Evolution/Creationism flamewar goes here

Black/White said:

-Scientist

The reference was from a textbook my father had saved from when he was in a Catholic School. It is called 'Upon the Cross.' If I can be bothered, I will find the actual text and write it for you. Until then, I hope you can simply take my word for it.

I believe you.
This is what I found:

Some reformed remake of the bible said:
[...]The title of honour was nominally "King of the Jews," but that the blinded nation distinctly repudiated, and really called him "King of thieves," by preferring Barabbas, and by placing Jesus in the place of highest shame between two thieves. His glory was thus in all things turned into shame by the sons of men, but it shall yet gladden the eyes of saints and angels, world without end.

My quote's from a reformed book, I guess they're both in on it.

Probably. It would not surprise me if this were true. Irregardless...

Evolution is bullshit, and right.
Creationism is bullshit, and right.

There -problem solved.

Scientist said:
Example:

Hypothesis 1: All swans are white

new observation: Some man goes to Australia and sees a black swan. This proves that hypothesis 1 is incorrect.

This man now comes up with a new hypothesis;
Hypothesis 2: All swans are white or black.

Now, perhaps hypothesis 2 is also incorrect; but you'll only know this when a swan is observed that is not white/black.

You don't know if hypothesis 2 is 100% correct but you can say for certain that Hypothesis 2 is more correct than hypothesis 1. It closer resembles the thruth.

How does this fit in our little thread you ask?

Mankind seeks thruth; it wishes to understand it's surroundings. Like Spike saidGenesis is an explaination of man's surroundings.
It's a hypothesis on why life is so diverse. (hypothesis 1)

You know what? I DO NOT Believe in the bibles portrayal of god. What I DO say, is that it is still possible that a higher power beyond humankinds understanding, just might be reasonable for the creation of the universe. I can understand a follower of a religious sect saying “There defiantly is a god”, because the ideologists is based around faith. But the best an atheist can manage is “I’m pretty sure there isn’t a god”. If they say otherwise, they are hypocrites. Because there is a shit load we do not understand and anyone who says otherwise is ether lying, or deluded.

PS I herd your swan rant before.

So, an atheist is deluded but a believer isn't? The thing about the God debate is that there is not point or basis to even claim there is a God. God is more like TV; if you get all the channels to talk about something (like, terrorism for instance) that becomes "the matter at hand" and the focus of popular consciousness particularly because it's talked about over and over, even if initially it was something relatively minor and many other equally (or more) important things are occurring but are left aside. Also, atheism isn't necessarily based on reason, it can be based on perception or intuition just as well (if not all three.)

Religion is 99% "low level" (as in programming) traditionalist politics. Science on the other hand is a practical thought/activity system of problem solving. Science doesn't even bother with the question of God, at least not seriously. In any case it's been touched by philosophy, but less so than ever today. This has a lot to do with the fact that religion must adapt to science or die, and when it's adapting to new perceptions the part of it clinging to dying ideas turns rather reactionary (as in the creationist movement.)

myk said:
So, an atheist is deluded but a believer isn't?

No. They are both equally deluded. but a believe who says, “There defiantly is a god” at least has his teach to fall back on (IE they believe that if they have unquestionable faith, they go to heaven or what ever there is equitant of it is). But if atheist says “There is defiantly not a god”, well, If knowledge is what they seek, how can they be cretin of that?

Err, I’m going to add more top this but I’m needed…

Xian said:

Thank you scientist, really interesting comments

Xanthier said:

Scientist is a logical thinker so i have something for him...very admirable.

Thanks you guys :)

Ct_red_pants said:

PS I herd your swan rant before.

