Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[fskimospy]

It's an impossible question to answer but interesting to entertain. I suppose that creating beings with freedom of choice means setting up a clockwork universe wouldn't b.e a good idea.

That's another problem that omniscience creates though, if someone created the entire universe and everything in it and knows exactly how all parts of that universe will act at all times, then free will is an illusion.

By far the better solution for describing god is to make him really really enormously smart/powerful/knowledgeable/whatever, but stop short of omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[IronWing]

You want your cake and eat it too. Macro evolution isn't firmly proven, there hasn't even been an observed case of it within scientific lifetime. Creationism isn't proven either, nor can be observed. It's easy to see that science taught in class rooms should very well have a disclaimer that this is our best assumption as to what happened, and that we really don't have any proof to say it did and that you're free to go elsewhere to find something that makes more sense to your personal taste. I really don't see what the big deal is with that. Why do you defend lying to students about what we really know. It should firmly be planted in their heads from day one that WE DON't KNOW. Is it insecurity? Will kids go crazy when they don't have a fairytale to believe in as to their origins? Because that's what science is putting in their heads right now. A fairytale. A fairytale that man knows all the answers and will save them from confusion and misunderstanding. Hell we can't even put a man on mars yet, you think we can figure out where we came from to a T?

Also thanks for proving my point. By saying it's on creationism to prove it, you point out that science really doesn't know. Go on and admit it, you'll look like less of a fool than defending it like a zealot.

We don't know, therefore magic. The god of the gaps forever reigns.

 

[cybrsage]

That's another problem that omniscience creates though, if someone created the entire universe and everything in it and knows exactly how all parts of that universe will act at all times, then free will is an illusion.

By far the better solution for describing god is to make him really really enormously smart/powerful/knowledgeable/whatever, but stop short of omniscience and omnipotence.

Not exactly. If God knows every possible choice everyone could ever make and knows the outcome of every choice from the beginning of time to the end, then God certainly knows the future.

Free will being an illusion is a great debate topic of its own, though.

 

[heymrdj]

Observations were made. Assumptions created then confirmed for macro evolution that you don't understand it doesn't have any effect on it. That you have a complete lack of understanding of science doesn't mean anything to anyone else.

Where? The Ecoli experiment? The bacteria was still a bacteria, it never grew out of species. Fossils of supposed missing links? There's way too many holes in that to use for proof. An assumption maybe, proof? No. Where's the proof of macro evolution.

It also still comes back to the first point. What made the "stuff" the universe is made from? Even if macro was proven true, it still does not allow for the actual universe coming into being. Most of our laws as we know them would fail if it were possible for the universe to self create.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Where? The Ecoli experiment? The bacteria was still a bacteria, it never grew out of species. Fossils of supposed missing links? There's way too many holes in that to use for proof. An assumption maybe, proof? No. Where's the proof of macro evolution.

It also still comes back to the first point. What made the "stuff" the universe is made from? Even if macro was proven true, it still does not allow for the actual universe coming into being. Most of our laws as we know them would fail if it were possible for the universe to self create.

Sorry, I'm not here to give you a science lesson.

 

[IronWing]

Your drawing things out of proportion. A minerologist could very well be a flying spaghetti monster believer and still study the earth and be productive. You want to lead the next generation with blindfolds on? That's just as bad as a religious nutcase teaching our next generation. Both blind people as to what is really going on, a world full of questions with no answers, some of which probably can't ever be answered.

No. To be productive, they would have to suspend their disbelief and utilize the tools and findings of science (ie, act exactly as if they accepted old earth/evolution) to carry out useful work. No one has posited a rational system of organizing the mountains of geologic data collected over the years without utilizing both evolution and an old age for the earth.

 

[heymrdj]

Sorry, I'm not here to give you a science lesson.

Ok you don't know. Thanks very much for proving my point.

 

[cybrsage]

You assume the assumptions are based on nothing; they are not. It was observations that formed the base assumptions. "Deductions made from them corresponded to reality" was an important part of your quote, which you conveniently ignored.

