Creation-ists view vs Science

[Alan]

Oh! It's just a theory!
A theory, (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the univers'es workings that is based on long-continued observation and, where possible, experiment.
For example we have the description of objects attracting each other according to a fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"), of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"), of light travelling through a vacuum at a fixed measureable rate (the "theory of relativity"), and so on.

All are theories; all are firmly founded;all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are not mere guesses, nor are they wild speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued, and more thoroughly accepted than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be.

Creationism, on the other hand, is NOT a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it - not one shred. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It may be fairly described by those who wish to belittle it "as only a myth". Nor is that really belittlement for "only a myth" is exactly what creationism is.

[Alan]

Next, teaching in schools. The creationists complain - particularly in America, that all they want is "equal time" with evolutionists.

Here they are being a little artful. In areas where creationism is strong, they control the Churches which have great influence and therefore they control the homes. In some counties, they control what can be displayed in Public Libraries. The ONLY place then, where children are told about the theory of evolution - is in schools. Where is the equal time in that!!

Will these creationists invite evolutionists into their Churches and Meeting Places and give THEM "equal time". OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!
Their motto would be "What's ours is ours and what's yours is negotiable"

The ridiculous thing is, right or wrong it has nothing to do with belief in God - for that blind faith has always been sufficient - and everything to do with keeping control.

This control would not stop at evolution. If successful, this orthodoxy would spread to other aspects of life. Spain dominated Europe and the world in the sixteenth century, but in Spain, orthodoxy came first and all divergence of opinion was ruthlessly suppressed. The result was that Spain settled back into blankness and did not share in the scientific, technological, and commercial ferment that bubbled up in other European nations. Spain remained an intellectual backwater for centuries.

The Soviet Union, in its fascination with Lysenko, destroyed its geneticists and set back biological science for decades. To this day, Russia is years behind the West in biological sciences.

[eldren]

Wow! After that evidence-less arguement, I just have to concede that you are right. Or not.

Theory. Oh, sorry, I meant to use the word hypothesis, because that accurately describes what evolution is. You have to be able to observe it, experiment on it, for it to be science. Where's your observation of it taking place, and your experimentation with its course? As I have said before, quoting bacterial mutation is not evidence. This is like saying a human that builds up a resistance to some drug or medicine has "evolved." Show me the evidence you claim has so closely been examined.

Let's stop on control for a while, now. You seem to have issues with control, based on how many times you mention it. I've got a little surprise for you - creationists aren't part some kind of cult, trying to install world order, contrary to what you seem to believe. That may have been The Church of the Middle Ages (Meaning the Roman Catholic church. No offence to any catholics), but I'm fairly certain 99% of today's Christian (Or even non-Christian creationist) churches are nothing like that. Did Jesus not preach tolerance?

"Equal-time?" First time I've heard of that. However, you conjecture that evolution is only ever found in schools is far from correct. Look at, say, the Discovery Channel. Apart from the vast numbers of programs mentioning evolution, they even had one series that basically "invented" creatures that "probably" exist on other planets, based on the planet's conditions and how the creatures must have evolved. And you're talking about myths?

Now that I'm on it, myths. I'm sure you label the spiritual realm a myth too. Yet, it has scientifically been measured that when a person prays, their aura grows larger. Just because one doesn't understand, or even observe something fully, doesn't mean one should discount it. There are an innumerable number of things science has not yet discovered or observed or explained - and just because these things remain undiscovered, doesn't not mean they do not exist or are a myth. Science is not infallible.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by eldren

Now that I'm on it, myths. I'm sure you label the spiritual realm a myth too. Yet, it has scientifically been measured that when a person prays, their aura grows larger. Just because one doesn't understand, or even observe something fully, doesn't mean one should discount it.

A couple of things. Can you provide an explanation of "aura" and how it is measured? Can you provide some links of the experiments used to measure this aura?

Secondly, can you provide any (scientific) evidence to lend credibility to the creationist perspective with respect to Darwinism and the theory of evolution?

[Alan]

Of course he can't. Anti-evolutionists never offer any proof of their own - there isn't any. All they do is point out that this or that point is not conclusive, which scientists admit, and point to that as proof that the whole thing must be wrong.

The one thing they DO NOT DO is use the argument they actually believe. That the Bible is the LITERAL TRUTH and there may be no deviation form their interpretation because they say so!

They believe the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. It doesn't say that in the Bible but it is their interpretation (actually one of their type worked this out about three centuries ago) . They believe that all the amassed evidence, all the laws of Physics, have been cooked up to lead us into the vile and wrong assumption that the Earth is Billions of years old.

When you boil these and other things down, it always leads to human beings interpreting the Bible and other writings in ways that suit themand for their purposes. I remind you of lightning. It was God's wrath - that's another way of saying "I don't know what lighning is, I don't know how it occurs." We learned how, conductors saved so many that no sane Religious organisation will claim it is God's wrath anymore.

So have we run out of mistaken ideas yet? Clearly not. Belief in God and Faith do not need adherence to the Bible as literal truth, so why do so many people get het up about it. Perhaps you could explain eldren?

[eldren]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
A couple of things. Can you provide an explanation of "aura" and how it is measured? Can you provide some links of the experiments used to measure this aura?

Aura, as in, the electro-magnetic field said to surround living beings. One of the more popular methods used to measure it is Kirlian photography.
http://www.theness.com/pseudo.html
http://skepdic.com/kirlian.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian_photography.html
There are, however, those that believe that Kirlian photography is not, in actuality, photographing the "aura" of the person. There are two other methods, but I'm too tired to look them up now. :<
A site trying to sell you a white lab coat, among other things, that describes at length how measurements are obtained and what the other two measurement methods are: http://www.item-bioenergy.com/rfi/science.html
Of course, even I'm sceptical about that one. :> The paragraph you quoted, based entirely upon a Discovery documentary on the phenomenon. Honest, I don't watch that much Discovery.

Secondly, can you provide any (scientific) evidence to lend credibility to the creationist perspective with respect to Darwinism and the theory of evolution?

In a word, no. If you count "odds" (There's a scientific name for the study, I'm sure), I think they'd indicate creation. That the earth is perfectly distanced from the sun, with an atmosphere perfect for supporting life, etc., etc. Of course, evolutionists would say that we evolved, adapting to this enviroment. I'm not going to argue. I actually want to go to bed. I still say that science and creationism don't contradict each other. Until the Hittite nation was discovered several years ago, people claimed that that was "scientific" proof that the Bible was wrong, as it mentioned them. Chances are, everything in the Bible will one day be explainable by science (On a somewhat different tangent - the fire and brimstone from the sky that destroyed Sodom and Gommorah: a volcano fits that description. Getting turned into a pillar of salt is slightly more difficult. )

Lastly. Alan. Please. Stop your "propaganda." It's all based on your precious stereotypes of what "we" believe, say and do. How "we" want a world order. How "we" all believe the earth was created 4004 BC (I don't). How "we" believe that physics, etc. is a lie. That is why "we" get heated up over it - incorrect statements like yours.

[DeludedGuy]

Little fact for all of you, no one knows what cuased the big bang. I dont believe in the big bang, theres too many holes in it, I see it more as a theory.

Oh yeh, anyone read about the string theory yet? So much of it makes sense, but other parts I just dont understand.

[Alan]

Eldren, that's the 2nd time you've referred to my comments as "propaganda". I would take it that you are opposed to much or all of what I've said but can't be arsed to address it directly - ah yes, you're too tired.

Yes, I am getting at Creationists, but I don't know if you are one or not so you are not a specific target. You are also reading intent into my words which is not there, and interpreting my words in a manner to pour scorn i.e. oppose my comments without actually stating your position at all. You have simply made negative comments about evolution without saying if you believe that the creation idea is the correct one, you have offered up no reasons for it being correct, your sole argument against evolution has been to label my comments as "propaganda"...

