In the idea of encouraging open debate between people of all sides of an issue or theory, I would see it as important that kids have at least an idea of what the people on the other side believe, which would apply in the case of learning evolution as well.
A creationist cannot debate an evolutionist if he doesn’t know what evolution is, likewise it’d the same the other way around. A regimen of open debate that allows people on both sides to question the other without penalty is beneficial to students and others who want to learn.
I know this would mean that my beliefs would be questioned as well, but through that I gain knowledge and I see my case in certain things strengthened or weakened as a result. I myself learned evolution in school and creationism at home, which I could say would’ve overall been a good thing since I would need knowledge from both sides if my debating skills were to become any good.
But the problem with that is, evolution and creationism are not equal in science. Creationism is not science at all, however you twist it. It doesn’t adhere to the scientific method, it’s just argument about how things in evolution must be wrong due to this and that ‘fact’, and all examples so far, from the flagellum to the eye, is easily discarded by proof of evolution a.s.o… Not to mention, it’s just obvious that the world is old. Any trip to a rock quarry will tell you that. Fossils buried hundreds of meter in solid rock cannot be from creatures living just a few thousand years back. Arguments like Noah having Dinosaurs on the ark because there is just n other explanation if you are to follow the history as told by the bible. It just becomes so impossible to get it all together… But natural history as told by geologists and paleontologists explains it to 99%, just using cataloging and common sense…
And about the word, ‘theory’, let’s just clarify that this is the highest order of truth in science. There’s just no such thing as ‘it’s just a theory’, not as the word is used in science….
Well, I cant believe I just found a thread that was talking about all of these things politely! Usually it’s just people screaming and preaching at each other.
First off: how could this theory be true, NASA is no more really. (or am I misinformed?)
Second: Nothing can be proved strictly scientifically. Not evolution or intelligent design. I agree with the ‘who knows?’ statements, because well… we don’t know.
Creationism is not science at all, however you twist it. It doesn’t adhere to the scientific method
Neither is evolution, because part of the scientific method is observation and the recreation of a senario, both of which are impossible.
it’s calculated to be about 4.5 billion years. And it’s not guesswork, it’s math and physics. Disproving it is like trying to disprove 1+1 is something else than 2.
Could you show me where this is true? I am not super well versed in science, but I do know that a lot of supposed “proof” of either theory is fake.
Everyday it becomes harder for religious nuts to proclaim they have the truth, the answer
And now tell me is it funny when someone tells you that there used to be a ‘curse brought by God’ to punish us for our sins.
I know this is a touchy subject, but here I go:
Although I am religious, I fully admit that religious people can be stupid and talk about things that they don’t actually know. This really bugs me because it makes all religious people look like fanatical idiots who are so blindly following something that they don’t possess common sense. As for it being harder for religion to claim it has the truth, well if you look at it one way, only one religion can be right because they all strongly contradict each other. It all boils down to the fact that only one group is right. Who is right: Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Mormons? …ect the list goes on and on. It all depends on what you call truth. If you figure that one out, you’ll get farther than a lot of people. Its quite tricky. And about diseases being a curse from God or whatnot, I don’t think it was right for them to say that, but think about it: with no knowledge of what it is or how it happened + and the preconceived idea of a god, what is the easiest conclusion? Now people do take the idea of “curses from God” way too far, and some Catholic history is a huge example of that, but you cant say that any of this is or is not true. How they acted upon the belief that the disease was a curse may be wrong, but it is impossible to say that is was or was not, because if God is an infinite being, he can do whatever he darn well pleases.
As a side note, this is one argument that may not “prove” God’s existence (but is is rather convincing), but there are a lot of other arguments I am interested in. I am curious what you think about it:
Nothing can cause itself
Caused beings exist
Therefore there must be an uncaused cause
Edit: this does not actually have to mean God, it could pertain to any infinite being: God is just the most logical conclusion if there is an infinite being.
I hope this thread doesn’t become one that gets closed down for violation of rules, and I hope I made sense. It is harder for me to type than talk.
FarmField: while I personally would love to get into that part of the debate, going into such could end up opening a new can of worms which historically hasn’t played out well in a civil sense on this site. It always ends up in a festival of assigning derogatory labels to people who don’t agree and thus any discussions that went that way ended up locked.
Now I’m not bailing out or anything of that sort, I’m just looking with extreme caution in the case of whether or not there’s even a chance of sustained civility and whether it would be allowed in this case. There have been many cases before where people say they could be civil, but then you go to page 5 and you see a mess of things.
