Creation vs. Evolution page 28

763 posts

Flag Post

creation is what i believe in reasons is that there is more evidence in the book then there is in any since experiment people like u guys say that we have no evidence but from what we learned there is full of evidence about my religion creation thats all what i need to know u like it take it u dont well then i dont give a dam about u

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by optickm:

creation is what i believe in reasons is that there is more evidence in the book then there is in any since experiment

Examples?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by optickm:

creation is what i believe in reasons is that there is more evidence in the book then there is in any since experiment

Examples?

He doesn’t read many books.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by optickm:

creation is what i believe in reasons is that there is more evidence in the book then there is in any since experiment people like u guys say that we have no evidence but from what we learned there is full of evidence about my religion creation thats all what i need to know u like it take it u dont well then i dont give a dam about u

and Twilight proves that vampires are real and they sparkle, it’s all there in the book, that proves it

 
Flag Post

Does that mean the cystal singers of Ballybran are real? I have three books describing them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by optickm:

creation is what i believe in reasons is that there is more evidence in the book then there is in any since experiment people like u guys say that we have no evidence but from what we learned there is full of evidence about my religion creation thats all what i need to know u like it take it u dont well then i dont give a dam about u

Okay, so which religion are we talking about?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Does that mean the cystal singers of Ballybran are real? I have three books describing them.

I wanna go to Xnath.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by optickm:

creation is what i believe in reasons is that there is more evidence in the book then there is in any since experiment people like u guys say that we have no evidence but from what we learned there is full of evidence about my religion creation thats all what i need to know u like it take it u dont well then i dont give a dam about u

Oh, look, a creationist who can’t write properly in English even though the only language you can speak is probably English, how appropriately stereotypical.

A book that does not follow science at all, that at many times makes no sense and is frequently contradictory. Oh yes, this book must be correct.

 
Flag Post

There’s no reason you can’t have both. Such that things were created and then allowed to evolve. That’s an interesting thing to think about.

 
Flag Post

Interesting to some, but not science. Teaching school kids that there was a creator would be illegal, is immoral and should not be permitted.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

Interesting to some, but not science. Teaching school kids that there was a creator would be illegal, is immoral and should not be permitted.

It’s fine to do it in classes dedicated to religious education. Where it crosses the line, is where they try to do it in science classes. Science follows a strict fact-based methodology. Anything which is not shown to be true by rigorous, repeatable scientific experiment has no place in a science class, the same as experiment-based learning has no place in RE.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Redem:

Interesting to some, but not science. Teaching school kids that there was a creator would be illegal, is immoral and should not be permitted.

It’s fine to do it in classes dedicated to religious education. Where it crosses the line, is where they try to do it in science classes. Science follows a strict fact-based methodology. Anything which is not shown to be true by rigorous, repeatable scientific experiment has no place in a science class, the same as experiment-based learning has no place in RE.

Actually a good 10~20% of many Physics textbooks are about things we can’t test and basically don’t understand in the slightest. Theoretical physics is becoming one of the big focuses, and much of it is untestable speculation. Bringing origin theories and dimensional theories isn’t very different from some of the concepts explored in religion.

 
Flag Post

From the little I have heard about it, it is being taught as just that – theoretical physics. Creationism is fed to students as fact. There is a difference there.

 
Flag Post

Yes, usually, but not always. And I was just responding to vikaTae by pointing out that they do, in fact, incorporate untestable speculation into science classes. I’m not saying that theoretical physics and religion are the same thing, but they both work to unify concepts and ideas that would otherwise be sundered. Teaching it as factual science would be a bad idea, but I can certainly imagine some exploration of the ideas from a scientific perspective in a physics book. It’s not as far-fetched as most people think.

 
Flag Post

Science is not about facts, at least not until we can find out for sure that these things are facts, which would be the end of that scientific field. Science is about looking at the evidence we have and formulating the most probable explanation for these things based on that evidence. Reaching facts is the ultimate goal in science. But since our abilities to understand the world around us are limited, we probably will never reach that level in many fields of science.
Creationism is not a very likely explanation because it is an inherently unscientific approach. It has nothing to do with evidence. From a scientific point of view it features tons of logical fallacies. It answers questions not by finding explanations that can be justified using the evidence we have, but instead invents new, by definition untestable concepts to explain them.
It is entirely based upon faith, which is fine as long – and only as long – as you are talking about beliefs. It has no place whatsoever in a science class.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

From the little I have heard about it, it is being taught as just that – theoretical physics. Creationism is fed to students as fact. There is a difference there.

