What?! Are you a Creationist?
What?! Are you a Creationist?
On the latter point, there's plenty of research and evidence to back up the processes behind actions and behaviour, though the conclusion tends to be we're predictably irrational. I often act on gut instinct even though I consider myself generally rational. It's nothing to do with faith, just part of my evolution.
However, you don't answer the question. Why am I protected under law for being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc, but not a Scientologist? The point is valid in that if you protect one set of beliefs you must protect them all, yet that's not the case.
It is interesting though that you say that you do accept the work of scientists because they understand it even though you don't, are you putting your faith in their work by any chance?
Theories based on evidence are just that, theories.
I just keep an open mind to all possibilities as I believe that a question that has an answer that is out of reach for the human race is one that won't be answered in my lifetime.
I wouldn't object to scientologists having the same rights as the others you mention. As for faith and evolution, I guess its just a matter of perception. Luckily we don't all make rational choices all of the time and better still we don't get locked up for making harmless choices that others deem borderline insane.
actually, MrMan, those, who don't want believe in Adam and Eve, don't believe in humans having descended from apes either - they believe that apes and humans had common ancestors - there is a slight difference between those two.
the thesis that we descended from apes was a deliberate anti-darwinist misinterpretation which wanted to belittle and mock darwin's theory of evolution of species. and the big bang theory isn't such a nonsense either - still better than believing in someone creating the universe in 7 days.
I only have a vague understanding of the physics behind the big bang theory but I do understand that the theory has been developed over decades and that it is based on scientific theory and logical deduction and that it is open to critical review.
You say that as if it diminished them in some way. A scientific theory, once proposed, will be attacked by other scientists all over the world some of whom will spend their life trying to pick holes in it. A scientific theory that withstands that sort of review is a remarkable thing.
Creationism is not a theory since it is not based on any scientific information. It is based on nothing more than 3000 year old tribal writings. Its proponents argue in its favour by looking at the gaps in evolutionary theory rather than the mountain of information supporting it.
I didn't say that the big bang theory was nonsense, i just said people have different beliefs, why you believe one unconfirmed theory over another is up to the individual.
Apes and humans had common ancestors, so where did they come from? Where did the first ancestor come from?
But has a scientific theory given us a definitive answer? For me to prove that you are wrong is not enough to make me right, it just means that until someone proves their theory is fact we are all still clueless.
It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that evolution and creationism are in any way comparable as robust theories. Evolution is based on observed fact and deduced theories which, in many cases, have later been backed up by conclusive fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to back up creationism.
Read a few books! Start with junior cert level biology.
Evolutionary theory is what links many known facts into a holistic proposition. What you say above is akin to saying that because we cannot conclusively prove that time is not a constant there could be a fairy city under the Rock of Cashel.
Z
z107
Guest
A creationism Vs Evolution thread! - where did this pop out of? 
It's been a while since we've had one of these. Maybe we'll find the answer this time.
Evolution isn't based on experiments that can be recreated. Any empirical evidence is questionable, and is not back up by 'conclusive fact'.
It's been a while since we've had one of these. Maybe we'll find the answer this time.
As far as theories go, they are both as bad as each other.
Evolution isn't based on experiments that can be recreated. Any empirical evidence is questionable, and is not back up by 'conclusive fact'.
Z
z107
Guest
What happened prior to the Big Bang, before space and time existed? First there was nothing, and then it exploded.
Rubbish. There is well documented evidence of evolution all around us. It has been observed and documented in plants and animals. There is a fossil record of animals that are now extinct which can be shown to demonstrate a progressive adaptation of changing environments.
There is not one piece of evidence anywhere that backs up creationism. In fact there is a mountain of evidence that disputes the events outlines in the various conflicting creation stories in the bible.
If time isn’t a constant (as proposed by Einstein) then there was no time before the big bang.
Z
z107
Guest
Has someone sat watching a plant or an animal evolve? did they then successfully repeat the experiment? That's how empirical scientific theory is formed. Everything from colliding particles to dropping weights off the tower of Pisa is done in this fashion. Experiments that can be repeated and observed.
That's why I put 'before space and time existed'. It just adds to the enigma.
Creationism isn't just Bible Creationism. There's also evolutionary Creationism and probably a whole lot more.
Why don't you post something that disproves Creationism?
Yes, the evolution of the Peppered Moth over the last 200 year has been observed and studied in detail.
Not all scientific theory (or fact) is deducted by repeatable experiment. It is often based on observation. For example plate tectonics is accepted as fact despite the fact that scientists have not moved any tectonic plates in laboratories. The existence of black holes is also accepted as a fact by most people despite the fact that they have not been recreated in labs either.
Yes, the celestial teapot and the giant spaghetti monster cannot be disproved either. The same applies to fairies, pixies or goblins. Is it reasonable to suggest that they are in fact real just because it cannot be proven that they are not? I would rather say that until one single piece of evidence supporting creationism is proposed it cannot be given any scientific value.
elefantfresh
Registered User
- Messages
- 450
Z
z107
Guest
Why do I get that deja vu feeling?
Same old arguments, again and again and again...
Read the 'Criticism and controversy' section of the peppered moth article. It'll save me cutting and pasting chunks of it.
Can we break it down to this?
1. Do you completely denounce all forms of Creationism.
2. Do you believe Evolution to be true?
(BTW, plate tectonics isn't accepted as fact, it's still a theory)
Same old arguments, again and again and again...
Read the 'Criticism and controversy' section of the peppered moth article. It'll save me cutting and pasting chunks of it.
Can we break it down to this?
1. Do you completely denounce all forms of Creationism.
2. Do you believe Evolution to be true?
(BTW, plate tectonics isn't accepted as fact, it's still a theory)
Yes and yes.
Only by the kind of people who believe in creationism.