxium, why in the hell would I need to change my name?

Anyhow - Evolution is proven. There's no refutting that. When a scientific claim is proven using mathamatics, such as evolution, it becomes proven to an even higher degree. And evolution is self-sufficient, nothing can unprove it.

 

[Mulder]

I'm still waiting for (CubeX in particular) to explain why he refuses to believe all the evidence that prooves how old the Earth really is.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Mulder
I'm still waiting for (CubeX in particular) to explain why he refuses to believe all the evidence that prooves how old the Earth really is.

wow, what a touchy thread!
I guess I'll wait for those explanations too before sayng something that adds to this controversy.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you think I am such a spammer maxium, why in the **** would I need to change my name?

Phrased awfully curiously for someone claiming not to be PR88...

I think you're both LogicalAtheist anyways; you have the same bad attitude and the same views about the factual content of science as he did.


In any case, the topic of provability belongs in the philosophy forum, not the religion forum (and certainly not in this thread). You really should go over there if you want to evangelize (unless you wish to cast your faith in science as a religion... in which case it belongs in this forum but still not in this thread).


The main point of this thread was supposed to be a chance for Cube to defend his brand of creationism. That means that use of the Bible is fair game along with observational evidence, with the goal of refining a theory that is both consistent with observation and the Bible.

If you're unable to argue in other belief systems, then pretend you're doing a proof by contradiction and have presumed the idea of creationism is correct and you are working to logically derive a contradiction... with the end goal of proving all useful forms of creationism are contradictory.

If you're unable to do that, then you don't belong in this aspect of the discussion.


The secondary point seemed to be discussing the flaws of evolution, but that also really belongs in a different thread. (in the Other Sciences forum)

 

[maximus]

good news everybody! we can stop worrying about physicsrocks88. greg kicked him out!

 

[Hurkyl]

Should we restart the thread so there isn't 5 pages of junk at the beginning?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Should we restart the thread so there isn't 5 pages of junk at the beginning?

Why? No offense, but the brand of creationism this thread started with is very obviously wrong to anyone who believes the scientific advancements in anyone of a dozen fields.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Zero
Why? No offense, but the brand of creationism this thread started with is very obviously wrong to anyone who believes the scientific advancements in anyone of a dozen fields.

we may realize that, but the author of this thread obviously doesn't. we're trying to promote mutual understanding here, right?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.

error. evolution does not require the sun. sure, life has evolved around it because it is a very abundant source of energy, but if it were to slowly (key word slowly) die, life could evolve to different energy sources. like heat vents under water.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
There is however no overall "goal" to evolution.

Except that evolution is set against the backdrop of the one thing which is constant, "the sun." In which case it would be reasonable to say everything evolves towards or, "aspires to be like," its creator.

And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.

 

[maximus]

i seem to have responded to your reply before you posted it!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that evolution is set against the backdrop of the one thing which is constant, "the sun." In which case it would be reasonable to say everything evolves towards or, "aspires to be like," its creator.

And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.

Sounds nice...but that is a metaphorical way of looking at it that bears little resenblance to reality.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by maximus
we may realize that, but the author of this thread obviously doesn't. we're trying to promote mutual understanding here, right?

No, we are trying to promote understanding of reality! GRRRRRRRR!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
error. evolution does not require the sun. sure, life has evolved around it because it is a very abundant source of energy, but if it were to slowly (key word slowly) die, life could evolve to different energy sources. like heat vents under water.

Oh, you mean the only life that we humans have been able to discover in the entire universe which, began on this very planet which, began with its very relation with the sun?

I think it would be a reasonable assessment to say that life didn't begin on this planet without the sun.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think it would be a reasonable assessment to say that life didn't begin on this planet without the sun.

this is true. but as i said, there are some forms of life which no longer require it. and this is beside the point anyway. Earth is a single example of how life could be structred. (i'm not saying there is an ET here) but it is completely possible that life could evolve without the sun or any star for that matter.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Sounds nice...but that is a metaphorical way of looking at it that bears little resenblance to reality.

Of course it's a metaphor, and yet it's the very metaphor which is necessary, if we wish to give any credence to the possiblity that God exists.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
this is true. but as i said, there are some forms of life which no longer require it. and this is beside the point anyway. Earth is a single example of how life could be structred.

This is not besides the point because it's the only example we have, and if you think about it, it's the only example that really makes any sense. Whereas your only means of countering it is purely speculative. A possibility perhaps, but still there's no evidence? -- i.e., except for the sun which, is all around us.

(i'm not saying there is an ET here) but it is completely possible that life could evolve without the sun or any star for that matter.

