# Creationism



## Purple (14 Dec 2007)

Creationism, it is quite common in America to meet people who believe in it. Not the "yes, God had a hand in it and started the ball rolling" type of vague Intelligent Design but the Book of Genesis, "let there be light" all over and done with in 6 days, type. 
I found it strange to talk to these people and had to work hard not to make fun of them, but they were not stupid; they just has a different starting point, different defined truths, when looking at the world. They can cite all sorts of "Creationist Science" to back up their views.
So, does anyone in this country believe in 6 day creationism or know anyone who does? Can those people put up a (seemingly) rational argument for their beliefs?


----------



## Caveat (14 Dec 2007)

I certainly don't believe it and don't know anyone who does. I know a few men (and women) of the cloth also - they all take it with a pinch of salt.

That's the thing about fundamentalism though isn't it - you have to accept the _fundamentals_ of it or you are not a fundamentalist.  
So if these people have accepted the teachings, general way of life/morality etc based on their faith, they have to accept it all and will defend it to the hilt.

In so called moderate, mainstream christianity (especially church of England/Ireland) degrees of scepticism and doubt are permitted - encouraged sometimes.


----------



## diarmuidc (14 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> different defined truths,


What, exactly, do you mean by this?


----------



## casiopea (14 Dec 2007)

yes, my experience would be the same as Caveats. I don't think Ive ever met anyone who supports Creationism in the vanilla sense (i.e. 6 days etc.).

Cas.


----------



## Godfather (14 Dec 2007)

What is worrying is that new religious movements (even among creationists) are increasing everywhere... The more the split between the groups (even religious) the more the chaos...


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> What, exactly, do you mean by this?



My starting point when looking at science is scientific; their starting point when they look at science is religious. Their defined truths are religious, no matter what they are examining. They look for science that agrees with their pre-defined views. True science looks at the evidence that is available and draws the most likely conclusion. Scientists use Occam's razor, not the Book of Genesis.


----------



## diarmuidc (14 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> They look for science that agrees with their pre-defined views.



Then they are cranks. You'd hope education and enlightenment would reduce their numbers. If the opposite happens, we are in trouble.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> Scientists use Occam's razor, not the Book of Genesis.


Except the likes of _Dawkins _and _Hitchens _- they use _Occam's _machete.


----------



## Sherman (14 Dec 2007)

Personally I am a Pastafarian, subscribing to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


----------



## redstar (14 Dec 2007)

Here is a Catholic archbishops viewpoint on creationism...

[broken link removed]

Some excerpts from this....;


> ... BECAUSE creationism is so different from the Catholic teaching on interpreting the Book of Genesis, to have Catholic children taught this doctrine would be unconscionable.
> .
> .
> We are to read Genesis for the religious lessons it teaches, and not as a scientific account. The Bible is not a science book, is not interested in science and should not be read as if it were a scientific book. We go to the Bible for religion. We go to scientific studies to learn about the natural sciences.



I don't know how reflective this is of mainstream Catholic doctrine today, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## shanegl (14 Dec 2007)

AFAIK that is the mainstream Catholic position. I seem to remember the previous Pope accepting the big bang etc (in the sense that God kickstarted the universe with the Big Bang)? Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Ceist Beag (14 Dec 2007)

I've heard Clubman is a big believer in this stuff allegedly!


----------



## Pique318 (14 Dec 2007)

You gotta love these nutters:
http://www.fixedearth.com/
and
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html

It takes all sorts (to make the world go round  )


----------



## GeneralZod (14 Dec 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Except the likes of _Dawkins _and _Hitchens _- they use _Occam's _machete.




 Ha ha good one.


----------



## madisona (14 Dec 2007)

all religious beliefs are illlogical and seem silly and ridicolous to those who do not share them. before anyone mocks the beliefs of other religions they should consider how outsiders would view their own religious beliefs.
e.g. for non-catholics, transubstanstation, trinity, praying to saints for intercession to a deity,indulgences  etc seem no more daft than creationism or yogic flying


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2007)

madisona said:


> before anyone mocks the beliefs of other religions they should consider how outsiders would view their own religious beliefs.


*No *warped thinking deserves any automatic deference or respect. In fact - quite the opposite in my opinion. This idea of automatic respect for any religious beliefs is a total anachronism. On the other hand I might keep my views to myself and my head down (and on!) if I ever visit any crazy theocracies in the near future... 


> e.g. for non-catholics, transubstanstation, trinity, praying to saints for intercession to a deity,indulgences  etc seem no more daft than creationism or yogic flying


 For non-_Catholics _(even those with their own warped thinking belief systems) most of those things *will *appear daft. Because they are.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2007)

No-one biting today? Must all be at _Winter Solstice _parties or something...


----------



## cole (14 Dec 2007)

madisona said:


> e.g. for non-catholics, transubstanstation, trinity, praying to saints for intercession to a deity,indulgences etc seem no more daft than creationism or yogic flying


 
Just wondering why these things appear daft? Is it because we cannot give a rational explanation for them? In which case the origins of the universe, some quantum mechanics, love, hate etc would be daft too.


