well depends all on how you look at it, some people believe that the difference between living things and non-living things, is one way to argue. that if the big bang started everything then did we get living organism from non-living organism, and how can science prove this kind of logical thinking that one race of apes have and that others don't (keep in mind that brain size doesn't make that much a difference). some other but, i'm not really feeling to well to argue on it. Also if anyone would like to fix, or change anything Please do and have a nice day.Lucien Pyrus said:
Poll: Evolution and the other side
- Thread starter AlexNora
- Start date
Recommended Videos
yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time (like cancer research clinics) (i really am sure the cure for cancer has always existed) (pm if you want to hear about that to)DracoSuave said:
i would give you book references but lets face it books are not free and i get the feeling no one is going to drive to the local books store to look at them xD
(plus this video has a Q&A at the end that i think is interesting)
.... what? um no please do some more studies before making fun of every creationists, "creationists take some phrases from Scientists and state them as proof that science failzzz" also what? are you saying that we use scientist phrases against them and it fails? or that we use it and science fails? please be more clear.Wapox said:
The keyword in the phrase 'Theory of Evolution' would be theory.
I just saved you a lot of time.
'Logic' is my Captcha. That's interesting.
I just saved you a lot of time.
'Logic' is my Captcha. That's interesting.
well simple, God is a thing that is self-sustain and is all-powerful, thus creating the universe he shaped the world, and gave a sense of time to it as well. I don't really know how old the world is, but God claims to do all that is good. to put it in a human way of doing things, like an artist creating a wonderful, incredible painting that can never be duplicated in just a few days.chstens said:
I checked "no" on this, not because I haven't looked into the Creationist line of argument, but because saying there's a field of "scientific research" for creationism is an inherent paradox.
The fundamental argument for creationism is that an unfathomable deity (invariably Christian, though let's say...Zeus for this one) started/guided the human race on the path to its present day forms and functions. Note I called him unfathomable. Scientists have to test and prove a hypothesis, and it has to stand up to rigorous review from their peers. Saying that a scientist had actually hypothesized and then proved there was a "God" is the mother of all facepalms. No self respecting man in any related field to evolutionary biology would simply say
"welp, I've proved the existence of an impossible to understand life form". I imagine they'd go on to study It and try to find out where "It" came from.
Want to say you believe in Creationism? Fine. But don't lay any claim to scientific reasoning, there just isn't any there, and most of the people trying to claim otherwise don't have the degrees.
The fundamental argument for creationism is that an unfathomable deity (invariably Christian, though let's say...Zeus for this one) started/guided the human race on the path to its present day forms and functions. Note I called him unfathomable. Scientists have to test and prove a hypothesis, and it has to stand up to rigorous review from their peers. Saying that a scientist had actually hypothesized and then proved there was a "God" is the mother of all facepalms. No self respecting man in any related field to evolutionary biology would simply say
"welp, I've proved the existence of an impossible to understand life form". I imagine they'd go on to study It and try to find out where "It" came from.
Want to say you believe in Creationism? Fine. But don't lay any claim to scientific reasoning, there just isn't any there, and most of the people trying to claim otherwise don't have the degrees.
Oh goodness, where to start with this load... how was I taking stats out of context and blatantly mis-using them? There was a study performed where participants stated their race and religion and then answered a series of questions relating to the judeo-christian religions, and atheists statistically scored the highest out of all of the other groups. I assure you I am no troll.Mimsofthedawg said:
SOURCE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8030672/US-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers-quiz-finds.html
I have had my fair share of debates with creationists in the past, and I feel like I have heard all of the arguments that they have to offer, and can fairly easily refute all of them, and I'm not even an expert when it comes to evolution. I have also read enough of the Bible myself to know that it is completely bullshit and that it cannot be taken any more seriously as a theological text than Harry Potter. I am also fairly educated on the mechanisms of evolution and the "rules" of science, being a 4th year biotechnology major.
I hate to say it, but your creationist friend is pretty naive and borderline dumb. Science NEVER works by filling in any unknowns with "this must be unexplainable, it MUST be magic". Science deals with gaps in knowledge as just that, a gap in the knowledge. They make no presumptions about what that gap may mean until they can find evidence to back up their claim. Creation is NOT science, it is religious dogma that can be easily proven to be bullshit, so it SHOULD NOT be taught as science in a science classroom, because that is an insult to what science actually means. Creationists have no peer-reviewed and accepted papers in the literature, and merely spew out immature and easily refuted arguments. Also the supposed holes in evolutionary theory are all very minor holes (such as missing a transitional species in the fossil record, when 10 other such transitional species are already known) whereas the holes in creation are gigantic inconsistencies which outright contradict each other making it impossible for it to be right.
