Creationism

I assume you are trolling. If not you need to open a science book. All your points have been refuted plenty of times.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not trolling. Please enlighten me.
 
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 ?
Click to expand...
The onus is not on me to disprove such; put me down as an confirmed agnostic in relation to such science if you will.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
michaelm said:
But do you apply the same reasoning to the existence of God?
Click to expand...
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 m-board to itself, never mind a whole new AAM thread !!]
 
I assume you are trolling. If not you need to open a science book. All your points have been refuted plenty of times.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find many religions have quite famous books that they believe back up their claims too.
 
redstar said:
The alternative to the scientific approach is 'belief'.
Science and belief are opposite.
Click to expand...

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)
 
the balance of probability weighs heavily against the existence of a God.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you mean by this either.
How can you assign a probability to the existance of a God?
 
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.
 
madisona said:
so man is the result of divine creation whereas women evolved from apes . makes sense
Click to expand...


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 .")
 
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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 


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.
 

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".
 

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register