Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
 Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:40 |
 
|
Nice signature quote, PeteW  |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Gatts
Joined: Jun 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:42 |
|
| Quote: |
I don't want to discuss it here, though I love the debate. The short version is that both require faith, and I will not discuss it with anyone who thinks that they can "prove" the other wrong, as long as you want to, you can maintain belief in either, if you want to discuss various strengths and flaws of each, I'm you man. MY God just doesn't think it's very important (well, at least I don't, I'm guessing on God's opinion based on other evidence).
|
Mac:Well you did say you were the man to turn to for discussing the various strengths and weaknesses.
Would i reject evolution for a superior theory, yes! Would i reject it for creationism, no.
I actually think i was pretty clear about that in my second post. I often get into these kind of arguments in a rather fiery temper, since i feel that the "creationism/evolution pick anyone they are just as bad" thingy has gotten a little out of hand. I basically doesnt even want creationism and evolution to be thought of as a pair. It's insulting to me as a scientist to have to answer the old, well what do you think about creationism questions evrytime someone wants to discuss life and evolution. Evolution makes attempts to explain, creationism does not.
Creationism as it stands right now wouldnt be proved right if a creator were to appear tomorrow and explain how he did it all, since creationism makes no claims about how life was created.
And as i tried to say in my last post:
Show me a theory that explains life better than evolution and i'd be delighted (although slightly depressed at having to abandon the better part of my education). But like any and all scientists I'd ofcourse be suspicious at first, evolution (like gravity is good solid stuff, not something you abandon in the first place, but i seriously believe that if a better theory were to be presented I'd accept it.
Maybe I got sort of caught up with the title of the thread
creationism vs evolution i sincerly dislike the constant pairing of the two as if they were equals, two competing theories. They are not. |
Last edited by Gatts on %b %06, %2006 - %21:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Buur
Joined: Apr 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:51 |
|
Pie ... pie .... pie.....
/me pie all creationist......
-Buur |
_________________
For most people, reason is nothing but their own believes. |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 20:54 |
|
Hey, I'm with you Gatts, it gets VERY tiring.
E: There's no scientific evidence for creation!
C: It's not Science! And Evolution doesn't explain everything!
E: It doesn't need to! It's the best explanation for what we DO know!
C: Creationism explains everything! God did it!
E: There is no scientific evidence for God!
And so on, ad infinitum.... Hence me not caring. It gets funnier when they try and enter each other's worlds, though! "God placed dinosaur bones to help disguise his glory!" um.... no......  |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 21:07 |
|
G: I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.
M: But the <i>Orc</i> is a dead give-away, isn't it? Such an impossibly useful creature proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own argument, you don't. QED.
G: Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that.
<i>G promptly disappears in a puff of logic.</i>
M: Oh, that was easy. Next I shall prove that Dwarves and Elves are in fact the same thing ...
<i>M is trampled by a horde of dwarves and elves while crossing a road ...</i>
[With apologies.] |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi  |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 21:11 |
|
/me Boos!
We're all geeks, Pac, we all know that argument! (and where it comes from) |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 21:13 |
|
| Macavity wrote: | /me Boos!
We're all geeks, Pac, we all know that argument! (and where it comes from) |
Of course you do. There'd be no point in using it if no one was going to recognise it! |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 21:17 |
|
LOL! Fair enough, but if the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief is brought up, I'm done with this thread! |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Fama
Joined: Feb 09, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 21:33 |
|
IMO, creationism and evolution shouldn't be compared. Just because creationism isn't science. I'm not completely sure about this, so please correct me if I'm wrong
Anyway. Science studies stuff, and THEN makes a guess (so to say).
People studied evidence, and then figured out the evolution theory.
Creationists FIRST said "God made it.". THEN they try to find evidence to back this up. That's not how science works.
Probably been said before, and I guess it's a mess of a post, but anyway. |
_________________
I love deadlines. I like the wooshing sound they make when they fly by. -Douglas Adams
 Side step this! |
|
Buur
Joined: Apr 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 21:46 |
|
@ Fama ....and that is why you cant argue with creationists.......
they are fundamentalists its all made by God and the world i 6000 years old....
I'm a biology student and we had a fair deal of evolution vs creationism debate and it all stranded in you cant argue with creationist, because it not science what they put forward so its a miss match of debating styles which cant talk wit each other....
and as a scientist its futile to try to talk to a creationist and trying to prove things the scientific way course they believe it to be how they know it is!
-Buur |
_________________
For most people, reason is nothing but their own believes. |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 23:22 |
|
As far as I understood, intelligent design and "classic evolution" agree on the fact, that lifeforms changed (and change) to match different environmental developments. The major disagreement is the question, how and why lifeforms change.
Intelligent Design says:
God knows how to lifeforms should develop and in his wisdom guides the mutations of the DNA to facilitate those changes. Creatures "evolved" in this way fit better into their environment.
Classic Evolution says:
Changes in the DNA occur randomly. Most of them are bad, some of them are neutral/bearable and a tiny amount even give an advantage. The environmental pressure (yes - nature is nasty in general) selects what is good (survives) and what needs rethinking (dies).
The problem for scientists is the fact, that people can credit god for being Mr.Random, guiding the changes. As there is no way to prove that random occurences are not secretly decided by god.
Luckily as a biologist I work with a method called artificial evolution. It`s a method used to better understand the connections between proteinstructure and function. Basically what you do is to knock out an essential gene and increase the rate of mutagenesis. Then we put those bacteria into harsh condition and viola - some managed to pull of a replacement of the lost enzyme by using some mutated related protein - essentially creating a new species.
As this method is very reliable (due to the very high numbers of cells I use) it means that either random mutagenesis causes the adaptation or god thought of a way to adapt those bacteria to the environment I create for them. But as I can choose if I want to do the experiement and how often, that would mean that I kind of command god to create solutions for the bacteria - and I don`t think that`s a good assumption. |
|
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 23:28 |
|
| Macavity wrote: | Darwin's actual has been dis-proven. We are not saying we are smarter, but there is a much larger base of information on genetics to work with now. Darwin theorized that the changes made to an individual during their lifetime would effect the genetic material they passed on (to put it REALLY simply), a fellow named Lanark refined that a LONG LONG time ago.
Plato thought the world was flat, I'm not claiming to be smarter than him when I say it's not. |
Actually, your not even correct about the basic facts. Heres the basic timeline:
Around 1800. Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck theorized that the changes made to an individual during their lifetime would effect the genetic material they passed on.
24/11 1859 Charles Darwin publishes "On the origin of species by the means of natural selection" where he proposes that each individual is born with certain abilities (close to their parents but not the same) and that the individuals with the best abilities got a greater chance of getting offspring.
Except for minor things that we have discovered through modern genetics has Darwin been proven correct.
1856-1863 makes his experiments on inheritance but noone cared until 1900 when the work was rediscovered. |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 23:30 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: |
The problem for scientists is the fact, that people can credit god for being Mr.Random, guiding the changes. As there is no way to prove that random occurences are not secretly decided by god.
Luckily as a biologist I work with a method called artificial evolution. It`s a method used to better understand the connections between proteinstructure and function. Basically what you do is to knock out an essential gene and increase the rate of mutagenesis. Then we put those bacteria into harsh condition and viola - some managed to pull of a replacement of the lost enzyme by using some mutated related protein - essentially creating a new species.
As this method is very reliable (due to the very high numbers of cells I use) it means that either random mutagenesis causes the adaptation or god thought of a way to adapt those bacteria to the environment I create for them. But as I can choose if I want to do the experiement and how often, that would mean that I kind of command god to create solutions for the bacteria - and I don`t think that`s a good assumption. |
Thank you. I will keep this passage in my memory to be used against more fundamentalisticly inclined people. |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
Delta
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 00:06 |
|
Here's a thought...
Science can tells us <b>how</b> things work/evolve/whatever
Religion can help us believe <b>why</b> things work/evolve/whatever.
Everyone needs faith (ie something to believe in) at some point in their life.
Whether it's faith in knowing there is religion (whichever they follow), or faith that there isn't, and in knowing science works around us.
/little bit off topic
What I find slightly odd, is that most religions I have heard about, if not all, have teachings about tolerance of others. Despite this, religion always seems to be an easy way to stoke up a fight.
Funny old world eh?
 |
_________________
Cain is for Charlie and Delta is for Cain |
|
Tinkywinky
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 00:12 |
|
| Quote: | E: There's no scientific evidence for creation!
C: It's not Science! And Evolution doesn't explain everything! |
So why has someone made up the word creationism to make it sound more scientific? I've never heard a non-insane person make a serious comparison between evolution and god-made it. It's about as meaningful as writing a thesis on why you shouldn't eat poo instead of regular food.
The notion of this comparison is ludicrous for any European as the discussion pretty much doesn't exist here. This makes it seem like a bad joke to us that so many people across the pond take this seriously. Try to picture someone coming up to you and proclaiming the greatness of the Spaghetti monster in grave seriousness and you will understand the feeling. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Designer's Comm...
Search
