Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[ProHypster]

Well.... That was unexpected, usually people are way too " see no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence " on the evolution vs. creation topic. Time to move onto something else I suppose, at least until someone posts another arguement, maybe I would prefer to debate with philosophers if they are like you ( more open-minded towards different points if view ). TO THE CIVILIZATION PROBLEMS FORUM!! HUZZAH!!!

 

Question everything

Learn Something

Answer nothing.

 

Also I'm past ignorance...

 

One of the ideas that got Socrates in trouble was that he thought he was wiser than many of the people in power. Like most of Socrates’ ideas, this is not what it seems in appearance. Socrates believed that he was wise because he knew nothing and admitted it, while others thought they were wise but really were not. In other words, anyone who admits to not being wise is really wise because no human can really attain complete wisdom. One of Socrates friends had asked the oracle of Delphi if any were wiser than Socrates. The oracle said “no” which greatly surprised Socrates. So Socrates examined famous politicians, artists, and poets to prove the oracle wrong. After examining them and getting his victims into tight spots Socrates surmised that their wisdom was illusionary and the oracle was right. Naturally the people whom he examined were not very happy about being humiliated, and eventually arraigned him and gave him the death penalty.8

This philosophy has some connections to the Bible. 1 Corinthians 8:1 says, “If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know.” Perhaps Socrates realized that humans are flawed and therefore can never attain perfect knowledge and wisdom, but to be wise one must first admit his ignorance.

[Rover]

Well, after going through this topic it has once again become clear to me that

A: People who have a knowledge deficit on a controversial topic are often completely unaware of this knowledge deficit.

B: Compensate for this deficit with sheer blinding certitude in their own position.

C: When confronted with the fact they are at variance with reality, will stomp their feet and insincerely demand to be educated on a complex topic in the span of a single conversation on the internet. Even though they have long since made up their minds.

 

Just another day on the internet I suppose.

[danielsangeo]

I am reviving this thread because the atheism thread went into Evolution vs Creationism. I am going to respond to this from that thread:

 

The evidence against macro-evolution and naturalism includes: (1) no fossil transitional forms have been found; (2) more than 10,000 professional scientists believe in biblical creation and 85 percent believe in God; (3) the probability that the DNA molecule is the result of chance and time is zero; (4) the laws of thermodynamics; (5) molecular mechanisms, for example vision, are irreducibly complex and could never evolve; (6) the Cambrian explosion where basic animal groups appeared suddenly without evidence of ancestors.

 

1. Every fossil is a transitional form.

2. [citation needed], also, relevance?

3. You're forgetting a key factor. Do you know what it is?

4. What about them?

5. Not true.

6. Also not true.

 

This is your evidence against so-called "macro-evolution"?

 

And where is the evidence for creationism?

 

Note: Questioning evolution (which is encouraged) is not a substitute for providing evidence for creationism.

[Axeldeath]

Actually 96% of the members of the American Academy of Science (the top scientists in the country) do not believe in god.

[ProHypster]

I'm guessing the typical creationalist would say:

 

1. By your presumptions

2. Relevance is that it is evidence for some

3. The video you showed where a watch miraculously evolved on a computer?

4. , ok that one disproves abiogenesis not evolution.

5. Actually True

6. Also True

 

Actually 96% of the members of the American Academy of Science (the top scientists in the country) do not believe in god.

 

I think the guy meant from the 10.000 scientists.

 

And I'm not going into debate again I already left saying that most/half of evolutionary laws should be taught as a fact.

 

I cannot prove creationalism to you or myself either, that's why I am an agnostic, but I can make out that historical and macro-evolution and creationalism are both theories. To you and most evolutionsts, evolution is a fact. To most creationalists, creationalism is a fact.

 

I think I can understand why most philosophers die monotheists. There is one tiny fundament in philosophy, it is the fundament that everything in this world is logical. If this world is random as macro evolution says, it stops being logical and when this world stops being logical, then no action in this world is wrong or right, in fact, then there is no action, there is only randomness.

 

So my question to you is, do you think this world is completely random?

If so, then what's the point of you arguing here, you are just some randomness in some random world, living randomly an will die randomly.

 

Besides, if everything comes from the common ancestor, what does the common ancestor come from?

It practically suggests abiogenesis.

 

It seems like some theories of evolution are a paradox of both the mind and the world.

[danielsangeo]

1. My presumptions?

2. That you can't even provide the list?

3. No.

4. Why don't you answer the question?

5. Why would the eye be "irreducibly complex"?

6. The "Cambrian explosion" was 70-80 million years long...and there is evidence that there were flora and fauna prior to this "explosion" which would account for what we see.

 

I realize that to 'evolutionists', evolution is fact, because it's demonstrably true. I realize that to 'creationalists', creation is fact, but it's NOT demonstrably true. That's the difference.

 

This world is not "completely random". It follows certain laws.

 

Abiogenesis is a completely different argument. If you want to discuss that, we can.

 

Evolution is fact. There's no getting around it. Vague "nuh-uhs" is not helpful.

[Axeldeath]

macro-evolution and creationalism are both theories.

 

Do you really want me to start bashing my head against the nearest wall? They are not both theories, the theory of evolution is a theory. Creationism is most certainly, without a doubt, not

[ProHypster]

Well there is spiritism, reasoning of life, logic vs randomness test, paranormal things that are a demonstration that there is something out there, those are facts.

[ProHypster]

macro-evolution and creationalism are both theories.

 

Do you really want me to start bashing my head against the nearest wall? They are not both theories, the theory of evolution is a theory. Creationism is most certainly, without a doubt, not

 

I don't understand, creationalism and macro-evolution are both logical. Since they are logical, they are theories.

[Rover]

macro-evolution and creationalism are both theories.

 

Do you really want me to start bashing my head against the nearest wall? They are not both theories, the theory of evolution is a theory. Creationism is most certainly, without a doubt, not

 

I don't understand, creationalism and macro-evolution are both logical. Since they are logical, they are theories.

 

Something can not be a theory if it can not be falsified. Creationism posits a supernatural creator which lies outside the realm of science.

[ProHypster]

Are you saying that Natural Selection, and of course fossils which are said to be animals and hominids from the past cannot be falsified?

 

I am reducing these theories to a plain theory from a scientific theory.

[danielsangeo]

Since they are logical, they are theories.

 

"Creationalism" is not logical. Also, simply having something be "logical" does not a theory make. Harry Potter is internally logical. That does NOT mean that there's a "theory of magic" or something.

 

Are you saying that Natural Selection, and of course fossils which are said to be animals and hominids from the past cannot be falsified?

 

Yes, they can be falsified by simply providing evidence that they are false. Creationism cannot be falsified since there is no evidence that we can test.

[ProHypster]

Creationalism is a logical theory, that is one thing I am certain of.

 

What kind of evidence? What if I say that the skeleton of a hominid was actually an ape.

[Rover]

Are you saying that Natural Selection, and of course fossils which are said to be animals and hominids from the past cannot be falsified?

 

I am reducing these theories to a plain theory from a scientific theory.

 

You do not get to change the definition of what scientific theory is for the purpose of your argument.

And I said anything which involves untestable and undetectable supernatural entities cannot be falsified.

Evolution on the other hand can be falsified if you find modern fossils, say that of a dog of rabbit in the pre-cambrian or something.

Evolution would have been falsified if DNA didn't allow for mutations to cumulate, which it does.

Hominid evolution would have been falsified if we could find no explanation why most apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23.

I was going to explain this, but to gauge your knowledge I'm just going to ask you why in science human chromosome #2 is an important piece of the puzzle in human evolution.

[danielsangeo]

Creationalism is a logical theory, that is one thing I am certain of.

 

How is it a "logical theory"?

 

What kind of evidence? What if I say that the skeleton of a hominid was actually an ape.

 

What is this a picture of?

 

[ProHypster]

A cat

 

So explain the picture now...

 

@Rover

 

The second chromosome is the one that is identical to smart apes as far as I know.

It is a structure in the DNA.

 

By the way, I am reducing some of evolution from a scientific theory. I don't believe it is a scientific theory to say that dinosaurs existed some years ago. I believe it is just a theory.

 

I am not questioning scientific theories overall, I believe in scientific theories. I think that some of evolution is a philosophical theory rather than a scientific theory. Because I think that hominids, natural selection and dinosaurs lie outside the realm of science just as rover said.

 

And creationalism is a logical theory because in this theory the world was created logically or in other words it is a rational thought that God created the world due to logical arguments supporting the existence of (a) God/Life Spirit. Or in even simpler words, the math in creationalism definetly would work. It doesn't mean it's true but it is a possiblity that cannot be proven wrong unless we find some other truth that is also logical.

 

My main idea is that natural selection just like god, dinosaurs, hominids...(although multiple gods can logically be falsified) cannot be falsified, therefore it is not science but a philosophy.

[danielsangeo]

A cat

 

So explain the picture now...

 

What you've done is a morphological deduction based on a variety of physical factors, which is partially how we can understand evolution when we see it in the fossil record.

 

 

By the way, I am reducing some of evolution from a scientific theory. I don't believe it is a scientific theory to say that dinosaurs existed some years ago. I believe it is just a theory.

 

"Just a theory" is something you're going to have to elaborate on. Gravity is "just a theory". Thermodynamics is "just a theory". Germs are "just a theory".

 

That word "theory", I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

I am not questioning scientific theories overall, I believe in scientific theories. I think that some of evolution is a philosophical theory rather than a scientific theory. Because I think that hominids, natural selection and dinosaurs lie outside the realm of science just as rover said.

 

Wait, what? Where did rover say that? Also, evolution isn't "philosophical". It's hard science.