Please quote me the observations of 15 minutes after the big bang finished. Go ahead, take your time.

As for deductions corresponding to reality, that is simple to show. I can say the speed of light was 1000 times faster for the first hour after the big bang, then slowed down to 1000 times slower for the next hour, then sped back up to what it is now. When I look at the world around us today, I find my assumption corresponds to reality.

We can show some assumptions to not be true, but it is impossible to show an assumption to be true, else they would no longer be assumptions...exactly what Asimov said.

We MUST make assumptions in a great many things else we cannot move forward.

 

[heymrdj]

No. To be productive, they would have to suspend their disbelief and utilize the tools and findings of science (ie, act exactly as if they accepted old earth/evolution) to carry out useful work. No one has posited a rational system of organizing the mountains of geologic data collected over the years without utilizing both evolution and an old age for the earth.

There are religions that don't clash with old age earth and evolution, you understand that, right? You're speaking in absolutes.

 

[cybrsage]

Creationism provides no useful results, no testable hypotheses, no plausible rules of evidence, and is impervious to reason.

This is why it is not a valid scientific theory.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Ok you don't know. Thanks very much for proving my point.

You don't know. Like I said not here for science lessons. The information is freely and widely available.

 

[busydude]

You want your cake and eat it too. Macro evolution isn't firmly proven, there hasn't even been an observed case of it within scientific lifetime. Creationism isn't proven either, nor can be observed. It's easy to see that science taught in class rooms should very well have a disclaimer that this is our best assumption as to what happened, and that we really don't have any proof to say it did and that you're free to go elsewhere to find something that makes more sense to your personal taste. I really don't see what the big deal is with that. Why do you defend lying to students about what we really know. It should firmly be planted in their heads from day one that WE DON't KNOW. Is it insecurity? Will kids go crazy when they don't have a fairytale to believe in as to their origins? Because that's what science is putting in their heads right now. A fairytale. A fairytale that man knows all the answers and will save them from confusion and misunderstanding. Hell we can't even put a man on mars yet, you think we can figure out where we came from to a T?

Also thanks for proving my point. By saying it's on creationism to prove it, you point out that science really doesn't know. Go on and admit it, you'll look like less of a fool than defending it like a zealot.

Any one who talks about macro evolution is an idiot. There is only one type of evolution, and it is called "evolution. "

 

[heymrdj]

You don't know. Like I said not here for science lessons. The information is freely and widely available.

The information is indeed freely and widely available. But if it's going to be taught in schools the whole truth needs taught, not just what works to cover up the fallacies. We could very well say the same about many course in school, why teach it if the information is available?

Any one who talks about macro evolution is an idiot. There is only one type of evolution, and it is called "evolution. "

If we dont segregate the types then we have to go back to calling all of evolution a theory because of that glaring unproven fault. If we separate then we can at least teach the proven parts. I don't understand why that's such an issue to you.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

The information is indeed freely and widely available. But if it's going to be taught in schools the whole truth needs taught, not just what works to cover up the fallacies. We could very well say the same about many course in school, why teach it if the information is available?

If we dont segregate the types then we have to go back to calling all of evolution a theory because of that glaring unproven fault. If we separate then we can at least teach the proven parts. I don't understand why that's such an issue to you.

You should just stop embarrassing yourself. The whole truth? Like they need to go over what a biology major would learn in four years in an 8th grade biology class? I'm guessing that's not what you're saying, but any way you look at it you're just being an idiot.

 

[heymrdj]

You should just stop embarrassing yourself. The whole truth? Like they need to go over what a biology major would learn in four years in an 8th grade biology class? I'm guessing that's not what you're saying, but any way you look at it you're just being an idiot.

Are you just being intentionally dense at this point, or are you just a fool who prefers to lie to people out of simplicity. Either way you're a waste of oxygen.