Jonathon L: I just saw your post, I think most of what I said above would also be meant to you as well as others. For now I may as well sit back to see if it would be safe to continue in this thread. (ie. the continuation and preservation of civility)
It is very simple. If you discard the base sciences, you are just not educated enough in the subjects. I stress that I do not say this to offend you though I see that it sounds bad, but I am 100% sure I am right in this. If you will start researching these things, talk to people who spent their lives researching the cosmos, physics, evolution all this, I guarantee that you will discard all the other things. I guarantee it. If I had a million dollars I would easily bet it on me getting you to discard all what you believe in just a few weeks, talking to the right people.
But. This has nothing to do with arguing against your faith. I know plenty of theoretical physicists, mathematicians who are christians, who believe in god. So, I am talking about getting you to believe in the sciences, not getting you to loose your faith. And, imo, there is no conflict between the two. But people not believing in the base sciences, that is bad for the world. Bad for the future of us all. Knowledge must be allowed to be as important as faith.
Edit: To keep this discussion together with the subject of the thread. Conspiracy theory’s are also connected to lack of knowledge. If people truly understood how government worked - especially how bad they actually work (and that’s not connected to any specific government but is a general thing) they would never believe that a government could pull off something like 9/11. It’s like here in Sweden. in 1986 out prime Minister was shot in the street. There has been all kinds of conspiracy theories about it but today we know it was a single nutcase, a druguser who, the next day, didn’t even remember shooting… It was to simple, to implausible, hehe… But that’s how stuff generally are. Either very simple or extremely complex.
Ace Dragon: I agree with everything you just said. I wish people could control themselves better. I always am re-reading what I post to see if it is potentially offensive, especially on threads like these.
But people not believing in the base sciences, that is bad for the world. Bad for the future of us all. Knowledge must be allowed to be as important as faith.
+100
I couldn’t have said it better myself. It just all depends on what a “base science” is.
If you will start researching these things, talk to people who spent their lives researching the cosmos, physics, evolution all this, I guarantee that you will discard all the other things. I guarantee it. If I had a million dollars I would easily bet it on me getting you to discard all what you believe in just a few weeks, talking to the right people
I am curious, what do you assume I believe? Anyway, I have a hard time with the whole evolution vs intelligent design argument, but it seems to me that if one was completely proveable, it would have won by now. All I see are people on both sides plugging their ear and saying “blah blah blah I cant hear you” (this does not apply to everyone, but people are like that all the time) Anyway, one non scientific reason for not liking the evolution side is that is seems to really lower the value of human life. I know this is probably taking this too far, but just for the purpose of this argument, if evolution was the only reason why humans exist, why were things like the Holocaust and African slave trade wrong? It would just be advancing the human species, correct? I really hope I am not being offensive.
I really don’t want to offend anyone and I know this might be considered a touchy subject, but I don’t think anyone is stupid for believing in something, I don’t want to educate, I want people to educate themselves. And if nothing else to challenge themselves and their beliefs no matter what they are. Knowledge is always good, right?
Farmfield, I wholeheartedly agree. Although I am “religious” I am constantly trying to educate myself and to learn why other people believe what they do, because I do not want to be one of those half “arsed” people that believes with no reason why.
As Thomas Aquinas said:
Revelation supplements, but never contradicts reason
I think that the ideas of the scholastic theologians Thomas Aquinas and Anselm might be very interesting to you, whether or not you agree with them. It is quite an intellectual challenge. Also I stress that not one person is 100% correct, so try not to slaughter them for small mistakes, but honestly they are super interesting.
We actually know tons about a lot of things, but the big difference is the use of the scientific method. People publishing their findings and getting peer-reviewed, challanged, other scientists doing experiment proving or disproving theorys. A lot of it is just common sense with experiments backing it all up.
That is another myth. Evolution has been observed many times. During the Industrial Revolution in England it was noticed that a species of butterfly rapidly changed colors from white to black. Prior to the heavy use of coal, birch trees were white. The white butterflies could sit on the trees and blend in and the birds would not eat them. But as the trees turned black from soot, the white butterflies became easy targets for the birds. The few butterflies that would be born black were able to survive. In less than a decade, the butterflies were almost always black and the white ones were eaten.
Then 100 years later when the English started cleaning up their smoke emissions, cleaning up the air, the soot became less and the birch trees were not so black. And they saw the reverse of the process with the butterflies, the black ones were eaten, the white ones disappeared and within 30 years, the butterflies were once again white.
And this kind of scenarios can technically be recreated but that is of course impractical - but there’s no doubt about these things happening all the time and is also observed all the time.
And creationism has never been observed, that would also go against the bible and god’s unwillingness to prove his existence as he is nothing without faith.
Regarding nothing causing itself, I’m not sure about that. Today we’re observing particles jumping between dimensions as well as in time, saying what causes a particle to jump in time is difficult as it’s kind of a chicken & egg problem, things getting caused after they happen…
And also, just because I didn’t see a car being made doesn’t mean that it was created by a magician out of thin air.
So you cannot simplify reality like that, using a simple list based equation. Just because something isn’t true it doesn’t automagically make something else true just as you based your equation like that. Reality does not work by fixed variables. And how about the 60^3 billion variables you didn’t specify?
That’s where my alien discussion takes root. As we describe the universe, an infinite being is an alien per definition. If you do not state that it is a supernatural being. But how can the existence of a supernatural being be more likely than that of a natural being? That just doesn’t make sense, hehe… ;D
Knowledge is the key to the world being a better place. And everyday the earth becomes a better place to live. It will take time, but eventually we’ll become a singular people, all connected by knowledge. I have no problem with faith of different kinds being a part of that.
It was some time ago I read philosophy - christian or otherwise. No doubt there is a lot of interesting thought by these people and I should take the time to read their work. But there’s a lot to read, and to learn. It just never ends, hehe…
(for now I’ll focus on Blender :D)
I’ve had many discussions with Christians, I have two cousins who are priests, one female, the other openly gay, married & with an adopted child, so that has led to some pretty interesting discussions, hehe… But this is the first time I discussed this - as I said, creationism is unheard of in Europe. But I am not interested in offending anyone or belittling someones faith, if asked, I will quit this discussion immediately.
The consiracy thearoy that started this thread:D Haha we are enjoyably off topic.
That is another myth. Evolution has been observed many times
O.K. I see I need to clear this up right now. Sure evolution happens, any idiot can see that because animals and people do adapt to their environment, survival of the fittest is for sure true, and cross breeding and the like can create changes. Take the example of a wolf to a poodle. Do I believe that the poodle could have been a descendant of a wolf? sure. Not a problem. What I do believe is that evolution cannot create changes from one species to another. That has never been observed, and it also is tricky because “species” is a human creation, so it is easy to make a technicality.
And creationism has never been observed, that would also go against the bible and god’s unwillingness to prove his existance as he is nothing without faith
Yes creation has never been observed, but you wouldn’t expect to would you? And God being nothing without faith…well, from one perspective whether you have faith in something or not does not qualify it’s existence. I think you were trying to say that we cannot prove his existence?
Just because I didn’t see a car being made doesn’t mean that it was created by a magician out of thin air
Actually that is a perfect example:). Of course it didn’t appear out of thin air: someone made it. You would not assume random metals in the earth to came together and in an explosion randomly formed a perfect Audi R8. It did not happen to accidentally form itself into a complex working vehicle out of nowhere - it was designed and made to be the way it is.
But how can the existence of a supernatural being be more likely than that of a natural being
Well likely… not likely at all. However that begs the question “where did the alien come from then?”:spin:
I really don’t get much of a chance to talk reasonably with people that are either evolutionists or atheists. Basically because where I am from, creationism is the norm. Weird how that works.
if asked, I will quit this discussion immediately.
That is another myth. Evolution has been observed many times. One time it was butterflies in UK changing from white to black during a time of charcoal blackening the trees they lived on. As the charcoal disappeared they returned to white. This was observed during a period of about 50 years. And this kind of scenarios can technically be recreated but that is of course impractical - but there’s no doubt about these things happening all the time and is also observed all the time.
I don’t think creationists have any issues with the type of evolution that involves the base genetics being tweaked or enhanced over time either to adapt to the environment, gain an advantage, or appeal to people. I think the more accurate term would be that we don’t believe in macro-evolution or the complete transformation of species over time. (like dinosaurs to birds)
It’s obvious that this form of micro evolution has occurred many times in just the past 100 years or even ten years, we’ve seen this on a major scale with dogs because of continual selective breeding by people. However, after thousands of years, the micro-evolution in dogs have not introduced any entirely new additions to the basic animal form that is not found in wolves, they may look a bit different, but both the external and internal changes were already allowable within the basic genetic structure due to the long list of known traits which are all tweakable.
The moth turns black to respond to a darker environment, that may be true, but a simple color change does nothing to increase the overall complexity.
When it comes to creationists not using the scientific method, a lot of creationist organizations do their own science as well and teach the use of it, they just believe that the science can indeed fit with their views.
As you are pretty in sync with your views, I’ll address you both without quoting.
