|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6186 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is NOT science: A challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
Before I post anything, I want to apologize if I am simply restating something that has been previously said in this thread, as I have not read the entire thing. Now, with that said...
quote:Look into the field of Cosmology. One of the main focuses of Cosmologists (I would argue, anyways) is to research the origins of the universe. Note that many of these scientists are highly qualified physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. quote:I would say that it doesn't HAVE to come from outside of biology, but I would consider the origins of the universe to be more of a physical property than a biological property, thus leaving it in the hands of the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, etc.). Thus, your claim that it is biologists' task to investigate it is HIGHLY suspect as a biased claim (or attack, as the case may be). quote:So, let me get this straight. You're saying there is some secret organization of atheists, materialists, and social darwinists running around in the scientific community with the sole aim of stopping research into the creation of the universe? Well I sure hope cosmologists are watching their backs, because I'm sure this organization will be sending assassins their way any time now . quote:In the immortal words of...well...anyone with decent debating skills, show me some statistics on that. Until you can back that claim up with some sort of data, it means gibberish to me. In fact, seeing how as Homepage - adherents claims that 33% of the world's population is Christian and only 14% is non-religious (which encompasses much more than just atheism, mind you!), intuition would tell me that there are more Christians that study evolution than Atheists. But then, if the invisible muskrat says that the study of evolution is dominated by atheists, well I suppose that it is... In short, I think you have some sort of preconceived notion that scientists (or at least evolutionists) are all atheist and out to falsify the creation theory. While I'm sure there are plenty that fit this description, it certainly isn't true of all or even the majority of them. What's worse, you're hashing the scientific method down into something it isn't. Scientists don't choose what evidence to accept or find! Sure, they have hypotheses, but they cannot alter evidence or data based on their own biases. You make it sound like it's some sort of conspiracy that the evidence they find supports evolution and not creation. The fact is, the theory of evolution was formulated OUT of the evidence, and not the other way around. Science isn't developed by making up things out of thin air. This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-18-2004 11:23 AM Where has my heart gone Trapped in the eyes of a stranger I want to go back to Believing in everything -Evanescence, "Field of Innocence"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
quote:Well, I'm not exactly sure how an "intellectual climate of opinion" is a belief, but I get this impression by discussing this with various people. If I had to sum up my experiences, I'd say about 4 out of 5 Christians I've met believe evolution is true. Now, assuming all non-religious folk believe it is true, and using the percentages from the website I cited in my last post, this still leaves 26.4% Christians that believe evolution to 14% non-religious folk. This works out even if you use 3 out of every 5 Christians. I'm sure you'll dismiss this all as nonsense, though. quote:Who said anybody associates Christianity to evolution? Indeed, it is bad practice to associate religion with science of any type. Data must be obtained without any bias whatsoever! Just because you have a problem with Darwinist views doesn't mean all Christians do (see my previous statement). I'm sure you'll meet plenty of Christians that have a problem with it in your church (assuming you go to church, which might be a bad one, I wouldn't know), seeing how as they probably share similar beliefs. quote:Until you can show me "some statistics", then I am forced to dismiss every last bit of this. I, too, would expect more theists in biology than the physical sciences. quote:And the physical sciences AREN'T linked to complexity and information?! As a physics major, I must disagree (;. Actually, it's a bit absurd to say that the question of what event or events CAUSED the existence of plants is not appropriate to the physical sciences, especially chemistry. Sure, biology plays a part, but I would argue not nearly as much so as chemistry until there actually IS life. I'm not attempting to make this out as if only super-expert scientists can study this, though I would say they understand it much better than any of us. Besides, there are super-expert scientists in every field, including biology. quote:Why yes, it is so wrong for people to state their opinions on the matter. Even worse, the "Darwinists" actually went about proposing and proving their theory in the correct manner! Oh, the agony! Oh, and if you can't find "formalized and abstract" versions of their theories, then you are most certainly not looking hard enough. quote:If I didn't note the distinction between the two, why would I even be debating this? First, I was raised Christian, and I could still very well be Christian for all you know (although I am not), as I never said otherwise. You can still believe in a creationist beginning and believe in evolution. In fact, there IS no evolutionist account of the origin of the universe. Evolution simply states how organisms evolve/evolved. So, in fact, I think YOU are arguing a straw man by claiming that I failed to note a distinction and by claiming something of evolution that isn't really there. This talk of randomness and cause means nothing to me, perhaps you can clarify? quote:Well, it's true that I have a hard time understanding how things magically appear out of nowhere. If I had proof, however, I most certainly wouldn't deny it (especially if this proof went through the scientific process of peer-review and whatnot). But I'd again like to bring up the Christians that also believe in evolution. Clearly, they are evolutionists that "think about it for themselves". I'd also like to add that I think about it, I just don't give any credit to it at this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
I see you have failed to reply to my post, though I won't dog you on this because I'm sure you're busy and feel you might have replied through your replies to others. No big deal.
