Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[PLAYER57832]

For someone with such a good vocabulary, Sultan seems to have a real problem conveying ideas other than how stupid the other party is...

uh i am sorry you guys are incapable of understanding but i said it pretty clearly the first dozen or so times. creationists start with a conclusion and work backwards to find evidence for their beliefs, which is not how science works. john did nothing to reconcile this fact in the half-baked mess he calls a counterpoint, so i insinuated he was a tard. now i am just straight up calling him a tard, because seriously. guy's a tard.

no i am not "out of my league." the one out of his league is the guy who thinks a rigidly defined piece of dogma is a legitimate hypothesis because the imbeciles at the creation institute call it that. that is the kind of base stupidity that only hard drinking during pregnancy or prolonged beatings about the head and neck can cause.

this is not to mention the open-mouthed credulity required of him to take every charlatan with a hate-on for darwin at face value, as if some guy arguing how the earth is only 6,000 years old MIGHT be the one real scientist, ever, with a legitimate and unified criticism of the whole of modern scientific understanding, not just another crackpot from the bible belt armed with a degree from Jerry Falwell's diploma mill

John9blue is not necessarily agreeing with the Creation Institute, but when you assert that belief in God is counter to science, you have to realize you are just feeding into Creation Institute type arguments. You are as bad as them. Worse, because you claim to know better.

And if you wish to insinuate that I don't know of what I speak... I suggest you check out a few of my posts in this thread, particularly earlier ones.

[PLAYER57832]

(of course, you're still an idiot for giving any credence whatsoever to creationists but that is not the current subject, as much)

Why? Because biological engineering is an impossibility?

I don't think I get your point (or were you just making a smart-aleck remark?)

[HapSmo19]

The usual.

[SultanOfSurreal]

John9blue is not necessarily agreeing with the Creation Institute, but when you assert that belief in God is counter to science, you have to realize you are just feeding into Creation Institute type arguments. You are as bad as them. Worse, because you claim to know better.

i'm not saying that a belief in god is counter to science (although i believe it is), i am saying that the suggestion there is scientific evidence for god's existence, and specifically the judeo-christian blood god, is ridiculous. anyone claiming such lacks credibility with all right-minded people.

and no i am not as bad as the dullards at the creation institute, i am better than them in several ways. for example i happen to be their moral and intelligent betters

[Snorri1234]

You can generally tell when someone is out of their league .. they stop debating and start dropping insults.

Actually, he is completely right there. Since any theory about God is not falsifiable, there is no science you can do about it. There is no scientific evidence to support god, which isn't a problem because god is as mentioned not falsifiable so there is no counterevidence either.

[xelabale]

Belief in god =/= knowledge of god's existence. We can't know. Of course we can choose to believe. Ask Descartes, it was a major counterargument to his beliefs...

[Snorri1234]

Belief in god =/= knowledge of god's existence. We can't know. Of course we can choose to believe. Ask Descartes, it was a major counterargument to his beliefs...

Yes indeed. Belief in god is okay and can neither be countered or proven.

[xelabale]

oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

[Merker]

Life is confusing, there's no point muttering about it, because our minds tell us something MUST HAVE been created by something and can not form out of absolute nothing, it's best not to put your mind on the subject as people who have had their heads combust .

[jonesthecurl]

oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

This thread is not about whether there is/are god/s.
It is about evolution vs creation.

[xelabale]

oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

This thread is not about whether there is/are god/s.
It is about evolution vs creation.

You're right, I can't see where God would come into that argument, it rarely does actually.

Oh no, wait. No God = no creation. God = creation (this doesn't mean no evolution of course).

[jonesthecurl]

Exactly: as has been pointed out numerous times it is possible to believe in the Christian god and in evolution.
The thread was started to be about the supposition that evolution is "just a point of view", not about whether there's a god or gods.
I know things wander off track sometimes, but there's an awful lots of pages on this subject, and it would be a pity to lose sight of what the debate is over now. Probably.

[PLAYER57832]

You can generally tell when someone is out of their league .. they stop debating and start dropping insults.

Actually, he is completely right there. Since any theory about God is not falsifiable, there is no science you can do about it. There is no scientific evidence to support god, which isn't a problem because god is as mentioned not falsifiable so there is no counterevidence either.

I have said many times you cannot prove or disprove God. The issue is calling anyone who disagrees with his beliefs an idiot.

As jonescurl has reminded us, though the Thread issue is Evolution, not whether God exists.

[MeDeFe]

oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

Actually, I think belief in god is by definition unscientific since it is not part of science.

[jonesthecurl]

oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

Actually, I think belief in god is by definition unscientific since it is not part of science.

mebbe so, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's anti-scientific, whereas creationism is.

[MeDeFe]

oooh ooh, one more thing, belief in god is neither scientific or unscientific since it is not part of science - now go enjoy the long weekend and stop thinking existentially.

Actually, I think belief in god is by definition unscientific since it is not part of science.

mebbe so, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's anti-scientific, whereas creationism is.

That's true. I think.

Yes, I think it's most probably true.

[xelabale]

Exactly: as has been pointed out numerous times it is possible to believe in the Christian god and in evolution.
The thread was started to be about the supposition that evolution is "just a point of view", not about whether there's a god or gods.
I know things wander off track sometimes, but there's an awful lots of pages on this subject, and it would be a pity to lose sight of what the debate is over now. Probably.

Ah, ok, the easy questions. Evolution exists. It is provable, demonstrable, repeatable experiments are possible. The mechanism is known. There is no evidence against, the closest being lack of evidence for, such as gaps in the fossil record. Why the debate?

If that's the starting premise then maybe remove the creationism tag from the title as that necessarily brings in the question of God's existence, as you pointed out, a different question...

[PLAYER57832]

Exactly: as has been pointed out numerous times it is possible to believe in the Christian god and in evolution.
The thread was started to be about the supposition that evolution is "just a point of view", not about whether there's a god or gods.
I know things wander off track sometimes, but there's an awful lots of pages on this subject, and it would be a pity to lose sight of what the debate is over now. Probably.

Ah, ok, the easy questions. Evolution exists. It is provable, demonstrable, repeatable experiments are possible. The mechanism is known. There is no evidence against, the closest being lack of evidence for, such as gaps in the fossil record. Why the debate?

If that's the starting premise then maybe remove the creationism tag from the title as that necessarily brings in the question of God's existence, as you pointed out, a different question...

Evolution, big "E", is still a theory. Parts of it are known, proveable, but not all of it. The small "e" .. evolution, the idea that things change over time, is fact.

Widowmakers entire premise is that Christians believe the Earth is young and created by God in 6, 24-hour time periods. He believes that if he proves God exists (and he felt/feels he can), then Creationism must be true. That is why this thread.

However, it was pointed out and has been pointed out some time ago that he cannot prove God exists... and neither can anyone prove he does not.

Further, it has been pointd out many times that belief in God in no way precludes accepting Evolution or any other science.

[xelabale]

Just to be provocative would you agree that if God exists there must have been a creation event of some kind?

[PLAYER57832]

Just to be provocative would you agree that if God exists there must have been a creation event of some kind?

I am a Christian. I am also a biologist. I believe Genesis, but I differ with Widowmakers, the Institute for Creation Research in what I believe it is intended to say. I believe they are subscribing to false doctrine.

[xelabale]

Right, but would you agree that if God exists there must have been a creation event of some kind?

[MaleAlphaThree]

Just gonna propagate my post a little here. I'm a bit proud of myself, yes.

[Neoteny]

[HapSmo19]

OK, this topic keeps coming up, so apparently people still feel its a valid discussion.

If somebody has something other than "read the Bible" ,(to which I say "I do!") .. and then the response "but you cannot because you think differently than I".... I would love to hear it.

For example, someone mentioned that seashells are found on mountains. Very true, but this is part of the proof for uplift of the earth's surface (think of pushing one paper against another, or a blanket making lumps and hills).

How do we know this is true?

1. Because the layers match exactly -- not just approximately, but EXACTLY (chemically, animal fossils, etc.)
They match BOTH in other sections in what would be a smooth sheet (think of a layer cake that a child rams a truck into. Parts of it buckle up -- like mountains. AND they match across valleys, sometimes areas of quite a distance (to get back to the cake, think of the kid taking out handfuls of cake, making "valleys" or someone splitting it into two pieces and pulling them to separate parts of a table)

2. AND, because in some instances we have actually seen these processes occur within human lifetimes.

3. Because the exact same things occur over and over and over all around the Earth in ways not explained by other means.

[Neoteny]

Atheists, led by PZ Myers have zerged Ken Ham's creation "museum." Quite a few people are twitting the event, and PZ has his own as well.

Seems everyone is having fun. I'm slightly jealous.