Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Imposing your beliefs on me then?

Not at all. A debate is a (in)formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. Thats what we are doing.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Matt D

As has already been said before, evolution = science.


Some "Creation scientists", however, seem to work backwards.

Instead of looking at the available data & so on, & coming up with a workable & testable theory, backed up by shed-loads of evidence (such as evolution), they seem to start with the end theory (Creation), & work backwards from that, misquoting, ignoring, & misunderstanding evidence, to try & fit things in with a theory that they have already set themselves on.

Creationism is not science, & should not masquerade itself as such.

Very well put!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Not at all. A debate is a (in)formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

Agreed

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Thats what we are doing.

No - what you're doing is trying to change my mind. Imposing your way of thinking on me.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

No - what you're doing is trying to change my mind. Imposing your way of thinking on me.

lol, that would be a byproduct of you recognising the validity of my (and other members) arguments here. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm merely trying to get you to understand some of the errors in your thinking (as I see them; thats debate/argument). If I was successful in my endeavour then you would then change your mind of your own free will.....

Originally Posted by Matt D

Ruddy great big SNIP

Stunning post

One of the interesting things, to me, at the moment, is my impression that 'science', well physics, in particular, tbh, is as 'theoretical' as some accuse 'religion' of being.

Much of the 'science' relating to stuff like strings, quantum gravity, dark matter & dark energy, for example, is not much more than theory - and the Large Hadron Collider failing a commissioning test, didn't help with even beginning to look for 'proof'

I have to say I find the idea of achieving an 'unified' description of our provenance interesting, whether it is due to science or religion, we are here, but we aren't 'really' sure how it happened - yet????

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by homealone

....we are here, but we aren't 'really' sure how it happened - yet????

I've pretty much narrowed it down to Mr & Mrs Angry Snr.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I'm not trying to change your mind,

So what is this?

I have been trying to use your words to demonstrate to you that you and other ID/creationist believers are wrong in your stance

Just admit it - you're trying to get me to come around to your way of thinking. Please don't flatter yourself by stating me saying this means I'm "recognising the validity of your argument" - it just shows I can see what you're trying to do (based on your own admission).

If I started preaching to you about how to get saved, you'd see what I was up to, right? Does that mean you're recognising the validity of my argument? Or is that different?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by homealone

One of the interesting things, to me, at the moment, is my impression that 'science', well physics, in particular, tbh, is as 'theoretical' as some accuse 'religion' of being.

The big difference is that those scientists are probing, testing and trying to work towards understanding. Religion cannot claim to be credably doing any of that since all that we need to know is laid down in the bible, no need to look any further--just a burning need to get non-religious types to accept it's teachings as fact. (Trying to teach ID in schools science lessons is the latest attempt at that.)

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

Just admit it - you're trying to get me to come around to your way of thinking. Please don't flatter yourself by stating me saying this means I'm "recognising the validity of your argument" - it just shows I can see what you're trying to do (based on your own admission).

So whats the point of having an argument? I always thought it was to get your idea(s) across in such a way that the person you are arguing with has to acknowledge that you are right.......whats wrong with that, for crying out loud?

If I started preaching to you about how to get saved, you'd see what I was up to, right? Does that mean you're recognising the validity of my argument? Or is that different?

Nothing wrong with that; and if you could demonstrate to me that you were correct in your argument and I was wrong in mine, I would obviously change my original outlook to your viewpoint

Originally Posted by homealone

One of the interesting things, to me, at the moment, is my impression that 'science', well physics, in particular, tbh, is as 'theoretical' as some accuse 'religion' of being.

Much of the 'science' relating to stuff like strings, quantum gravity, dark matter & dark energy, for example, is not much more than theory - and the Large Hadron Collider failing a commissioning test, didn't help with even beginning to look for 'proof'

I have to say I find the idea of achieving an 'unified' description of our provenance interesting, whether it is due to science or religion, we are here, but we aren't 'really' sure how it happened - yet????

Its not the same. Scientists offer explainations for unanswered questions. They look as the evidence and current knowledge and make a guess, a theory, but they never claim it is anything but a weak theory without any evidence.

