Evolution vs. Creation page 38

955 posts

Flag Post

World English Dictionary:

— n
1. a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur
2. psychiatry illusion (See also hallucination) a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason
3. the act of deluding or state of being deluded

We could play definitions all day. I am sure we can find countless different sources that do/don’t include that a delusion must be false.

So, depending on definition, faith can be a delusion, or not a delusion. Also, it really wasn’t intended to be a ‘kill all Christians’, tone just doesn’t come out well over the internet. ;-;

 
Flag Post

It wasn’t a ‘kill all christians’ tone, Fun. It was a ‘kill anyone who dares to have faith in anything’ tone.

Your daughter is in intensive care? Better not have faith that she will pull through, or Fun will demand you are shot through the head!

Can you at least see why your demand that all persons of faith be shot, might be considered the teeniest bit offensive?

 
Flag Post

We could play definitions all day.

Yet your definition did not contradict mine. Numbers 1 and 2 (I do not consider 3, if you don’t mind) are saying a belief is either mistaken or held to be true when evidence points towards the other way. Faith is not automatically a mistake, and it isn’t always held in a belief about which evidence is pointing the other way.

I’m correcting you on this, since I have no need for people calling others delusional when it is simply wrong. Simply call it faith, that’s what it is, even if you do find a definition which states faith equals delusion.

 
Flag Post

I’d rather propose they be offered the choice of denouncing their faith of being shot…

But yes, a bit of bad wording… My point was that: The majority of religious people would denounce their religion if faced with death; or a similarly severe punishment. I wasn’t particularly proposing that it happen.

On topic: I really love the ads by google. They’re often fairly ironic… ‘Discover: Is evolution true? Does it matter what you believe?’ Poking around the site finds all sorts of generic anti-evolution Bible Quotes.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Fun2223:


But yes, a bit of bad wording… My point was that: The majority of religious people would denounce their religion if faced with death; or a similarly severe punishment. I wasn’t particularly proposing that it happen.

Could you provide some sources to back this statement up please? I find it a little hard to swallow.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Fun2223:


But yes, a bit of bad wording… My point was that: The majority of religious people would denounce their religion if faced with death; or a similarly severe punishment. I wasn’t particularly proposing that it happen.

Could you provide some sources to back this statement up please? I find it a little hard to swallow.

Can I borrow a gun and the pope?

 
Flag Post

My point was that: The majority of religious people would denounce their religion if faced with death; or a similarly severe punishment.

The majority of people would even deny they’re in love with someone if faced by an otherwise gruesome death. Life is important to people, if they have to lie to themselves and others to continue to live, they will. I don’t see what the point here really is.

Can I borrow a gun and the pope?

Only if he can go on a rampage and kill all those who oppose the church.

 
Flag Post

The majority of people would even deny they’re in love with someone if faced by an otherwise gruesome death. Life is important to people, if they have to lie to themselves and others to continue to live, they will. I don’t see what the point here really is.

That’s not entirely true, people will sometimes defend their ideals to the death if they believe in them enough. That isn’t the case for everyone, but it does happen I’m sure.

 
Flag Post

Pope’s Christian. You had a sweeping statement for ALL faiths.

 
Flag Post

Give me a gun and… uh… MUSLIM POPE.

 
Flag Post

Give me a gun and… uh… MUSLIM POPE.

That gave me a chuckle.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Can I borrow a gun and the pope?

Only if he can go on a rampage and kill all those who oppose the church.

I would rather that did not happen, my being one of those individuals who act in direct opposition to the Christian church and all, I feel I would be in the crosshairs fairly sharpish, and have neither the means nor the desire to act in kind back at them.

 
Flag Post

Seriously, guys. There are lots of threads on the validity and/or value of faith. Take it there.
I am hoping to debate Evolution vs. Creation here, if anyone is interested.

 
Flag Post

I was going to try a different segue, but I think norumaru’s was probably more direct and efficient. :)

This is a topic that became very close to me recently with my game CellCraft that got falsely slammed (warning, that page is an absolute train wreck…I really don’t recommend reading the comments) for being “Creationist Agenda” and having lots of “Intelligent Design Memes”. After hours of heated debates, name-calling, and ridiculous assumptions by some of the critics (who frankly were falling into traps they often criticize Creationists for using), well, we didn’t really get anywhere. But it was very eye-opening to me. While I’ve always been on the Evolution side I’ll admit up front that I’m by no means an expert on the subject and probably should do a little more research on my own.

I’m not sure exactly where I’m going with this. The debate that we saw was one of “should I have included evolution in my game”? Among other reasons, one concern I had was whether or not this would limit my use in classrooms or cause Creationist parents to prevent their kids from playing the game. This isn’t exactly the debate here, but is at least closer.

We’re 38 pages into this one, so where is the thread right now? Do we have certain claims on one side or the other that we’re working on? How are we defining “Creationism”? Is this “young earth” or just “God had a part of it, but it took millions of years anyway”?

Also, what do we mean by “Evolution”? Are we discussion origin of life at all, or only origin of species?

 
Flag Post

This is a topic that became very close to me recently with my game CellCraft that got falsely slammed (warning, that page is an absolute train wreck…I really don’t recommend reading the comments) for being “Creationist Agenda” and having lots of “Intelligent Design Memes”. After hours of heated debates, name-calling, and ridiculous assumptions by some of the critics (who frankly were falling into traps they often criticize Creationists for using), well, we didn’t really get anywhere.

That debacle irritated me. I played through the game before reading any of that, not once did I get the impression the game was pushing or insinuating creationism, even in the form of ID. It was just a silly little game with some cell biology in it.
People lost the plot on that one based purely on a few creationists being involved as science advisers.
Ugh.

