Poll: Evolution and the other side

[bakan]

So, basically you ask if we read/studied a bit of the nonsense called creationism and as soon as there is a sign of discussion you only want pms?

Well, I actually did learn a fair bit about creationism and as I mentioned before it is bollocks.

Though as you don't want to discuss the matter I wont bother to write anymore.

 

[Astoria]

*snip*

It fails as a philosophical theory just because it destroys the point of philosophy. Clarity.

Maybe a theological 'theory'?

When did philosophical become the 'can't be proved or disproved,' anyways? There are standards of proof you can set up in philosophy, as well as the entire concept of the burden of proof. There's even a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" which is covered by this 'can't be disproved or proven' angle.

This is bothering me now. -_-

I did say it is a bad theory. It's called Intelligent Design theory and it basically says that because everything works together perfectly there had to be someone to make it that way. You can look it up if you want to know more about it.

 

[Togs]

Why wouldnt you? it doesnt take long and you can laugh at the fools who stubbornly cling onto the stupidity.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Yes I have. In quite a fair bit of depth from multiple sources. The arguments range from flat out ludicrous denial of the evidence, to philosophical arguments with no answer one way or the other, to outdated arguments proved wrong by newer evidence, to honest misunderstandings of the field, to legitimate points where we can't explain something (though it'd be wrong to draw an overall conclusion from those points).

So far I haven't seen anything to overthrow the current scientific consensus.

 

[Hawgh]

You cannot make scientific research into the hypothesis "I don't know how it happened, I'm assuming magic. Maybe aliens". It's laughable. If anything, it could be the start of a proof by contradiction.

 

[Sojoez]

It doesn't really though if you think about it. It only destroys the theory of creationism. Evolution says that things evolved from a single cell organism right? Well where did that cell come from? I may be wrong but I don't think science has the answer to that. It's kinda stupid that they insist on trying to prove evolution wrong rather than take consolation in the fact that it doesn't answer everything.

Actually, in the long run, evolution does contradict christianity.

Because as we humans are evolved from ape like animals, the story about Adam and Eve becomes absolute. With out Adam and Eve there is no 'original sin', therefore there is absolutely no reason for the existence of Jesus as a savior for mankind. Which renders christianity absolute.

 

[AlexNora]

So, basically you ask if we read/studied a bit of the nonsense called creationism and as soon as there is a sign of discussion you only want pms?

Well, I actually did learn a fair bit about creationism and as I mentioned before it is bollocks.

Though as you don't want to discuss the matter I wont bother to write anymore.

lol sorry its my topic and ill do what i please with it if you want to go into depth make your own topic. send me a pm and ill join it as long as we can talk without a condescending tone.

 

[Astoria]

It doesn't really though if you think about it. It only destroys the theory of creationism. Evolution says that things evolved from a single cell organism right? Well where did that cell come from? I may be wrong but I don't think science has the answer to that. It's kinda stupid that they insist on trying to prove evolution wrong rather than take consolation in the fact that it doesn't answer everything.

Actually, in the long run, evolution does contradict christianity.

Because as we humans are evolved from ape like animals, the story about Adam and Eve becomes absolute. With out Adam and Eve there is no 'original sin', therefore there is absolutely no reason for the existence of Jesus as a savior for mankind. Which renders christianity absolute.

It contradicts a lot of Christian belief but doesn't fully destroy the idea of god existing. Anyway I think most people agree that a lot of stories from the bible are pretty far fetched.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Yeah, I've found out one thing.

Neither creation nor lack of creation is physically possible, you'll just have to wait and see.

Fun fact: If something is undisproveable, it's automatically not even considered to be a scientific hypothesis. Why waste time trying to disprove a system of beleifs that's designed (through natural selection, ironically) to be undisproveable?

Lol. Very true. This is after all, fundamental to the philosophical definition of science.

On a philosophical level it does of course raise the question of whether science is actually founded on valid premises or not.

Most significantly, science relies on the premise that there are a set of rules underlying reality which do not change.

If this is false, the scientific method ceases to be a reliable way of determining anything about the world. (Because even if it finds some underlying set of rules, there's no way to be sure they wouldn't just change.)

That is of course, contradictory to anything most people ever experience, and problematic on other levels too (since it also undermines mathematics and logic - and making a logical statement about a situation which by it's very definition would defy logic is, to put it mildly, a little dubious.)

Still, it doesn't do to take anything for granted. Using science as a tool without at least a minimal understanding of what presumptions it makes about the world is a little silly.

Or maybe I just think too much. XD

 

[Cowabungaa]

Most significantly, science relies on the premise that there are a set of rules underlying reality which do not change.

Where did you get that from? First time I heard that. Sounds quite silly to me since science is all about change. Fundamental laws showing to not be so solid as thought is the wet dream of many scientists, they'd have a field day.

 

[Joccaren]

I spent the first 10 years of my life at a Catholic school being taught creation. I never heard any evidence, and I have never heard any since. Every time that I talk with someone about creation, whether it be from an evolutionary standpoint or otherwise, it always comes back to:

'Well then, what created the universe?' "Current theories say the Big Bang did" 'Yeah, well what came before the big bang?' "What came before god?"

More recently, after having left that school, I had a period of looking around the internet for religious people trying to defend themselves with 'arguments' against scientific theory, fuelled by watching some of Qualiasoup's videos on how close minded religious people were being around him. A lot of what I found was rubbish, and a lot of 'Three questions atheists should think about before they go against religion' crap, all three of which I was able to answer with the scientific theories I honestly thought everyone knew about.

