[D Man]

I'm glad to see this became another creation Vs evolution debate.

/sarcasm.

Its like a coiled spring: just mention the two, or even one of them and the same old crap gets churned out over and over.

So, the purpose of this thread is to look at the difference in how creationists and scientists operate.

First off I just realised that this is one of the ideal environments for a creationist to look like they're making a good argument. There are no opportunities for scientists to present real evidence, no one has the time to make a thoroughly justified or refferenced case and the closest thing to a lab, field trip or time studying behaviour and ecosystems or fossils is posting links.

i.e. An internet forum is not a good place for science!

Creationists on the other hand can use all the normal tricks.

Lets have a look at a couple that have been used in this thread.

Argument from incredulity:

Any point that consists of "I dont see how..." "that doesnt makes sense to me" "Its inconcievable that". These are very common in the creationist repetoire and mean precisely nothing. It was inconcievable 200 years ago that the universe is 20 billion light years accross. Quantum mechanics still is inconcievable, and we wouldnt be having this discussion without it. Lots of things were or are inconcievable. Get over it.

The good old "Science is just a belief too". This is slight of hand. It seems true on shallow inspection because complete certainty is impossible in anything, so faith must be the basis for all thought and action. Its a semantics game to distract you from reasoning logically. Science demands evidence, faith by definition demands belief without evidence.

The 'evolution is not proven' card has been played (it always is). No its not. There I said it. However, the evidence for it is tremendous and evolution is the only valid explanation for our observations of life. There is NOTHING else going. "God did it" is not acceptable. How did god do it? Where did god come from? How did that happen? The proof that it fails to deliver is repeatable observation of speciation. Ironically its a prediction of evloution that speciation cannot happen the same way twice, and if we saw it it would be decent evidence for a guiding intelligence to evolution. The proof that it has is akin to weighing up the evidence in a trial and passing verdict. Juries dont demand that a defendant commit the crime again to pass a guilty verdict. Likewise if they dont re-offend that doesnt mean they're innocent! Rational judgements based on evidence in used there. The same is true of evolution.

Ad homenim attacks: the character of Proff Joe Bloggs has come under attack! My god, scientists are all smartypants and I dont like them so I dont have to listen to what they say!

The 'Scientists argue about evolution' lie. Yes, LIE. This falls under the method of persuation by telling porky pies method. Cladists argue about whether this species or that is realted to this or that where there isnt enough evidence to close the case. Geneticists argue about whether this gene could carry out that function as well as that one or not. And so on. Details. Scientists argue about the details. What frame to put the picture in. The actual validity of evolution itself is not debated by credible scientists. Only hacks with honorary degrees (the best of which are 3 whole months work) from unaccredited universities.

Silence.

The main way a creationist keeps their head clear of all these pesky bits of evidence is by ignoring or evading questions that are difficult for them to answer with the logic that they espouse. Flaws in organisms are particularly good. Lazy, incompetent God! There have been a few asked in this thread and the answers were either not there or not worth reading. If they had to admit infront of a crowd (internet debate or public in real time) that they dont have a straight up answer, they lose face. Creationsts need face: its crucial what with not having any evidence.

It has been good to read (about 2/3 of) a civilised disucssion though. Glad to see some of the more underhanded methods not coming up (attacking logics without providing evidence or alternatives, just complex and ambiguous language, emotional arguments: "Youre not DUMB are you?", moral arguments of their varous kinds [they go right down to ascociating evolution with nazism]). And thank christ there were no cleverly edited interviews, pamphlets, minimal scripture and no one blathering about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, walkmen 'evolving' into ipods or concordes being made out of scrap heaps by tornadoes

[Dolorous Menhir]

That's a nice summary D Man, I have to agree - I'm quite relieved no-one has whipped out the Second Law of Thermodynamics yet. The best response to that is to ask for an explanation of the law from that person. And when they respond "order always decreases" or the like, ask for the actual law rather than their misconceptions of it. Or just tell them how they are wrong.

You did miss out "but the Bible says..." in your list of worthless creationist arguments but otherwise, well done.

No doubt there will come a day when evolution has truly triumphed over intelligent design in the public arena (it's already beaten creationism, hence the need for intelligent design as a more "acceptable" substitute). Hopefully that will be soon.

[caladanbrood]

D Man;126980 said:

I'm glad to see this became another creation Vs evolution debate.

/sarcasm.

What, in a thread called "Creation vs Evolution"? Shocking, isn't it...

/sarcasm

The problem with creationism is that there is no possible way to actually obtain evidence for it, short of the creator coming to earth and dangling his noodly appendages all over the place.

Personally I don't see the problem of the two theories working in tandem - something has to start off the process, but how long ago, and at what level, theres no way of knowing.

[The Rope]

you're right, the bible never does address the idea of evolution. Basically, all it says is that because of God's will, everything was created - it started.

re: the whole bible being tampered with idea:
If there is a God, and the Bible is His Word, then He would make sure it wasn't tampered with - if however there is No God, therefore the Bible is NOT His word, and the argument is useless. Basically anyone who asserts that the Bible has bee tampered with is just asserting that God doesnt exist - so no more about its validity. So far, my use of the bible in this discussion is as the main hypothesis of creation - vague and simple. there is no in between from when God decided to create, and everything existing now.
The Bible is not a science textbook. It does not explain how things work - that is for science to decide.

The ONLY truly biblical statement of science that modern science calls into question is the creation account. I have sorely strived to make sure any use of the bible i have made is "the bible never said" or "it doesnt say"... I agree that it is ointless to use the Bible as a means of argument in this discussion as its not a valid scientific reference. Many of my arguments seem circular and contradictary - thats usually because i'm frustrated and can't express myself.

I hope that can end any further discussion on the bible in this thread - there's a bible thread elsewhere in this forum.

Back on track - How does knowing how life originated help humanity? Scientifically speaking... I'm honestly wanting to know, as it has never been explained to me by a scientist... even though this question kinda nullifies my past arguments (not that they were really taken seriously to begin with)

[Dolorous Menhir]

There doesn't need to be a reason to search for the knowledge of mankind's origins. It's a basic human impulse to ask why, and any benefits that might result are consequences, not motivations.

Of course there are other reasons, I'm sure you can come up with them yourself.

But here's one - understanding the origin of humanity will shed light on our place in the world. Implicit in a lot of creationist teaching is that when humans were made, they were set on the top of the pyramid of life, and they have the right to do what they like on the Earth (hence a cavalier attitude to the environment and racial extinction by some elements of the religious right). Obviously evolution totally discards this idea, with resultant adjustments in morality and society. (this is a less often-noted reason for people objecting to evolution, it's not just that people dislike the misconception that they are "descended from apes", they don't like the implication that they are not actually on the top rung in nature's ladder).

[The Rope]

If that is what creationism teaches - i am not a creationist. I believe the bible - Mankind was set at the top, not to do as they wish, but to do what was right, namely to care for the earth and the other creatures on it. If anyone is familiar with the Mosaic Law (the Torah) there were strict guidelines for the treatment of animals. There were only three allowances to kill animals - 1: For food and clothing 2: Sacrifice (there were specifics on this as well) and 3: for protection.

Obviously the creationism talked about here is NOT the kind that I prescribe to - which is what is taught in the Bible. We seem to have an opposite view - Because I believe in a God, I feel responsible to Him for my actions regarding treatment of the environment and animals. From my POV, evolutionists have no such higher responsibilty - technically it should be survival of the fittest, and not acknowledging a higher power is placing themselves at the top of the heap.
It is apparent that we are both - or rather were both ignorant of each other's views on this matter, so I am grateful for your bringing it up. It seems there is no black&white for either camp of belief...

[The Rope]

[quote name='potsherds']I give every green plant for food."[/quote]

For food... Does subdue have to mean "by violent means"?

Let me ask this:
If you bought a piece of land, cultivated it, made a beautiful garden, and built a beautiful house, then populated it with peaceful animals, then rented it out to someone - You might tell them to enjoy the property, to eat the fruit and vegetables growing, to watch over the pets - keep them from causing damage "subduing" them if you will... Does that mean you would approve of them trashing the house, burning the garden and slaughtering the animals?

Revelation 11:18, NIV (the translation i usually use makes better sense, but this one says the same thing, and the one I use isn't on this site)
[quote name='http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2011:16-18&version=31']18The nations were angry; and your wrath has come.
The time has come for judging the dead,
and for rewarding your servants the prophets
and your saints and those who reverence your name,
both small and great—
and for destroying those who destroy the earth."[/quote]

[Demon X]

I'm sorry if I offend anyone but there is NO GOD!

The sooner we realise this the sooner we'll all get along!

I'd love if there was a God, I really would. but there isnt! So get over it!

[Hume]

Demon X;127198 said:

I'd love if there was a God, I really would. !

This confuses me :confused:

And I agree with your other points.

God dont exist people.

There is yet to be a second enlightenment (I hope so anyway).
Where as the masses also begin to disbelieve god.

[Demon X]

Relax take it Easy;127200 said:

This confuses me :confused:

And I agree with your other points.

God dont exist people.

There is yet to be a second enlightenment (I hope so anyway).
Where as the masses also begin to disbelieve god.

It confuses loads of people! lol

One of the reasons that I'm attracted to fantasy novels is their Gods and Pantheons. I love the Idea of Gods and magic and Demons and all that. But just because I love the idea of God doesnt mean I'm going to delude myself into beleiving that their is one!! Know what I mean?

[caladanbrood]

Out of interest, can you prove that there is no god?

[cauthon]

So, why would being put at the top of the chain imply that we could do as we want and destroy our environment? That is not what I get from the bible. Specific laws were given to the Jews so that they would care for their land and their animals. Also, God only gave man permission to kill animals for food after the flood. Do you honestly think that evolutionists will be more kind to the environment than religious people? I seriously doubt that.

Demon X: you already said that. And we still disagree :-)

[Hume]

Okay Im an Atheist and I would agree with a lot of the envirenmentalists in what they say. But these days I wouldn't really call them envirenmentalist I would call them realist.

Im sure many atheists would agree with me...

[Aptorian]

caladanbrood;127212 said:

Out of interest, can you prove that there is no god?

Borrowing the example from the "New atheism, Dawkins thread":

No I can't prove that there is no god but then again I can't prove that the Yeti, Fairies, Gnomes, Trolls, The Boogieman, Santa Clause, The Tooth Fairie and The Easter Bunny doesn't exist either now can I? And I don't believe in any of those either...

Actually I do believe in little trixters that live in the walls and steal my socks and keys when I need them... I'll catch them one day, I'm sure.

[cauthon]

@Apt: I agree with you here. Especially about the keys.

[D Man]

caladanbrood;127074 said:

What, in a thread called "Creation vs Evolution"? Shocking, isn't it...

/sarcasm

The problem with creationism is that there is no possible way to actually obtain evidence for it, short of the creator coming to earth and dangling his noodly appendages all over the place.

Personally I don't see the problem of the two theories working in tandem - something has to start off the process, but how long ago, and at what level, theres no way of knowing.

I do see a problem.

The entire idea of god is based on faith, and all alleged involvment of god in reality is unfalsifiable.

Science is applied falsification.

The two are utterly mutually exclusive. Its not valid science at any stage in the game under any circumstances to invoke 'God did it'.

And abiogenesis is a perfectly decent explanation and many stages of early self replicating protien evolution have been reporduced experimentally.

And, cheers DM, most kind.

[caladanbrood]

Apt;127231 said:

Borrowing the example from the "New atheism, Dawkins thread":

No I can't prove that there is no god but then again I can't prove that the Yeti, Fairies, Gnomes, Trolls, The Boogieman, Santa Clause, The Tooth Fairie and The Easter Bunny doesn't exist either now can I? And I don't believe in any of those either...

So because someone doesn't believe that God exists (or, to put it another way, believes that god doesn't exist) this means that they can state their opinion as fact, does it? No, of course it doesn't. I just see no reason for non-athiests to simply accept this:

Quote

I'm sorry if I offend anyone but there is NO GOD!

The sooner we realise this the sooner we'll all get along!

I'd love if there was a God, I really would. but there isnt! So get over it!

When if the roles were reversed, and someone simply said "I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but god exists, get over it!" They would be asked to provide proof of their belief. I'm simply asking Demon to provide proof of his. If it's forthcoming I will happily agree with him.

It really is a pointless point to debate because by definition there can never be proof either way, unless "it" suddenly turns up and starts squishing people... I guess the reason for my post was to highlight that it made no useful contribution to the thread at all.

D Man - I should have probably made that a lot clearer - what I'm not talking about here is the evoltion of life. What I'm talking about is more it's creation. As I think is generally accepted, there are a lot of things we cannot scientifically explain. For example, the big bang. All I'm saying is maybe there was a "god" (for want of a better word) that caused the Big Bang, or what actually caused life to kick into action, or something like that.

[D Man]

Yeah, caladan, I got that you meant that.

I still say the same thing.

There are many things that we havent scientifically explained. Theres a big leap from that to can't.