Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

I can't be satisfied. I hope that one day I will meet an intellectually honest creationist with whom I can have a good discussion. I love arguing, and I - as I've said - learn through debate. Hell, even with bad arguments I get some fun out of it.

Look, if I find honest creationists, I may learn something. If I find lazy creationists, then perhaps they can learn something. It isn't likely...but since its fun enough anyway, I can justify it.

what do you mean by an honest creationist?

All i am saying is why cannot these process and religion co-exist

 

[ridethelightening]

Why can't you guys get it that the Big Bang (cosmology) and evolution (the origin of species, and hell we've thrown biogenesis in there too even though that's a stretch) are totally separate?

Evolution has nothing to do with the atoms.

To which hell do you speak of?

Because something has to explain the origin of man and life on earth. Two atoms exploding in the sky doesn't explain it because that would just be silly. There had to be evolution after that explosion. They appear to be tied together
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

its like the respiratory and digestive system of the human body, two seperate processes, but dependent on one another

 

[turambar85]

what do you mean by an honest creationist?

All i am saying is why cannot these process and religion co-exist

What I mean is someone who will properly apply the rules of discussion to both the other party and themselves. Someone who will answer direct questions, and not just ignore them and continue the constant barrage of gapisms.

Look. I don't know very much about biology. I'm woefully uneducated, and not a bright guy to begin with. But, I am curious, I like to learn, and I try to answer questions asked of me. If I don't know, I will say so. But, unless I'm busy and miss it (hell, the creationist - evolutionary theorist ratio is bad enough to make this exhausting) I will respond with something, even if it is just to say that I don't know. And, most importantly, I don't always just answer questions with questions. An occasional attempt at an answer is made.

 

[volinbham]

I can't be satisfied. I hope that one day I will meet an intellectually honest creationist with whom I can have a good discussion. I love arguing, and I - as I've said - learn through debate. Hell, even with bad arguments I get some fun out of it.

Look, if I find honest creationists, I may learn something. If I find lazy creationists, then perhaps they can learn something. It isn't likely...but since its fun enough anyway, I can justify it.

I presume by "intellectually honest" creationist you mean one who accepts your view of the weaknesses of creationism?

I could say the same of science purists who believe that science delivers objective truth and objective truth is only delivered via science but that would be assuming someone has to share my views to be considered intellectually honest.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

i see your point, and you have also said that creationists are idiots etc, if you ask a question that your own stance does not fully support then of course you are going to get a question back. Because according to you, i am just wrong and since i am wrong, you must have the correct answer to prove that I am wrong, yet all you can give me is indefinates

you are looking for an obamasheep type creationists, one that will give up their principles at the sign of big words

 

[IPorange]

To which hell do you speak of?

Because something has to explain the origin of man and life on earth. Two atoms exploding in the sky doesn't explain it because that would just be silly. There had to be evolution after that explosion. They appear to be tied together
Posted via VolNation Mobile

It only seems that way to you because you are used to thinking of the biblical creation story. The origins of the universe and the origins of life on Earth are separate phenomena.

 

[turambar85]

Another thing. My wife has gotten onto me about this when we talk, so I know it is a problem. I learn by attacking, and by criticizing - both in books and in arguments. I come across as pompous, and a bit of an ass, but it isn't meant or intended. I just enjoy arguing, and get into it at times, and always speak more strongly than I think. I think it is largely because all of my beliefs are tentative and isolated from me as a person, and I forget that not everybody is like that. And so where I wouldn't take offense, I assume others won't. Usually I'm wrong.

Everybody can consider this my digressionary apology!

 

[volinbham]

It only seems that way to you because you are used to thinking of the biblical creation story. The origins of the universe and the origins of life on Earth are separate phenomena.

So there is no shared underlying mechanisms, reactions?

So regardless of where Earth came from (what processes) the progression from that point forward would be the same?

 

[turambar85]

i see your point, and you have also said that creationists are idiots etc, if you ask a question that your own stance does not fully support then of course you are going to get a question back. Because according to you, i am just wrong and since i am wrong, you must have the correct answer to prove that I am wrong, yet all you can give me is indefinates

I never said creationists are idiots. I said that creationism was deranged (and this was only to draw people into my thread and get it off the ground), but I don't think I said creationists are idiots themselves. I know many people smarter than I am that believe very silly things. Hell, wasn't it Newton that was an Alchemist?

 

[turambar85]

I presume by "intellectually honest" creationist you mean one who accepts your view of the weaknesses of creationism?

I could say the same of science purists who believe that science delivers objective truth and objective truth is only delivered via science but that would be assuming someone has to share my views to be considered intellectually honest.

Firs,t I am not a 'science purist'. Second, I said what I meant by honest. Somebody who only demand of their opponent what they demand from themselves. Somebody who will argue fairly, and put forth positive claims at least on occasion. Not somebody who will simply cite gapisms, quote mine, and who thinks that they never have to put forth any positive claims or answer any questions.

 

[ridethelightening]

What I mean is someone who will properly apply the rules of discussion to both the other party and themselves. Someone who will answer direct questions, and not just ignore them and continue the constant barrage of gapisms.

Look. I don't know very much about biology. I'm woefully uneducated, and not a bright guy to begin with. But, I am curious, I like to learn, and I try to answer questions asked of me. If I don't know, I will say so. But, unless I'm busy and miss it (hell, the creationist - evolutionary theorist ratio is bad enough to make this exhausting) I will respond with something, even if it is just to say that I don't know. And, most importantly, I don't always just answer questions with questions. An occasional attempt at an answer is made.

To be so dumb, you sure do place a high premium on who you have discussions with. Hope they don't flip the script
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

I never said creationists are idiots. I said that creationism was deranged (and this was only to draw people into my thread and get it off the ground), but I don't think I said creationists are idiots themselves. I know many people smarter than I am that believe very silly things. Hell, wasn't it Newton that was an Alchemist?

more or less you did with "magic" references etc, but thats inconsequential.

if you lead off a topic with calling something someone truly believes as deranged, do not expect a civil academic argument.

 

[volinbham]

I never said creationists are idiots. I said that creationism was deranged (and this was only to draw people into my thread and get it off the ground), but I don't think I said creationists are idiots themselves. I know many people smarter than I am that believe very silly things. Hell, wasn't it Newton that was an Alchemist?

If you truly believe this then you violate the core idea of evidence based scientific inquiry. By pre-judging a possible explanation as "silly" you could never objectively view evidence that points to it's or away from it's existence. You've unecessarily bounded the possible explanatory reasons for the evidence you observe.

 

[volinbham]

Firs,t I am not a 'science purist'. Second, I said what I meant by honest. Somebody who only demand of their opponent what they demand from themselves. Somebody who will argue fairly, and put forth positive claims at least on occasion. Not somebody who will simply cite gapisms, quote mine, and who thinks that they never have to put forth any positive claims or answer any questions.

I'm suggesting that your definition of "arguing fairly" is based on you setting the terms of the argument. Anyone who doesn't agree to your terms is therefore not intellectually honest.

 

[BeecherVol]

Another thing. My wife has gotten onto me about this when we talk, so I know it is a problem. I learn by attacking, and by criticizing - both in books and in arguments. I come across as pompous, and a bit of an ass, but it isn't meant or intended. I just enjoy arguing, and get into it at times, and always speak more strongly than I think. I think it is largely because all of my beliefs are tentative and isolated from me as a person, and I forget that not everybody is like that. And so where I wouldn't take offense, I assume others won't. Usually I'm wrong.

Everybody can consider this my digressionary apology!

:hi:

 

[IPorange]

So there is no shared underlying mechanisms, reactions?

So regardless of where Earth came from (what processes) the progression from that point forward would be the same?

I am saying they are two separate events separated by billions of years. Whatever explanation for the universe, biogenesis is it's own set. Evolution is actually somewhat independent of biogenesis, as well.

 

[IPorange]

I'm suggesting that your definition of "arguing fairly" is based on you setting the terms of the argument. Anyone who doesn't agree to your terms is therefore not intellectually honest.

If someone asks questions that they in turn refuse to answer or address relative to their own beliefs, they are being dishonest. You can't ask questions like, "How do you know, were you there?" when you are a theist (and your whole belief system is based off of faith and the accounts of others), and expect to be taken seriously.

And if you don't see that, I don't know what to say beyond that.

 

[ridethelightening]

Firs,t I am not a 'science purist'. Second, I said what I meant by honest. Somebody who only demand of their opponent what they demand from themselves. Somebody who will argue fairly, and put forth positive claims at least on occasion. Not somebody who will simply cite gapisms, quote mine, and who thinks that they never have to put forth any positive claims or answer any questions.

The problem is, there is a major hurdle you refuse to jump. Faith. Once we understand that, there is nowhere to take the argument. Pointing at holes in your logic is an attempt to prove you have faith, as well
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

I am saying they are two separate events separated by billions of years. Whatever explanation for the universe, biogenesis is it's own set. Evolution is actually somewhat independent of biogenesis, as well.

I understand the time gap but isn't it likely that the same underlying rules of nature (for lack of a better term) are at play?

It seems the separation is being used to discredit creationism (BTW, I'm not a creationist) by saying evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came into being but in reality I would expect the two have to be linked by underlying processes

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

The big bang theory released the mutations that triggered the evolution, and therefore the processes are directly linked, as the universe is constantly changing

 

[volinbham]

If someone asks questions that they in turn refuse to answer or address relative to their own beliefs, they are being dishonest. You can't ask questions like, "How do you know, were you there?" when you are a theist (and your whole belief system is based off of faith and the accounts of others), and expect to be taken seriously.

And if you don't see that, I don't know what to say beyond that.

I agree with this but the original statement came off as implying the creationist belief is intellectually dishonest because it has a faith component. Referring to faith as one's underlying reason for believing something is not intellectually dishonest.

 

[VolDad]

So you've loaded the debate automatically by stating"deranged :crazy: cousin creationism."

Here you go! Take this hand full of nothing I'm giving you and then send it back to me when it becomes something. Which ones supposed to be derainged?:crazy:

How about I give you a hand full of nothing and you send it back to me when your prayers turn it into something?

 

[IPorange]

I understand the time gap but isn't it likely that the same underlying rules of nature (for lack of a better term) are at play?

It seems the separation is being used to discredit creationism (BTW, I'm not a creationist) by saying evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came into being but in reality I would expect the two have to be linked by underlying processes

The same laws of physics were in play, if that is what you mean. There was nothing about the Big Bang that guaranteed the formation of life, though.

 

[IPorange]

I agree with this but the original statement came off as implying the creationist belief is intellectually dishonest because it has a faith component. Referring to faith as one's underlying reason for believing something is not intellectually dishonest.

Fair enough.