Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[BTGBullseye]

This thread makes me sad; both sides, make me sad.

 

Bullseye and the rest of the creationists make me said for proposing arbitrary, metaphysically impossible, and epistemological invalid claims. The other side makes me sad for entertaining such claims. I shall now attempt to end this thread; I do not expect to succeed.

 

Bullseye, your claims that there is a supernatural creator is arbitrary i.e. the claim has no evidence provided and is not a result of a direct observation. The theory is neither right nor is it wrong: it's simply arbitrary and has no epistemological status or place in human cognition. Evolution is supported by many facts, observations, physical evidence and research; evolution has no theory opposing it. Something is considered "knowledge" when all facts point to it and there is are no theories or evidence opposing it (arbitrary theories don't count). If you're not satisfied with the theory of evolution: propose your own theory, do your own research and come up with a better model that's supported with better evidence. Knowledge is contextual and in this context, evolution is a fact.

 

To the rest of you: next time you're presented with an arbitrary claim, don't try to consider whether it's right or wrong: simply identify it as arbitrary, dismiss it, and continue talking as though it's never come up.

You're just showing how little you want to find any truth, and how much you just want to be right.

 

Just because something is arbitrary doesn't automatically make it wrong. Just because something isn't opposed by the people you trust doesn't make it true.

 

I have enough personal experience with God to convince me of his existence, not necessarily evidence you will ever accept since most of it is not physical evidence reviewed by your idea of what constitutes 'peers'.

 

knowl·edge/ˈnälij/Noun

1. Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information

3. True, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion

4. Awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

That doesn't look anything like your definition of the word...

 

Since you don't know that definition, maybe you're confused by this one too...

ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective

1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

2. (of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

3. (of a constant or other quantity) Of unspecified value

My beliefs are not just some personal whim, nor does any other part of that definition relate to my beliefs.

[Michael Archer]

Once again Bullseye, you somehow manage to misread my post.

 

Again, an arbitrary claim is neither right or wrong; it has no epistemological status whatsoever. I never said that your claim of a creator was wrong; I said it was it was arbitrary i.e. a personal whim that has no grounding in reality (since whims and thoughts exist independent of reality) and has no place for human cognition. If I wanted to sink to your level and patronize you in an attempt to refute you (like you did when you posted those definitions), I could've said something like "you're wrong; there's no creator, rather there's a sentient Alien Dick species from another galaxy watching your every move and judging if you can come to Dickland," or another equally arbitrary comment. Instead, I simply dismissed it as arbitrary. Claiming something arbitrary is actually worse than being wrong; at least something that's wrong has an epistemological value.

 

Your beliefs do seem like a personal whim; you (or anyone else) has yet to produce evidence in reality that shows there is a creator. You say you had a personal experience with God, but you say that you have no physical evidence; this leads me to conclude that it only happened in your mind. And like I said before, thoughts and feelings exist independent of reality i.e. whatever went on in your mind has no bearing on reality.

 

If you can prove with evidence (something in reality) there is a creator, that's fine and we can discuss that. If you just spout claims without evidence, those are arbitrary and can not possibly be discussed.

 

"Knowledge" in one of your definitions (just curious, where did you get those definitions?) means "certain understanding". "Certain" means "indisputable" i.e. conclusive, legitimate evidence is provided for it, with no evidence to the contrary. Evolution is not opposed by anything, but arbitrary claims; it has nothing to do with how many people oppose/support it. It matters what they're supporting i.e. if it's conclusive evidence grounded in reality, follows valid epistemological rules, doesn't contradict already established knowledge and therefore is not an arbitrary claim unlike the claim of a supernatural being.

 

In our perception of the world, evolution violates no previous knowledge and connects and explains older knowledge. In our context of knowledge, evolution is a fact since it has conclusive evidence supporting it with no evidence to challenge it.

 

Humans are not omniscient, so context is important here. All human knowledge is contextual.

[BTGBullseye]

This will be my last post here since you keep making up definitions for words, and ignoring the real definitions when I post them.

[Michael Archer]

It seems you're confused about what you're talking. Let me help you; I know that there are dictionaries posted on the internet, but you don't seem to know how to use them.

 

def·i·ni·tion

noun \ˌde-fə-ˈni-shən\

Definition of DEFINITION

1

: an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma

2

a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol c : a product of defining

3

: the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group

4

a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits

 

ig·nore

verb \ig-ˈnȯr\

ig·noredig·nor·ing

Definition of IGNORE

transitive verb

1

: to refuse to take notice of

2

: to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

 

See, I can post definitions and claim you're not using the words correctly in a fallacious, obnoxious, patronizing, and juvenile attempt to discredit what you said. The only difference between you and me is that I'm joking.

[alphabetagamma]

Angry and derogatory debate between the two people with the lowest rep on the whole site. How did I know this thread would end up like this?

[ProHypster]

Can we lock this thread, it's getting disgusting, I believe this issue of either god is there or not is purely philosophical while the issue of evolution vs creation is scientific but due to the fact that some people are unconvinced by sources of evidence and have other popular sources saying otherwise it also becomes philosophical.

 

Yes, people can have different opinions on this knowing the same amount of information.

 

To sum this up, all the evidence sources for evolution are in the prior pages, all the arguments against are also in the prior pages, decide what you will accept and what you won't and move on with life, seeing the way things are going I don't think anyone can bring any more information into this thread, so I'm going to ask the admins to lock this thread.

[Michael Archer]

alphabetagamma, what makes you think rep actually means something? Why do you feel that people with rep lower than you are inferior?

 

ThatSmartGuy, I agree. I tried to address it from a philosophical standpoint, but it doesn't seem like people are reading what I'm writing (what's new?).

[Blue]

I put far more philosophical gravity in doctorates, theologians and philosophers than any blogger or commenter on the internet that says that they've done their homework.

The overlap between these groups is slim because the former is usually writing books and debating while the latter is usually at a part time job or playing video games.

 

Due to this disparity in professionalism and proficiency in knowledge, it saddens me when I see a Religion partition in a forum because usually it just creates anger and confusion because of the mutual amount of strength of opinion and unwillingness to back down, regardless which party has greater intelligence, arguing skills or learnédness.

[ProHypster]

Offtopic: You would make a great copywriter Blue , buuut I'm still unconvinced.

[Axeldeath]

I'm sorry Blue but I see no "religion partition" on this forum. In fact the only place I see people debating religion is in this thread, this topic isn't unnecessarily brought into any other topics. This topic is a debate, just like a lot of the other threads.

 

alphabetagamma, what makes you think rep actually means something? Why do you feel that people with rep lower than you are inferior?

 

That was a bit of an overreaction, it was a joke Michael.

[Eedo Baba]

Ok, 30 pages in, who's won? Creation or evolution?

[alphabetagamma]

Ok, 30 pages in, who's won? Creation or evolution?

This thread got about as far as every other debate has gone. Nowhere.

[Blue]

Ok, 30 pages in, who's won? Creation or evolution?

[Blue]

I'm sorry Blue but I see no "religion partition" on this forum.

Thankfully let's hope it stays that way.

[TheArkayn]

My point is that even if evolution might seem more likely than creationism to most people, it all boils down to what people choose to believe. I have nothing against believing in evolution but to me it just doesn't make sense. I have to believe what I find most logical to me. What others believe is their matter personally.

 

I cannot prove that God has created the world, but that's what I believe because it's just what makes most sense to me personally. I can only speak for myself.

 

I've always thought that simply just to choose what to believe is to give up on rationality. One shouldn't pick and choose what one's going to accept as reality, especially on something like this that can potentially affect others. (Indirectly of course, an example being someone voting against evolution in schools) At this point, evolution has been challenged countless times, and it hasn't ever lost. Creationism, on the other hand, has a lot of explaining to do. To quote someone, I can't recall who at the moment, life as a whole shows more examples of unintelligent design (i.e. any vestigial organ) than that of an intelligent creator. It's to demonstrate willful ignorance to choose to disbelieve something despite having every reason to believe.

[alphabetagamma]

My point is that even if evolution might seem more likely than creationism to most people, it all boils down to what people choose to believe. I have nothing against believing in evolution but to me it just doesn't make sense. I have to believe what I find most logical to me. What others believe is their matter personally.

 

I cannot prove that God has created the world, but that's what I believe because it's just what makes most sense to me personally. I can only speak for myself.

 

I've always thought that simply just to choose what to believe is to give up on rationality. One shouldn't pick and choose what one's going to accept as reality, especially on something like this that can potentially affect others. (Indirectly of course, an example being someone voting against evolution in schools) At this point, evolution has been challenged countless times, and it hasn't ever lost. Creationism, on the other hand, has a lot of explaining to do. To quote someone, I can't recall who at the moment, life as a whole shows more examples of unintelligent design (i.e. any vestigial organ) than that of an intelligent creator. It's to demonstrate willful ignorance to choose to disbelieve something despite having every reason to believe.

You're 29 pages behind, old chap.

[BTGBullseye]

(i.e. any vestigial organ)

Going to take on this one little bit, then leave again.

 

 

Vestigial organs have purposes, just like all other organs. Many are not as purposeful now as they would be without modern medical practices.

 

A quick example: The Appendix helps prevent some of the beneficial digestive bacteria from being flushed from your body when you have diarrhea. (yes, 'the runs' literally does kill people in 3rd world countries)

[danielsangeo]

No one is saying that vestigial organs don't have any function whatsoever. However, that does not mean that vestigial organs are not proof of evolution. Even disappearing body parts, such as tails, continue to have purpose and function until they're completely gone.

[Michael Archer]

Ok, 30 pages in, who's won? Creation or evolution?

 

Creation is a metaphysically impossible theory that spits in the face of basic epistemological principles. No evidence has been presented to support creation simply because it's not possible to provide it; creationists postulate something that exists beyond reality: a realm that has no connection to man's thinking or way of observing reality (Bullseye doesn't like this word, but the word that describes this is "arbitrary."). The creationists are saying, "screw evidence, I have faith."

 

If you accept that reason is man's only tool of gathering knowledge and by corollary, only accept reality as that which exists; there was no argument to begin with.

[Flyingamerboy]

How would time travel work with god?