Then you've probably also "herd" me say stuff like this:

"Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them. Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist. God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God. In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis. By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan.
Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation. The goodness of an explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation systematizes and unifies our knowledge can be measured by various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity (the number of assumptions made), scope (the types of phenomena explained), conservatism (fit with existing theory), and fruitfulness (ability to make successful novel predictions). Supernatural explanations are inherently inferior to natural ones because they do not meet the criteria of adequacy as well. For example, they are usually less simple because they assume the existence of at least one additional type of entity. They usually have less scope because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer. They are usually less conservative because they imply that certain natural laws have been violated. And they are usually less fruitful because they don't make any novel predictions. That is why scientists avoid them.
What if there was no plausible natural explanation for some phenomena? Would that justify the claim that god caused it? No, for our inability to provide a natural explanation may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces. Many phenomena that were once attributed to supernatural beings such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease can now be explained in purely natural terms. As St. Augustine realized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature. Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it. In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found."
-by Theodore Schick, Jr

God, I hope Scientist doesn't put messages in his next wad. I can see it now...

You got to open a door: ("booink" - a message is displayed on the screen)
"Chapter one: Unto the Entryway.
It has been a long journey to Phobos, you had eggs and toast for breakfast, you contemplate the existence of God as you fumble with the UAC doorknob,..."

;)

Christ! Where do you get the energy to type that much in response to a silly little thread? I barley have the energy to skim through all that, so any counter argument I could come up with would be unfair.

I will say that the beginnings of existence as far as Science goes are still mostly theory. And even if it turns out that it is all true, it still dose not completely stamp out the possibility of a higher entity (a god) on top of which, it doesn’t touch on the why of it all.

If you think Evolution and the big bang is sufficient enough evidence in your mind to say that there is no god, then cheers. I couldn’t be hipper for you. Just accept the fact that there is a moderate chance you may be wrong.

There could be a god (even though it's illogical). That's hardly the issue though. The issue is that some people believe in what's written in a several thousands of years old book over what has been proven scientifically recently.

Fredrik said:

There could be a god (even though it's illogical). That's hardly the issue though. The issue is that some people believe in what's written in a several thousands of years old book over what has been proven scientifically recently.

Blame the parents, and the parents' parents, and the....

Ct_red_pants said:

Christ! Where do you get the energy to type that much in response to a silly little thread?

If you read the last line of my previous post, you'll see I simply copy-pasted it from a article by Theodore Schick, Jr.
:]

Ct_red_pants said:

I barley have the energy to skim through all that, so any counter argument I could come up with would be unfair.

That's my whole strategy! ;-)

Ct_red_pants said:

Just accept the fact that there is a moderate chance you may be wrong.

I accept. Like hypothesis 2 mentioned earlier, Science can one day be proven wrong. But this has not occured yet. You'll agree with me that Science is the best hypothesis there is right now. We have no other theory that closer resembles the thruth.
If we wish to understand our surroundings we must use a strategy. As pointed out earlier Science is the best strategy we have right now.

So, yes Science may one day be proven wrong, but until that day we have no other rational option than to assume that it is correct.

DAMMIT, this AGAIN??!!

I'm not even going to say what I think. Everyone knows what I think and I stick by my beliefs.

As Shaviro implied, religion is pure indoctrination (and a bit of normative psychology.) Science might have a bit of that here and there, but that is certainly not a defining feature. God exists because someone told you so, not another reason. It's there to make us feel like something, saying "we're not like the rocks around us" and also there to tell us "behave this way and you'll be accepted." There is no need or reason (in the broad sense, not just logic) for a supreme being to exist, other than as a vague metaphor related to existence and power.

Scientist said:
I accept. Like hypothesis 2 mentioned earlier, Science can one day be proven wrong. But this has not occured yet. You'll agree with me that Science is the best hypothesis there is right now. We have no other theory that closer resembles the thruth.
If we wish to understand our surroundings we must use a strategy. As pointed out earlier Science is the best strategy we have right now.

So, yes Science may one day be proven wrong, but until that day we have no other rational option than to assume that it is correct.

That's all I whanted to hear :)

Fredrik said:
There could be a god (even though it's illogical). That's hardly the issue though. The issue is that some people believe in what's written in a several thousands of years old book over what has been proven scientifically recently.

If this about 'the good book' is that before it was recored, it was and oral tradition passes down over two thousand years. Factor into that, it’s also poorly translated. There might be some truth to some of it, but it’s mostly distorted truths, and massive exestuations.