----------



## z103 (14 Dec 2007)

A creationism thread... 



> So, does anyone in this country believe in 6 day creationism or know anyone who does? Can those people put up a (seemingly) rational argument for their beliefs?


I disbelieve in evolution.
Here's what's wrong with it;
- It's not based on science. It isn't something that can be repeated again and again in a lab (like electromagnetism or something). The imperical evidence is also sketchy. If stuff has been evolving for millions of years, there should be millions of fossils to support it. But there aren't.

- Why aren't there loads of 'half formed' creatures around. Would evolution really 'cut creatures off' so distinctly?

- A half formed wing or eye is useless, and should be disgarded by the theory. Birds shouldn't ever have evolved.

- Why should single cell creatures even bother evolving? - aren't they getting on just fine, thank-you-very-much.

- More subtly, it's not 'survival of the fittest' but 'death of the weakest'. This is important.

- It's a theory, but it is often cited as fact or law.

6 Day Creationism is faith based, just as evolution is.

There are lots and lots of articles on the internet about Creationism Vs Evolution. I'm going to stop here.


----------



## Caveat (14 Dec 2007)

ClubMan said:


> No-one biting today? Must all be at _Winter Solstice _parties or something...


 
_Winter Solstice_ is so commercialised these days though...

(I much preferred the chanting, mead and orgies)


----------



## madisona (14 Dec 2007)

ClubMan said:


> *No *warped thinking deserves any automatic deference or respect. .


 
was not saying that religious beliefs do. merely insinuating that pots shouln't be calling kettles black.


----------



## Caveat (14 Dec 2007)

madisona said:


> pots shouln't be calling kettles black.


 
Has this happened on this thread though? 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that at least most critics so far are atheist/agnostic - in itself hardly a "religious" belief?


----------



## madisona (14 Dec 2007)

cole said:


> Just wondering why these things appear daft? Is it because we cannot give a rational explanation for them? In which case the origins of the universe, some quantum mechanics, love, hate etc would be daft too.


 

just wondering why belief in creationism and the flying Spaghetti Monster appears daft to some posters. Is it because we cannot give a rational explanation for them?In which case the origins of the universe, some quantum mechanics, love, hate etc would be daft too.


----------



## Caveat (14 Dec 2007)

leghorn said:


> - More subtly, it's not 'survival of the fittest' but 'death of the weakest'. This is important.


 
A point here, the phrase "survival of the fittest" is one of the most misinterpreted in history. _Fittest_ here does not refer to e.g. _healthiest_ or _strongest_ as is often thought - it means _most suitable_ - _fit_ for the purpose.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2007)

cole said:


> Just wondering why these things appear daft?


Because to "believe in" them is to ignore the total lack of scientific evidence supporting their existence, possibility or efficacy etc. Obviously you cannot prove a negative.


> In which case the origins of the universe, some quantum mechanics, love, hate etc would be daft too.


 Eh? There is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the generally accepted theories and models for the origin of the universe, quantum mechanics etc.

I don't really understand your mention of "love" and "hate"?


----------



## cole (14 Dec 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Because to "believe in" them is to ignore the total lack of scientific evidence supporting their existence, possibility or efficacy etc. Obviously you cannot prove a negative.
> Eh? There is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the generally accepted theories and models for the origin of the universe, quantum mechanics etc.
> 
> I don't really understand your mention of "love" and "hate"?


 
There is no one generally accepted theory for the origin of the universe, the big bang is only one of many theories and even then the theory doesn't hold to zero point i.e. the point of "ignition".

My point regarding quantum mechanics was that there are many unsolved mysteries, puzzles and apparent contradictions in this area which, whilst we believe in them, don't offer a rational explanation.

Love and hate? Can anyone offer a truely rational explanation for these, yet we believe they exist because we_ feel_ them.


----------



## Superman (14 Dec 2007)

shanegl said:


> AFAIK that is the mainstream Catholic position. I seem to remember the previous Pope accepting the big bang etc (in the sense that God kickstarted the universe with the Big Bang)? Maybe I'm wrong.


John Paul accepted evolution more or less.  Benedict rolled back a little and has added some comment which are slightly in favour in intelligent design:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

I know some Evangelical Christians here - the European ones seem to lean towards Michael Behe style intelligent design.  (Based on a very small sample).

To Leghorn:
I hope you are joking regarding "it's a theory not a law".  Otherwise someone needs to start writing to the Minister for Education.


----------



## cole (14 Dec 2007)

Superman said:


> I hope you are joking regarding "it's a theory not a law". Otherwise someone needs to start writing to the Minister for Education.


 
The point is that that's exactly what it is, the theory of evolution.


----------



## Remix (14 Dec 2007)

leghorn said:


> A creationism thread...
> 
> 
> I disbelieve in evolution.
> Here's what's wrong with it...


 
We all have our creation stories.

Life goes from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps.
Mind? None. Purpose? None. Direction? None.

This, in two lines, is the creation story for atheists.