When someone presents irrefutable evidence of god, creationism, or anything that disproves evolution, I will proclaim evolution as false, at least on a genetic scale.
Evolution has been happening to humans and animals even in the last 1000 years. What we can notice easily may not be genetic, but social. How societies and groups evolve, how they learn to better interact with others.

I personally am agnostic, as there is no way to disprove god's existence, however evolution over Intelligent Design and creation is far easier to support.

Most significantly, science relies on the premise that there are a set of rules underlying reality which do not change.

Which is why so many scientists want, and even try to, disprove theories that are currently established.

Still, it doesn't do to take anything for granted. Using science as a tool without at least a minimal understanding of what presumptions it makes about the world is a little silly.

Science doesn't make any presumptions about the world, it tells us not to. Some people take scientific theories and make presumptions that because they are currently supported by science they are infallible, and these are the presumptions you may be talking about, but science itself doesn't presume anything.
This is one of the flaws I constantly find in the arguments of so many theists, a lack of understanding of what science actually is (I am not necessarily calling you a theist, just saying its one of the main flaws in so many of their arguments)

Also, is it just me or are these captchas getting worse? Every one of them now has some squiggly line obscuring the majority of the letters so that I can barely read them...

 

[Ambi]

I grew up as a creationist until I was about fourteen. I had some creationist teachers and my dad subscribed to the Creation magazine and had some Ken Ham books. I didn't understand science.

What's with all the evolution vs. creation threads?
And religion vs. science/atheism threads, in general?
They're rampant. Stop making them. No-ones mind ever gets changed on the Internet.

Mine did.

I still don't think there's going to be any mind-changing happening on here any time soon.
The people here have their mindset and it's going to stay that way, no matter how many 'Poll: Are you religious?' threads appear and no matter how many arguments are presented.

I witnessed at least fourteen people on another more close-knit forum gradually de-convert from Christianity or go through a crisis of faith because of all the discussions that were had. Even the ones that somehow preserved their faith came out more knowledgeable and less fundamentalist/literal from all the discussions.

 

[thom_cat_]

I have studied the evidence held up as scientific by creationists, if that counts.

I refuse to vote because of this.

 

[Vivi22]

Well, yes and no.

Yes, because I've had plenty of exposure to the feeble mewling of cdesign proponentsists.

No, because there is no scientific evidence offered for creationism. All they ever come up with is strawman arguments and weak "refutations" of evolutionary theory, as if that would declare creationism to be automatically true.

Pretty much this. I've seen a lot of creationist arguments against evolution, all of which seem to be either based on a lack of understanding of how evolution works, or deliberate misrepresentations of how it works. And none of them can ever seem to provide any credible scientific evidence to back them up, which makes sense when you consider there is none.

So yeah, I'm familiar with many of the standard arguments they use, but as far as evidence, what evidence?

 

[70R4N]

Why is this even a discussion? Before I had access to the internet at home, I had no idea that people stupid enough to believe that creationism is true exist. Ok, maybe I should change stupid to just plain ignorant. But some people just don't want to learn or look at any evidence (which is overwhelming), those people are stupid.

When I hear how people don't even hear about evolution in schools, I just don't get it. How is this possible? This is absolutely ridiculous!
Evolution evidence: Fossil records, DNA, simple observation etc. Creation evidence: NOTHING. And yet people go about calling evolution "just a theory" when they have no idea what that word means. From scientific theories, evolution ranks among the highest for the number of evidence it has. It even has more evidence and is more proven than the Theory of Gravity itself.

I'm sorry but creationism just baffles me and makes my brain hurt for how incredibly stupid it is.

 

[Souplex]

But the most important question of all was not yet answered, which god are we talking about?

Athe, god of Atheism.
For he is the god of nothing. The dark void that will devour all other gods and those who do not worship and fear him!
All hail Athe, for he does not exist!

 

[Alade]

my friendly evolutionist would you mind telling me if you have ever once seriously looked at the other side. I'm talking about at least a week or two of long research into creationism.

no debate on if evolution is true or if god exist just wondering a yes or no on if you did your research and how long you spent researching it.

and i meant reading books written by actual creationist not evolutionist claiming creationist, say this but this is why there wrong (this kind of thing can easily be a straw man to knock down and pretend they won)

also references would be nice

here's a quote:
"Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight"

want to research it now? try this link.

http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/debates/

(it isn't much just a video with some interesting points you can take for thought or ignore I really don't care, what you believe is none of my business)

(no DO NOT debate the video here that's not the point the poll at the top is)

"A witty quote proves nothing" Voltaire.

Also, evolution has been proven to be true, time and time again. Hell, it can be observed in a very short time period, not just millions of years. Creationism has been disproven. Religion can still try explain how life started (which I remind you evolution does not), but otherwise it has no reasonable argument whatsoever.

 

[Nazz3]

There is no 'scientific evidence' for creationism.

Also, evolution isn't the opposite of creationism, both could be very well true.

 

[Trasken]

Yes because the theory that things just magically "happen" is much more scientifically relevant than things slowly changing over millions of year. Now ill go get in my imaginary ferrari and drive to my imaginary mansion by the beach where i will make love to beautiful imaginary supermodels