Scientist said:

So, yes Science may one day be proven wrong, but until that day we have no other rational option than to assume that it is correct.

How can you possibly "prove science wrong" one day? Science isn't even about truths, at least not in the classic sense of "truth." In other words, science is being "proven wrong" every day, and that is what makes it science. The idea of God isn't really anything to "disprove" since that would be like applying scientific methods to analyze a novel. When I was small I'd imagine dinosaurs walking around me, so I don't find it strange that some people, even in adulthood, imagine mighty beings designating and defining existence. A common projection indeed. I prefer to tell people oughtright that the idea of God is silly instead of go along with such things just to not displease someone. I don't need to worry about it in real life; much less in an internet forum.

myk said:

How can you possibly "prove science wrong" one day? Science isn't even about truths, at least not in the classic sense of "truth." In other words, science is being "proven wrong" every day, and that is what makes it science.

That is correct; you know your science!
Science formulates hypotheses and than seeks data to disprove these hypotheses to replace them with better (natural) ones. These new ones undergo the same process. Science indeed seeks to proof itself wrong.

But what I meant was that perhaps "the strategy of science(=replacing hypotheses)" may one day be proven wrong. Science only replaces a hypothesis with better/natural explanations.
I meant to say that if there is something supernatural out there, science would have a very very hard time finding it using this stategy. The strategy it now uses assumes that eventually we can explain everything using only natural explanations (thereby automaticly denying the existence of something supernatural like god).

If one day it is proven that something supernatural exists then "the strategy of science" will by proven wrong.

But like you I have really no idea how some-one can ever prove that something supernatural exists.

Xian said:

yeah, right. so instead of evolution we should follow a 2,000 year old comic-book, because THATS rational and logical... etc.

Pah, I don't really trust a translation of the Bible, but if any one of you even chose to see how complex ANY ONE bit of this universe is, you would not be able to blow it off and say, "Ahh, we all bubbled out of some pile of shit and bacteria!" There is something(one) that created the universe, and all that is therein. Even if there are aliens, he made them too. I don't believe that I came from some weird reaction. Just look at your hand, there is no way it can't be from design, IT IS SO SOPHISTICATED THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL IT "EVOLVED" FROM SOME FREAKIN' OOZE! Now take an even closer look; DNA, nobody can even begin to fully comprehend its full function or purpose. The stuff itself is made from molecules that are ultimately designed.
Back later- KK

You're trying to see science (and the world) from a stale and explanatory point of view which is not part of it. Ignorance is sophisticated.

I don't believe we evolved by accident, but I do believe we evolved. Whether or not we evolved due to divine intervention is another matter...

I've been away because I've had WORK to do - college days are over, university is different.

Empty vessels... I do not support evolution because it is so flawed - like I said ages ago (it seems):

I said:

Many sources

Evolution touched by some kind of divine intervention allowing the thinking, self-conscious man, pinnacle of creation, to appear: A very common viewpoint indeed. Also known as the Anthropic Principle.

I say: "Bullshit!" Just another stupid try to define humanity as something ontologically different from anything else.

No offense, but I just don't care anymore.

May I ask how Evolution is flawed? You will have to be more specific then simply stating a one-sided, non-constructive, opinion- if you wish for anything you have to say to be taken for more that a few biased words. At least in my eyes. It is great you have an opinion; I simply want to know why you think that way.

I could complicate the arguement further by suggesting Scenario C :
Aliens visited earth several million years ago and intervened in the evolutionary process, thus creating humans ;P

Spike said:

I could complicate the arguement further by suggesting Scenario C :
Aliens visited earth several million years ago and intervened in the evolutionary process, thus creating humans ;P

How did these aliens come to existence?

Fredrik, Hollywood. That's how.

Fredrik said:

How did these aliens come to existence?

An orgy between fully-evolved gods ;)

Linguica created us :-P

Spike said:

I could complicate the arguement further by suggesting Scenario C :
Aliens visited earth several million years ago and intervened in the evolutionary process, thus creating humans ;P

All these worlds are yours except Europa.
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE