1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Creationist vs Evolutionist

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Luv_Studd, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. Jacks:Revenge

    Jacks:Revenge ╠╣E╚╚O

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    10,064
    Likes Received:
    216
    I know what you're saying.
    you didn't need to expend as much as you did.

    my only point is that it would be closed-minded to assume that science will never arrive at a place where it has the tools to investigate the "why" in life or other spiritual questions. it seems extremely short-sighted to assume that science could never and should never address certain aspects of reality just because a religious definition of the terms got their first. why can't science arrive their later?

    I would just love for you guys to show me where on the Crystal Ball it says that science will never be able to address those questions...
    the difference between science and any and all dogma is that at least science evolves and can move towards a place where it might one day be able to address the topics it currently cannot. dogma is stagnant and - by it's very nature and inherent claims - immovable, untestable, and without question.
     
  2. cryptophreak

    cryptophreak unbalanced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    60
    I think what Prophet is here saying is that religion is obviously wrong, but it's supposed to be wrong, and so pointing that out isn't clever. The object of religion isn't to establish things which are actually true, it's to provide a framework for thinking within which one feels comfortable, regardless of its relationship to what the universe actually is.

    If that's all it is, I'm content to say that anyone who wants that can have it, and it doesn't bother me. Obviously I'm not interested, but I hope you lot have a great deal of fun.
     
  3. Luv_Studd

    Luv_Studd Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    6
  4. Vaskadar

    Vaskadar It's time I look back from outer space

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    52
    their there their. Why do homonyms get misspelled so frequently?
     
  5. Luv_Studd

    Luv_Studd Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    6
    The problem, which Nye pointed out a few times in the debate, is that that is not all there is to it. There are those who want to change public school curriculum to teach intelligent design along side or instead of evolution. There are those who wish to have prayer back in the classroom, and essentially turn us all back in time to the pre-evolutionary 1800's I suppose. This could, in turn, put America further behind academically in the science/technology realm.
     
  6. ambershee

    ambershee Nimbusfish Rawks

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,519
    Likes Received:
    7
    46% of you are still there, with a further 32% believing that God guides the evolutionary process.

    Wrap your head around how dangerously close that line actually is.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2014
  7. Jackal

    Jackal Crapass

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    57
    Jesus Christ was the devil in disguise. Trust me on this one.
     
  8. Crotale

    Crotale _________________________ _______________

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    12
    My intent is not to make such a claim that science can never answer certain questions, but more to state my opinion that science has no real purview in determining where we as a society should point our moral, ethical or personal compass, nor should religion dictate how we examine the mechanics of our universe. A person need not be an either/or type; it isn't a stretch of reality for anyone to have a deep personal faith and also acknowledge scientific processes/findings on how the universe works. It is up to that individual to deconflict the two apparently opposing forces for himself. To this end, I saw no purpose of this debate other than as a failed publicity stunt.
     
  9. Arcturus

    Arcturus Not From Bloody Starcraft

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,503
    Likes Received:
    13
    No idea why I'm posting this, because these threads never go anywhere good, but I feel as though I should clarify something.

    Agnosticism and atheism are dealing with seperate questions, and aren't mutually exclusive. Atheism/theism refers to belief in gods, whereas agnosticism/gnosticism refers to the knowledge of gods (ie. 'knowing for sure').

    Most intelligent atheists are also agnostics, because they're not asserting that a god definitely doesn't exist at all, but that theists haven't met their burden of proof yet. The default response to the claim of something existing should be skepticism, and if the claims aren't backed up with any evidence, then it's probably a good bet to assume it doesn't exist, while remaining open to the possibility, should some actually compelling evidence arises.

    Not having a go at you Sel, just thought it might be worth putting out there, because the misconception comes up a lot.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2014
  10. DeathBooger

    DeathBooger Malcolm's Sugar Daddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    0
    Our obesity epidemic stems from eating food based on easy profit for corporations and not nutrients. People eat grains like rabid cows yet they don't exercise enough to offset the increased energy consumption. We used to eat mostly processed grains because it was easier to ship long distances due to it's longevity. Now everyone thinks whole grains are super healthy, but it's the same energy packed starchy endosperm with a little bit of fiber and minerals from the included germ and bran. It's not much different than slurping down bottles of corn syrup based soda.

    Sure, there's plenty of evidence of eating too much saturated fat has negative side effects, but that's not why we're a bunch of fat asses. We're fat asses because we eat energy dense foods like we were all marathon runners.
     
  11. Wormbo

    Wormbo Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    5,913
    Likes Received:
    36
    Wow, I just watched that and I could stand Ham speaking for more than 5 minutes, so I had to skip his 30 minutes segment for the sake of my own brain's health.
    All he does is spread inaccurate information about how "historic science" is all about assumptions and thus can't prove anything. When asked how his own "believe" is better than all of modern science, he makes the logical mistake of accepting a collection of stories as fact (with "poetry" thrown in here and there - you can't take the entire Bible as historic facts), even though it's all based on a version that went through multiple levels of translation. Before it was actually written down, the oldest parts were passed on as spoken words. You can't take it as "God's own words".

    That entire show was more like a scientist talking about science and a preacher talking about religion. I mean there was hardly any scientifically correct fact in Ham's intro or anything he said after his 30 minute segment (as mentioned above, I couldn't stand watching that).

    The more I had to struggle to keep watching while Ken Ham was talking, the more I had to honor Bill Nye for entering the lion's den. This entire thing took place in a creationist "museum" and there was probably a good share of creationist fans around. But what bothered me most was this video of a "post-debate show", claiming Nye's very valid arguments were merely clichee and the "usual tricks". In other words:
    [​IMG]

    Bill Nye's fear for the technological lead role of the USA is very valid. His pleading for voters, tax payers and children to be curious and support science may have looked like a desperate attempt to distract, but the things he was "fighting" in that entire show really are most present in the USA, not so much in most other countries. Granted, these believes have significant presence in European countries as well, but they don't prevent schools from teaching real science.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2014
  12. [GU]elmur_fud

    [GU]elmur_fud I have balls of Depleted Uranium

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    31
    That is not what I mean. For example; Lifelong vegetarians are seldom obese, even if they consume the same energy dense foods as the non-vegetarians. Lifestyle activity levels don't seem to have as drastic an impact as in the general meat consuming populace.

    The same hormones used to cause our livestock to bulk up may be staying in trace amounts within the meat we consume and a build up over time in our own bodies might be having an effect on our systems metabolism.
     
  13. Manticore

    Manticore Official BUF Birthday Spammer

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,766
    Likes Received:
    129
    Word.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2014
  14. cryptophreak

    cryptophreak unbalanced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    60
    Okay, this just made me really angry and I had to stop.

    Does anyone have a better example of the creationist viewpoint than this? Because goddamn it is infuriatingly stupid.
     
  15. Wormbo

    Wormbo Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    5,913
    Likes Received:
    36
    I'm sorry, but that's really what creationism is all about: They think science is wrong about the past. They say that scientific proofs are invalid and that science only makes assumptions that are not backed up by evidence.
    Instead they take the Bible as fact, because it is the word of God. They back up that believe by saying the people who wrote the Bible were inspired by God to do so. And as a result the Bible can't be wrong.

    In the Nye vs Ham discussion you may have noticed how Ham insists there's a difference between "observational science" and "historic science". The former basically is the science about the present, which our technology etc. is based on and Creationists don't really argue with it. The latter is the science about the past, which creationists believe is wrong due to lack of evidence and too many assumptions. Ham brought the example of ~40'000 years old wood embedded in ~40'000'000 years old basalt to prove that scientific dating methods are incorrect. While doing so he explicitly ignores the fact that both methods come up with results that are way beyond what he claims to be the age of the world.

    It all boils down to creationists saying that scientific methods for research about the past are all wrong. At the same time all they have to back up their own claims is "there's a book about it and it was written by people who acted by god's command" or something like that. To avoid having to mess with scientific terms, they use their own ones. For example the blurry term "kind" instead of a more specific term like "species". Apparently a "kind" already has all genes required to form a number of species. All it supposedly takes is genes turning themselves on or off - no scary non-religious stuff like "evolution" required.

    Creationists pick away at individual weaknesses of modern science, which may or may not be stabilized in the future. They purposefully attack these points, seeding doubts among less-educated people, all while ignoring many other facts that put the entire scientific construction of knowledge about the world on a very very solid basis. And they only do this to prove their very fragile calculation of the age of earth correct. That calculation is based on a single source that is taken for granted instead of being backed up by any kind of actual testable facts.

    Science bases all its work on the principle that a theory must come with a way to prove it wrong. And a scientific theory isn't just guesswork, but based on observed facts. You can easily prove it wrong by observing a different fact that doesn't fit in. Scientists will be excited if you can prove them wrong on very basic things. That's what drives science. Creationists are no scientists (at least not for the topic of what happened in the past) because they say "there's a book and you can't prove it wrong." That's the difference between science and religion.
     
  16. cryptophreak

    cryptophreak unbalanced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    60
    Well I don't think that story accounts for all creationists, because there are bishops who evidently think that religion is a neat idea that doesn't necessarily have to correspond to the real world in any way. They "believe" the stories of the Bible because they enjoy the tradition or they like the way it makes them feel or behave.

    I only understood this recently; previously when people said that "faith is different from fact" I assumed what they meant was: "You're not allowed to tell me I'm wrong even when it's obvious I am, because I don't like feeling stupid." It appears that what they really mean is that religion is a fantasy hobby, not a genuine claim about the nature of the universe.

    What I was curious about, though, is whether there might be people who take the Genesis myth as fact and manage not to sound as though they're just being difficult for the sake of what I don't know.
     
  17. Wormbo

    Wormbo Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    5,913
    Likes Received:
    36
    Those are not creationists. The average religious person (and religion itself) is able to adapt the believe to what can actually be observed in the real world. Creationists are lunatics, though. If you ask the pope about it he will probably tell you that the Old Testament stories aren't to be taken literally. In fact, there are many Genesis-like myths about the beginning of time all over the world, and interestingly they all share similar elements. That's not really surprising though, if you keep in mind that every culture needed to come up with a logical way in which the things they observed had come into existence.
    In fact, the flood myths all over the world are also very logical if you keep in mind that the sea level must have raised by many meters at the end of the last ice age. Just ice melting doesn't produce the kind of flood described in the bible, but there's (scientific) evidence that the area around the Black See saw a catastrophic flood after the Mediterranean See's water was no longer cut off due to raised sea levels. And if something catastrophic happens, stories about it tend to be exaggerated when passing them on - you want to keep the listeners interested. As a result, I don't see how 3000 years old stories can be taken as more accurate than scientific evidence.
     
  18. [GU]elmur_fud

    [GU]elmur_fud I have balls of Depleted Uranium

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    31
    You may be right on some of that but you are pretty far off on a lot of it.

    The first paragraph is only true for the vocal crazy people that understand there is no such thing as bad publicity when seeking to be famous. However those people actually laboring in the scientific field don't like to be associated with crazy people because it is very difficult to be taken seriously as a scientist if some broad label grouping you with infamous loons is applied to you.

    Basically the label of creationist literally covers anybody who holds a different view of the origin of the species then the excepted evolutionary model or a direct variation there-of. Regardless of how much or how little scientific evidence there is behind there theories.

    So your notion that all creationists are crazies is a bit bigoted. However those want to be in public eye for it most likely are.

    Carbon 14 dating is rubbish in the terms of a definitive benchmark because there are multiple anomalies that can influence the amount of carbon 14 that could be present in the specimen being dated. (carbon14 levels can very due to natural gas, volcanic activity, geothermal gasses, and other localized phenomena that can skew results.) However, as you vaguely alluded to, carbon 14 providing a dubious timeline does not evolution disprove.

    -----------------------------------------
    As to the prevalent young earth notion...

    The Bible does not fix the age of the earth, contrary to the claims of Ken Ham and others. Historically, these claims come from the work of James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. Archbishop Ussher took the genealogies of Genesis, assumed they were complete, and calculated all the years to arrive at a date for the first day of creation of the earth on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. Of course, even assuming the method was valid, such an exact date is not possible from the genealogies of the Bible (Ussher assumed all the years the patriarchs lived were exactly 365.25 days long and that they all died the day before their next birthday). There are a number of other assumptions implicit in the calculation. The first, and foremost, assumption is that the genealogies of Genesis are complete, from father to son throughout the entire course of human existence. The second assumption is that the Genesis creation "days" were exactly 24-hours in length.

    Most people who read English translations of the Bible assume that the English words have the same meaning as the original languages in which the Bible was written (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament). In fact, the original biblical languages contained many fewer words than modern English, which means that the words in those languages had more different meanings. In the Genesis 1 creation account, each "day" ends as "evening and morning 'n' day,"5 where "n" is the day's number. Although many Christians claim this makes the days exactly 24-hours in length, the Hebrew word translated "day" in English actually has three literal translations; the daylight portion of a 24-hour day, a 24-hour day, and a long, unspecified period of time (as in "day of the dinosaurs").6 The Hebrew word translated "evening" also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word translated "morning" also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage.7 Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. The intended meaning of the word should be determined from the context.

    Which complicates the concept of a 7 day creation...

    2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. So 7 days of creation or 7000yrs [shrugs] whoops made it a tad more complicated.

    Ironically though if God exists and is a space traveling being as the bible implies this would make sense according to physics if he has the ability to travel faster then the speed of light.

    Genesis 1:11-12 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

    'Let the earth sprout vegetation' sounds like cultivation and agriculture to me, not 'and poof there were green things' further sounds as if things took a tad bit of time.

    In multiple places the bible says '...remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations... in most places a biblical generation is 40 years. Now my math is a little rusty perhaps but I am pretty sure that alone exceeds 6000 by some 34,000 years.

    Basically I have to wonder if Ken Ham has ever read the bible and understood 1/10th of it.

    There really isn't any evidence that proves evolution. There is correlating evidence that supports it, but correlation doesn't imply causality. The same data that 1 group identifies as indicating a progressive linear micro evolution can be interpreted as having a common designer. Though beyond that data to indicate that the creation spoke of in Genesis or any other variation of the story happening is almost nonexistent and there is almost an entire lack of evidence that would factually dispute evolution. Other biblical events certainly... Conversely there are certainly plenty of issues that plague the theory of evolution but you will never see an evolutionist happily embrace it as evidence to the contrary.

    History is full of examples of science dragging it's feet when it comes to change. So the comment "Scientists will be excited if you can prove them wrong on very basic things" and its mirror in the debate is BS. Rogue waves are a good example there. Not that you can expect Ken Ham to EVER change his tune, so by contrast though an extreme exaggeration IMO I wouldn't call what you said fundamentally incorrect.
     
  19. N1ghtmare

    N1ghtmare Sweet Dreams

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,411
    Likes Received:
    12
    These are two very stupid things to say for a single post.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    I hope you realize that the phrase "it is only a theory" is American vernacular and to actually get to the point of a a theory a shit-load of evidence is required. Guess what? Gravity is also a theory. Know how it became a theory? Because we have a shit-load of evidence to back it up. Are there still some uncertainties? Sure (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25598051). However saying "gravity is only a theory" would do no more than make you sound idiotic.

    Try and comprehend for a second that not a single transitional fossil discovered has been out of place in location, species, or time of origin. Together the fossils form an extremely cohesive timeline for evolution over time. What you are saying is a complete misunderstanding of the correlation vs causality in terms of science. The scientific process will never certainly determine causality. The scientific process however, will allow a testable prediction (hypothesis) to be made, then expect evidence to support it. When enough evidence exists to support a given hypothesis, it can be safe to assume that that hypothesis is correct. It only becomes a fallacy of assumption when evidence starts to pile up against a certain hypothesis or theory. Given that no single fossil or piece of evidence has contradicted evolution at this present time, but in fact have supported it, evolution can be a safe causal relationship.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  20. Rambowjo

    Rambowjo Das Protoss

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,073
    Likes Received:
    5
    We have mountains of evidence, the problem is that people basically just say "nope, that isn't valid evidence."

    As Bill Nye has said in the past, the whole creationism problem is isolated to the US, at least in the western world. Nobody important in Europe actually believes this stuff. It's being taught exclusively in religion classes, and if anyone makes claims against evolution/general science in the media, they become a laughing stock.

    Sucks to be burger.
     

Share This Page