Creationism

ClubMan said:

No warped thinking deserves any automatic deference or respect. .

Click to expand...

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

madisona said:

pots shouln't be calling kettles black.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

leghorn said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

cole said:

Just wondering why these things appear daft?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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"?

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"?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

leghorn said:

A creationism thread...


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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

You are assuming wings/feathers first evolved for flight.

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

In certain circumstances it may be more advantageous to be multi-celled. Allows cells to specialise. Ever think why there are no big single cell organisms yet loads of big multicell?

Click to expand...

I

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

leghorn said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

redstar said:

Here is a Catholic archbishops viewpoint on creationism...

[broken link removed]

Some excerpts from this....;


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

Click to expand...

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.

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?

ClubMan said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

cole said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

leghorn said:

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

Click to expand...

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

michaelm said:

And other nonsense about time travel and infinite parallel universes.

Click to expand...

... 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

Click to expand...

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.