A challenge for creationists.

[Sayonara]

Thanks. Seems that these are deep waters.

There are plenty more, but those are the ones that immediately spring to mind.

 

Can you recommend a reference that simplifies these issues without being simplistic?

This isn't bad:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/

[Mart]

I think that evolution just is[/u'], it's part of nature, like gravity. Evolution is just genetically fitter organisms living and reproducing, along with the ocasional mutation. Nothing special.

I like that.

Have you any thoughts on a possible connection between gravity and evolution.?

[ecoli]

Why not...Beings wouldn't have evolved legs, if there was no gravity to keep them on the ground.

[Technologist]

If I could recommend a book called “chemical evolution”, those with training in chemistry and who are curious about evolution may find the book interesting. The author slips my mind. I believe he is a Harvard lecturer/researcher.

 

To be honest I’ve only read a handful of books and textbooks on the subject of evolution. I have no formal training in evolutionary theory so I could be wrong, but as far as I understand the only thing evolution has to say about the origins of life is that we all share a common ancestor. This goes against biblical accounts on the origins of life of course.

 

I also want to define proof as reducing a concept to sensory evidence. It is therefore impossible to prove or disprove the notion of god/creationism, as god is characterized as supernatural (beyond the natural). This is a stolen concept fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an idea depends on reality. For an idea to be true, it has to correspond with reality. For an idea to be false, it has to contradict some aspect of reality. As such, these concepts are labeled arbitrary concepts. An arbitrary concept can neither be true or false.

 

Great posts Swansont

[Gnieus]

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.

 

Well you have just done it yourself there, so welcome to the club.

[ecoli]

If I could recommend a book called “chemical evolution”' date=' those with training in chemistry and who are curious about evolution may find the book interesting. The author slips my mind. I believe he is a Harvard lecturer/researcher.

 

To be honest I’ve only read a handful of books and textbooks on the subject of evolution. I have no formal training in evolutionary theory so I could be wrong, but as far as I understand the only thing evolution has to say about the origins of life is that we all share a common ancestor. This goes against biblical accounts on the origins of life of course.

 

I also want to define proof as reducing a concept to sensory evidence. It is therefore impossible to prove or disprove the notion of god/creationism, as god is characterized as supernatural (beyond the natural). This is a stolen concept fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an idea depends on reality. For an idea to be true, it has to correspond with reality. For an idea to be false, it has to contradict some aspect of reality. As such, these concepts are labeled arbitrary concepts. An arbitrary concept can neither be true or false.

 

Great posts Swansont[/quote']

 

 

Then, by your arguments Evolution (organisms from common ancestory) cannot be proven either. I can use my senses to see a common ancestor, there are no fossils of one, so therefore evolution doesn't exist.

[Gnieus]

Then, by your arguments Evolution (organisms from common ancestory) cannot be proven either. I can use my senses to see a common ancestor, there are no fossils of one, so therefore evolution doesn't exist.

 

In a way yes, scientist have a lot of faith.. You basically have to believe all the papers, unless you are able to recreate them all etc. Difference is: there is some logic behind it and more people have checked if it's correct. So you have a higher likelihood that it is true what you believe. Unlike pure faith, which just believes without logic.

[Technologist]

To elaborate, god is characterized as being beyond reality. Conventionally god is understood to be outside of this universe (all that exists to man). What can be known about some “thing” that is beyond our universe? Nothing! Its an arbitrary concept that has no ties to the universe. Creationism’s creator can’t be reduced to sensory evidence.

 

Evolution can. The evolutionary theory is considered to be a fact by most because it works. It explains and predicts observations. Its applications range from microbiology to pharmacology. Creationism, practically speaking, is useless.

 

Also, evolution has been observed. Evolution, defined as a change in the gene pool over time, is a fact. Lastly, common decent is a small fraction of the entire evolution theory.

[Technologist]

From "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html"

 

 

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

 

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

 

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

 

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

 

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

[-Demosthenes-]

I like that.

Have you any thoughts on a possible connection between gravity and evolution.?

I wasn't implying that there was any.

[-Demosthenes-]

Well you have just done it yourself there, so welcome to the club.

Pretty much. I didn't say it was a bad thing, just a funny thing I noticed.

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by Sayonara

Does anyone who isn't a creationist actually care what creationists think?

We should care. If we just completely ignore them (like it's tempting to do), we are being just as closed-minded as them. Knowledge can't be gained through closed-mindedness. I don't think it is just Evolution, or just Creation. They don't have to be separate. I believe God Created us through Evolution.

[Aardvark]

ok, i have trig notes from last semester. proven.

 

The giant invisible Aardvark made your trig notes on Thursday, he also made you with your false memory of studing trig. He also put in a lot of false fossils in the Earth to confuse people.

[Aardvark]

Theory? maybe not. But it's still a valid explaination.

In order to be a valid explanation there would have to be some evidence.

 

 

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).