Actually 99%+ of the theoretical physics taught in school is based on hard facts. The only thing theoretical about is that it uses math and abstraction to model reality.

Something as easy as calculating the m² a wall has based on height and length is theoretical physics. Measuring the height and length is experimental physics.
Experimental and Theoretical might sound as if there is some high complexity or uncertainty involved, but for the basic stuff thats generally taught at school there is not.

XtremeHairball seems to be playing at is speculative theoretical physics, which is generally not taught, before teaching (or at least trying too) students the Differences between scientific theories, scientific hypothesis, working hypotheses and proposed(speculative) hypothesis.
Only the last one is on the level of relgion, in that it has not test mechanism(yet if it does its automatically upgraded).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 
Flag Post

Science is fact-based. The scientific laws are the cornerstones of science. Each is indisputable, and proves to be correct again and again and again. Any theory that attempts to bind these laws together, must prove to correct for every law it crosses, and correct against every other relevant theory that has stood against such questioning again and again and again. If two strong theories disagree with one another, then we are missing some laws that will help us determine which is actually right.

“untestable speculation” as XtremeHairball puts it, is then a theory which is bound by existing laws, does not contradict any, but then reaches out at one end into currently untestable space, where we trying to work out what the laws are, as a tool to help us find those laws.

Batshit-insane ‘theories’ like creationism do not belong in science, because unlike the others, they are not anchored to any of the laws we do know to be true. Instead they disregard known laws entirely, and push them out of the way to occupy the same space. Laws are never wrong, they cannot be wrong by their very nature. Therefore any ’ theory’ which breaks known laws, is objectively wrong by its very nature, and must be discarded.

Thus creationism has no place in scientific study. It breaks the basic laws of gene expression by mutation, which immediately highlights flaws in the theory, that make it scientifically unsound.

 
Flag Post

While it is true that creationists have no “real” evidence (which begs the question “What is real?”, but that is for a different discussion), there is one thing for certain. Science has proven that every creature alive on this planet, and possibly on other planets, has evolved, in one form or another. They’ve proven how plants make their own “food”, why humans laugh,why some animals lay eggs, while others “hatch” their offspring right away (give birth), etc.. Although one thing science has not been able to tell us is why the Big Bang happened. Which is the scientific equivalent to why did God really create light (The seven days of creation)? The thing is, at some point or another, we scientists have to admit that they, in fact no one, really knows EVERYTHING there is to know about our origin. Which is where God comes in, we’ve gotten to a point that there just has to be some kind of “Divine Intervention”, some trigger if you will, that started the last 13.75 billion years. So there is no other explanation, Science and Religion go hand in hand. The best way i can think of explaining this is that Science and Religion were born of a woman, let’s say Imagination. At first, the two brothers (or sisters, whatever floats your boat) got along just fine, and as they got older, their opinions started changing. And by the time they were fully formed “adults”, the perceptions of the worlds were quite different. Then Science married Heresy, and Religion married Piety. Thus, Creation and Evolution were borne into the minds of men and women to choose, or to accept both.

 
Flag Post

Creationism is not a very likely explanation because it is an inherently unscientific approach. It has nothing to do with evidence. From a scientific point of view it features tons of logical fallacies. It answers questions not by finding explanations that can be justified using the evidence we have, but instead invents new, by definition untestable concepts to explain them.
It is entirely based upon faith, which is fine as long – and only as long – as you are talking about beliefs. It has no place whatsoever in a science class.

I may not have been clear enough then. I’m not referring to Creationism as a field (Such as with Adam and Eve, Earth began 4000 years ago, etc.). But as Creation more as a philosophical concept, outside of the abstractions and metaphors of religious texts.

Actually 99%+ of the theoretical physics taught in school is based on hard facts. The only thing theoretical about is that it uses math and abstraction to model reality.

Not true. I got out of high school less than a year ago, and several chapters (Out of a total of 14 chapters, if I recall correctly) of my Physics textbook included things such as the Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Relativity (which causes all kinds of dilemmas), and String Theory/multiverses. (Although it is possible, now that I think about it, that we were using a college course book. I’m not completely sure, to be honest.) I do a good deal of research and reading on these things on my own time as well, granted that the mathematical aspects are still beyond me.

. . . Only the last one is on the level of relgion, in that it has not test mechanism(yet if it does its automatically upgraded)."

Again, I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I’m talking about the underlying concepts, not the religious scenarios themselves.

Science is fact-based. The scientific laws are the cornerstones of science. Each is indisputable, and proves to be correct again and again and again.

Forgive me if this seems rude, but I’m going to be extremely blunt: There is no such thing as a “fact” in science. Period. Laws are disputable, and have even been revised in the past. Newton’s “Laws” of motion were considered to be completely universal always right, but then Einstein came along and showed that Newton’s laws actually screwed up many experiments even becoming totally nonsensical, and they had to be redefined to meet some specific criteria before they could be considered for any real experimentation.

Batshit-insane ‘theories’ like creationism do not belong in science, because unlike the others, they are not anchored to any of the laws we do know to be true. Instead they disregard known laws entirely, and push them out of the way to occupy the same space. Laws are never wrong, they cannot be wrong by their very nature. Therefore any ’ theory’ which breaks known laws, is objectively wrong by its very nature, and must be discarded.

Again, there is a problem with the way you are using the word “law.”

Thus creationism has no place in scientific study. It breaks the basic laws of gene expression by mutation, which immediately highlights flaws in the theory, that make it scientifically unsound.

I agree, but I myself wasn’t referring to “Creationism” as in a Biblical-type sense. I apologize for not making that more clear initially.

And why is everyone referring to me in the third person? I feel so ignored ;<

EDIT -———- nau’s post is more along the lines of what I was getting at. Welcome to the forums, by the way. (Although I’m relatively new to this part of Kongregate as well)

 
Flag Post

I feel bad for you Americans who are actually having this debate in your country, especially regarding education. And I’m not ‘trolling’. I legitimately believe it’s sad that Americans left Europe because of religious prosecution and now America is one of the most religious countries in the world, the most religious English-speaking country in the world, yet now religion is being forced in some public schools in (being honest here) shitty states like Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. Get with the times, goddammit. We don’t need even more uneducated morons in this world, and America isn’t fixing such problem at all.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by XtremeHairball:

Forgive me if this seems rude, but I’m going to be extremely blunt: There is no such thing as a “fact” in science. Period. Laws are disputable, and have even been revised in the past. Newton’s “Laws” of motion were considered to be completely universal always right, but then Einstein came along and showed that Newton’s laws actually screwed up many experiments even becoming totally nonsensical, and they had to be redefined to meet some specific criteria before they could be considered for any real experimentation.

Well yes. That’s the entire point of laws. They say that under conditions U, when you have element V, and you apply force W to it, result X applies. However, if you alter those conditions too much, more them out of the designated range of U, and into the ranges of Y or Z, this law no-longer holds.

However, when condition U is valid, and you have element V, and you apply force W to it, result X will always occur. Every time without deviation. That’s what makes these laws infalible.

They are the cornerstone of science. Any modification that is done to them, is done to test the limits of U, and to define what Y and Z are – the conditions under which this law no-longer applies.

Everything else in science, is essentially the use of theories to explain why these laws behave the way they do, and how they tie together.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by nau987:

Which is where God comes in, we’ve gotten to a point that there just has to be some kind of “Divine Intervention”, some trigger if you will, that started the last 13.75 billion years. So there is no other explanation, Science and Religion go hand in hand.

There’s no other explanation, so the only one left is a religious one?
What about the Invisible Pink Unicorn one?
Or how about this one: we simply don’t know.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by nau987:

Which is where God comes in, we’ve gotten to a point that there just has to be some kind of “Divine Intervention”, some trigger if you will, that started the last 13.75 billion years. So there is no other explanation, Science and Religion go hand in hand.

There’s no other explanation, so the only one left is a religious one?
How about this one: we simply don’t know.

Does it mean that if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand, and a talk show you might have conducted 200 years ago would have said “The planets do retrograde? Can’t understand that, must be a God.” And we’d say “You know, you’re right.” And then 10 years later we understand it, so what do you do? So if that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on, so just be ready for that to happen if that’s how you want to come at the problem. -NDGT

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by slasher:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by nau987:

Which is where God comes in, we’ve gotten to a point that there just has to be some kind of “Divine Intervention”, some trigger if you will, that started the last 13.75 billion years. So there is no other explanation, Science and Religion go hand in hand.

There’s no other explanation, so the only one left is a religious one?
How about this one: we simply don’t know.

Does it mean that if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand, and a talk show you might have conducted 200 years ago would have said “The planets do retrograde? Can’t understand that, must be a God.” And we’d say “You know, you’re right.” And then 10 years later we understand it, so what do you do? So if that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on, so just be ready for that to happen if that’s how you want to come at the problem. -NDGT

That’s not what I meant at all. Let me rephrase this then, we should just admit that there are some things we don’t know, and that science OR religion can’t explain right at this moment. So both ideas should work together instead of bickering about who’s right.