Creationism and Evolution Debate

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 1:12 am

Keep it civil please TCR

Incidentally, infinite monkeys was a nice Douglas Adams quote - though it is of course older than that 

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 1:30 am

Yes.  Oddly, I want infinite monkeys.  I don't know what I'd do with them, though.  Perhaps cause world peace by threatening to let them loose to throw poo at anybody launching an attack.

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 1:33 am

Well I think it would be better if we were to have them write up some Shakespeare, so THERE!  >:(

[funnystuffpictures]

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 1:37 am

Last edited by funnystuffpictures on September 23rd, 2010, 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Why don't we all accept the theory of the Flying Spagetti Monster and become Pastafarians?

Pastafarian beliefs—The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily". According to these beliefs, the Monster's intoxication was the cause for a flawed Earth. Furthermore, according to Pastafarianism, all evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith—parodying certain biblical literalists. When scientific measurements such as radiocarbon dating are taken, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage".The Pastafarian belief of Heaven contains a beer volcano and a stripper factory. The Pastafarian Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale and the strippers have sexually transmitted diseases.

Pastafarians' beliefs extend into religious ceremony. Pastafarians celebrate every Friday as a holy day. Prayers are concluded with a final declaration of affirmation, "R'amen"; the term is a parodic portmanteau of the Semitic term "Amen" and the Sino-Japanese noodle dish, ramen.

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 1:41 am

Ok, so I actually have to say something.  It is beyond my power to sit these debates out(Myles you can stand down ).

I can really only give my support to TCR.  I think that I agree with almost everything you have said, and, despite the responces, you have taken it well.  

The fact that loki is using statements like "Oh my... sorry TCR but that entire post was simply full of fail" means he is avoiding the questions, not responding, but actually avoiding himself.  The truth is that anyone who reads the Bible with an 'open mind' can-not come away with the belief that it is a complete falsity.  Open-mindedness is not something physical, it is a mental decision.  The mere historical facts the Bible contains should alone give enough evidence to support its Trutht.  The problem is that loki has read it with the same bias he said you had, and I think you have done a good job of presenting both sides.  If Loki disagrees, then he should revise your interperitation, not simply call it a 'failure'.

Loki.  I think you should read the works of Augustine, as he does a pretty good job of explaining things without bias, but with complete logic.  I found his works quite revealing, as he shows a lot of the logic behind Creation, and a lot of the non-logic behind "creation by nothing"

Some of his ideas include theory about the Denial of Gods existence, the fact that Faith is required for all things, and particularly the logic of the law of non-contradiction.(which the Big-Bang defies)



And also, with all the research I have done on different religions, the God of Islam may have been at one point, been the God of the Jews and Christians, but in is not anymore.  The God of Mohammed is certainly not, the God of love, that is Yahweh, as you call him.

and there is no difference between the NT and OT God.  I'm not sure where you got that from.

Well I think it would be better if we were to have them write up some Shakespeare, so THERE!  >:(

I don;t know if this is true or not, but I have herd that there is actually more supporting evidence for the Truth of the Bible, than the Actual Existence of Shakespeare.  like I said though, I don't know.

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 4:28 am

Why don't we all accept the theory of the Flying Spagetti Monster and become Pastafarians?

Pastafarian beliefs—The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily". According to these beliefs, the Monster's intoxication was the cause for a flawed Earth. Furthermore, according to Pastafarianism, all evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith—parodying certain biblical literalists. When scientific measurements such as radiocarbon dating are taken, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage".The Pastafarian belief of Heaven contains a beer volcano and a stripper factory. The Pastafarian Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale and the strippers have sexually transmitted diseases.

Pastafarians' beliefs extend into religious ceremony. Pastafarians celebrate every Friday as a holy day. Prayers are concluded with a final declaration of affirmation, "R'amen"; the term is a parodic portmanteau of the Semitic term "Amen" and the Sino-Japanese noodle dish, ramen.

I'm down with this...but I might eat God 

Also, what happens to Pastafarian Heaven if you don't like beer? Does it become vodka?

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 6:03 am

Pastafarianism vs traditional faith is a battle for philosophers, and scientists are as out-of-place in most philosophy fields as a gopher is at a mini-golf course.

My two cents: doesn't the notion of any complex system (such as, say, life) developing naturally under intensely hostile conditions violate the second law of thermodynamics?

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 6:32 am

Loki, you have IGNORED EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT! 

Yeah, sorry about that a little, but i have been involved in a million of these debates so i get a little tired of rebutting "evidence" and simply go for undermining the basic principles.

As i said in my post, there is the creation evidence and the debunkments from science.  The creationist will tend to not accept the debunkment and the evolutionist will tend to accept the debunkment, so its not a game that can really by won by either side.

However, to be fair to you, lets try again.  Please post one (just one, at at time at least) piece of evidence for creation that science has an alternate explanation for.  Please do not post something like the Big Bang where science is still open on the question.  The God of the Gaps is not a good debating point.