quote:Assuming I understand you correctly, I fail to see how you must show this to make an argument. Evolutionists can deny or ignore creation all they want, it should have no bearing on their studies. I have a challenge for you. Show me some evidence regarding creation that interferes with the TOE. The fact is, everything we trace back to creation can be explained alongside of evolution. The two are not dependant on each other! This is speaking strictly in terms of scientific evidence and observations, of course, and not in terms of stories or writings about how we were created.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
quote:No evolutionist can deny creation, as we indeed came from somewhere. To deny creation would mean denying our existence. That hardly makes sense! Now, denying the creation story given to us in Genesis, that's a different story. I see no support that the reason evolutionists deny this story is the atheism, materialism, and social darwinism associated with it, though. In fact, I only find those things associated with the evolution because many people from other belief systems will not accept it! Making this your basis for evolution being a religion is nonsense, however. This is like me saying that internet gaming is a religion because people that play internet games share similar views on things. quote:I only brought this point up because you try to disprove evolution's scientific background through creation. The two have no bearing on each other, and thus creation shouldn't even be a part of this argument. I still fail to see how evolutionists deny or ignore creation. quote:There has ALWAYS been a search for these "root causes". I'm sure some evolutionists are a part of it and some are not. The controversy will never dissipate as long as there are people willing to argue that the facts are not true because their religion will not allow for it. Religion can only have a connection to science insofar as data is shown to support its set of beliefs. I would argue that at this point there isn't much support, and that is why there is such a controversy in the first place. quote:Well, that is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. Perhaps one day we will discover that creation came from a spiritual source. Until that day, however, I am inclined to support the facts (which, by the way, explain a good bit about the creation of life when you break down lifeforms into their respective elements). Summary:You seem to have the impression that nobody has ever looked into the origins of life. I would say this is a horrible inaccurate view, as people have certainly been studying it for years upon years upon years. Your argument that evolutionists refuse to look into this is amusing at best, and cannot be used to support your view that evolution is a religion. Also, another view you seem to have is that life is only life because of some supernatural force. While I cannot prove this to be an incorrect view, you must understand that you cannot prove it to be a correct view, either (or, if you can, I would most certainly like to see your proof). You seem to think that studying the origin of life would bring up proof for this supernatural force, but you fail to recognize that people have been studying this for years, and no such proof has been found! And lastly, I will repeat something that has been said many times in a different form:
CREATION CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION P.S.: If I ever become a notable scientist, and some fundie quote mines "EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION" out of my above sentence, I will personally hunt them down, slay them, feed them to my pets, and use their bones for my kitchen utinsels. This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-20-2004 04:23 AM This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-20-2004 04:25 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
quote:Since you have already proven yourself to be a prophet in another thread, I would ask you to kindly retract this prediction. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
quote:Well, I've mentioned the creation of the universe, the creation of life, and the creation of mankind, and you insist that none of these are what you are talking about. Based on this, I really no longer have any idea what you are talking about when you say 'creation' and 'predetermined'. Feel free to explain, if you will. quote:As above, I no longer know what you mean by 'creation', thus you may be correct in saying that I do not support the facts of this 'creation'. Until you explain to me just what you mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. quote:Though I will acknowledge that I seem to have little understanding of your concept of 'creation', I will claim that it is your fault that I lack such an understanding, not mine. Furthermore, I've already said that some evolutionists might deny or ignore creation, but look at Born2Preach and his arguments concerning that topic. I agree that humans (and indeed, many living things) have choices. The fact