Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[spittledip]

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.

You are basing this on the assumption that if there is a God, He is subject to the same universal laws that we are. This is probably based upon the assumption that God is part of the same universe/dimension that we are.

Also, wishing away a "first cause" does not negate it as a problem for the atheist. Admittedly, first cause is a magic bullet for the theist, but this point is really only relevant if the only thing one is concerned about is winning an argument. You can dismiss it, but it remains a problem if you think about it.

 

[heymrdj]

I am done here. It is pretty clear that you have no inclination to accept facts.

Fact can't be placed in your mind because you've already gridlocked into a zealot stance. Evolution has to be true because lots of it has been proven true. No. It's not been proven in all accounts acrossed the board. You can't blanket statement say that evolution is true and not even cover the damn missing links. You're being purposefully dense to deny that fact. I *think* evolution is true as well. But it has not been proven. Does the theory work? Yes. But that's as far as it's gotten, and it's a long way from becoming a law.

Go on back to kindergarten and let everyone tell you the world is ok and that if you listen to what they put in your koolaid you'll be alright.

 

[mattpegher]

The Debate about the value of ID or Creationism vs that of evolution as a theory can be clarified with a quantification of scientific evidence. Theories such as evolution or string theory can be valued by quantifiing the strength of the evidence that supports them. A good example of the quantification of scientific evidence is the one currently used in Medicine
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/suppl/2010/07/15/304.3.321.DC1/JWE05077_07_21_2010.pdf

I'm not sure if the basic sciences have similiar scales, but the point is that the difference between accepted scientific theory and unsubstantiated theories lies in the body of supporting data. One can argue the minutia of evolution but the basis of the theory has strong empiric evidence. There does not even seem to be circumstantial evidence for ID or Creationism.

Finally I will reiterate a position from prior thread. As a physician with a BS in biochem and biophysics, I will state that the human being was not intelligently designed. The human body has thousands of design flaws that are a direct result of the way earlier animal systems were mutated to form latter ones. Given the known design flaws in human systems, I would have to postulate a god that intentionally chose to make imperfect systems. This would harken to the "problem of evil" argument re the debate about the nature of god.

Its one thing to create a universe that will lead to sentient beings that may have flaws that are inherent in the system, it is another to defy the laws of the universe to introduce flaws that are not inherently necessary.

 

[heymrdj]

What you are debating can be clarified with a quantification of scientific evidence. Theories such as evolution or string theory can be valued by quantifiing the strength of the evidence that supports them. A good example of the quantification of scientific evidence is the one currently used in Medicine
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/suppl/2010/07/15/304.3.321.DC1/JWE05077_07_21_2010.pdf

I'm not sure if the basic sciences have similiar scales, but the point is that the difference between accepted scientific theory and unsubstantiated theories lies in the body of supporting data. One can argue the minutia of evolution but the basis of the theory has strong empiric evidence. There does not even seem to be circumstantial evidence for ID or Creationism.

Finally I will reiterate a position from prior thread. As a physician with a BS in biochem and biophysics, I will state that the human being was not intelligently designed. The human body has thousands of design flaws that are a direct result of the way earlier animal systems were mutated to form latter ones. Given the known design flaws in human systems, I would have to postulate a god that intentionally chose to make imperfect systems. This would harken to the "problem of evil" argument re the debate about the nature of god.

"The absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense." Yes evolution has lots of evidence for it, and for the most part ID has none. But there's gaping holes in evolution still. Just because it's 60% correct doesn't make it 100% right.

 

[Paul98]

No I think what it's showing is your desire to use a different vernacular. To me, when a theory is proven without a doubt it becomes a law. Is that not how you see it, or do you believe with some other scientists that a theory is a well proven set of hypothesis that stands well enough on it's own?

A scientific theory never becomes a law. A scientific theory is as strong as something can get, and is supported by a collection of facts, has data and observations to back it up, makes predictions, can be falsified, explains how things work.

Really they need to make a law or some laws of evolution, maybe fewer people would try to deny it if they made some basic laws of evolution.

But this is my last post to you as you ether are willfully ignorant or are trolling.

 

[heymrdj]

A scientific theory never becomes a law. A scientific theory is as strong as something can get, and is supported by a collection of facts, has data and observations to back it up, makes predictions, can be falsified, explains how things work.

Really they need to make a law or some laws of evolution, maybe fewer people would try to deny it if they made some basic laws of evolution.

But this is my last post to you as you ether are willfully ignorant or are trolling.