So give me something to rebut, something that points towards creation, so i need a bit of a conclusion as well.  I may have missed it but in your fossil records or carbon 14 talk i saw how you tried to claim the scientists have got it wrong, but i failed to see (maybe my fault) how it pointed towards creation.  Even if we assume that it is wrong, i don't see (yet) how it proves creation.

The fact that loki is using statements like "Oh my... sorry TCR but that entire post was simply full of fail" means he is avoiding the questions, not responding, but actually avoiding himself.  

Or maybe because the post really was full of fail?  Did you actually read some of the points raised?  You wouldn't say the statement that "anything opposing evolution is called religion" is a fail?
The only "evidence" he really tried to bring that i did not respond to in my post was the bit about earthquakes and linking it with the global flood.  If he really wants to go for that point then i'm more than happy.  A global flood in our past may have indeed happened, but not just a few thousand years ago, that one has been thoroughly debunked so it should be an easy one for me to deal with.. and still, let us say a global flood did happen only a few years ago.... i fail to see the link with creation here.  Flood != Creation... even if you say "and in the bible it says there was a flood at this time"... it does not prove creation.  All it would prove is that the writers of the bible happened to notice a bloody great big flood had happened.  But please, lets not get onto the joke that some creationists use over how Noah had 2 of every animal on his boat.  That is just absurdity in the extreme... they even propose a land bridge existed only a few thousand years ago between Asia and Australia, just so the koalas and kangaroos could have got home after the flood.

Loki.  I think you should read the works of Augustine

Not read actually.  Do you have any links?

And also, with all the research I have done on different religions, the God of Islam may have been at one point, been the God of the Jews and Christians, but in is not anymore.  The God of Mohammed is certainly not, the God of love, that is Yahweh, as you call him.

So, it was the same god and then not... i see.  So does this mean god split?  There are now two gods?  If its because of the split in beliefs you can pretty much say something similar about branches within Christianity.  Is the Jewish god a different god then, because they don't accept jesus as the saviour, and Jesus according to christianity is god.  And what about the Mormons?  Is that god number 4?  Are they all right, are they all wrong, or if just one is right, which one?

By the way, one thing that really annoys me about christians is their take that Yahweh is the god of love.  That one really takes the piss when you read the old testament ("I am a jealous god, you shall have no other gods before me").  Genocide on God's orders was the norm in the OT.  Of course in the NT he becomes a loving god and forgives us all our sins... WFT?  He was the sadistic bastard who was demanding the israelites go out and slay the moabites and all the others.

and there is no difference between the NT and OT God.  I'm not sure where you got that from.

Erm, Christians funnily enough.  Depends on which ones you are talking to though, which particular branch of the faith.

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 6:33 am

Wheee!  I love it when moderates are ignored so you can better mock the extremists!  Three cheers for progress and moral superiority!

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 6:37 am

Who is ignoring the moderators.  The only point from them so far was a request to keep things civil.  Did i miss something?

By the way, i want to mock the creationists... here is a funny link:
Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 6:47 am

Well, this thread is starting to run down, as the things to be said grow fewer.

I can understand your request for me to cite my evidence, but sadly I don't have time to produce it.  The issue is so hotly debated online, you'll find thousands of opinions on the matter before you come across things like addresses and dates that  observations were made.  Even then, the only way to be sure is to visit those places and speak to the researchers, then try to judge their moral fiber by studying their lives etc.

At the same time, the evolutionists in this debate haven't produced any evidence, and if I asked for it and they gave it I would in turn ask THEM for citation, which would lead to more impossible rabbit trails.  The level of evidence a person can bring to bear in an online discussion has long since sunk beneath "correct and incorrect" and now resides closer to "tenable and untenable" or "likely and unlikely."

On the issue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...wait what?  Of course I can't discredit the FSM using logic before any evidence is presented, in the same way that you cannot discredit god simply for being called "god."  The same applies to atoms and stars and air and every other concept, real or imaginary, in the history of earth.  The FSM is NOT, nor has it ever been, a 'counter' to the concept that P and !P start out with the same value.  Using the FSM in a debate is a dodge.

And Christianity/Islam is just something I can't let go.  Any open-minded look at the two will find them to be in complete opposition.  Aside from the differences in doctrine I have already mentioned, there is are several verses in the Bible that state, "If Jesus is not the son of God, then all of Christianity is a lie and it means nothing."  If it weren't 12 am right now, I would give you some references.

The Bible that Christians follow is very, VERY clear that other religions don't mix with it, and attempting to combine them puts a person in worse standing as someone who doesn't believe in Christianity at all.  If you came to the conclusion that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all the same then the only possible explanation is that you began with the presupposition that they are all 100% false and from there focused steadily on the few similarities, isolated events in history that fall outside the standard deviation, alternate accounts of ancient history that oppose one or more of the religions' texts, and the findings of other people who have done the exact same thing.

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 6:51 am

Who is ignoring the moderators.  The only point from them so far was a request to keep things civil.  Did i miss something?

By the way, i want to mock the creationists... here is a funny link:
Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Oh, you want to mock them.  While I refuse to describe myself as a creationist, and I do enjoy the Onion, I also feel that your attitude is, frankly, anathema to any real, educated, discussion, and I find it hard to believe you've ever actually been in one before.

(note that this isn't insulting your intelligence, merely your conduct.  One who lords himself over the other side should try holding himself to a higher standard first.)

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 7:38 am

Oh, you want to mock them.  While I refuse to describe myself as a creationist, and I do enjoy the Onion, I also feel that your attitude is, frankly, anathema to any real, educated, discussion, and I find it hard to believe you've ever actually been in one before.

(note that this isn't insulting your intelligence, merely your conduct.  One who lords himself over the other side should try holding himself to a higher standard first.)

Whao, slow down tiger!  I would have thought referencing the onion and saying i wanted to mock them following on from your post was a clear indication of a (possibly poor) attempt at humour. 

My attitude to a real educated discussion is usually irreverent because I find them highly amusing and fun, I really try to avoid sounding a like a know-it-all, but I really have been involved in a hell of a lot of these debates, however, it doesn't necessarily imply i'm any good at debating though. 

Now if you think I have crossed the line in some way then please feel free to report my post to the moderators and if found to be in the wrong I will happily apologize. 

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 7:44 am

@Tryptic  - you are right, we are dancing around too much.  Let's put the points made so far to one side and lets see if we can get things back on track.  After all, it is clear for me Allah and Yahweh are the same god, but for you and others its clear they are not - we are not going to get anywhere on this one and have to agree to disagree.

As I posted earlier to TCR, I invite him to post one scientific claim for creation (just one otherwise the thread will get messy) that mainstream science has a different explanation for, and we can discuss that until we either fail or achieve consensus.  We can keep this up as long as people are interested in debating and hopefully we can avoid getting into too many side discussions.

[Drrrrrr]

posted on September 23rd, 2010, 7:55 am

Last edited by Drrrrrr on September 23rd, 2010, 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

1. the descriptive attribute "everywhere" makes the statement "god exists" less likely to be true?

2. you want me to list evidence why the fossil record does not support evolution?  I just did that, in the last post.  It's now your job to explain why it does.

3. You want me to explain why the law, "over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to balance out in an isolated physical system." is talking about a linear process?  Well, the energy starts in one point, say, the center of the earth, and it moves outward toward places with less energy, or outer space.  That's what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states, if you took a thermodynamics course and didn't learn it, you should probably ask for your money back.  Then go take an Engineering Physics course Smiley

So lets refine the point I made in 1. How do we measure existence or absence of something? If we find a place where one or the other is a valid state! An object exists because it is in a certain place and not in ALL places. An object is absent since is in another place (not here).

Now comes the creationist: POSTULATE: God is everywhere.
Creationist: "You have no evidence that god does not exist!"

Scientist:
"If god is everywhere, its not possible to finde any evidence for his existens or absence:
If god is there, I cant measure since I cant find a place where he is not present.
If god is absent, I cant measure it since you claim he is everywhere, i.e. something that is everywhere cannot be absent anywhere."

Creationist: "I don't care. God is everywhere!"

Scientist: "I know, I had this debate 100x times."


Hope thats clearer now?

IGNORED EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT!

You have brought nothing but random bits of stuff that supports your saying. If you would be a scientist you would do it the following (or similarly):

1. What do I want to show with my analysis?
2. What arguments support the theory -> Authors name and reputation, intention of the author, context of the argument.
3. What arguments do not support the theory ->- same as 2.
4. Compare results of 2. and 3. and find a result based on only! the arguments you found.
5. Present the result and find out if it supports your theory or not.

You dont work in a structured manner...you just throw in all things supporting your idea and excluding whole scientific domains for no real reason.

I can understand your request for me to cite my evidence, but sadly I don't have time to produce it.  The issue is so hotly debated online, you'll find thousands of opinions on the matter before you come across things like addresses and dates that  observations were made.  Even then, the only way to be sure is to visit those places and speak to the researchers, then try to judge their moral fiber by studying their lives etc.

Thats exactly what I talked about earlier. You guys just read a ton of shit from the internet and want to sell it as science. oO That is what is annoying to the scientists...you dont work structured so its extremly difficult to follow or disprove you.

You have not made a single valid case at all!  If you want to debate, that's fine!  But bring something other than these suggested searches to say that everything opposing evolution is a lie!  You have not brought one shred of evidence to support evolution!  NOT ONE!

May I ask one question? How must evidence for evolution look like? Do we need a person who was evoluted? Do we need people who saw evolution? Do we need an experiment that makes dead matter into a human?

Creation Science is all about a Creator having full involvement in the creation of the universe and the origins of life.  Evolution is all about everything happening spontaneously without any supernatural guidance.

Evolution is not happening spontaneously...its a matter of causes evoked by changing environmental states (mutation)...refined by selection over a long period of time. Thats all. Its the monkey - typewriter method...if you wait long enough the chances are good that he might write something of value.


Because the creationists say there is no evidence for evolution...I did some research this morning...how about this one:
http://www.swarmagents.cn/thesis/doc/jake_230.pdf

Is this evidence?