is, however, that the choices that are made have affects on the rest of the world. Everything is a result of something else, up to a point. Nobody ever claimed that evolutionists do not believe in choice. quote:How can anybody deny some sort of creation? We had to get here somehow! That's like saying nothing is real! I'm sure I can gather some evidence that supports 10/10 evolutionists believing in some sort of creation. Whether that creation is of a supernatural nature or not, that's a different story. But then, this mixup might again come from your skewed (from the usual sense, anyways) definition of 'creation'. Perhaps once we have an agreement on the definition of 'creation' we can continue this discussion. This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-20-2004 03:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
Well you know, prophecy is unnatural. Based on this, I would have to say it is sinful, and thus, I must persecute you. In fact, I rather feel like burning you on the stake. *gets a torch*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
*plays the part of a creationist*
My keys are missing, oh no!Observation: There are evil fairies in the movie Labyrinth. Observation: My keys are missing. Observation: My keys are small enough for a group of fairies to carry. Observation: The couch is a perfect environment for fairies to live in (Data available at http://www.answersinthebookoffairies.com/habitat/evidence). Hypothesis: The fairies took my keys and put them in the couch! Test: I look in the couch and find my keys. Conclusion: The fairies indeed took my keys and put them in the couch. See, fairyology is science as much as evolution! Also, evolutionists, highly influenced by anti-fairytale-ism, deny and ignore fairyology, therefore evolution is not real science! Ha! Note: This is all purely humor, do not take any of it seriously. I take no responsibility for my words in this post, and will not attempt to back any of it up. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
quote:I have developed my own thoughts on the matter. These thoughts are what has brought me to my agnostic belief system. If I had never developed my own thoughts, I'd still be Christian, as that is how I was raised (heavily, I might add) for the first 16 or so years of my life. quote:I'll accept this definition of creation and come to an agreement with it. The only event I believe we cannot trace back any further is the original creation of the universe (as in, where did the matter that constituted the big bang come from?). Thus, my previous posts on this matter stand, and I'd urge you to respond to them in more detail. If you can't figure out what specifically I am talking about, I will copy/paste and elaborate, if need be. quote:I fail to see how choice has anything to do with creation. This correlation seems to have come from nowhere. I do believe choice is a property of living organisms, though, and especially (or perhaps exclusively) of humans. I don't think many of these choices are an exact 50%-50% split, though, as you seem to imply. Furthermore, a rock falling to the ground behaves according to the laws of motion, which have nothing to do with choice. You claim that if a material property makes you choose something, then that choice was in all actuality (sp?) not a choice. Well, perhaps material things don't come right out and force you to make a choice, but they heavily influence choices, which I would argue in the end result often "make" the choice. quote:The problem isn't understanding the concept of creation, the problem is lack of evidence of creation. Of course there had to be some sort of creation, but we have no evidence as to whether it is natural, spiritual, or anything for that matter. quote:The only part I can even imagine choice playing in creation is to argue that we are a new type of being that didn't exist before, able to make choices independant of material properties. I believe there is a scientific explanation for this "choice", but I don't claim that it is the absolute truth on the matter. I can see how you believe creation relates to evolution if you take the stance that humans were "created" by some supernatural/spiritual force, as opposed to evolving into what we are. The fact is, however, that the evidence we have found all supports evolution, while much of it conflicts with a creation as told be Genesis, and none of it supports a spontaneous human creation. I think we've about beaten this subject to a pulp, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
It's pinky and the brain brain brain brain....
heh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
Well, I'm glad you feel that making accusitions and claims is enough basis for proof, but I doubt many share these feelings. I asked you to explain what your definition of creation was. When you did this, it seemed as if you were making references to things that had little or nothing to do with creation. I even stated the way in which I saw choice relating to creation, and you didn't bother responding to this to tell me whether it was correct or not.
