login
Evolution and Creationism (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-10-13 8:14 AM in reply to: #3149089 |
Champion  18680       Lost in the Luminiferous Aether |  Subject: RE: Evolution and CreationismPector55 - 2010-10-13 9:05 AM trinnas - 2010-10-12 8:54 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:50 PM trinnas - 2010-10-12 8:47 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:37 PM DerekL - 2010-10-12 7:40 PM The boiling point of water isn't always 100 Celsius. So much for that one. To answer the original question, I don't believe they're mutually exclusive. Actually you need more info. It's 100C at 101.33 kPa. I can tell you what temp the water will boil at at any given pressure. PV=nRT Fresh or salt water? Smarta**  Pure water. Heh Heh Heh I couldn't resist.Oooh, late to the party but can we use a vacuum at the triple point of said water? Heh Heh Welcome to the Nerd Party. You score extra points if you know what 2 compounds have the same phase diagram anomaly that water does. **I ask this cause I don't remember what they are any more** |
| 2010-10-13 8:17 AM in reply to: #3148454 |
Champion 4835 Eat Cheese or Die | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism trinnas - 2010-10-12 7:29 PM graceful_dave - 2010-10-12 5:50 PM AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM Evolution is Theory. the problem is that people who are not scientists do not understand the scientific meaning of a theory. They hear theory and think "Oh, it's just an idea, not something backed up with fact and evidence." Water boiling at 100 degrees c is an observable fact. In science, we distinguish between observable facts and theories which are generally excepted correlations of facts. As our life span is so short, we can not observe Evolution 1st had. As such we have to examine the facts that we can observe (like to fossil record, isolated populations, ect...) and the resulting correlation is the Theory of Evolution. Because creationists don't want to believe in evolution they use their ignorance of proper scientific process and use it for propaganda. There is always a chance that a theory could be disproven, but it needs to be disproven by observation of facts, not by irrational people with an agenda claiming the word "theory" means it's just a guess. Check out http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.htmlfor a better explanation. -- To answer the OP, I believe that Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. Their are plenty of people who beleive in evolution and also god, but I don't know that those people can be included in the Creationist group. Isn't there a different group that believes God was the spark for the big bang? I think there was a term for them that was different then Creationists. I.D. has no place in science class whatsoever. The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C. The primary problem with Creationism being taught is that it is inherently anti-scientific, in that it starts with truth, and works backward to find "proof" of this "truth." Science operates in the opposite manner. It starts with not knowing and seeks, wherever possible, to disprove what is believed to be true. We do observe evolution in "lower" lifeforms with much shorter lifespans on a regular basis, think the evolution of MRSA. Touche. Cut me some slack, I studied dirt and rocks in school |
| 2010-10-13 8:18 AM in reply to: #3149117 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism graceful_dave - 2010-10-13 9:17 AM trinnas - 2010-10-12 7:29 PM Touche. Cut me some slack, I studied dirt and rocks in school graceful_dave - 2010-10-12 5:50 PM AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM Evolution is Theory. the problem is that people who are not scientists do not understand the scientific meaning of a theory. They hear theory and think "Oh, it's just an idea, not something backed up with fact and evidence." Water boiling at 100 degrees c is an observable fact. In science, we distinguish between observable facts and theories which are generally excepted correlations of facts. As our life span is so short, we can not observe Evolution 1st had. As such we have to examine the facts that we can observe (like to fossil record, isolated populations, ect...) and the resulting correlation is the Theory of Evolution. Because creationists don't want to believe in evolution they use their ignorance of proper scientific process and use it for propaganda. There is always a chance that a theory could be disproven, but it needs to be disproven by observation of facts, not by irrational people with an agenda claiming the word "theory" means it's just a guess. Check out http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.htmlfor a better explanation. -- To answer the OP, I believe that Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. Their are plenty of people who beleive in evolution and also god, but I don't know that those people can be included in the Creationist group. Isn't there a different group that believes God was the spark for the big bang? I think there was a term for them that was different then Creationists. I.D. has no place in science class whatsoever. The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C. The primary problem with Creationism being taught is that it is inherently anti-scientific, in that it starts with truth, and works backward to find "proof" of this "truth." Science operates in the opposite manner. It starts with not knowing and seeks, wherever possible, to disprove what is believed to be true. We do observe evolution in "lower" lifeforms with much shorter lifespans on a regular basis, think the evolution of MRSA. OK but only 'cause I love dirty sweaty guys. |