----------



## csirl (14 Dec 2007)

> I disbelieve in evolution.
> Here's what's wrong with it;
> - It's not based on science. It isn't something that can be repeated again and again in a lab (like electromagnetism or something). The imperical evidence is also sketchy. If stuff has been evolving for millions of years, there should be millions of fossils to support it. But there aren't.
> 
> ...


 
I


----------



## z103 (14 Dec 2007)

> *There are million of fossils. Evolutionary principals are all around you - animals have evolved in historic times and sometimes by design e.g. selective breeding.*


How many 'missing link' fossils are there? For the human fossil record, there are probably about ten purported examples (Lucy, Java etc) - many of these are doubtful. Hardly conclusive evidence when you consider there should be millions of examples.



> *How would you know what a half formed creature looked like? I'm sure there are a lot of creatures around today that in 100,000s years will regard as "primitive" and half evolved.*


Animals tend to be distinctly sub-divided, into species etc. It's discrete.
There aren't any half-ape creatures walking around. All domestic cats, for example, are the same.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2007)

Evolution is not some sort of overall progression toward us all becoming higher beings, it's not StarTreck. Evolution just means that we adapt to best suit the environment that we, as living things, find ourselves in. 
That's it.


----------



## GeneralZod (14 Dec 2007)

leghorn said:


> There aren't any half-ape creatures walking around.



Are you so sure? What about "Le caveman" on the French rugby team.


----------



## Gordanus (15 Dec 2007)

leghorn said:


> How many 'missing link' fossils are there? For the human fossil record, there are probably about ten purported examples (Lucy, Java etc) - many of these are doubtful. Hardly conclusive evidence when you consider there should be millions of examples.



The chances of you, me, anyone, anything of becoming fossilised is very, very low.   The amount of fossils that have been discovered given the billions and billions of living being who have ever walked this earth is minute.  Most fossils have been discovered in particular areas where the conditions for fossilisation were right.  The amount of human or humanoid fossilised bones that have been discovered all over the earth woulndn't fit the back of a white van.
PS If you would to become fossilised (after your death rather than in the local pub), the back page of the New Scientist had an engaging discussion about this a few years ago.


----------



## stir crazy (16 Dec 2007)

redstar said:


> Here is a Catholic archbishops viewpoint on creationism...
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> ...




Take this quote for example from that webpage :

''GOD CREATED man and woman, either directly *or* after a long process of evolution.'' by an archbishop


What I find hilarious about religion is they claim to offer us certainty but when it comes down to it they dont know anything about what happened. Instead of reducing speculation by introducing the truth (which would be my idea/requirement of a genuine religion , if one existed), they only introduce even more speculation.


----------



## Sn@kebite (17 Dec 2007)

I think this is a thread that could go on forever. We *will* find out in the end, won't we?

...Look at all the evil out there and the disrespect humans give to each other, animals and the planet and ask yourselves, Do humans deserve a heaven to be waiting for us?


----------



## michaelm (17 Dec 2007)

ClubMan said:


> There is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the generally accepted theories and models for the origin of the universe . .


Indeed. Like M-Theory - something like,  'two huge vibrating membranes (in the 11th dimension) collided, giving rise to the Singularity and the birth of our Universe'.  And other nonsense about time travel and infinite parallel universes.  I don't think that Science can explain, or that we can comprehend, everything; anyone who does must surely conclude that life is random and pointless.


----------



## shnaek (17 Dec 2007)

cole said:


> Love and hate? Can anyone offer a truely rational explanation for these, yet we believe they exist because we_ feel_ them.


I hear you can believe a lot of things exist if you partake in certain substances of a fungal nature. 
Can there be any winners in the debate between science and 'belief'? I mean, if I want to believe that my Christmas tree is the reincarnation of George Bernard Shaw, then what is 'science' to tell me I'm wrong?


----------



## diarmuidc (17 Dec 2007)

leghorn said:


> I disbelieve in evolution.
> Here's what's wrong with it;


I assume you are trolling. If not you need to open a science book. All your points have been refuted plenty of times.


----------



## redstar (17 Dec 2007)

michaelm said:


> And other nonsense about time travel and infinite parallel universes.


... and you have conclusive evidence or a hypothesis which can be tested to lead you to conclude that this is nonsense ? It may well be nonsense, but where is the evidence ?


I





> don't think that Science can explain, or that we can comprehend, everything


Yet another rehash of an old argument which has been answered many times. Science is a method, the results of which form part of a wider body of knowledge which can be used to shape our understanding the universe, and can be applied via technology and engineering. People using science never claim to explain 'everything'. Its just the best way  we have of finding things out. 

By saying we cannot comprehend everything is like saying we could never, ever fly to  the moon. Why put this limit on understanding ?

The alternative to the scientific approach is 'belief'.
Science and belief are opposite.
A scientific approach attempts to derive knowledge in the form of a scientific theory (which is NOT the same as the word 'theory' used in everyday language) using the available evidence.
A belief system decides what the answer is already and either ignores any contrary evidence, or makes evidence fit the belief.

As for evolution, many of the so-called points raised against it have been dealt over and over again, by people like Attenborough, Dawkins, Gould. The fact that people insist on bringing them up again just shows their distinct lack of knowledge about the subject.


----------



## z103 (17 Dec 2007)

> I assume you are trolling. If not you need to open a science book. All your points have been refuted plenty of times.


No, I'm not trolling. Please enlighten me.


----------



## michaelm (17 Dec 2007)

redstar said:


> ... and you have conclusive evidence or a hypothesis which can be tested to lead you to conclude that this is nonsense ? It may well be nonsense, but where is the evidence ?


The onus is not on me to disprove such; put me down as an confirmed agnostic in relation to such science if you will.


----------



## Remix (17 Dec 2007)

This page gives a quick summary of evolution:

evolution 

This page examines evolution vs. creationism and attempts to bring together the fundamentalists on both sides of the argument with a compromise 

descent of man


----------



## redstar (17 Dec 2007)

michaelm said:


> The onus is not on me to disprove such; put me down as an confirmed agnostic in relation to such science if you will.


No problem with that. No harm in saying 'we don't know' the answer to such things.

The problem arises when not knowing the answer to something leads some people to a leap of faith to belief something instead. Why not just say 'I don't know'. We learn nothing new by an absence of knowledge.


----------



## redstar (17 Dec 2007)

Remix said:


> This page gives a quick summary of evolution:
> 
> evolution
> 
> ...



Excellent coverage of these topics


----------



## michaelm (17 Dec 2007)

redstar said:


> No harm in saying 'we don't know' the answer to such things.


But do you apply the same reasoning to the existence of God?


----------



## madisona (17 Dec 2007)

This page examines evolution vs. creationism and attempts to bring together the fundamentalists on both sides of the argument with a compromise 

descent of man[/quote]

so man is the result of divine creation whereas women evolved from apes . makes sense


----------



## redstar (17 Dec 2007)

michaelm said:


> But do you apply the same reasoning to the existence of God?


To paraphrase Carl Sagan when asked a similar question - "... what do you mean by God ?"  

Generally, yes - same reasoning applies. BUT, we also cannot ignore what humanity has already learned and, (i'm glossing over HEAPS of details now)  the _balance of probability_ weighs heavily against the existence of a God. 
[Now this is a BIG argument and most likely deserves a whole message-board to itself, never mind a whole new AAM thread !!]


----------



## MrMan (17 Dec 2007)

> I assume you are trolling. If not you need to open a science book. All your points have been refuted plenty of times.



I think you'll find many religions have quite famous books that they believe back up their claims too.


----------



## casiopea (17 Dec 2007)

redstar said:


> The alternative to the scientific approach is 'belief'.
> Science and belief are opposite.



But isnt belief also required for Science?  Scientists who work many decades to discover the cure for something require belief.

I have 2 family members who work in Science and are concentrating on finding a cure for blindness.  They have dedicated their lives to this.  There are promising scientific tests that are indications at best that are leading them down a certain route but its their belief (and that of the people funding them) that theyll find a cure in our lifetime that keeps them going (and stops them selling out to business so they can earn a proper salary).

(Apologies for going slightly off topic)


----------



## z103 (17 Dec 2007)

> the _balance of probability_ weighs heavily against the existence of a God.


I don't understand what you mean by this either.
How can you assign a probability to the existance of a God?


----------



## redstar (17 Dec 2007)

casiopea, I think 'confidence' is more accurate term here than 'belief'. 

I bet your family scientists do not already claim to have a cure before they go looking for it ?

Your example is a good one to illustrate how science works at a practical level. They have a question "can we find a cure for blindness" and use scientific methods to find it. They have confidence that the methods will work, because similar methods have produced cures for other conditions in the past. I am sure they will not stop experimenting and resort to praying for a cure instead. It may well be that different methods are needed, but they will still search, i'm sure. 

And, yes, unfortunately the reality of funding problems doesn't help. All the more reason to admire their dedication in continuing to asking questions and seeking answers to blindness ? Why don't they opt for the easy way and send patients to faith-healers ?

Religious belief is different to this confidence/belief, in that religious belief already claims to have the answers because of revealed 'divine truth', usually in some ancient Holy Book. According to this approach, there is no need to search or question anymore because we already have the answers.   This is opposite to the scientific method.


----------



## Remix (17 Dec 2007)

madisona said:


> so man is the result of divine creation whereas women evolved from apes . makes sense


 

Ah, but Madisona, look at Eve on the diagram. Divinely created from Adam's rib representing their side by side standing as equals.

Now I'm sure you know that the evolution of a sense of humour is also well understood. It started four million years ago when ape-men and women begin laughing as their colleagues stumbled and fell while attempting to walk. This is the origin of slapstick comedy.

To further quote "the brites":
Humour next evolved to the low level pun ( e.g. "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana") followed by the one-liner (e.g." Build a Ardipithecus a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set an Ardipithecus on fire, and he'll be really warm for the rest of his life"). 
Later, humor evolved into witty anecdotes and, finally, droll satire (e.g. "Evolution is as established a field as relativity and thermodynamics .")