Me failing to understand your argument is not basis enough for saying I have no comprehension of creation. It is even less of a basis for saying that NO evolutionist has a comprehension of creation. Also, it's hard for me to deny or ignore facts that have not yet been presented and defended. We are not having a reasonable debate at this point. Perhaps you can provide a reasonable argument and make this debate more worthwhile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
Double post for some reason, sorry!
This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-22-2004 04:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
Well, first of all, I think the replies below me addressed a lot of your post. Second, I'm growing tired of this discussion, as neither of us are getting anywhere.
Despite this, I will go ahead and reply to some of your post.
quote:Well, it depends which type of creation you are asking me to explain. My belief of creation is rather brief and simple. The matter and energy out of which everything came into being had to come from somewhere. I do not pretend to know where it came from or why it was produced, therefore I do not attempt to explain it or worship any deity that "might" have made it. I can try to explain other beliefs of creation, but that is somewhat difficult, as they are all beliefs that I do not hold. Some believe in a literal Genesis account of creation. I'm sure all of you know what Genesis states about creation (if not, just open the Bible and begin reading), so there isn't much point into going into detail there. I know some Christians believe that god created the matter and energy I mentioned before, and the laws of science took it from there. Other religions have various stories about creation, some of which I have heard to some degree, some of which I have not. What else should I have to learn about creation to study science?
quote:Everyone has their own set of morals. Judges must rely somewhat on morals, yes, but much moreso on law. As far as the reasoning being immoral (to some) acts, one (in my opinion) must simply try and determine what works out best for the most people, while not being obviously immoral and unjust to one. Of course, sometimes you must choose between the lesser of two evils, and nothing can be done in these cases. Now, could you please explain to me what any of this has to do with creation? Apparently someone else is having somewhat of a difficult time understanding you, so it's not just me. Are you trying to imply that people could not have a moral code without God or the bible? I'm just a little confused...
quote:First of all, everyone ponders about issues relating to life, death, their origins, etc. etc. The fact that some Christians choose to believe in a creation story from the Bible does NOT necessarily mean that they have a deeper understanding of creation. In fact, I'm pretty sure that cosmologists who have studied the processes that occurred around the Big Bang and beginning of the universe have a deeper understanding than most, and especially than those who know nothing more of creation than what they are told in the Bible. If you would like to give me some reasons that show why creationists would have a deeper understanding of creation than evolutionists, I would be glad to receive them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
Lol...this has to be the most ridiculous challenge I've ever heard of .
If something happens...then, in retrospect, it clearly could not happen another way. For whatever reason, the outcome was produced/chosen. Something was weighing in its favor. At any rate, since this is getting completely ridiculous and B2P asked all the atheists (which I assume means me as well, though I'm agnostic) to stand down for the time being, I am going to be silent until he says otherwise. May you have fun presenting others with your ridiculous arguments, scenerios, and challenges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Glordag Inactive Member |
quote: Well, saying that an "uncaused nothingness" created the Big Bang is a bit of a stretch. It's really impossible to say how the Big Bang came about, so I won't pretend to speculate. For all I care, "God" could have created the Big Bang. I have no conflict with this idea, as there isn't any evidence to the contrary. Now, we have some pretty firm ideas about how everything came about after the Big Bang, and I DO have a problem (a serious one) with people claiming that these ideas are false without any supporting evidence. I choose to believe what we can observe as true, is that so difficult? Edit: I realize that the last bit doesn't really pertain to your post, so I apologize for the fact that I made it sound like I was attacking some point you didn't make. I was merely using your post to make a point of my own. This message has been edited by Glordag, 08-06-2004 10:13 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024