Scientists make a distinction between theory and fact and all the degrees inbetween. They treat each with the required respect and attention.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by homealone

Much of the 'science' relating to stuff like strings, quantum gravity, dark matter & dark energy, for example, is not much more than theory - and the Large Hadron Collider failing a commissioning test, didn't help with even beginning to look for 'proof'

The problem appears to have been an engineering fault

While the full cause of the problem is not yet known, failure to account for the asymmetric loads in the engineering design of the magnet appears to be a likely cause. The test configuration corresponds to conditions that occur during a magnet quench, when a superconducting magnet suddenly "goes normal," releasing large amounts of energy. They may also occur during magnet cooldown and during certain other conditions such as refrigerator failure. From 1998 to 2002, Fermilab conducted four engineering reviews of the magnets by experts from Fermilab, other US national laboratories and CERN. The reviews do not appear to have addressed these asymmetric loads. Tests at Fermilab were done on single magnets where such loads do not develop.

Just because a house collapses you can't immediately question the principles of statics.

If the collapse occurs repeatedly, you have to accept there's something wrong and try and find a way to adapt the law and fix it.

It is true some scientists will deny and argue new principles they find disturbing, fundamental uncertainty in quantum mechanics for instance, but the community at large will accept them when enough evidence is provided.

Science is more free to learn and adapt over time, science can admit mistakes and make revisions. Religion for the sake of promoting the belief in divine knowledge cannot acknowledge that 'god was wrong'.

Originally Posted by Damien

Scientists make a distinction between theory and fact and all the degrees inbetween. They treat each with the required respect and attention.

I'm sorry, but as I'm pretty sure you don't know every scientist in every laboratory in the world, this looks pretty much like a statement of faith to me - and a dodgy one at that, history is littered with scientists who have done anything *but* what you have described.

[lostandconfused]

theres only 3 occasions i enter a church, weddings funerals and rememberance day, and i dont belive in god at all. But i do think that both sides should be taught in schools.

as long as both sides are taught without bias and as truthfully as possible, whats wrong with letting kids decide what they want to belive without having people telling them they are wrong?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

as long as both sides are taught without bias and as truthfully as possible, whats wrong with letting kids decide what they want to belive without having people telling them they are wrong?

Nothing wrong with teaching them about Creation - so long as it is only within RE lessons.

Evolution = science. Based on evidence, facts, etc.

Creation = religion. Based on faith, belief.



And what's wrong with telling kids they're wrong?

[downquark1]

Again I'd like to point out that evolution is not an issue of physics, so don't compare it to light, hadrons etc. It's a logical inevitability when presented with creatures that inherit characteristics from their parents, have random mutations, and are faced with a challenge to reproduce.

Take away any of those conditions and it doesn't work, its also subject to random "cock ups". If an individual recieves a very important gene he may get crushed by a falling tree thus delaying the evolutionary jump until the mutation occurs again (if it ever occurs again).

In the case of crocodiles, they haven't evolved much since the dinosaur era because they work well already and don't have much competition.

While light has and will always travel at 3x10^8 meters per second in a vaccum and there's nothing you can do to change it. (At least according to today's evidence).

Originally Posted by Chris T

I'm sorry, but as I'm pretty sure you don't know every scientist in every laboratory in the world, this looks pretty much like a statement of faith to me - and a dodgy one at that, history is littered with scientists who have done anything *but* what you have described.

Well I meant as a whole. There a loads of scientists who are wacky and come up with crackpot theorys but they tend to get ignored and debunked by other scientists. But you rise the point that science governs itself Its not as if they all agree but this makes science even more credible and Evolution too which is pretty much solid in their eyes.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:25 ----------

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

theres only 3 occasions i enter a church, weddings funerals and rememberance day, and i dont belive in god at all. But i do think that both sides should be taught in schools.

as long as both sides are taught without bias and as truthfully as possible, whats wrong with letting kids decide what they want to belive without having people telling them they are wrong?

I am only going to say people are wrong if they pretend there is evidence which backs up the claim for creationism or if they say its the equal of Evolution in terms of science.