| 2010-10-13 8:36 AM in reply to: #3149038 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism trinnas - 2010-10-13 8:53 AM TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 8:16 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2010-10-12 8:16 PM Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false, nor really to "prove" evolution is"true" but only to present observable facts and subject them to scientific scrutiny in the quest to make sense of the universe. Scientific discovery hinges on "the best answer we have right now, until a better one comes along" This is how we learn new things. The reverse is not true. Creationists present belief as fact, and therefore must defend it in spite of other explanations. There you go, lumping all "creationists" (and "evolutionists" for that matter) into one pile. And that is the major problem. In fact putting a label on them is one of the issues. I, for one, feel that I fall into both camps. Nothing in the realm of creationism states that 1. Evolution cannot exist 2. Natural processes are still at play 3. There is life on other planets Many creationists do not present their views as "facts". There is simply not hard data to back it up. However they simply state that those on the opposing point of view do not have all the answers either. What caused the big bang? What caused the spark of life? Is this the only universe? No one can answer those questions. Since there is no scientific answer for these questions (there are some *theories*) that a creationists theory is just as valid as any other. Is it the correct one? Maybe not. But it's a valid possibility. I have no issue with both theories existing in harmony. It seems to me that those who cannot hold these two ideas in harmony (as even a remote possibility) are the closed minded ones. "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald As for your statement: Evolutionists have no desire to "prove" creationism is false Some of the most vocal critics of ID are those who believe in evolution. These two statemnts are mutually exclusive, by definition a valid scientific theroy has to have hard facts to back it up. If it does not it is nothing more than a hypothesis and a weak one at that. scientific theory =/= I have a hunch. Sigh. No one is calling it a "scientific theory". A theory != a scientific theory. You guys are soooooo missing the point. Let's simplify this: Is this statement logically true or false... There is nothing in science that we know of that disproves a higher being kicking off the creation of life. ETA: I'm not asking if you agree or disagree with it's premise. Only if it is logically true. Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-13 8:38 AM |
| 2010-10-13 8:40 AM in reply to: #3149195 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 8:36 AM Let's simplify this: Agree or disagree with this statement: There is nothing in science that we know of that disproves a higher being kicking off the creation of life. Fully Agree. It is impossible to disprove imaginary beings/events because they exist only in people's minds. I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in creationism, but I do have a problem with trying to place it on equal footing as a Scientific Theory. As I said before that's the same thing as placing my invisible pink unicorn causing gravity on the level as the Thoery of Gravity. Edited by AndrewMT 2010-10-13 8:45 AM |
| 2010-10-13 8:46 AM in reply to: #3147876 |
| Member 76 MoCo, MD | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Like it or not, there is a fundamental schism between religion and science. At the heart of most religions there is faith in the belief of a god and that this god was involved in creating this reality in some manner. For the religious, gods are the prime movers of this reality - they started it. Even most moderate believers must attribute supernatural intervention at some point. Even a believer in a non-interventionist deity would say that the god had to do some work at some point if only to put the wheels into motion. So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. - |
| 2010-10-13 8:49 AM in reply to: #3149222 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism mfoutz - 2010-10-13 8:46 AM Like it or not, there is a fundamental schism between religion and science. At the heart of most religions there is faith in the belief of a god and that this god was involved in creating this reality in some manner. For the religious, gods are the prime movers of this reality - they started it. Even most moderate believers must attribute supernatural intervention at some point. Even a believer in a non-interventionist deity would say that the god had to do some work at some point if only to put the wheels into motion. So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. - Very well said. |
| 2010-10-13 8:52 AM in reply to: #3149222 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism mfoutz - Like it or not, there is a fundamental schism between religion and science. That's simply not true. It was the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas who in the 13th century in a sense baptized Aristotle, showed that the Christian God is a God who made an orderly universe, and showed that in turn he gave humans the capacity to reason and to come to understand the workings of that universe. Aquinas' work was foundational in the development of the scientific method in Western culture. |
| 2010-10-13 8:57 AM in reply to: #3149212 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism AndrewMT - 2010-10-13 9:40 AM TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 8:36 AM Let's simplify this: Agree or disagree with this statement: There is nothing in science that we know of that disproves a higher being kicking off the creation of life. Fully Agree. It is impossible to disprove imaginary beings/events because they exist only in people's minds. I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in creationism, but I do have a problem with trying to place it on equal footing as a Scientific Theory. As I said before that's the same thing as placing my invisible pink unicorn causing gravity on the level as the Thoery of Gravity. You know that this is ridiculous, right? Everyone knows the FSM (bless his noodley appendages) is responsible for all the magical goodness of the world. |
| 2010-10-13 9:15 AM in reply to: #3149212 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism AndrewMT - 2010-10-13 9:40 AM TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 8:36 AM Let's simplify this: Agree or disagree with this statement: There is nothing in science that we know of that disproves a higher being kicking off the creation of life. Fully Agree. It is impossible to disprove imaginary beings/events because they exist only in people's minds. I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in creationism, but I do have a problem with trying to place it on equal footing as a Scientific Theory. As I said before that's the same thing as placing my invisible pink unicorn causing gravity on the level as the Thoery of Gravity. Please provide proof that said being is imaginary. It's a loaded question for sure. You have every right to not believe. However you stating "for sure" that there is no higher power is simply foolish. You cannot know. You can only believe. Your lack of "belief' is as baseless as your claim that my beleif is. (that was a confusing sentence but I think you get the point) Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-13 9:21 AM |
| 2010-10-13 9:19 AM in reply to: #3149222 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism mfoutz - 2010-10-13 7:46 AM Like it or not, there is a fundamental schism between religion and science. At the heart of most religions there is faith in the belief of a god and that this god was involved in creating this reality in some manner. For the religious, gods are the prime movers of this reality - they started it. Even most moderate believers must attribute supernatural intervention at some point. Even a believer in a non-interventionist deity would say that the god had to do some work at some point if only to put the wheels into motion. So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. Puella brought this up too and I think it's an important point and I'm going to change my view to say no, creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, even if you believe all matter came into existence 6,000ya or however long ago. It is possible to believe everything was created in the recent past and also to believe that evolution is working on us and all of nature today - the timescale just isn't long enough to have seen major changes in human anatomy in that time. But I don't see why one can't believe that evolution is in action and that humans could look quite different if we're still around a million years from now even if they believe humans were created yesterday. The main incompatibility between science and faith is the point of origin - how did everything come into existence. Once eveything is here though I don't see any reason why the method of creation would change or negate the processes of evolution working on natural systems. |
| 2010-10-13 9:19 AM in reply to: #3148467 |
Master 1996 Woodbridge , Virginia | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 8:37 PM DerekL - 2010-10-12 7:40 PM The boiling point of water isn't always 100 Celsius. So much for that one. To answer the original question, I don't believe they're mutually exclusive. Actually you need more info. It's 100C at 101.33 kPa. I can tell you what temp the water will boil at at any given pressure. PV=nRT Ahhhhh good ole Thermal Dynamics and Fluid Mechanics.. i miss those classes.. |
| 2010-10-13 9:22 AM in reply to: #3149222 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism mfoutz - 2010-10-13 9:46 AM So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. Why is (A) the easy answer? |
| 2010-10-13 9:28 AM in reply to: #3149326 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Goosedog - 2010-10-13 10:22 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 9:46 AM So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. Why is (A) the easy answer? Great question... And why cannot we investigate both? Just because I belive in a creator does not mean I do not want science to continue to investigate how the universe was created. |