Finally, I have never heard of this so called "hydrogen-bond dating" but I call bullshit. Having a fairly good understanding of what a hydrogen bond is, I know that this would be a completely unreliable way to date anything. Hydrogen bonds are just weak interactions between molecules/atoms and they are very easy to break. They could never provide a reliable basis for dating anything, whereas radioactive decay dating is reliable (and there are multiple different tests acting on different principles that all show roughly the same results)
Fun fact, so's gravity. Reaching the status of scientific theory is essentially the same as fact. The term theory's kept, because unlike certain concepts and counterarguments it's never accepted by scientists as the perfect end all be all. It just means it's considered fundamentally correct, barring tweaking.AngelicSven said:
Do you also know that Kent Hovind is not a scientist, has no evidence to back up his claims (naturally since there isn't any), oh and he is a convicted felon?AlexNora said:
I can clarify that for you. A common creationist tactic is quote-mining. It's a dishonest tactic used to make it seem like someone said something they didn't.kidd25 said:
Why are there so many of these threads all the time, it's always x is wrong because y is correct. Maybe one in a hundred thousand people change their religious views due to an online debate, it's just like politics, there's no changing people's opinion no matter the side. All atheists online are assholes and all religious people are retards. That's essentially what most people are trying to prove in these type of threads. Sorry 4 rant.
OT: I've heard the creationist arguement many a time at my church and every time I hear it I just think about how incorrect it is. People at my church literally ignore things like carbon dating, fossils, and history that goes past about 6 thousand years. I just keep my head down and try to ignore it most of the time to be honest though.
OT: I've heard the creationist arguement many a time at my church and every time I hear it I just think about how incorrect it is. People at my church literally ignore things like carbon dating, fossils, and history that goes past about 6 thousand years. I just keep my head down and try to ignore it most of the time to be honest though.
That still doesn't answer how someone can believe the earth is 6000 years old when we have proof of the contrary.kidd25 said:
You have to keep in mind that a scientific theory isn't like every other theory. A scientific theory is backed up by substantial data and research, something creationism is not, the only "proof" there is of creationism is a book that's roughly 1700 years old.kidd25 said:most people, believe this theory as a fact, soAngelicSven said:Also if logic is your captcha then i am, sure you are ready to explain and define many things as you post in this thread ^_^
In order to actually study this subject, it 1st must have a viable model which can be tested. In order to establish that model, you must determine a hypothetical scenario that could render it false should it come to pass. This is known as falsifiability, and creationism is utterly incapable of producing a testable model that follows it.
Regardless, you seem to be referring to a man who was convicted on tax evasion charges. I know that to be an ad hominem attack, but I simply could not resist pointing that out. He is a despicable existence, a swindler and a crook, unworthy of praise or respect.
Also, the term "evolutionist" is completely meaningless to me, as it is a construct devised by think tanks who wish to "rebrand" their opposition. The word "evolutionist" is an attempt to drag a scientific theory down to the level of religion, presenting them as equal philosophies. When I hear a person say that they "believe in evolution", I cannot help but make a mental correction. You do not believe, you accept. To use the term "belief" indicates that the outcome can be affected by it, but it cannot.
Prepare to be assimilated.
Regardless, you seem to be referring to a man who was convicted on tax evasion charges. I know that to be an ad hominem attack, but I simply could not resist pointing that out. He is a despicable existence, a swindler and a crook, unworthy of praise or respect.
Also, the term "evolutionist" is completely meaningless to me, as it is a construct devised by think tanks who wish to "rebrand" their opposition. The word "evolutionist" is an attempt to drag a scientific theory down to the level of religion, presenting them as equal philosophies. When I hear a person say that they "believe in evolution", I cannot help but make a mental correction. You do not believe, you accept. To use the term "belief" indicates that the outcome can be affected by it, but it cannot.
Prepare to be assimilated.
Now first of did you see where I said the super family is not a formal division? Thus super family is not a formal division thus APE is NOT a formal division. If we were to use super groups in formal cases reptiles and birds would not be related. But ignoring the super group birds evolved from reptiles. Super group is for convenience, NOT for formal phylogeny. Also the super family for ape is not monophyletic, it is at best polyphyletic and with our current knowledge we're closer to pan than any of the others.Abandon4093 said:
Also biologist are really struggling to get this misconception out of the world. Why make it harder if you know both how confusing it is for those who know little or nothing about evolution and how damaging for those of us trying to educate people on evolution?
Yes, I had looked for the other side of the "debate", but I found that scientific evidences for Creationism simply do not exist!
No, none of the points put forward by Creationists, can be labeled as scientific as they do not abide by the scientific principles of observation of the visible universe and measurable phenomena, and Occam's razor principle - "the simplest solution is often true", trying to intentionally fit new information in an old module of understanding, will lead to misunderstanding of the new data and the system as a whole, as it will not correspond to the observable reality! Those keep any and all scientific ideas in the realm of measurable and testable data.
Creationsist ideas in all their many, many, many, many branches such as:
Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Flat Earth Creationism, Gap Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism and Theistic Evolution & Evolutionary Creationism
Are all self-contradictory to themselves, each other, their reference materials (the Judeo-Christian tradition) and most of all other Sciences!
I'm not saying there is not a God!
I'm saying that the observable World does not support the need a God!
Debating over whether God exists, or whether some religious scriptures correspond to reality is all well and good - BUT IT'S NOT SCIENCE!!!
It's Philosophy people...Actually no, it's not even Philosophy it's Theology since it only looks at one of the Creation traditions that exist - the Christian one, completely shrugging off all others that exist or have ever existed!
So in the end I will say that it is in the realm of possibility that a God created the vast Universe, in order to (after billions of years and many, many other species on Earth) achieve humans, and then get closely involved in the life and troubles of each individual person as a cosmic judge who will weight judgment on you when you die based on whether you masturbated, or fancied the opposite sex!!!
So even though it is likely in the strictly theoretical sense of the word, and I don't mind you believing in what you're believing, all I'm saying is it's not Scientifically plausible under no scientific method tha ever existed, so...[HEADING=1]Stop calling it a Science and leave the rest of us the Frak alone![/HEADING]
No, none of the points put forward by Creationists, can be labeled as scientific as they do not abide by the scientific principles of observation of the visible universe and measurable phenomena, and Occam's razor principle - "the simplest solution is often true", trying to intentionally fit new information in an old module of understanding, will lead to misunderstanding of the new data and the system as a whole, as it will not correspond to the observable reality! Those keep any and all scientific ideas in the realm of measurable and testable data.
Creationsist ideas in all their many, many, many, many branches such as:
Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Flat Earth Creationism, Gap Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism and Theistic Evolution & Evolutionary Creationism
Are all self-contradictory to themselves, each other, their reference materials (the Judeo-Christian tradition) and most of all other Sciences!
I'm not saying there is not a God!
I'm saying that the observable World does not support the need a God!
Debating over whether God exists, or whether some religious scriptures correspond to reality is all well and good - BUT IT'S NOT SCIENCE!!!
It's Philosophy people...Actually no, it's not even Philosophy it's Theology since it only looks at one of the Creation traditions that exist - the Christian one, completely shrugging off all others that exist or have ever existed!
So in the end I will say that it is in the realm of possibility that a God created the vast Universe, in order to (after billions of years and many, many other species on Earth) achieve humans, and then get closely involved in the life and troubles of each individual person as a cosmic judge who will weight judgment on you when you die based on whether you masturbated, or fancied the opposite sex!!!
So even though it is likely in the strictly theoretical sense of the word, and I don't mind you believing in what you're believing, all I'm saying is it's not Scientifically plausible under no scientific method tha ever existed, so...[HEADING=1]Stop calling it a Science and leave the rest of us the Frak alone![/HEADING]
By longer do you mean 4.54 billion years longer? cause that's the correct age of earth.kidd25 said:
And yes, there are trace amounts of zinc in fluids such as semen and plays a big biological role, which doesn't mean that we are made from metal.
So explain this anecdotal leap from having trace amounts of metallic chemical elements in our body to use being made from dirt.
Are you high?AlexNora said:
EDIT:
Your ignorance and stupidity astounds me. The laymen term "Theory" is the equivalent of the scientific term "Hypothesis", while the scientific term "Theory" means something that has been proven and can be repeated with the same result coming up every time.kidd25 said:most people, believe this theory as a fact, so
Yes... I've gone over part of this in another post because I realised there was something slightly faulty with the statements I was making.Deshara said:
Nonetheless, irrespective of if we'd notice it or not, that doesn't strictly change whether or not science (or any other philosophical system) rests on any unsupported assumptions.
Just because it's reasonable and obvious, doesn't stop something being an assumption, after all.
(Then again, when you go down that road you realise that everything anyone has ever come up with rests on arbitrary, unprovable foundations if looked at closely enough. - In practice, actually looking at anything that closely is rather pointless... But as a principle it doesn't seem possible to avoid it.)