----------



## GeneralZod (17 Dec 2007)

michaelm said:


> Indeed. Like M-Theory - something like,  'two huge vibrating membranes (in the 11th dimension) collided, giving rise to the Singularity and the birth of our Universe'.



That is a facetious remark. The M-Theory is not a generally accepted theory. There is no generally accepted unified theory yet.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are generally accepted theories with each of those having quantifiable limitations on their range of applicability. Within their domains they are extremely well tested experimentally and observationally.


----------



## casiopea (18 Dec 2007)

redstar said:


> casiopea, I think 'confidence' is more accurate term here than 'belief'.
> 
> I bet your family scientists do not already claim to have a cure before they go looking for it ?
> 
> ...




I don't think confidence is the right word - I really should point out this thread to the family members in question and let them talk for themselves (Im IT as oppose to Science).  

My sister who has worked for 14 years in "pure" science has compared this type of work to a vocation.  You sacrifice a lot; a decent salary, a social life, being able to do things like a buy a house, a car etc, Knowing where your next salary if any is coming from.  You have a lot of people doubt your methods and actively, publicly dispute your work and at the end of it you may have no proof.  She frequently lacks confidence in her pursuit.  She has compared it to blind (ironically) faith.

Frequently on these types of threads the statement you made earlier "Science are belief are opposite" crops up which I feel is incorrect.  Belief plays a part in Science, some great Scientists in history were regarded as nuts for what they _believed_ in - and only respected years/decades later when it was proven.

I am definitely not saying that someone who has a random belief or has (religious) faith is scientific. This is definitely not true.  But its also not true that who have faith have no concept of science.  Science and belief are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## ubiquitous (18 Dec 2007)

redstar said:


> Religious belief is different to this confidence/belief, in that religious belief already claims to have the answers because of revealed 'divine truth', usually in some ancient Holy Book. According to this approach, there is no need to search or question anymore because we already have the answers.   This is opposite to the scientific method.



This is very interesting, especially after the recent Climate Change thread on AAM which explored similar themes. What strikes me as odd is the tendency of some scientists and others to occasionally claim that "there is no need to search or question anymore because we already have the answers".


----------



## redstar (18 Dec 2007)

casiopea said:


> I am definitely not saying that someone who has a random belief or has (religious) faith is scientific. This is definitely not true.  But its also not true that who have faith have no concept of science.  Science and belief are not mutually exclusive.



I think we are getting wrapped up in semantics (and hopefully the thread hasn't gone way off course by now  !).

Yes, anyone looking for answers will have some amount of belief that they are on the right path, or will succeed. The belief is based on something, though, like using methods known to work in the past.



> But its also not true that who have faith have no concept of science.  Science and belief are not mutually exclusive.



Agreed, but its interesting to see the reaction of those who have strong faith when science contradicts that faith. It is this kind of 'blind' faith, in spite of contrary proofs, that is the opposite to science. This type of blind faith, in the past, could lead to punishment for publishing discoveries that were opposite to 'revealed truth' (ie Galileo).



> Scientists in history were regarded as nuts for what they believed in



Very true. But how did they come to believe "what they believed in". I'm sure it wasn't because someone else told them "this is so" and to accept it without further investigation.

It is with the opposite approaches to answering questions about _life, the universe and everything_ where I see science and belief (of the type described above) as different.

Personally, I strongly believe the answer is 42 and I don't care what anyone else finds out


----------



## csirl (18 Dec 2007)

> Animals tend to be distinctly sub-divided, into species etc. It's discrete.
> There aren't any half-ape creatures walking around. All domestic cats, for example, are the same.


 
You should take a trip to your local academic bookshop and buy some text books on evalutionary biology so you can discover just how wrong you are.


----------



## redstar (18 Dec 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> What strikes me as odd is the tendency of some scientists and others to occasionally claim that "there is no need to search or question anymore because we already have the answers".



Its usually revealing to look for the vested interests behind those who say that.

If they really have the answer to something, they should say "here is what we have found and how we found it. Try and confirm it.". If it can be independently confirmed, then it stands. If not, it falls, or sometimes inconclusive. Then more research would be needed.


----------



## z103 (18 Dec 2007)

> You should take a trip to your local academic bookshop and buy some text books on evalutionary biology so you can discover just how wrong you are.


Why not post some links if you think I'm so wrong? Do you think I've done no research into this stuff at all?
Just one link with some evidence would do.

However, though day to day observation, I can generally categorise an animal quite easily just by looking at it.


----------



## redstar (18 Dec 2007)

leghorn said:


> Just one link with some evidence would do.



Try this from Berkeley for a start ....

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

more specifically ...

[broken link removed]


----------



## room305 (18 Dec 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> This is very interesting, especially after the recent Climate Change thread on AAM which explored similar themes. What strikes me as odd is the tendency of some scientists and others to occasionally claim that "there is no need to search or question anymore because we already have the answers".