I agree that there has been no real time observation of species changing into other species, but this is exactly my point when I’m talking about lack of knowledge - or, as I can clearly see you are both intelligent, I bet it’s hands on knowledge that is needed. A trip to a museum, discussions like this with geologists & paleontologists…
I personally have actually seen the proof you are talking about. I’ve been ‘back stage’ at the Natural Museum here which (as were pretty close to the huge fossil beds of germany) are filled to the brim with fossils organized by the stages of evolution, species turning into other species, you can actually follow evolution step by step. You just cant hold these fossils and go ‘this is a few thousand years old’, not if you are functioning enough to walk around and chew chewing gum at the same time, hehe… It’s obviously amazingly old stuff and there’s just no doubt about it being evolution one is seeing it in these fossils…
So I will repeat what I said earlier. There is absolutely no way for someone with a normal amount of common sense to see things like that, talk to the people who worked with it for their whole life and then go ‘I don’t see it’ - 'cause I guarantee that you will. It doesn’t matter what arguments you present, what you beliefs are, I say that given enough information about it, you will change your mind, there’s just do question about it in my mind. It’s there.
And it’s there in a way that creationism never can be. It will just never catch up to the last 2-300 years of naturalists cataloging fossils. Of paleontologists & naturalists creating the development charts on how the species evolved, it will just not happen. I know some churches and organizations are trying to do just this, but it’s absolutely futile. It’s just to much work to catch up. This battle will only be won very locally in some US states, and not in the long run, there just is no way…
For me, here & now, well, I’m just baffeled. You’re obviously pretty intelligent people, you have access to the internet, Wikipedia, all the museums, and it’s all out there, the facts, and they are irrefutable, they just are, hehe… So whatever happen, I seriously doubt you will keep your beliefs in this, I’m pretty sure you’ll die believing in evolution as I do - we’re supposed to get old, our generation, I have 50-60+ years to ‘win’ this…
That is so funny, you are actually comparing yourself to a car in how you believe you are created. So tell me, the fossils of less developed humanoids from 6 million year old ‘Lucy’ and forward, what are they? Are they Gods prototypes? They are actually not related to modern humans as we were created as we are, right? really? Do you find that more likely than the modern human evolving from the apelike ‘Lucy’?
He evolved from a lesser species. That’s what species do, we evolve.
To be honest, humans has stopped evolving. At least physically. Evolution is driven by the need to change. If nothing forces evolutionary change, a species stops evolving. But we will get taller. Older. But that is due to less damage to our bodies, better healthcare and all that, so it’s not evolution. But I bet we’ll start enhancing ourselves soon enough anyway, manipulating our own DNA to be better, faster, smarter, older, healthier. So we will evolve ourselves into something else in the next thousand years… No science without people abusing it…
A couple of months in Europe (or at a good University in the US) you’ll let it all go. 99.9% of people do. (*) And I’m not talking about faith but the archaic thinking. It just becomes so obviously illogical when you start dissecting it. Creationism have no real substance, the base sciences do. people have tried to dissect & disprove Einsteins E=MC^2 for over 100 years without luck. Real science can be hacked away at forever without breaking. And I agree, sometimes theories are disproven and replaced by something else in a heartbeat, though the last part becomes more and more seldom. We’re pretty sure about how things work nowadays.
(*) Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku of University of N.Y. is about as smart as anyone can get. He says this about the US education… (like 2 minutes in)
This is not meant as a challenge but an actual request: can you give me a link to the museums you talk about, or some other site that gives proof of evolution? Everywhere I look, I see some scientist, whether they believe in evolution or not, disagree with the “proof”. I know evolution is all over the internet, so sorry for not believing everyting I see on Wikipedia;)
Any way, I Googled this kind of debate and found another thread with a similar topic. Now I don’t agree with everything the author says, but I do think that some things in the evolutionary theory seem contradictory.
Because evolution is so slow, wouldn’t any helpful adaptations be hindrances before they become large enough to become useful?
The sheer complexity of things just boggles my mind, and if that were an accident…well that takes some faith;)
The largest contradiction I see is how it does seem to contradict the second law of thermodynamics.
So tell me, the fossils of less developed humanoids from 6 million year old ‘Lucy’ and forward, what are they? Are they Gods prototypes
OK to be honest, people always told me that lucy and all that was fake. I found some articles here and here, but if you can disprove them, than that’s great. To be honest I don’t think they are completely unbiased, but facts are facts right?
Haha yep I agree American public education is going down the toilet. Honestly. I don’t see why the teachers union has to make any change so darn impossible. Anyway, that is another massive can of worms. That makes me all the more determined not to be stupid. Its like the stereotypical fat american. It just makes me exercise and eat healthy so I don’t end up that way. However are you saying that I have a bad education because I don’t agree? Haha:p
Man, I need to go to bed. I think I spent more time in this thread than actually working on my blender project. Oh well, this is probably just as productive in a sense.
PS: Farmfield, I think you’r avatar is really BA. Not as in Blender Artists;) Is it a photo or did you make that? If you did make it, that’s impressive!
I didn’t check it all but I just take the first point. What the guy were missing is that feathers were not evolved for flight, they evolved as hair, as camouflage and all that. Later on the became the basis for simple gliding and then onto flight as seen in the birds.
And there’s also a ton of documentary’s explaining it all. Considering what you wrote about Lucy in your last post, that you been lied to and taught that there might be bias in scientific reporting and documentaries, ask yourself why the documentary’s would lie. What would be the purpose of misinforming you? What do they have to gain? And before you ask me why your church would lie, that’s pretty simple. They have something to loose, your support. The people making documentary’s, spending years digging up bones in the desert, they just care about how stuff works, they also have no specific interest in you as a person. So who is lying and why? ;D
Evolution doesn’t work like that. Evolution is driven by mutation. Small mutations happen all the time. As long as they are not negative, they stay on as passive traits. But as a species mutates time upon time, the passive traits accumulate and suddenly a combination of traits suddenly gives an edge - and a leap of evolution is made. That’s how it works. There is no need for a single mutation to be either good or bad, 99% are passive, the negative ones die out and accumulated ones lead to leaps. Pretty simple but also very cool.
LOL… Why would it be fake? Really, you were told that? That’s absolutely amazing, hehe… I’m just baffled, I can’t even fathom why people would say that. There is only one reason for that, it’s because it’s against their beliefs. You can’t seriously think that a find like that can be faked? And what do you mean, unbiased? How could there be bias? It’s not a trial, it’s a find. it’s bones. That is seriously hilarious.
Edit: Now I checked the links, sorry, I misunderstood you. But the articles in question is misread from the authors, it’s about humans not being direct descendants of the specific Branch of Lucy, that’s like saying, she’s my cousin, not my sister. But to say that we do not come from the same lineage is wrong. This is grasping at straws from the creationists, it’s not like Lucy is the only fint, there are hundreds - and thought it’s not entirely possible to connect the exact dots as these fossils doesn’t contain DNA, but there’s just no question it’s pieces of the human evolutionary development, hehe…
What else would they be? That is what I want to know. That’s the problem here, creationism doesn’t answer any questions, they just question the answers of science - their working backwards… Why?
(always ask why, it’s the only question that is really important :))
No, that’s actually me with an airsoft AK, taken by my youngest cousin last summer. No specific reason using it here, it was the first avatar-sized image I found when creating my acct. here… I probably should change to my twitter one, it’s a bit less aggressive…
My family is very religious and as a kid I went to a catholic school but I just can’t accept creationism. I don’t consider myself an atheist and I’m not going to explain why because I am what I am and I’m not looking to change anyone. I’m just sharing my views. I can’t accept that things just popped out of the blue. It doesn’t make sense in my head. There is so much that religion can never explain. If we never questioned anything, we would have never left the cave. Curiosity has brought us very far. The beauty of life is its complexity. Neither Creationism nor Evolution is proven so the discussion will go on. I believe that alien life is definitely possible. Its just a matter of time until we find it. Maybe there are aliens out there right now watching us but they’re afraid they will cause more damage than good. A discovery of that magnitude would either bring us together or tear us apart. I don’t think religion is bad. It does a lot of good but there are always those who take things too far.
It’s not that evolution is not proven, it absolutely is, hehe… It’s been observed in real time. The arguments against evolution is just hot air. Creationist demand ‘proof’ and any fact presented is questioned, but they themselves have no answers what so ever. No explanation other that god creating the earth, animals & man out of nothing. In contrast, science is about finding answers, not trying to prove what you already know.
But what surprises me the most are the lack of common sense. I mean, does anyone really believe in this?
That, for me, is so far out there I can hardly comment it with a straight face. I cannot fathom people believing in such a thing as dinosaurs on Noah’s ark. If you find a seabed of fossils 50 miles inland, 15 meters down into the bedrock, there just is no way it could have been created within a few thousand years. it’s impossible. That’s just common sense. There’s just no argument against that. So to get it together with biblical history, you need to ignore logic. Discard common sense. Completely.
Why would you do that?
For me it’s like this. You should never let anything stand in the way of knowledge. If knowledge is a threat to your beliefs, its your beliefs that are wrong. If your beliefs are solid, of course no knowledge in the world can break it.