One more time, in simple terms. The origin of the universe is unknown, and unproven. It should be VERY CLEARLY spelled out in any class that talks about it that this is at best an assumption from scientists based on what we've found to be true about the universe in scientific record. We don't know what the universe was like at its inception, we're unsure of how it was created, and we don't know where the matter came from. With that, we'll talk about what we do know and what's left to find out.


Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you just being intentionally dense at this point, or are you just a fool who prefers to lie to people out of simplicity. Either way you're a waste of oxygen.

One more time, in simple terms. The origin of the universe is unknown, and unproven. It should be VERY CLEARLY spelled out in any class that talks about it that this is at best an assumption from scientists based on what we've found to be true about the universe in scientific record. We don't know what the universe was like at its inception, we're unsure of how it was created, and we don't know where the matter came from. With that, we'll talk about what we do know and what's left to find out.


Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Every single thing in science is at best an assumption based on what we've found to be true about the universe.

I have never seen a single textbook or class that states we have a definitive answer to how the universe came to be, but I can't possibly understand why that matters. First, god faces the exact same insurmountable first cause issues as our universe does. Second, evolution makes no claims about the origins of the universe.

 

[heymrdj]

Every single thing in science is at best an assumption based on what we've found to be true about the universe.

I have never seen a single textbook or class that states we have a definitive answer to how the universe came to be, but I can't possibly understand why that matters. First, god faces the exact same insurmountable first cause issues as our universe does. Second, evolution makes no claims about the origins of the universe.

You're stuck on evolution. The conversation has long "evolved" passed that point and has been a discussion on science in the classrooms for awhile now.

The use of any being in class faces the same insurmountable issues. I still believe they should be offered as an alternative to kids, but I digress that most children get a study of the worlds different religions and takes on creations from political science and international history courses to suit them well enough. But if we've decided that the only possibilities taught in a classroom are those that involve self creation then we need to make sure that it's firmly drilled in kids heads that its all assumption. I've never seen a class room book discuss the start of dinosaurs ect in a way that assures the kids that this is all our assumption based work, not fact so don't take it that way. Even my college text books talked of the big bang assuredly which was just plain false. Would it be tiring to see the words "think", "theory", and "assume" every couple of lines? Yes. But it would be the truth.

 

[fskimospy]

You're stuck on evolution. The conversation has long "evolved" passed that point and has been a discussion on science in the classrooms for awhile now.

The use of any being in class faces the same insurmountable issues. I still believe they should be offered as an alternative to kids, but I digress that most children get a study of the worlds different religions and takes on creations from political science and international history courses to suit them well enough. But if we've decided that the only possibilities taught in a classroom are those that involve self creation then we need to make sure that it's firmly drilled in kids heads that its all assumption. I've never seen a class room book discuss the start of dinosaurs ect in a way that assures the kids that this is all our assumption based work, not fact so don't take it that way. Even my college text books talked of the big bang assuredly which was just plain false. Would it be tiring to see the words "think", "theory", and "assume" every couple of lines? Yes. But it would be the truth.

First, it's called the big bang theory. Also, scientific theories are frequently heavily supported by evidence. You know we still have a theory of gravity, right?

As for teaching, we have decided the only rational thing for our science classes. We only teach things in science class that have scientific evidence to back them up. There is a great deal of evidence that backs up evolution as the method by which the current state of life exists. There is zero evidence that creationism is responsible for such a thing.

When creationism gets scientific evidence to back it up, we'll teach it in science class. Same goes for all the other religious explanations for the universe. I'm not going to hold my breath on any of those though.

 

[heymrdj]

First, it's called the big bang theory. Also, scientific theories are frequently heavily supported by evidence. You know we still have a theory of gravity, right?

As for teaching, we have decided the only rational thing for our science classes. We only teach things in science class that have scientific evidence to back them up. There is a great deal of evidence that backs up evolution as the method by which the current state of life exists. There is zero evidence that creationism is responsible for such a thing.

When creationism gets scientific evidence to back it up, we'll teach it in science class. Same goes for all the other religious explanations for the universe. I'm not going to hold my breath on any of those though.

You can mold evidence around theory quite simply. It's not all that difficult to do. Again, remember the egg? Again science DOES NOT have backup for the creation out of nothing. The big bang theory is not fully supported, and it certainly does not have any evidence for information prior (where did the matter come from that the bang used?) It's hypothetical and bordering on even theoretical. You can't prove where the stuff came from. A great deal of science does back up evolution, but there's still gaping holes in it, and those holes need to be taught just as hard to a student as what we do know.

 

[fskimospy]

You can mold evidence around theory quite simply. It's not all that difficult to do. Again, remember the egg? Again science DOES NOT have backup for the creation out of nothing. The big bang theory is not fully supported, and it certainly does not have any evidence for information prior (where did the matter come from that the bang used?) It's hypothetical and bordering on even theoretical. You can't prove where the stuff came from. A great deal of science does back up evolution, but there's still gaping holes in it, and those holes need to be taught just as hard to a student as what we do know.

The big bang makes no claim as to the origin of matter, it's simply not part of the theory. In fact, I've never seen a high school textbook with a section on the origin of matter. Perhaps it was mentioned offhand, but I'm willing to bet it was simply to state that we have very little information on that.

I'm not sure where you are getting some of these ideas.

 

[busydude]

The information is indeed freely and widely available. But if it's going to be taught in schools the whole truth needs taught, not just what works to cover up the fallacies. We could very well say the same about many course in school, why teach it if the information is available?



If we dont segregate the types then we have to go back to calling all of evolution a theory because of that glaring unproven fault. If we separate then we can at least teach the proven parts. I don't understand why that's such an issue to you.

Evolution is called "The theory of evolution. "

I take it that.. You don't know what "theory" actually means in scientific community.

 

[busydude]

You can mold evidence around theory quite simply. It's not all that difficult to do. Again, remember the egg? Again science DOES NOT have backup for the creation out of nothing. The big bang theory is not fully supported, and it certainly does not have any evidence for information prior (where did the matter come from that the bang used?) It's hypothetical and bordering on even theoretical. You can't prove where the stuff came from. A great deal of science does back up evolution, but there's still gaping holes in it, and those holes need to be taught just as hard to a student as what we do know.

And they do talk about those gaping holes. It was not until recently that we knew there are super massive black holes that hold galaxies together. People spend countless hours on the pursuit of the unknown... And the beauty of Science is that there is always something unknown to humans.

Religion does not want to talk about these gaping holes. One cannot ask questions about religion or questions the existence of God.. Without risking his own life. You just have to accept it, and that is against our basic human nature.

 

[cybrsage]

Any one who talks about macro evolution is an idiot. There is only one type of evolution, and it is called "evolution. "

Are you sure about that?

Welcome to Evolution 101!
by the Understanding Evolution team

What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution. You can explore the following sections:

• An introduction to evolution
  Evolution briefly defined and explained
• The history of life: looking at the patterns
  How does evolution lead to the tree of life?
• Mechanisms: the processes of evolution
  How does evolution work?
• Microevolution
  How does evolution work on a small scale?
• Speciation
  What are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve?
• Macroevolution
  How does evolution work on a grand scale?
• The big issues

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

It would appear you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Religion does not want to talk about these gaping holes. One cannot ask questions about religion or questions the existence of God.. Without risking his own life. You just have to accept it, and that is against our basic human nature.

In the Christian religions as they exist today there is considerable disagreement about evolution and creation, yet they aren't killing each other. Sometimes the hyperbole goes too much the other way.

 

[busydude]

In the Christian religions as they exist today there is considerable disagreement about evolution and creation, yet they aren't killing each other. Sometimes the hyperbole goes too much the other way.

That is because there are strict laws that are governing the land where you live. The first world is not equal to the planet earth.