Gnieus Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Atheists in foxholes Consciousness about cr@ppy and scary things provokes emotional need for protection. So what, just the same story and evidence religion is a pure emotional and not rational brain construct. I believe in powers greater than ourselves (aka God), things we don't know, or we will never understand. It's system inherent, that the part of something can't understand the creator of something. Hence all human made up religions must be wrong and I don't believe in them. Also science can't reach that goal. But it will provide a more likely szenario of whats going on, than just making stuff up. Think probability. I think that's much better and more spiritual than reading about who Abraham besothed ..
ecoli Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 I believe in powers greater than ourselves (aka God)' date=' things we don't know, or we will never understand. It's system inherent, that the part of something can't understand the creator of something. [/quote'] Agreed Hence all human made up religions must be wrong and I don't believe in them. Disagree. There are things that are wrong with religion...but I don't think that they started that way. Religions with power (Catholic Church, in her prime, is a good example) tend to be corrupted, it doesn't mean the church started wiht that corruption. I don't see how you arrived at this statement...perhaps you would care to explain?
Gnieus Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 I don't see how you arrived at this statement...perhaps you would care to explain? Can a part of the watch understand the watchmaker? Religions and even science, if it would try, are likely wrong because we are part of the watch. Nothing to do with corruption. If you take the watch example. Humanity is a small wheel in it. It might be able to reasonably figure out how the watch works, and maybe draw some conclusion about the world around. But the world around where the watch fits in and the watchmaker are more complex than the watch and the wheel. Maybe that helps to understand what I mean.
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 I wouldnt if it werent for the fact that they carry so much political persuasivness here in the US. I did think of that one, but in that circumstance I think I'd be caring about what they do (and possibly say), rather than what they think. There is not much of a creationist scene over here because we push them off cliffs, so I can only imagine what it must be like having people of that persuasion trying to make decisions for you.
swansont Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 wow I love that. Good quote. Egad, I neglected to attribute it. Voltaire. (though it's not the exact quote)
ydoaPs Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Religions with power (Catholic Church, in her prime, is a good example) tend to be corrupted, it doesn't mean the church started wiht that corruption. bad example. catholic church was corrupt from the start.
Mart Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Can a part of the watch understand the watchmaker? Modern Darwinism says no and the watch makes itself (with a little help from it's friends and enemies). Maybe that accounts for the huge variety of beetles.
Aardvark Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Who ever says that religion lacks evidence. What about the questions science can't asnwer' date=' but religion can. Unless you were present and the time of the big bang...It's still impossible to prove it happened. It's impossible to disprove creationism...As i have been saying all along.[/quote'] You've piqued my curiosity, what questions ar answered by religion but not by science? The last time i checked religion was great at ambiguity and avoiding giving straight answers to questions. Have i missed anything. As for proving what happened and disproving creationism. Science backs up ideas with facts and observations. Creationism does not. Therefore creationism is not a valid theory on a par with evolution. I challenge you to disprove my theory that the universe was created last Thursday by a giant invisible Aardvark (at 2.37pm GMT). If you can not disprove it should it be given equal footing with evolution and taught in schools?
Mart Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Science backs up ideas with facts and observations. Creationism does not. Therefore creationism is not a valid theory on a par with evolution. Scientific theories also need predictive power. Can you give me an example of evolutionary theory making predictions?
root Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Cool, an interesting read. Might surprise some when I say I am not religous at all and would "consider" not "brand" myself an "atheist", why do you seperate the issues into two groups, can a theory of creationism be credible in the absence of religion. Which makes me pleased I am British since Bush does not accept Atheists as real US citizens at this time. Still, as an atheist my mind is still open to the fact of creationism. Since this is a science forum (And i am not a scientist) I wonder how you are all accounting for the theory (multiverse) & the theory of a (Closed Universe). Their I go again mentioning "Theory". If theory is a fact then surely only one of these theories can be correct, Is this not so............. Root
fuhrerkeebs Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Scientific theories also need predictive power. Can you give me an example of evolutionary theory making predictions? Answer ...but then again, creationism doesn't predict anything...at all.
atinymonkey Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Scientific theories also need predictive power. Can you give me an example of evolutionary theory making predictions? The mapping of the human genome underlined the process that Darwin theorys had alluded to.
ydoaPs Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 I challenge you to disprove my theory that the universe was created last Thursday by a giant invisible Aardvark (at 2.37pm GMT). If you can not disprove it should it be given equal footing with evolution and taught in schools? ok, i have trig notes from last semester. proven.
Mart Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 The mapping of the human genome underlined the process that Darwin theorys had alluded to. WADR, I asked for a prediction that the theory can make.
swansont Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Scientific theories also need predictive power. Can you give me an example of evolutionary theory making predictions? Naked Mole Rats
swansont Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 ok, i have trig notes from last semester. proven. No, these were created intact, as were your memories of taking them.
ecoli Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 You've piqued my curiosity, what questions ar answered by religion but not by science? The last time i checked religion was great at ambiguity and avoiding giving straight answers to questions. Have i missed anything. Yes... religion doesn't always give ambigous answers. Read the Talmud, you'll see. As for proving what happened and disproving creationism. Science backs up ideas with facts and observations. Creationism does not. Therefore creationism is not a valid theory on a par with evolution. Theory? maybe not. But it's still a valid explaination. I challenge you to disprove my theory that the universe was created last Thursday by a giant invisible Aardvark (at 2.37pm GMT). If you can not disprove it should it be given equal footing with evolution and taught in schools? No I cannot disprove. Nor would I want to. Becasue this is my entire point. You could prove that statement true, if you believe in an all-powerful creator. This should not be taught in schools, however, becasue there would an infinity different variations of it and it's impossible, and unvaluable, to teach them all (or any of them).
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Scientific theories also need predictive power. Can you give me an example of evolutionary theory making predictions? Game Theory, Hardy-Weinberg Equilibria, Mendelian population geometry, Haldane's rule.
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 You could prove that statement true, if you believe in an all-powerful creator. How?
ecoli Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 This is getting a little off topic. So rather then explaining it again... just read my posts on this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8079&page=3 and maybe you'll see what I meant.
-Demosthenes- Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 How did this thread get so far so fast? Natural Selection is not => evolution. Natural selection is the main part of evolution. Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles, natural selection is means by which alleles are decided to go on to the next generation in the species. perhaps if they consider (and NON of us KNOW eitherway), that maybe the "Creator(s)" used Evolution as a tool? that way BOTH are not in conflict I think that evolution just is, it's part of nature, like gravity. Evolution is just genetically fitter organisms living and reproducing, along with the ocasional mutation. Nothing special. evolution, on the other hand, HAS been proven. AVIDA proves that evolution isn't even restricted to biological life. What other kind of life is there? Originally Posted by root But how do evolutionists account for life developing on the planet? Evolution really describes the diversity of life on the planet, not the origins of life. When people ask a question about "evolutionists" they don't mean just by the evolutionary theory, the mean "evolutionist" in the same way you mean "creationist", I laugh that you both tag eachother like that and then nit pick about wich theory you're talking about Maybe evolution made humans to make the Bible to make us all communists. Now that's a message for middle America... You repeatedly use the same "tactic" that you blaim creationists for using' date=' I laugh at you, I laugh at you all . It's not creationalist that have flaw in their arguments, its unintelligent people irreguardless of which side they argue. It's just that [b']most[/b] unintelligent people are the same people that argue for creationalism in this way.
ecoli Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 You repeatedly use the same "tactic" that you blaim creationists for using' date=' I laugh at you, I laugh at you all . It's not creationalist that have flaw in their arguments, its unintelligent people irreguardless of which side they argue. It's just that [b']most[/b] unintelligent people are the same people that argue for creationalism in this way. What tactic are you talking about?
Mart Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Game Theory, Hardy-Weinberg Equilibria, Mendelian population geometry, Haldane's rule. Thanks. Seems that these are deep waters. The gene-centered viewpoint has spawned a complex literature on Haldane's rule. This suggests that discussions about the details of evolutionary theory should be left to experts. This leaves everyone else in the dark as far as this goes. Can you recommend a reference that simplifies these issues without being simplistic?
-Demosthenes- Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 What tactic are you talking about? Gnieus' posts seem to be full of fun little slams that have little to do with the argument.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now