And yet isn't it a remote enough idea (being this is the only example we have) that life began on this planet in the first place?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Of course it's a metaphor, and yet it's the very metaphor which is necessary, if we wish to give any credence to the possiblity that God exists.

And why on Earth would we want to tell creative 'lies'(using metaphor) in order to give credence to an idea that has little merit on its own?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And why on Earth would we want to tell creative 'lies'(using metaphor) in order to give credence to an idea that has little merit on its own?

And what is the point of using a metaphor if not to suggest a possible relationship?

If we want physical evidence of a "creator," i.e., to suggest that evolution doesn't occur randomly, by its own accord, then we have it, by means of the sun. And think about it, doesn't life on this planet elvove -- and in a sense "worship" -- the sun?

So perhaps in this sense we can establish that indeed life doesn't evolve randomly and, that it entails a sense of worship towards the sun (its creator). Aren't these two things which need to be maintained if we're going to establish that God exists?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what is the point of using a metaphor if not to suggest a possible relationship?

If we want physical evidence of a "creator," i.e., to suggest that evolution doesn't occur randomly, by its own accord, then we have it, by means of the sun. And think about it, doesn't life on this planet elvove -- and in a sense "worship" -- the sun?

So perhaps in this sense we can establish that indeed life doesn't evolve randomly and, that it entails a sense of worship towards the sun (its creator). Aren't these two things which need to be maintained if we're going to establish that God exists?

Why would we want to establish that a myth is real? For what purpose.

And, anyhow, no one ever said that evolution was random, and we know that chemical processes sometimes need a energy sourse...all that is contained in science, you haven't added anything we didn't already know. You just dress it up in pseudo-poetic ways.

 

[FZ+]

That's a strange idea of worship you have there... By that idea, we are also worshipping...

Power stations
The nuclear strong force
Maxwell's equations
Quantum uncertainty
Butterflies somewhere on the other side of the planet
Cosmic rays
Dark matter
Parents
Society
Marxist socialist doctrine
George Dubya Bush's urine
The mating habits of blue tits
The cruise velocity of African and European swallows
Fermi-Dirac statistics
etc etc

Since in reality there is no such thing as true isolation, and the condition of life and the world we see is affected to some degree by every observable thing that exists. To say that dependency is relevant to worship is to utter erase the significance of worship, as our current state is dependent on the state of everything else in the known universe. By QM.

And I think what you have done is to construct a circular, and hence rather pointless argument.

Except that evolution is set against the backdrop of the one thing which is constant, "the sun."

No. The sun is not constant astronomically speaking, and if you take the time frame where the sun is relatively constant, then plenty of other things are also constant.

In which case it would be reasonable to say everything evolves towards or, "aspires to be like," its creator.

No it isn't. Everything (perhaps all information?) evolves to fit the particular selectional pressure placed on it. The existence of a creator is irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned. Does everything evolve to be a stellar nebula? Or maybe a Big Bang singularity? Plainly, this is nonsense.

And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.

I think you have misunderstood creative here. In the context of evolution, creativity equates to the introduction of random changes. The critical part is that the creativity is not directed by purpose - it is literally the addition of new, random information. The creative power of evolution is dependent on randomness - it is somewhat ironic that if Intelligent Design was true, and evolution had absolute direction, evolution in fact wouldn't work as we observe it to have worked. You get a narrow gene pool quickly, stagnation, lack of adaptability and the whole thing grinds to a halt and gets out-competed by the basically random creatures. Like the tortoise and the hare, where here the hare stops half way and thinks it's "won". Continuous fingers of god don't work, as far as the evidence is concerned.

Anyway, addentum to my popular misconceptions of evolution bit...

12. The attack that evolution is "just" a theory is meaningless. In science, a theory is the best state of existence an idea can have, as science accepts that absolute faith based truth is unreachable. As a neccessity, all science must have the capacity to be falsified, and checked continuously. Compare that with creationism, which is NOT a theory, but a belief system. PR88 is incorrect in saying that creationism cannot be proven because it is false. No ,creationism is unprovable, and undisprovable because of it's nature as a system on faith. Since it is dependent on a lack of attachment to observable reality, it is automatically immune, but as far as knowledge goes, completely meaningless. It's state can only be indeterminate, while evolution has the capacity to adapt. This ingrained skeptical approach is to blame for the extreme success of science.

Evolution is not "just" a theory, it is the best approach simply because it is in fact a theory.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why? No offense, but the brand of creationism this thread started with is very obviously wrong to anyone who believes the scientific advancements in anyone of a dozen fields.

So there aren't 5 pages of junk at the beginning of the thread, that's why.

Anyways, what brand of creationism are you talking about? The original poster has barely gotten to say a single word about it.

Also, see my admonishment of PR88; it's good reading for all.