Indeed, it should always raise a red flag when somebody announces they have the _answer_ but refuse to debate the subject any further. Followers of Al Gore (as distinct from many climatologists even those who believe in the theory anthropogenic global warming) are particularly guilty of this trait.



redstar said:


> Yes, anyone looking for answers will have some amount of belief that they are on the right path, or will succeed. The belief is based on something, though, like using methods known to work in the past.



Good point, induction - the practice of deducing general principles from specific instances, is often used in science despite its logical flaws. However, the results are always open to question, unlike religious belief.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Dec 2007)

I dont care what anyone says . *The onus of proof for  a claim of some sort is upon the person who claims it to be true*.  This law applies to everyone with no exceptions.
If I am a scientist and I claim to have  found a cure for cancer , I will be required to stand behind my claim. Otherwise the scientific community will reject me. Science is by definition an empirical rational thing. 

If I am religious then I am a law unto myself, have given up my capacity for independent thought and am a slave to whatever dogma or interpretation my hierarchy dictates (which is subject to change). I have decided that someone whether a mullah or a bishop is more intelligent than I am and I have allowed the dictates of this person to hijack my brain. Religions make claims and cannot stand by them rationally. Religion has relied upon violence, fear and not logic to impose its belief system for hundreds of years. It is a practice still rampant on the middle east and was the norm here in Europe a few hundred years ago. Where physical violence is not an option (e.g in the west), passive bullying and exclusion is still often used through the social judging  and discrimination of those who dont share the same belief.




Pointing to a book aka the bible, koran etc  does not equal proof of anything other than the proof that someone published the book you observe. Anyone who claims it proves any more is a liar.  
The  Lord of the Rings is a much better read in my opinion and also much more inspired, complicated and consistent in its' story.


----------



## ubiquitous (19 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> However if I am religious then I am a law unto myself, have given up my capacity for independent thought and am a slave to whatever dogma or interpretation my hierarchy dictates. I have decided that someone whether a mullah or a bishop is more intelligent than I am and I have allowed the dictates of this person to hijack my brain.



This sort of sweeping generalisation is laughable. If I believe in a God, or Gods, this does not make me incapable of independent thought. Have you never heard of _a la carte_ Catholicism, for example?



stir crazy said:


> Religions however make claims and cannot stand by them rationally. Religion has relied upon violence and fear to impose its belief system for hundreds of years...Passive bullying and exclusion is still often used through the social judging of those who dont share the same belief.


This can equally be said of other belief systems and organisations outside the various religions, communism for example.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> *The onus of proof for  a claim of some sort is upon the person who claims it to be true*.  This law applies to everyone with no exceptions.
> If I am a scientist and I claim to have found a cure for cancer , I will be required to stand behind my claim. Otherwise the scientific community will reject me. Science is by definition an empirical rational thing.



Glad you dont disagree with this 




ubiquitous said:


> This sort of sweeping generalisation is laughable. If I believe in a God, or Gods, this does not make me incapable of independent thought. Have you never heard of _a la carte_ Catholicism, for example?



I put it to you tht it does. Does anyone remember Virgin Megastore in Dublin being prosecuted for selling condoms in 1993/94 ? I read separately that Tampons were banned at one point in the 1960s. On a scale of stupidity I would put that on a par with stoning.




ubiquitous said:


> This can equally be said of other belief systems and organisations outside the various religions, communism for example.



*I will agree with you about one thing. The comparison you made between religious belief and communism is valid. Religion is like communism.

*However Please directly address the issue of religion. Communism is a political philosophy. To discuss its merits or demerits would require another thread. Communism does not claim to be a religion. Whichever of the political philosophys is superior has absolutely no effect or bearing on this dicussion.


----------



## ubiquitous (19 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> I put it to you tht it does. Does anyone remember Virgin Megastore in Dublin being prosecuted for selling condoms in 1993/94?.



So you are saying that all Irish Catholics supported this prosecution at the time, and that their religious beliefs prevented them from making up their own minds on the issue?


----------



## stir crazy (19 Dec 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> So you are saying that all Irish Catholics supported this prosecution at the time, and that their religious beliefs prevented them from making up their own minds on the issue?



You would love me to say something stupid. Wouldnt you ? People are free to believe what they want. However religion acts to remove and restrict freedom, whether it be the freedom to buy condoms in Ireland in the 1990's or to listen to western music in Iran in the present day. Thanks for the communism reference. You were really on the ball there.


----------



## Jock04 (19 Dec 2007)

<<< imagines Purple sitting back, grinning &  looking at what he's started!


----------



## ubiquitous (19 Dec 2007)

Again you have not justified the sweeping generalisations you made here:


stir crazy said:


> However if I am religious then I am a law unto myself, have given up my capacity for independent thought and am a slave to whatever dogma or interpretation my hierarchy dictates. I have decided that someone whether a mullah or a bishop is more intelligent than I am and I have allowed the dictates of this person to hijack my brain.



btw, if you read my previous posts properly, you will see that I did not compare religion to communism. And if I did, so what? The people who believed in communism eventually got tired of it and changed their minds. How did they do this if they were incapable of independent thought?