 

And creationalism is a logical theory because in this theory the world was created logically or in other words it is a rational thought that God created the world due to logical arguments supporting the existence of (a) God/Life Spirit. Or in even simpler words, the math in creationalism definetly would work. It doesn't mean it's true but it is a possiblity that cannot be proven wrong unless we find some other truth that is also logical.

 

it's not logical at all. If the Earth/universe was "created", then what "created" the creator?

 

My main idea is that natural selection just like god, dinosaurs, hominids...(although multiple gods can logically be falsified) cannot be falsified, therefore it is not science but a philosophy.

 

Except that evolution can be falsified. As rover said. Find a Precambrian rabbit.

 

There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for any type of deity...so, how do you know that it's not just invented like Luke Skywalker was? Unless you wish to provide some evidence.

 

Again, I'm getting the run around. Why can't anyone just provide the evidence instead of giving excuses?

[ProHypster]

What you've done is a morphological deduction based on a variety of physical factors, which is partially how we can understand evolution when we see it in the fossil record.

Except they do it with bones not with photographs and I already know that a cat exists, while they drew up an entitiy and then compared it to the bones.

 

But we recently agreed there is evidence for a deity in the creationalist view..

"Just a theory" is something you're going to have to elaborate on. Gravity is "just a theory". Thermodynamics is "just a theory". Germs are "just a theory".

 

That word "theory", I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

I always say theory in the philosophical way, when I'm talking abot the scientific theory I say scientific theory.

 

Wait, what? Where did rover say that? Also, evolution isn't "philosophical". It's hard science.

 

1. Some of evolution is hard facts, the rest is just accepted as it is supporting theories and noone bothered for some reason to divide evolution into two, what is actually certain and are laws and what are scientific or philosophical theories.

 

2. That's what we are debating right now.

 

it's not logical at all. If the Earth/universe was "created", then what "created" the creator?

 

The life force/spirit/god was always there for goodness sake . And yes the universe could also have been always there. It is arguable. In one the laws of the universe are made by someone, in the other the laws of the universe always existed. And as far as I know, laws are always made by someone.

 

Except that evolution can be falsified. As rover said. Find a Precambrian rabbit.

What if I assemble "prehistoric" bone structure so that it resembles a rabbit.

 

There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for any type of deity...so, how do you know that it's not just invented like Luke Skywalker was? Unless you wish to provide some evidence.

 

Again, I'm getting the run around. Why can't anyone just provide the evidence instead of giving excuses?

 

I already said that spiritism, logical and reasoning of life are evidences for deities or spirits.

 

If there was absolutely zero evidence (not even logical) for a deity/spirit then philosophers are illogical. Makes lots of sense.

[danielsangeo]

Except they do it with bones not with photographs and I already know that a cat exists, while they drew up an entitiy and then compared it to the bones.

 

It's the same process that you did, though...just a bit more complex.

 

But we recently agreed there is evidence for a deity in the creationalist view..

 

We did? Where?

 

I always say theory in the philosophical way, when I'm talking abot the scientific theory I say scientific theory.

 

Then evolution is not "just a theory".

 

1. Some of evolution is hard facts, the rest is just accepted as it is supporting theories and noone bothered for some reason to divide evolution into two, what is actually certain and are laws and what are scientific or philosophical theories.

 

..................for example...?

 

The life force/spirit/god was always there for goodness sake . And yes the universe could also have been always there. It is arguable. In one the laws of the universe are made by someone, in the other the laws of the universe always existed. And as far as I know, laws are always made by someone.

 

Why would laws have to be "made by someone"? The "universe" has evidence, "the life force/spirit/god" does not.

 

What if I assemble "prehistoric" bone structure so that it resembles a rabbit.

 

That's not quite how morphology works. It will have to withstand scientific rigor. A discovery of a "Precambrian rabbit" would be intensely scrutinized because it would cast serious questions into the current understanding of evolution. Would you be able to assemble something that could withstand such intense scrutiny?

 

I already said that spiritism, logical and reasoning of life are evidences for deities or spirits.

 

That's not evidence. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.

 

If there was absolutely zero evidence (not even logical) for a deity/spirit then philosophers are illogical. Makes lots of sense.

 

Some philosophers are illogical if they're using logical fallacies to support their position.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

That's not evidence. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.

hmmmm....

Elaborate on this and you will prove creationalism/deitism is a weak theory.

 

My mission is to get smarter and wiser in life not to rely on logical fallacies.

 

Go on then.

 

On to the evolution hard facts and theories.

 

For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection.

 

EDIT: Oh crap, never mind, I just now realized I messed up the terms. That's what you get when you speak russian terms...

 

I meant that if natural selection is proven and a hard fact it doesn't mean it is because of evolution.

 

So let me ellaborate on my position, I agree that natural selection happens along the species, therefore speciation happens. I do not know that we all come from a common ancestor. I do not think that is a hard fact but I think it is a theory.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)