Never mind though, I asked you a question at the end of my last post. You seemed to me to be a person who could probably answer it and it was a straight question that anyone else can join in to as well.

Why, to believe in God, do people have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, when that Book was written thousands of years ago, for a different audience, with different understanding of nature and with evidence through history that it isn't always literally true, and when different groups get radically different things out of it? Even in a religious sense, who is right?

[Alex]

This is all getting a little personal isn't it?

Alan - in an attempt to answe your question on why people get hung up on it, I think it's because people view it as what is true, and will argue the point if it gets brought up (as in this post). Some people will argue the point for the sake of it, and I think that religious people and non-religious people can agree that there is little point to this! People do get annoyed I suppose if they honestly believe something, and their children are being taught that this is untue, I can understand how that would be annoying!

I think I agree with you that a literal translation of the bible is not always correct (in fact there are plenty of times when to do so would surely be stupid, eg revelation and multi-headed beasts etc) but at the same time being a christian, I do believe the entire bible is true.

I don't know how the world started, if I were to guess then I'd say evolution is almost certainly the way things happened, but I dont KNOW, and whats more I dont really care tbh. All I know (believe, whatever you want to call it) is that God was the cause of the beginning. This, to me, is all that matters in relation to all this. I would have thought that this thread was far more important to unreligious people, after all, they are surley far more likely to care HOW the world was created.

I really dont get why christians preach about the evils of evolutionsim rather than the story of Jesus. I t just bugs me when people go on about "this is wrong" and "that is evil" and completely miss the entire point of the religion!

Can't we all just get along? Sniff....

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by eldren
Aura, as in, the electro-magnetic field said to surround living beings. One of the more popular methods used to measure it is Kirlian photography.
http://www.theness.com/pseudo.html
http://skepdic.com/kirlian.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian_photography.html
There are, however, those that believe that Kirlian photography is not, in actuality, photographing the "aura" of the person. There are two other methods, but I'm too tired to look them up now. :<
A site trying to sell you a white lab coat, among other things, that describes at length how measurements are obtained and what the other two measurement methods are: http://www.item-bioenergy.com/rfi/science.html
Of course, even I'm sceptical about that one. :> The paragraph you quoted, based entirely upon a Discovery documentary on the phenomenon. Honest, I don't watch that much Discovery.

Is it possible for you to quote any academic journals at all? With the greatest respect, the organs you have quoted from are not exactly pillars of science, are they?

Originally posted by eldren

In a word, no. If you count "odds" (There's a scientific name for the study, I'm sure), I think they'd indicate creation. That the earth is perfectly distanced from the sun, with an atmosphere perfect for supporting life, etc., etc. Of course, evolutionists would say that we evolved, adapting to this enviroment. I'm not going to argue. I actually want to go to bed. I still say that science and creationism don't contradict each other. Until the Hittite nation was discovered several years ago, people claimed that that was "scientific" proof that the Bible was wrong, as it mentioned them. Chances are, everything in the Bible will one day be explainable by science (On a somewhat different tangent - the fire and brimstone from the sky that destroyed Sodom and Gommorah: a volcano fits that description. Getting turned into a pillar of salt is slightly more difficult. )

So let me get this straight. You are not willing to provide a single shred of evidence against Darwinism, yet you do not believe it to be true?

[eldren]

Originally posted by Alan
Eldren, that's the 2nd time you've referred to my comments
...
evolution has been to label my comments as "propaganda"...

Further up in this thread, I believe I already stated my position as creationist. Apologies if I didn't. I use the word "propaganda," as your statements about creationists seem to be designed to paint them as bad, wrong, even fanatical.

Never mind though, I asked you a question at the end of my last post. You seemed to me to be a person who could probably answer it and it was a straight question that anyone else can join in to as well.