 

How exactly do i prove my theory of the giant invisible Aardvark true? It would be most helpful in gaining some converts if you let me know. If you believe it can be proved then why don't you want it taught in schools? As a valid explanation surely it should have equal billing with evolution?

[Gnieus]

We should care. If we just completely ignore them (like it's tempting to do), we are being just as closed-minded as them. Knowledge can't be gained through closed-mindedness. I don't think it is just Evolution, or just Creation. They don't have to be separate. I believe God Created us through Evolution.

 

Creationism as I see it has NOTHING to do with God per se. It's about the literal interpretation of the Bible/Koran/Talmud/etc. If even the Vatican can make concession why not some wild willy wooly bible bashers. Christianity is about good social interactions and love. Not about that somewhere in the old testament some old homophobe wrote you shouldn't lie with a man. I have NO respect for people who claim to be Christians and don't even understand the basics of their own religion. And if they then "preach" in Telly churches, while using hysterics to show they have healing power ... and sack in a shitload of money ... . That's what we are talking about not real Christians. They interpreting exactly translated words likely to have been written in hebrew or arameic. No thanks. Most of them pseudo Christians haven't even realised that the New Testament is obviously a revised version of the old one ... Well they chased the pilgrims/puritans away from Europe because they even then realised they were a bit pathological anal in their practice of what they thought was Christianity. No wonder then that most creationists are in the USA.

 

Luther someone who saw the faults of Catholicism and tried to improve on it.

Puritans lame excuse to cover up their own fear and sexual awkwardness and just generally make life hell for everybody around them. Hence they were kicked out.

 

 

Controversial ..

[Mart]

From "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html"

Interesting stuff.

You might find it enlightening to read about Galileo's spat with the Catholic Church of his time. Dig deep and you'll find some fascinating ideas.

[swansont]

IHow exactly do i prove my theory of the giant invisible Aardvark true? It would be most helpful in gaining some converts if you let me know. If you believe it can be proved then why don't you want it taught in schools? As a valid explanation surely it should have equal billing with evolution?

 

You can't prove it true. I don't want it taught in science class because it's not science.

[Sayonara]

We should care. If we just completely ignore them (like it's tempting to do), we are being just as closed-minded as them. Knowledge can't be gained through closed-mindedness.

I don't see what ignoring them has to do with not caring what they think. Please try to discuss things I actually said with me, rather than things you want to argue about.

 

 

I don't think it is just Evolution, or just Creation. They don't have to be separate. I believe God Created us through Evolution.

True, they are not mutually exclusive. However evolution deals with change, not creation, so you might want to reconsider the compromise that you have taken to be your conclusion.

[Aardvark]

You can't prove it true. I don't want it taught in science class because it's not science.

 

I never claimed to be able to prove it true. Ecoli made that claim. He also agreed that the theory that the world was created by a giant invisible Aardvard last Thursday at 2.37pm GMT was as equally valid a theory as evolution.

[swansont]

I never claimed to be able to prove it true. Ecoli made that claim. He also agreed that the theory that the world was created by a giant invisible Aardvard last Thursday at 2.37pm GMT was as equally valid a theory as evolution.

 

You asked how one would prove it true. I am agreeing that it can't be done.

 

ecoli said "Theory? maybe not. But it's still a valid explaination." He had agreed that it's not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word, a few posts back.

 

And I maintain that creationism is a valid explanation, as would Last-Thursdayism (which I like better than Last-Tuesdayism, because you almost immediately have the weekend after the creation of the world). But if you want to use creationism to explain anything outside of spirituality (i.e. the literal interpretation), here's the other shoe: you'd better be prepared to not have any science at all, and give up your car, computer and central air. Go straight back to the dark ages, do not pass "Go," do not collect $200. Otherwise you're intellectually dishonest, a hypocrite, unless you can explain the tremendous success of science and technology in so many fields, in contrast with its massive failure in the instance of the diversity of life and determining the age of the earth.

[Mart]

You can't prove it true. I don't want it taught in science class because it's not science.

I would want a science class to understand what makes creationism not science.

The first step would be to say that it can't be proven false.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think that we all have a different veiw of what the Theory of Creation is. I think that we should set down exactly what we mean when we say, "Theory of Creation" or "Creationalist".

It would be helpfull.

[Hellbender]

wow after not a day of going on here 3 more pages of posts have been made. you guys all have very good valid arguments. Makes me proud to be the one who started this debate

[ecoli]

In order to be a valid explanation there would have to be some evidence.

 

Maybe more evidence is needed for you, not for me.

 

How would collect evidence? I have no idea.

[Hellbender]

More to the point, i agree with the fact that creationism is a "valid" theory per se, but it is not a good one. I also agree that, if there is a god (a fact which I personally don't believe) then it could have used evolution to make living things and all that. I refuse to debate about how the universe/earth began, becasue I dount anyone has a perfect explanation abou that. However evolution is an almost perfectly mapped description of how life diversifies and changes.