And you're right that scientific theory is generally regarded as true. But there is such a thing as scientific law. A law states that something does happen, and a theory states why. We need a law of evolution to show that this happens to this. But because evolution is so haphazard, it most likely will never have a law. At least, not in our lifetime.

You can say it's trolling all you want. I'm asking the tough questions that determine what truth is in this. And with that it keeps coming back that we don't know the truth. People have such a hard time knowing that they live day to day on faith that what we know is right.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

They can be two separate issues, but if you're going to educate students you have to go from point A to B. You can't teach science without a standpoint. It's just not possible. It has to come from a faith, an assumption (since you guys can't take that word faith), a religion, something. Many books use the word theory, but I've never heard a teacher actually stop and explain that these are *assumptions*, that alot of what this theory rides on is an *assumption*. Can we explain the current world? For the most part, yes. Can we explain origins? No. Not yet anyways. But when I talk to these kids coming up these days they talk about it like it's proven fact. Teachers, text, or something in the chain apparently isn't making it clear to students that these are assumptions.

You just keep repeating yourself. I already replied to this when I stated one needs to replace faith with observation to be correct. From now on, anywhere where you're tempted to write "faith" in regards to science write observation and you'll be correct; I'm not going to keep repeating myself to explain it to someone who doesn't want to leave ignorance.

 

[heymrdj]

You just keep repeating yourself. I already replied to this when I stated one needs to replace faith with observation to be correct. From now on, anywhere where you're tempted to write "faith" in regards to science write observation and you'll be correct; I'm not going to keep repeating myself to explain it to someone who doesn't want to leave ignorance.

An observation, even one that repeats itself for 1 million years, doesn't necessarily repeat itself that way for 1million and one. At the core it's still a faith that it works that way even when observed. But for your comfort, we can use the word observed. Unless we're talking about the evolution of species, because that hasn't yet been observed. Or the origins of the universe. Of course observing the origins of the universe might be scary, we would all be erased. D:

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

An observation, even one that repeats itself for 1 million years, doesn't necessarily repeat itself that way for 1million and one. At the core it's still a faith that it works that way even when observed. But for your comfort, we can use the word observed. Unless we're talking about the evolution of species, because that hasn't yet been observed. Or the origins of the universe. Of course observing the origins of the universe might be scary, we would all be erased. D:

Do you realize how foolish you sound? Observation is still the basis of science regardless of what you want to think. No amount of you pouting on an internet forum will change that. So what if a million and one is different? At that point we'll reconsider the theory, that's the strength of science. You don't have faith in the observations. It's quite the opposite you scrutinize and distrust the observations looking for where you've observed wrong.

 

[Darwin333]

I must have missed the news story about scientists successfully fueling a Delorean with plutonium...

There is an outstanding difference between a "guess" and a well accepted scientific Theory with huge amounts of evidence to back it up.

 

[Lonbjerg]

OMG you're a funny person. It's wrong because...I object! What a silly little man you are. Species to species evolution hasn't been proven. Deal with it.

Don't lie.

Species is a human invention.
Nature just care about genom similarities/difference.
Strike 1

Micro/macro evolution is the same thing...just a different scales/timeintervals.
Strike 2

You have posted NOTHING to support you bullshit claim.
Because there is no evidence/data to support your claim.
Strike 3

Your not funny.
You are ignorant...and quite sad.

Here...do some reading up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

And then return when superstion dosn't make you post about topics you are clueless about.

 

[Darwin333]

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?

Since we can't figure it out to a T yet you think we should encourage students to look for the answer in religion instead of encouraging them to use actual science to better existing Theories?

BTW, there already is a disclaimer in the Theory of Evolution, that would be the word "Theory" (notice the capital T instead of the non-scientific use of the word theory). Would you like the same disclaimer above stated before we teach every Theory such as the Theory of Gravity or just the ones that some religious folk thinks undermines their god in some way?

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.

Of course it doesn't know yet, again that is what the "Theory" part stands for. The difference is that science is constantly looking for more evidence to refine its theories. Religion is a dead end when invoked in a scientific discussion.

Intelligent Design has been invoked for centuries, even by some of our greatest minds, and in most cases whatever they invoked it on was later explained. IMO, ID hindered their scientific progress, who knows what they would have discovered had they not just chalked it up to "Its way too complicated so god must have did it".