| 2010-10-13 9:31 AM in reply to: #3149326 |
| Member 76 MoCo, MD | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Goosedog - 2010-10-13 9:22 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 9:46 AM So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. Why is (A) the easy answer? Because it doesn't require any effort, inquiry, or proof. |
| 2010-10-13 9:33 AM in reply to: #3149222 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism mfoutz - 2010-10-13 8:46 AM Like it or not, there is a fundamental schism between religion and science. At the heart of most religions there is faith in the belief of a god and that this god was involved in creating this reality in some manner. See I would argue that science is also a religion. It's simply one that lacks a god and relies on the BELIEF that there is a scientific explanation for everything, even in the ABSENCE of those explanations. Some people would call that belief FAITH. |
| 2010-10-13 9:34 AM in reply to: #3149348 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism mfoutz - 2010-10-13 10:31 AM Goosedog - 2010-10-13 9:22 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 9:46 AM So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. Why is (A) the easy answer? Because it doesn't require any effort, inquiry, or proof. I would argue that accepting a higher power is a very diffiuclt decision that requires a lot of effort and investigation. Just internal, not external. To me the idea that things just went POOF and the universe appeared and life began to form is much more difficult. |
| 2010-10-13 9:38 AM in reply to: #3149348 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism mfoutz - 2010-10-13 10:31 AM Goosedog - 2010-10-13 9:22 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 9:46 AM So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. Why is (A) the easy answer? Because it doesn't require any effort, inquiry, or proof. What effort, inquiry or proof does answering (B) require? |
| 2010-10-13 9:39 AM in reply to: #3149357 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 10:34 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 10:31 AM Goosedog - 2010-10-13 9:22 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 9:46 AM So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. Why is (A) the easy answer? Because it doesn't require any effort, inquiry, or proof. I would argue that accepting a higher power is a very diffiuclt decision that requires a lot of effort and investigation. Just internal, not external. To me the idea that things just went POOF and the universe appeared and life began to form is much more difficult. False dichotomy. The answers are not: a) Poof! God did it. (Which god? Take your pick.) b) Poof! The laws of the Universe did it. There is also: c) Science is investigating and whilst doing so pulling together a vast body of knowledge, hypothesis, and theories to explain what is observable in the natural world. Science invites all to scrutinize and test the validity of these explanations, and to reject those ideas which do not stand up against scrutiny. We won't have all the answers in your lifetime. Deal with it. |
| 2010-10-13 9:39 AM in reply to: #3149301 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 9:15 AM AndrewMT - 2010-10-13 9:40 AM TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 8:36 AM Let's simplify this: Agree or disagree with this statement: There is nothing in science that we know of that disproves a higher being kicking off the creation of life. Fully Agree. It is impossible to disprove imaginary beings/events because they exist only in people's minds. I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in creationism, but I do have a problem with trying to place it on equal footing as a Scientific Theory. As I said before that's the same thing as placing my invisible pink unicorn causing gravity on the level as the Thoery of Gravity. Please provide proof that said being is imaginary. It's a loaded question for sure. You have every right to not believe. However you stating "for sure" that there is no higher power is simply foolish. You cannot know. You can only believe. Your lack of "belief' is as baseless as your claim that my beleif is. (that was a confusing sentence but I think you get the point) As my sig line states, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Your god exists in your mind. The actual existance of that god cannot be proved/disproved, but the assertation that he is there is completely baseless outside of your personal choice to believe in it. Just the same, you can't prove that my invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist. I asserted it without evidence, but most sane people would feel comfortable saying that said unicorn is a figment of my imagination. This is exactly the same thing as your belief in your god. I will say that I have NEVER statd that I know "for sure" that there is no god as you suggested. I don't believe that there is one, but I could very well be wrong. What I do know, is that I haven't seen one iota of evidence to support the case that one exists. My belief that there is no god is firmly planted in that complete lack of evidence whereas the deists belief is based solely in faith without a shred of supporting evidence. |