 
Flag Post

I watched that debate, but I don’t think it really had anything to do with evolution or creationism. That might sound odd, but you see this happening a lot; it looks to be more about conflict between groups for the sake of not getting along rather than a debate about ideology.

For example, consider this – one of the science advisers for the game was Dr. David A. DeWitt, who is one of those commentators who resorts to ad hominem attacks and other emotional fallacies to denigrate the opposition (i.e. claiming that acceptance of evolution correlates with acceptance of ethnic cleansing and so on). For someone in the other group, it becomes more about taking down a product connected to that guy than it does with the content of the game. I believe that the game could have been completely neutral on the subject and would still have seen the heavy attacks it saw, simply because of who was involved in it.

Is that right? Wrong? Well, it certainly won’t help us uncover truth…I would say that anything else is really a matter of opinion.

Now I don’t know if that is the ‘real’ reason for the big debate, but having read a lot of the commentary around it that is the impression I got.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Phoenix00017:

This is a topic that became very close to me recently with my game CellCraft that got falsely slammed (warning, that page is an absolute train wreck…I really don’t recommend reading the comments) for being “Creationist Agenda” and having lots of “Intelligent Design Memes”. After hours of heated debates, name-calling, and ridiculous assumptions by some of the critics (who frankly were falling into traps they often criticize Creationists for using), well, we didn’t really get anywhere. But it was very eye-opening to me. While I’ve always been on the Evolution side I’ll admit up front that I’m by no means an expert on the subject and probably should do a little more research on my own.

I’m not sure exactly where I’m going with this. The debate that we saw was one of “should I have included evolution in my game”? Among other reasons, one concern I had was whether or not this would limit my use in classrooms or cause Creationist parents to prevent their kids from playing the game. This isn’t exactly the debate here, but is at least closer.

That’s amazing people were criticizing that game for that reason… And that consulting two “notorious creationists” on the parts of a cell leads to: “Those two are notorious creationists and advocates for intelligent design creationism. Yep. It’s a creationist game. It was intelligently designed, and it’s not bad as a game, but as a tool for teaching anyone about biology, it sucks. It is not an educational game, it is a miseducational game.”
And Phoenix, you’re right, why bother putting controversial subject matter in a game that is designed to teach about the inside of a cell? Anyway, I just thought that guy’s criticism was so wild I had to comment.

On the topic of evolution and creation, I think it is fair to say that all creationists should not completely discredit evolution: it is fairly obvious to see that animals adapt. But, evolutionists should also acknowledge the flaws with their arguments and not pretend they are picture perfect: (They never have been able to make life spontaneously generate, and when they get close it is only with a “creator”.)

 
Flag Post

Bob, the ToE say nothing about spontaneously generating life. That is abiogenesis. Different thing. The Miller-Urey experiments didn’t involve a “creator”, though.

 
Flag Post

Bob: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by norumaru:

Bob, the ToE say nothing about spontaneously generating life. That is abiogenesis. Different thing. The Miller-Urey experiments didn’t involve a “creator”, though.

You are technically right, but what else do evolutionists propose as the start of life then? Plus, everyone knows that Miller-Urey was full of holes.

On the game, some of the comments to the article calling it creationist trash are downright hilarious…

“Sadly, this game was honored at the White House back in may as part of some event about MacArthur foundation education grants…one of which paid for this. To be fair, I doubt anyone had a clue what was going on with the game.”

“It seems like a fun little game that could be used to teach the functions of various cell structures…but the underlying themes make me a little queasy.”

“Just because a creationist has touched something doesn’t mean its been tainted forever. Yes, it probably requires another look over, but there’s no bible verses, nothing saying “god did it”. I viewed it with that they had to make some scientific sacrifices in the name of making a game that kids might actually play. " (Phoenix even said has always been on the evolution side."

Oh gosh, I read on… I can’t take any more.

 
Flag Post
You are technically right, but what else do evolutionists propose as the start of life then? Plus, everyone knows that Miller-Urey was full of holes.

Evolutionists don’t propose anything as the start of life; they’re concerned with the evolution of life. As for its start, we need more data really before we can determine reliably that life can develop on its own accord out of building blocks of amino acids, but my guess would be ‘yes, it can’.

 
Flag Post

You are technically right, but what else do evolutionists propose as the start of life then?

Given that we are discussing a different phenomenon, then we are talking about a different theory entirely. Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life.

Plus, everyone knows that Miller-Urey was full of holes.

Rather, creationists have claimed that it was. It was intended to demonstrate that organic molecules could be synthesised through non-biological processes. It did precisely that.

 
Flag Post

Plus, everyone knows that Miller-Urey was full of holes.

What holes? It was a thought experiment investigating the plausibility of a hypothesis, and it worked well enough for that purpose.

 
Flag Post

It is not a thought experiment. It has been repeated numerous times with consistent results. The only holes it has are those for taking out samples.

 
Flag Post

It’s also a relatively inexpensive experiment that can be done at home by a highly experienced hobby chemists. In fact, it’d be kind of a cool business to produce some of the more specialized chambers in the experiment for low enough costs to where children could set up and conduct the experiment as easily as setting up a game of mousetrap. It’s really that easy.

The only “holes” are the types of gases used to simulate early earth atmosphere. But that isn’t really all that important, since the experiment does prove without a doubt that basic non-organic chemicals of some kind can easily be transformed into organic compounds necessary for known life. Which gases and what other variables were in effect during our specific earth’s pre-biotic stage is still be discerned, but I would lay my money on the discovery facilitating a similar experiment that proves that our earth made these organics with whatever it had. These are not stretches or even hunches.