Rereading my answer, I see that it can be misunderstood. By incorrect statements, I'm not talking with regard to the evolution/creationism debate - I meant it in terms of what you had said about creationists (Which, because of your frequent reference to the Bible, is here limited to Jews and Christians) - how all believe the earth was created in 4004 BC, etc. It is, frankly, wrong to generalise in such a manner, and that's what I have taken offense to. I do realise I've taken it too personally, so, sorry for that also.

Why, to believe in God, do people have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, when that Book was written thousands of years ago, for a different audience, with different understanding of nature and with evidence through history that it isn't always literally true, and when different groups get radically different things out of it? Even in a religious sense, who is right?

To the first question - they don't. Another generalisation there. Parts of the Bible are deliberately written in metaphore (The book of Revelation, for example), so it is not entirely literal. However, I believe that it is entirely accurate. To the second question - that's one for God.

PS: This evidence through history showing the Bible to not be literally true - care to share it?

[eldren]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Is it possible for you to quote any academic journals at all? With the greatest respect, the organs you have quoted from are not exactly pillars of science, are they?

I would gladly do so if I find any. Sadly, including the word "aura" in a google invariably winds up getting you hundreds of results about spiritual healers and new agers, atc.
Secondly, I agree there, and no offense taken.

So let me get this straight. You are not willing to provide a single shred of evidence against Darwinism, yet you do not believe it to be true?

Or, conversly, you are not willing to give a single shred of evidence against creationism, yet you do not believe it to be true? I don't believe there is very much in the way of evidence (At least, with current evidence gathering means) for either belief.

[DaBeeeenster]

Erm. Regarding your second point.

Carbon dating.
Fossils.
Dinosaur bones.
The big bang.
The universe expanding.

[Alan]

My apologies to you too Eldren, my strongly held concern is against those creationists (like the Moral Majority in the U.S.A.) who would dictate beliefs to everyone else if they could, and not to people who happen to prefer the creationist version of events.

Keeping things reasonable, it is a little unfair to say there is no evidence for evolution (of course if you mean Bibilical evidence then I have none), There are acres of books on evolution, University courses by the dozen which include evolution as part of their studies. All these books present the evidence, argument, and interpretation in bucket loads. Amongst these books the reader will find disagreement on interpretation for certain points, findings, etc. but none (naturally I suppose) deny that evolutionary processes have taken place.

Over the last hundred years plus, new faces keep on taking up the study of evolution and, if there had been something basically wrong with the whole concept, it would have come to light by now - after all, we no longer hear about phlogiston chemists! - and scientists no longer state that rockets can't fly!
The one problem the theory of evolution has, that no other scientific theory has, is that smaller Christian Churches oppose the concept basically because the Bible says nothing about it.

That seems unfair - the Bible didn't say anything about Saturn's rings, or super-novae, or the speed of light being the fastest speed possible for something with mass, nor that the Earth goes round the Sun and that the Earth itself is round. No one beefs about thosae points (do they?...)

[eldren]

Erm. Regarding your second point.

Carbon dating.

Shown to be inaccurate with items over 3 or 4 thousand years old, if I recall.

Fossils.
Dinosaur bones.

I'm not arguing that dinosaurs and such never existed - I argue that they existed more recently than evolutionists believe.

The big bang.

Observe? Experiment? Not possible. Thus, unprovable.

The universe expanding.

Not sure on this. But then, for all we know, it just seems to be expanding, as light only starts to reach us now. As in, at the "Let there be light" moment, there were stars so distant, their light only is only reaching us now. Of course, that's purely an uninformed hypothesis.

[eldren]

That seems unfair - the Bible didn't say anything about Saturn's rings, or super-novae, or the speed of light being the fastest speed possible for something with mass, nor that the Earth goes round the Sun and that the Earth itself is round. No one beefs about thosae points (do they?...)

The Bible was not written as a scientific manual. However, when it does state facts, I believe, as I said earlier, that it is accurate in what it says.