| 2010-10-13 9:40 AM in reply to: #3149374 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Renee - 2010-10-13 10:39 AM TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 10:34 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 10:31 AM Goosedog - 2010-10-13 9:22 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 9:46 AM So it comes down to the answer to this question: "How did this reality come into existence?" Either A) a god did it, or B) it bears further investigation One is the easy answer. It can bring comfort, but ultimately is not useful. Why is (A) the easy answer? Because it doesn't require any effort, inquiry, or proof. I would argue that accepting a higher power is a very diffiuclt decision that requires a lot of effort and investigation. Just internal, not external. To me the idea that things just went POOF and the universe appeared and life began to form is much more difficult. False dichotomy. The answers are not: a) Poof! God did it. (Which god? Take your pick.) b) Poof! The laws of the Universe did it. There is also: c) Science is investigating and whilst doing so pulling together a vast body of knowledge, hypothesis, and theories to explain what is observable in the natural world. Science invites all to scrutinize and test the validity of these explanations, and to reject those ideas which do not stand up against scrutiny. We won't have all the answers in your lifetime. Deal with it. I am. I'm at peace with my beliefs and the science. |
| 2010-10-13 9:42 AM in reply to: #3149354 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism scoobysdad - 2010-10-13 9:33 AM mfoutz - 2010-10-13 8:46 AM Like it or not, there is a fundamental schism between religion and science. At the heart of most religions there is faith in the belief of a god and that this god was involved in creating this reality in some manner. See I would argue that science is also a religion. It's simply one that lacks a god and relies on the BELIEF that there is a scientific explanation for everything, even in the ABSENCE of those explanations. Some people would call that belief FAITH. Sorry, but that is very wrong. Science is based on observable facts. Not faith or belief. Cause and effect. Absolute measurements. Things that cannot be argued with. Now, some of science is taking these observable facts and putting them together to form Theories, but those theories are not asserted with a complete lack of supporting evidence. |
| 2010-10-13 9:43 AM in reply to: #3149257 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism gearboy - 2010-10-13 8:57 AM AndrewMT - 2010-10-13 9:40 AM TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 8:36 AM Let's simplify this: Agree or disagree with this statement: There is nothing in science that we know of that disproves a higher being kicking off the creation of life. Fully Agree. It is impossible to disprove imaginary beings/events because they exist only in people's minds. I don't have a problem with people choosing to believe in creationism, but I do have a problem with trying to place it on equal footing as a Scientific Theory. As I said before that's the same thing as placing my invisible pink unicorn causing gravity on the level as the Thoery of Gravity. You know that this is ridiculous, right? Everyone knows the FSM (bless his noodley appendages) is responsible for all the magical goodness of the world. I bought my nephew a shirt that says "Touched by his Noodly Appendage", which was then seen by my devoutly religious parents. They were very confused... |
| 2010-10-13 9:45 AM in reply to: #3147876 |
Expert 715 PA | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism how do we know that if/when a God or supreme being created the world ,say around 8000 years ago, that he also made rocks/soil/etc. that in our calculations appear to be millions of years old? if a creator is not bound by time as we are in our finite lives and minds, that he couldnt make things that are millions of years old and put it into a world that is only 8000 years? that would reallly throw off some ideas tha tman has come up with and hangs on to....... |
| 2010-10-13 9:49 AM in reply to: #3149392 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism wabash - 2010-10-13 9:45 AM how do we know that if/when a God or supreme being created the world ,say around 8000 years ago, that he also made rocks/soil/etc. that in our calculations appear to be millions of years old? if a creator is not bound by time as we are in our finite lives and minds, that he couldnt make things that are millions of years old and put it into a world that is only 8000 years? that would reallly throw off some ideas tha tman has come up with and hangs on to....... Maybe the universe was created yesterday and all of our memories were just planted in our minds to make us believe that we had lived out lives. Fun game to play, but until there is evidence to support such assertations, the only thing we can do is to focus on things supported by evidence. Until something changes, all the evidence points toward the world being much much older than that. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK