[Thelomen Toblerone]

My God (pardon the pun), I've been watching this for an hour and a quarter and my urge to kill that ignorant fundamentalist twat is at a dangerously high level. If I ever see him I am not responsible for my actions.

And wtf is up with his pronunciation? Day-*slight pause*-ting, mat-*pause*-ter. What an irritating jerk.

I can't believe how heavily weighted this performance (let's face it, it's nothing else) in favour of that guy. Yet still he managed to ignore any mildly good point the others made through sheer ignorance.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

The problem here is that it's a fight between reason and faith. It seems that no matter how many facts support the side of reason in any argument (not just this one,) faith, for those that have it always wins. If you've ever heard someone insist that the only reason there are dinosaur bones is because god wanted to test us, you'll know what i mean.

[stone monkey]

One of the arguments I've never seen deployed against creationists (of either the traditional or ID stripe) is the one which says that of course the constants of the universe look like they were made for our existence, our existence is contingent on them being that way; if they weren't we wouldn't be here to notice it. The universe wasn't made to fit us, we were made to fit it.
I do wonder how they'd react to it.

[Sir Thursday]

The Anthropic Principle? For myself, it seems like it a good explanation, but at the same time it doesn't really answer the question of why the universe has the cosntants it has - it would seem to necessitate the idea of alternate universes, which is outside the realm of science.

I'm not entirely sure how it conflicts with ID, per se, but then I don't have any sound on the computer I'm using so I couldn't watch that Hovind video.


Sir Thursday

[Cause]

Basically ID says. If the earth were a few kilometres closer to the sun we all burn. If the world were a few kilometres further we all freeze. This is true. But this ignores the idea that evolution is the promotion of genes that are suitable for the enviroment. So the world is not in the perfect zone of distance from the sun for human life. Human life is suited to exist in the zone of distance the planet is from the sun.

And of course thery are archaebacteria capable of surviving extreme tempratures hundreds high or below

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Sir Thursday;123226 said:

I don't have any sound on the computer I'm using so I couldn't watch that Hovind video.

You lucky bastard.

*shakes fist angrily*

[stone monkey]

It's not an explanation per se, what is does do is point out the flaw in how the whole "Oh look, the universe was designed for us to live in!" question is framed.

Our existence as observers means we have to comply with the physical laws of the universe we inhabit, it couldn't be any other way. Positing this brute fact as proof of a deity is idiotic. It's equivalent to doubting the existence of your own mind.

[Ivan the terrible]

Does no one read my posts anymore?


P.S I agree Hovind is an idiot. But did the vid freeze for any1 else, i missed his closing retort.

[Cause]

I read it.

[councilor]

i think the creationist theory thing is simple arrogance...
the world is ours because it was made for us...
therefore we are the greatest...

[RodeoRanch]

Did Stephen Jay Gould ever debate a creationist in such a fashion? If he ever did, he must have surely demolished his opponent.

[cauthon]

I shall once more join in. There are two things that bother me.

1) the fact that creationist zealots ignore scientific material and assume that *swung* all was made in a short time. to them, I say this. Read your bible, it says nothing about actual timespans, only indicate that certain periods of time passed while the earth was populated. Also, after Gen 1:1 the universe existed and so did the earth.
2) scientists that eliminate the possibility of a creator because they cannot get him into their experiments. I'm all for trying to explain stuff, but I'm also all for not a priori neglecting other avenues of thought. So, yeah, the god thingie does not fit your train of thought. By all means, do your experiments, do you analysis, but in the end when you cannot actually _prove_ anything, do not be afraid to allow room for the option you neglected to look into.

One can never prove that evolution happened, even if it could be reproduced in a lab (and let's face it, bacteria alwayts remain bacteria, no matter how much they mutate - they won't suddenly form a specimen sonsiting of multiple cells). One can never disprove the existence of a god. One can simply not know unless god reveals himself. The 'best' one can do, is ignore the fact that he might exist, which, imo, is what scientists usually do.

I'm getting sick and tired of this argument. I say, let each believe as he/she wills. Let the scientists continue their research, and let's see what happens, eh.

[Ivan the terrible]

Genesis is actually quite interesting in the fact that it was written by at least five authors. Even St Augustine has no idea what to make of it. In his confessions he spends three books analysing it only to discover that there is 6 different ways to interperet it. ONLY 1 of which is a literal appraoach...which he doesn't lend any creedence to.
In fairness to it though, Genesis and the Old Testament in general is really well written. (Just a point not relevent)

I don't think Gould was ever in such a debate like the Hovind one, but he des criticise creationists in his writings. Along with any other dogmatic approach to science such as Dawkins.

[D Man]

RodeoRanch;124000 said:

Did Stephen Jay Gould ever debate a creationist in such a fashion? If he ever did, he must have surely demolished his opponent.

Gould refused to take part in public debates because he knew that it tilts the field to the creationist, and that its got nothing to do with doing science.

He also advised Dawkins not to, and hes stood by that.

[Sir Thursday]

cauthon;124038 said:

2) scientists that eliminate the possibility of a creator because they cannot get him into their experiments. I'm all for trying to explain stuff, but I'm also all for not a priori neglecting other avenues of thought. So, yeah, the god thingie does not fit your train of thought. By all means, do your experiments, do you analysis, but in the end when you cannot actually _prove_ anything, do not be afraid to allow room for the option you neglected to look into.

One can never prove that evolution happened, even if it could be reproduced in a lab (and let's face it, bacteria alwayts remain bacteria, no matter how much they mutate - they won't suddenly form a specimen sonsiting of multiple cells). One can never disprove the existence of a god. One can simply not know unless god reveals himself. The 'best' one can do, is ignore the fact that he might exist, which, imo, is what scientists usually do.

I'm getting sick and tired of this argument. I say, let each believe as he/she wills. Let the scientists continue their research, and let's see what happens, eh.

The thing about the idea of God is that one cannot conduct experiments to ascertain the existence of a creator. As such, science cannot concern itself with God as there is no way to obtain any evidence to reach a conclusion via the scientific method. Of course one can't prove that evolution happened, and Intelligent Design does stand an infinitesimal chance of being correct. However, when one takes all the facts into account the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and once again Intelligent Design resists any attempt to test it. Thus, scientifically speaking, Intelligent Design is a no go area - it is not science and can never be. The same is true for the existence of God. A good scientist, whatever his personal beliefs, must ignore the idea of God when conducting his experiments because the use of God as an explanation defies everything that science stands for. Science never proves anything completely, but it does much more than religion in reinforcing the likelyhood that it is correct. So while one cannot completely reject the idea of an omniscent creator, one can say with a higher degree of certainty that the results of science are closer to the mark.

I think I'm repeating myself over and over again, but the main point is that the science cannot concern itself with God and religion because there are no experiments that can be carried out to test them. So room should be allowed for God et al. Just not very much, as experimentally testable theories carry far more weight.


Sir Thursday

[Ivan the terrible]

That has very little to do with the creationism/evolution debate, which is more specific in it' focus. No one is claiming that science can prove the existance of God. Just that creationism is not science and therefore should not be taught as such.

[Aimless]

Cause;123249 said:

Basically ID says. If the earth were a few kilometres closer to the sun we all burn. If the world were a few kilometres further we all freeze. This is true. But this ignores the idea that evolution is the promotion of genes that are suitable for the enviroment. So the world is not in the perfect zone of distance from the sun for human life. Human life is suited to exist in the zone of distance the planet is from the sun.

ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

[Cause]

who am I to disagree with such flawless logic. My eyes are now open. Now that we know god exists we just have to narrow it down to whose god. And were allser

[The Rope]

my turn!
1) Creationism is NOT science, so I agree that it should not be taught in secular schools AS science. The bible is not a science textbook - however, on all areas touching on science it is correct (with the creation account in question, though not disproved either)
That being said...

2) Evolution is NOT PROVEN science, and so should not be taught in schools as FACT.

As to creationism being considered in a scientific manner... i have done this, and I consider it as the truth of the matter - as considering the SCIENCE of it and considering my FAITH of it. Not all scientists are evolutionists, and those remaining do not necessarily prescribe to ID (as it ha been referred to here). It was said that Evolution cannot be proved anymore than the existence of God short of manipulating time - and as of yet, time manipulation is not really a scientific possibility.
Geneticists support the common ancestors theory in Genesis (all mankind descend from single human couple Adam and Eve), physicists support intelligent design, Moses David and Job (who didnt actually write the book bearing his name) supported gravity, the shape of the earth, and the water cycle, geologists support noah's flood - with differing degrees...

it seems to me tht the only scientists who actually fight cretionism and religion are biologists, paleontologists, and other such "scientists." Notice how they are called "scientists" not their specific science? When talking about physics, you quote a physicist - you don't say "scientist." One of the biggest reasons (speaking as a lay man) why the general "uneducated" public does not trust scientists is that scientists who are generally in the forefront and media-ized (proving my "uneducation" with a new word...) are arrogant, pious a$$holes looking to glorify themselves... though i would say the same for creationists in the same position.

Now as my title shows - i am a moron, but i do know the bible, and i have yet to see evidence that it conflicts with science. Sure, point out a contradiction or a flaw... i'll disprove it using the bible AND secular sources (including science).

Furthermore (ikno iknow, i'll end it soon) it is incredibly UNscientific to ignore anything simply because it cannot be proven UNLESS it can be DISproven... when you have two theories equally unprovable, it becomes just a matter of personal belief.

[Cause]

You must realize that the theory of evoltuion is as much fact as the theory of gravity. This speaks less about evolution than it does about gravity and peoples understanding on what the words theory ean in science. Further evolution must be taught in science class. Why? Wrong or right their is a scientific method which lead to the theory. The gathering of evidence the hypothesese that were created disporved and seemingly correct. Its imporant to understand this. Finally based on the theory of evolution science has made further hypothesese which have lead to practical application. People must know how this occured and finally when they are scientists themselves by understanding the theory they can disprove it, Add more evidence to it, or use the theory to lead to other knowledge.

Also I woul say physicists are some of the biggest oponentes of creationism. Its they who came up witht he big bang. They who caculate the travel time of light from starts in the billion of years. They who amongst other branches of science work out the age of the earth to be far longer than 6000 years old.

As for your last sentance. Again your simply misunderstanding science. No theory is proven not in the way you mean. Yet thier is over whelming evidence that evolution is correct whilst thier is absolutly none (scitific that is) for the proof of god or creationism. So its not a question of belief is a question of science and evolution wins hands down.