----------



## stir crazy (19 Dec 2007)

I am not one to rush to judgement however It appears from your selective quotation that you are the one who has not read my post properly.  I dont mind as you are easily refuted but I can see you have taken one line of it out of context to analyse to death.



ubiquitous said:


> Again you have not justified the sweeping generalisations you made here



Yes I have. If you put money onto the church collection plate your money is going to support  many issues which so called 'ala carte catholics' might disagree with, not least of which was the prosecution of virgin megastore and if you want a current example of where your money is going look no further than the denial of condoms in the areas hit most by aids .

If you have any point at all, its that ala carte religionists are too lazy to think in comparison to their more committed  and obedient colleagues who are told what to think. The effect is the same. Its' backward superstitious hypocrisy.


----------



## diarmuidc (19 Dec 2007)

leghorn said:


> No, I'm not trolling. Please enlighten me.


If you were really interested in being enlightened, you would have been already. You are living in a first world country with accesses to libraries, universities and a mountain of information on the internet. The only people holding out against evolution at this stage are the ignorant or the religious fundamentals. (even the Catholic Church has almost given in at this stage)


----------



## ubiquitous (19 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> I dont mind as you are easily refuted but I can see you have taken one line of it out of context to analyse to death.


I haven't attempted to analyse anything. I've simply asked you to justify a very sweeping statement. You have failed to do so.



stir crazy said:


> If you have any point at all, its that ala carte religionists are too lazy to think in comparison to their more committed  and obedient colleagues who are told what to think.



Where did I say, or imply, that?


----------



## stir crazy (19 Dec 2007)

It took you long enough to post a counter response. Considering how long I waited I'm quite disappointed 



ubiquitous said:


> I haven't attempted to analyse anything. I've simply asked you to justify a very sweeping statement. You have failed to do so.



I totally disagree with you. You are wrong.  A careful reading of my posts will answer your question. If I take you at your word which is as you said that you *have not analysed *anything then I suggest you start analysing before contributing.



ubiquitous said:


> Where did I say, or imply, that?



If you have a problem with a statement then I would take liberty to assume you disagree with that statement otherwise you are trolling. You need to be careful what you say if you do not wish to be misinterpreted 
A bit cynical and slick of you to ignore the important link I gave showing the catholic Church and other religions seek to deny condoms to people in aids ravaged regions.




ubiquitous said:


> If I believe in a God, or Gods, this does not make me incapable of independent thought.



Yes. But I'll leave the namecalling to Dawkins. I doubt if many believe in a religion due to their own independent efforts. It is 99% based upon religious brainwashing experiences during childhood from parents and teachers. I would definitely have less respect for your decisions. And I would fear your decisions more as the agenda of your belief system would seek to influence society in ways I may not agree with . I've said it before  but just look at the track record of religion.


----------



## ubiquitous (19 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> If I take you at your word which is as you said that you *have not analysed *anything then I suggest you start analysing before contributing.
> 
> If you have a problem with a statement then I would take liberty to assume you disagree with that statement otherwise you are trolling.



Sorry, I have to confess I have no idea what you are talking about. I think we will agree to differ.

ps


> A bit cynical and slick of you...



Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Dec 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Sorry, I have to confess I have no idea what you are talking about. I think we will agree to differ.



What are we supposed to be differing about exactly ?  Besides the taking of one line of my prose and using it as a proxy argument to justify religion or at least negate my other valid points, what have I written about which you disagree with ?


----------



## ubiquitous (19 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> What are we supposed to be differing about exactly ?  Besides the taking of one line of my prose and using it as a proxy argument to justify religion or at least negate my other valid points, what have I written about which you disagree with ?



I asked you to justify the following statement. 


> If I am religious then I am a law unto myself, have given up my capacity for independent thought and am a slave to whatever dogma or interpretation my hierarchy dictates (which is subject to change). I have decided that someone whether a mullah or a bishop is more intelligent than I am and I have allowed the dictates of this person to hijack my brain.



We shall agree to differ as to whether you have done so.

Fyi, I did not seek to justify religion, by proxy argument or otherwise.


----------



## Pique318 (19 Dec 2007)

> Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or be indistinguishable from - selfrighteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of time.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Dec 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I asked you to justify the following statement.



I completely stand by my statement. If you are religious, in my book there is a huge stye in your eye and flaw in your thinking.
You may realise that for a true follower of a religion the law of the land is secondary to the law of the religion . For a true Catholic and especially for the priesthood, papal law is superior to the states law. For a Muslim the same applies. At least in a democratic society we can change our laws. However the church is not a democracy. This is evident in the child sex abuse scandals where for all the claimed wisdom and infallibility in matters of morals, the perpetrators were not turned over to the police.  It is also fundamentally sexist and discriminatory towards the genders. If you think that sort of behaviour cannot be described by my so called sweeping statement then good luck to you.


----------



## cole (19 Dec 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> The only people holding out against evolution at this stage are the ignorant or the religious fundamentals. (even the Catholic Church has almost given in at this stage)


 
I'm neither ignorant nor a religious fundamentalist. I have studied evolution at degree level. I hold that it is merely a theory, one with lots of questions to answer still. It is by no stretch of the imagination the final dogma. It may turn out to be the correct theory, I don't know. It may be that it is flawed and will need to be revised. But to hold a _theory_ up as irrefutable scientific fact is misleading. It is a theory, and a dynamic one at that, and, dare I say, evolving.


----------



## diarmuidc (21 Dec 2007)

cole said:


> I'm neither ignorant nor a religious fundamentalist. I have studied evolution at degree level.


What degree and what college?


----------



## Purple (21 Dec 2007)

Jock04 said:


> <<< imagines Purple sitting back, grinning &  looking at what he's started!


LOL, You're not wrong!


----------



## madisona (21 Dec 2007)

cole said:


> I have studied evolution at degree level.


 
http://bapd.org/gunaty-1.html


----------



## cole (21 Dec 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> What degree and what college?


 
Does it matter?



madisona said:


> http://bapd.org/gunaty-1.html


----------



## Purple (21 Dec 2007)

I think that some of the religion bashing here is unfair, and I say that as a non-believer. I do think that the Catholic Church is moving more and more away from the teachings of scripture and more and more into reality and while this undermines the detail of their message I don’t think it undermines the spirituality at their core.
As for the “Evolution is a theory and so is flawed/ incomplete” line that is being bandied about here, so what? It is the best theory that we can come up with based on the facts that we have. Every now and then a scientist comes up with a “Whales evolved from Bears” theory and Creationists latch onto it as if it in some way validates their absurd beliefs by invalidating the framework of an accepted scientific theory. It’s like saying that the fossil record is incomplete and so therefore yellow arsed pixies created the universe. One does not equate to the other.
To be honest I expected more of “The moon would be too close to the Earth if it was more than 10’000 years old as it moves away a little each year”, “The earth’s magnetic fields should be dead if the world was that old”, or (my favourite) “ I accept micro-evolution, or special adaptation due to environment, but not evolution from one species to another” arguments from the creationists. To be honest this is too easy and so has gone off topic. It’s still fun, if it was a school report it would read “Good but could do better”.


----------



## stir crazy (21 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> I think that some of the religion bashing here is unfair,



I sincerely dont think any of the religions deserve a free lunch or a 'dig out' from anyone. As a non believer I dont care where they are going or in fact where they are now. I know theres a hell of a lot wrong with where they are now. Imagine any organisation with tax free status discriminating against women holding equal office with men for example ? If the golf clubs cant get away with it then why should  the catholic church or muslims ?


----------



## Remix (21 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> Every now and then a scientist comes up with a “Whales evolved from Bears” theory


 
Purple - the latest is that whales evolved from tiny deer-like creatures. 
In case you're wondering why whales don't have antlers - it's because their little deer ancestors didn't have any to begin with. I'm not making this up - here's the [broken link removed].

Here's a quote straight from the article.



> The earliest whales didn't look like whales at all," Thewissen said. "It looked like a cross between *a pig and a dog*."


 
Maybe something like this: [broken link removed] ancestor


----------



## BillK (21 Dec 2007)

Doesn't the sequence of the creation in Genesis conform roughly to the sequence of events put forward by the scientific community e.g. that life started in the sea etc?

Could Genesis be viewed as a parable for a very unsophisticated audience?

I haven't looked at a bible in donkey's years but that is how my history teacher at school put it to a class of 12 yr olds.


----------



## stir crazy (22 Dec 2007)

BillK said:


> Could Genesis be viewed as a parable for a very unsophisticated audience?




And what did the sophisticated audience of the inner circles learn ? To order the burnings of witches ? My view is they didnt have a clue then as now.  They dont have some other secret book with more sophisticated information inside. Its' amazing how the people who teach religion often dont understand any definition of what they teach and leave everything  as a grey area. It doesnt compete with the exactness of science.

Any sophistication, progress  and wonders we have in this day and age  does not come from religion but comes from science. Religion if given too much power would have had us still living in the stone age.


----------



## cole (22 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> Any sophistication, progress and wonders we have in this day and age does not come from religion but comes from science. Religion if given too much power would have had us still living in the stone age.


 
And science given too much power?

I don't think that religion is tying to compete with science. A religious belief is a guidebook on how to live your life imho.

Science tries to describe the wonders of the world but it hasn't yet fully explained how they got here. 

"_Why something rather than nothing_." Heidegger


----------



## stir crazy (22 Dec 2007)

cole said:


> And science given too much power?




The use to which science is put can be controlled by democratic processes in a transparent way. 
However the major religions are organised as dictatorships and secretly see themselves as above the law of the land where it conflicts with their law of god whether it be Papal law or Sharia law. They are non transparent.
Its' typically an argument of religions to restrict progress and the advancement of science, to worry about the power of the scientific idea waking people up to reason and logic. Its' their track record.


----------