 

[Darwin333]

An observation, even one that repeats itself for 1 million years, doesn't necessarily repeat itself that way for 1million and one. At the core it's still a faith that it works that way even when observed. But for your comfort, we can use the word observed. Unless we're talking about the evolution of species, because that hasn't yet been observed. Or the origins of the universe. Of course observing the origins of the universe might be scary, we would all be erased. D:

I have observed gravity many times. I don't know how gravity actually works, nor does science. Yet I don't think anyone would argue that it requires "faith" to think that if you jump off a building you are going to fall towards the Earth.

Perhaps you would like to argue that, is it faith that keeps people who don't want to die from jumping off of skyscrapers and out of planes with no parachute?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

 

[Darwin333]

And you're right that scientific theory is generally regarded as true. But there is such a thing as scientific law. A law states that something does happen, and a theory states why. We need a law of evolution to show that this happens to this. But because evolution is so haphazard, it most likely will never have a law. At least, not in our lifetime.


You can say it's trolling all you want. I'm asking the tough questions that determine what truth is in this. And with that it keeps coming back that we don't know the truth. People have such a hard time knowing that they live day to day on faith that what we know is right.

The truth is that we know evolution has happened and is happening. We can prove that. We don't know everything about evolution and there is still a lot of work to be done on the science front but we do know for a fact that it is happening.

If you are asking for perfect answers before you will accept something than science is not the realm for you and I have no idea why you would be wasting your time attempting to engage in a debate concerning science.

 

[Onceler]

Triceratops grazed on grass and had horns and butted heads to compete.
Now we have bulls who do the same thing and are similar.
Everything has a purpose.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

The "stuff" that the universe is made of was produced inside of stars. You and I are quite literally made up of stardust. Where did the "stuff" that made the first stars come from, I don't think we know yet but I am quite sure that they are working on it and eventually we will.

 

[Onceler]

In a Gnostic creation myth God called forth the Ildabaoth which had a tiny hard stone in it's stomach and it burst and the universe emerged from the stone exploding.

 

[Lonbjerg]

The "stuff" that the universe is made of was produced inside of stars. You and I are quite literally made up of stardust. Where did the "stuff" that made the first stars come from, I don't think we know yet but I am quite sure that they are working on it and eventually we will.

The "stuff" is the leftover from the matter/anti-matter "war" right after Big Bang.
Talking about "before" Big Bang makes no sense...as space-time was created at the Big Bang.

But funny how creationist dorks can't seem to differenciate between:
Big Bang
Abiogensis
Evolution.

Some how they think they are one and the same thing....quite funny...in a sad way.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You claimed that my statement that he did not show any support is a faith based belief. In order for my statement to be faith based, there would have to be no evidence to support it. This means you say there was support for his position (which would invalidate my claim), I want you to show this proof. Since you therefor claim he posted support for his position, you need to quote this proof.

Invalid inference. You do not know that you have any evidence, since you cannot logically exclude that what you believe to be evidence is in fact a supernatural illusion. You take the alleged evidence on faith that this is not the case.

It is not a hard concept, I am sure you already understand it.

I understand it thoroughly. I also understand whether deliberately or not, you are apparently too ignorant to grasp it yourself.

 

[spittledip]

The "stuff" that the universe is made of was produced inside of stars. You and I are quite literally made up of stardust. Where did the "stuff" that made the first stars come from, I don't think we know yet but I am quite sure that they are working on it and eventually we will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrWNTqbLFFE

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OMG you're a funny person. It's wrong because...I object! What a silly little man you are. Species to species evolution hasn't been proven. Deal with it.

I asked you this question in another thread, and never got an answer:

Can you give me an example of something you think has been "proven" in science?

After you answer that question, please take some time to read these links.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Talking about "before" Big Bang makes no sense...as space-time was created at the Big Bang.

Which is a bit of a problem since it may be that our universe is not the first and only. Ours may in fact be influenced by a prior existence. Kind of cool, eh?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are basing this on the assumption that if there is a God, He is subject to the same universal laws that we are.

This isn't about laws of nature or laws of physics. This is about the laws of logic. The term "god" isn't an automatic "get-out-of-logical-jail-free" card.

Why should we believe that the universe came to be if the theist doesn't have a problem accepting that his god did not?

Also, wishing away a "first cause" does not negate it as a problem for the atheist.

You need to demonstrate that there was a first anything before you can expect anyone to determine its purported cause. Show me that the universe actually did begin before you expect me to explain the beginning you don't even know to exist.

 

[cybrsage]

That is possible, but I still maintain my stand. You cannot simply measure the amount of evolution taking place right now. There is no way to quantify evolution as micro or macro.

Your stance would be wrong. Much like micro vs macro economics, it is all a matter of what it covers.