Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

metallifan wrote:

generalgrog wrote:There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

Exactly what evidence does Creationism have going for it? A strong belief that faith trumps reason isn't exactly evidence.

You can start here. metalifan http://www.halos.com/

GG

generalgrog wrote:
Sorry..Howard the only thing you have proven is that you believe in your set of presuppositions based on uniformitarianism. Of course there is plenty of evidence for evolution IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

There are two world views at work here.

The funny thing is that you aren't arguing for mere creation, but young earth creation.

One can be a uniformitarian and believe in a divine creation, and there is plenty of evidence for the former, but none for the latter; making it a matter of preference.

However, there is no evidence for a Young Earth, at all. Moreover, the only reasonable way to prove such a thing is often the first artifact "discredited" the ilk of believers.

generalgrog wrote:

metallifan wrote:

generalgrog wrote:There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

Exactly what evidence does Creationism have going for it? A strong belief that faith trumps reason isn't exactly evidence.

You can start here. metalifan http://www.halos.com/

GG

That still leaves my question unanswered. Just because a natural geological occurance can't yet be explained, that's evidence of creationism? I said evidence. All you're doing is throwing me a link to a site that says "SCIENCE HASN'T EXPLAINED THIS YET, SO GOD IS REAL!!!1!"

Really? Is it that easy for you folks to believe something? And I thought most of the medieval nonsense left with the belief that flies are born from rotten meat.

Someone once said that the difference between science and religion is that if something is unknown religion will claim god did it while science will say we don't know.

generalgrog wrote:
wavelength is not a number. There is a number that represents wavelength(not the same thing as wavelength being a number). Thats like saying if I have 5 soda cans, 5 soda cans is a number. And 5 soda cans = the number 5.

So what is the number 5 if not a representation of a thing?

Wavelength is a number, and 5 soda cans is the number 5. They are either the same things (this is huge favor to your argument by the way), or they are fundamentally distinct and therefore "number" is merely a matter of perception (Plato was wrong, oh so wrong).

generalgrog wrote:
Again... I am losing confidence in your ability to think logically. I'm beginning to question your claim of being a logistician now.

You've never been very open-minded.

generalgrog wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Ermm..... Overkill much?

Also, let's look at things from a thermodynamic/biomechanical perspective...

I'm a 180lb male human. I require 3000cals a day to function (including exercise). This is nearly ten coconuts.

I'm a 20,000lbs, 18ft tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. I require (roughly) 100,000 cals a day. This is Nearly 3 thousand coconuts.

One tree will produce c. 50 coconuts at any one time. This means that a T-Rex would need to strip 60 trees a day in order to feed itself. Then move on, as those coconuts sure don't grow overnight...

Also, neither crabs nor monkeys are ten tons of bristling 6inch teeth, yet they manage to nom down the nuts with reckless abandon.

For everytime anyone ever goes to that museum, reads whatever sign says T-Rexs ate coconuts, then goes on to believe that 'fact,' I shall kill a kitten.

No, TWO kittens.

Gah.

That's a lot of kittens!

Maybe you're over looking the fact that due to *magic* the T-Rex ate coconuts. Oh wait *magic* isn't a good reason... try.. um *faith*... no arguing with that!

Seriously $25million could be spent on research for a cure to cancer. Who care who/what/how the universe was made , maybe we should focus on disease, starvation and homelessness?

yeahh and while we are at it...lets just shut down all science that is evolution based while we are at it. I mean it's not like anyone else has a different world view than us and of course they are soo obviously wrong they have no right whatsoever to do their own research.

It's also "magic" that life spontaneously arrived in an unguided magical way.. Or that evolution "magically spedup and slowed down when it didn't go the way we thought it was supposed to, so we'll use our faith and call this magic punctuated equilibrium even though we can't prove it....yeah the evolutionist world view is the perfect and only true way to see the world.


GG

The key issue a lot of users have with your viewpoint is the insistence on the literal truth of the bible.

The scientific theory of the formation of the universe and all within it in no way denies a place for God as the Creator.

It is the insistence on denying all scientific evidence, in order to make the Bishop Usher calculations work, that seems a bit strange.

Why should God constantly fiddle with reality, in effect lying to his creations, in order to make it fit the work of a mid-19th century churchman?

corpsesarefun wrote:Someone once said that the difference between science and religion is that if something is unknown religion will claim god did it while science will say we don't know.

And it's always better to admit you don't know something than to give out incorrect information.

dogma wrote:You've never been very open-minded.

It often comes with being Christian, it would seem

metallifan wrote:
And it's always better to admit you don't know something than to give out incorrect information.

Unless you want to control people.

I should explain. All religions, and most philosophies, are attempts at control. They involve prohibition, guidance, and many similar things; all of which are controlling. Indeed, claims to "good" are all about influencing the behavior of others in order to make them more appealing to a certain sentiment; regardless of whether that is divinely correct or not.

metallifan wrote:
It often comes with being Christian, it would seem

I'm a PK, so I have sympathy for Holy Mother Church and the good it does for many people. I just cannot stand the Young Earth perspective. It is one of the only things that infuriates me.

Edit: clarity.

metallifan wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

metallifan wrote:

generalgrog wrote:There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

Exactly what evidence does Creationism have going for it? A strong belief that faith trumps reason isn't exactly evidence.

You can start here. metalifan http://www.halos.com/

GG

That still leaves my question unanswered. Just because a natural geological occurance can't yet be explained, that's evidence of creationism? I said evidence. All you're doing is throwing me a link to a site that says "SCIENCE HASN'T EXPLAINED THIS YET, SO GOD IS REAL!!!1!"

Really? Is it that easy for you folks to believe something? And I thought most of the medieval nonsense left with the belief that flies are born from rotten meat.

You read all of that information in 5 minutes? You just showed me that you really aren't interested in looking at anything other than what is force fed you through the school system or the science channel.

GG

I disregarded that site as soon as it said that people who do not believe in young earth are instantaneous believers in evolution, it just screams closed mindedness.

It also fails to accept that the granite could have cooled quickly due to any number of factors.

Also, some people are fast readers like myself.

generalgrog wrote:
You read all of that information in 5 minutes? You just showed me that you really aren't interested in looking at anything other than what is force fed you through the school system or the science channel.

Yeah, Halos shows evidence for a 2,000 year Creation (read in yon book), which still makes the Bible wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:The key issue a lot of users have with your viewpoint is the insistence on the literal truth of the bible.

These would be the "assumptions" that somehow validate the creationist position on an equal parallel to the scientific assumptions that an evolutionary scientist makes.

But of course the assumptions that scientists make are usually well considered and themselves have a great deal of evidence on which they reside, where as GG's assumptions lie mostly in saying that the bible is both literally and factually accurate. For which there is no basis at all, because ultimately it's just a book. That's like saying that evolution is true because 'Origin of Species' says so, and Charles Darwin is unquestionably correct in all things. Well fortunately the book offers evidence support all claims, it doesn't make claims with a presumption of a divine author.

But ultimately, evolutionary theory proves nothing about the existence of god. It merely disproves creationism. It's only people that seek to make absurd claims about the geological and biological history of the Earth that feel threatened.

dogma wrote:

metallifan wrote:
And it's always better to admit you don't know something than to give out incorrect information.

Unless you want to control people.

I should explain. All religions, and most philosophies, are attempts at control. They involve prohibition, guidance, and many similar things; all of which are controlling. Indeed, claims to "good" are all about influencing the behavior of others in order to make them more appealing to a certain sentiment; regardless of whether that is divinely correct or not.

Oh I fully realize that much, it's pretty out in the open, and any 8th grade social studies student can tell you all about religion's influence on politics through history. Hell, disputes over political issues are still riddled with questions of of "what would God do?" in most modern senates/Common Houses

metallifan wrote:
It often comes with being Christian, it would seem

I'm a PK, so I have sympathy for Holy Mother Church and the good it does for many people. I just cannot stand the Young Earth perspective. It is one of the only things that infuriates me.

Edit: clarity.

As I said, it -often- comes with being Christian. There're plenty of good ones that dispute the creationist theory, most notably the Pope himself, but there're just too many out there that follow blindly without stopping to ask questions.

generalgrog wrote:You read all of that information in 5 minutes? You just showed me that you really aren't interested in looking at anything other than what is force fed you through the school system or the science channel.

I skimmed, as I've learned to do through University and my current job, so that I can pull key information from something without bothering with the pointless filler text. And the key information (If it can be called that) that I got from that link is nothing short of absurd. Just because there's no scientific explaination for something, religious institutions claim it's proof of god, but make no -actual- connection between the two, other than simply repeating "science has no answer! God is real!". I skipped most of that article because if I wanted a debate that idiotic, I could just visit a Sunday-school class.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
But of course the assumptions that scientists make are usually well considered and themselves have a great deal of evidence on which they reside,

In support, there are two minimal assumptions to any argument:

1: I exist, where "exist" is a word to denote my condition.

2: The state that allows my existence is perpetual in the absence of contravention.

Note that these are derivations of Newton's theorems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:
As I said, it -often- comes with being Christian. There're plenty of good ones that dispute the creationist theory, most notably the Pope himself, but there're just too many out there that follow blindly without stopping to ask questions.

I'm not trying to call you out on hating Christians, or anything so crass. It was more a statement of support.

Correct me if I am wrong, "Intelligent Design" is the notion that life, the universe, etc. is all caused by some rational superbeing's plan. This can make sense and is impossible to refute. It is the logic of God. Intelligent Design people are at odds with Evolution people from what I have understood. Creationism goes a bit further with "historical" specifics like noah and eden and such stories, or depending on your culture, how the Earth was made out of the disemboweled pancreas of a titan or floats on the back of a huge turtle or whichever story, that is all "Creationism", not just "Intelligent Design". Trying to fudge into historical fact with some bending of the rules of reality and scientific discovery something as ludicrous as a 6000 year old planet, dinosaurs on boats, and actually take yourself seriously takes a special kind of gifted.

I think the Valar made humans (and elves and dwarves) didn't they? We don't see any Elves or Dwarves any more because they all left across the sea or underground after the 3rd age, we know this because it is written. Hobbits grew taller and lived among men too and here we are today, with a completely plausible history of creation that doesn't involve coconuts. Oh yeah, and Mordor is the modern-day middle east.

dogma wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:
As I said, it -often- comes with being Christian. There're plenty of good ones that dispute the creationist theory, most notably the Pope himself, but there're just too many out there that follow blindly without stopping to ask questions.

I'm not trying to call you out on hating Christians, or anything so crass. It was more a statement of support.

I know, I just find that it's always better to be clear rather than to leave something open for potential (mis)interpretation


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:
As I said, it -often- comes with being Christian. There're plenty of good ones that dispute the creationist theory, most notably the Pope himself, but there're just too many out there that follow blindly without stopping to ask questions.

I'm not trying to call you out on hating Christians, or anything so crass. It was more a statement of support.

I know, I just find that it's always best to be clear than to leave something open for potential (mis)interpretation

Guitardian wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, "Intelligent Design" is the notion that life, the universe, etc. is all caused by some rational superbeing's plan. This can make sense and is impossible to refute. It is the logic of God. Intelligent Design people are at odds with Evolution people from what I have understood.

Not at all. You can believe in Intelligent Design -AND- Evolution. That's exactly the current Pope's theory in fact, is that Evolution was part of God's Divine Plan, and that Creationism is a farce. Intelligent Design is simply stating that the universe was created as God wished, and that all events happen as he demands. It doesn't rule out evolution, and as previously noted, can support it. I have no issues with people that believe in Intelligent Design. I doubt the existence of God, but at least those folks -did- stop to question the bible, and grounded their theories on faith in fact rather than fiction.

Guitardian wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, "Intelligent Design" is the notion that life, the universe, etc. is all caused by some rational superbeing's plan. This can make sense and is impossible to refute. It is the logic of God. Intelligent Design people are at odds with Evolution people from what I have understood. Creationism goes a bit further with "historical" specifics like noah and eden and such stories, or depending on your culture, how the Earth was made out of the disemboweled pancreas of a titan or floats on the back of a huge turtle or whichever story, that is all "Creationism", not just "Intelligent Design". Trying to fudge into historical fact with some bending of the rules of reality and scientific discovery something as ludicrous as a 6000 year old planet, dinosaurs on boats, and actually take yourself seriously takes a special kind of gifted.

I think the Valar made humans (and elves and dwarves) didn't they? We don't see any Elves or Dwarves any more because they all left across the sea or underground after the 3rd age, we know this because it is written. Hobbits grew taller and lived among men too and here we are today, with a completely plausible history of creation that doesn't involve coconuts. Oh yeah, and Mordor is the modern-day middle east.

Intelligent Design is the theory that various biological structures are so complicated that they could not possibly have arise through evolution and therefore must have been designed and built by an intelligent creator, thus proving the existence of God. Biological systems of this type are said to display irreducible complexity.

This is presented as a scientific not a religious idea.

I think the basis of Intelligent Design is that most theories of how life began on Earth say "It just happened."

So, the idea is that there must have been some kind of creator who started the process, although to me it almost sounds like said creator would be less of a god, and more of a highly advanced alien or something. After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first.

Well, whatever. I think you will find, that if you interpret the Bible as a metaphor, rather than literally, that it actually does not deny most scientific studies. Basically, they are not incompatible. Although I do believe most Christians today agree with that anyway.

Biological systems of what type Kk? I was under the impression that nothing in biology IS irreducibly complex as far as I'm aware, things like eyes and wings have been easily explained.

Mike Noble wrote:I think the basis of Intelligent Design is that most theories of how life began on Earth say "It just happened."

So, the idea is that there must have been some kind of creator who started the process, although to me it almost sounds like said creator would be less of a god, and more of a highly advanced alien or something. After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans. So, they must not have been able to create life that advanced, and had to let it evolve first.

Well, whatever. I think you will find, that if you interpret the Bible as a metaphor, rather than literally, that it actually does not deny most scientific studies. Basically, they are not incompatible. Although I do believe most Christians today agree with that anyway.

Our current understanding of the big bang is that is just happened Nobody has put forward a theory with much hard proof.

I am pretty libertarian with religion in that I don't give a damn who believes what as long as they don't try to pass it off as science.

mattyrm wrote:Biological systems of what type Kk? I was under the impression that nothing in biology IS irreducibly complex as far as I'm aware, things like eyes and wings have been easily explained.

That's the challenge with the ID theory.

Examples given of irreducibly complex mechanisms, such as the Venus Fly Trap, and the bacterial rotor flagellum, have been shown from nature to have intermediate stages and therefore not be irreducibly complex under the terms of the theory.

In other words the theory has been disproven.

This is just sad....

Mike Noble wrote:I think the basis of Intelligent Design is that most theories of how life began on Earth say "It just happened."

And in a way, didn't it? Maybe not life as we know it, but certainly in the form of bacteria and other micro-organisms. If someone wants to believe a creator put a bunch of bacteria, mircoscopic spores, and other forms of sub-life on a lifeless, lava coated ball of rock that would later become earth, then I say "Why not"? It doesn't dispute the many archives of -proven- scientific evidence on how Earth came to be. It doesn't dispute that life as we know it was a process that took billions of years. It simply says that said person follows the idea that these these things came to be as a result of a higher power which they believe exists.

After all, its seems odd that an omnipotent being, who can do anything, would make earth go through millions of years just to get to humans.

Not an unreasonable belief either. Those that follow such a concept could use the supporting arguement that it took humans so long to evolve because it's part of God's plan, and that everything is working out as he intended, when he intended.

There's no reason that faith couldn't be based around science. But to ignore science in blind obedience to faith is self-destructive and close-minded.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It probably won't help people who think the Earth is only 6000 years old but I don't think Coconuts had evolved when Dinosaurs existed.

I thought the humans that rode the dinsoaurs brought the coconuts back in time after they used a time machine given to them by God?

I might be a little fuzzy on certain rhetorical aspects of this particular sect of Christianity...

Kilkrazy wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, "Intelligent Design" is the notion that life, the universe, etc. is all caused by some rational superbeing's plan. This can make sense and is impossible to refute. It is the logic of God. Intelligent Design people are at odds with Evolution people from what I have understood. Creationism goes a bit further with "historical" specifics like noah and eden and such stories, or depending on your culture, how the Earth was made out of the disemboweled pancreas of a titan or floats on the back of a huge turtle or whichever story, that is all "Creationism", not just "Intelligent Design". Trying to fudge into historical fact with some bending of the rules of reality and scientific discovery something as ludicrous as a 6000 year old planet, dinosaurs on boats, and actually take yourself seriously takes a special kind of gifted.

I think the Valar made humans (and elves and dwarves) didn't they? We don't see any Elves or Dwarves any more because they all left across the sea or underground after the 3rd age, we know this because it is written. Hobbits grew taller and lived among men too and here we are today, with a completely plausible history of creation that doesn't involve coconuts. Oh yeah, and Mordor is the modern-day middle east.

Intelligent Design is the theory that various biological structures are so complicated that they could not possibly have arise through evolution and therefore must have been designed and built by an intelligent creator, thus proving the existence of God. Biological systems of this type are said to display irreducible complexity.

This is presented as a scientific not a religious idea.

Okay that is what I thought. Jut wanted to make sure that "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" I was not confusing as the same thing. Intelligent Design can make sense. Creationism, again, just boggles my mind how anyone can be so willfully blinded to hard evidence and findings as to try and squeeze this crazy multi-sided polygon into the round hole.

corpsesarefun wrote:
I am pretty libertarian with religion in that I don't give a damn who believes what as long as they don't try to pass it off as science.

Word, and vice versa.

Guitardian wrote:Okay that is what I thought. Jut wanted to make sure that "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" I was not confusing as the same thing. Intelligent Design can make sense. Creationism, again, just boggles my mind how anyone can be so willfully blinded to hard evidence and findings as to try and squeeze this crazy multi-sided polygon into the round hole.

ID is little better than creationism and is still hugely flawed, fundamentally there is little difference, ID just appears more palatable and is a good exercise in spin, but it's still a form of creationism but without the obviously silly "young earth" ideas. For a start, there are no real examples of an irreducibly complex structure. Time and again they try to use the example of the eye, which is a nonsense.

Yeah, but why do you need to say that there are irreducibly complex biological systems just to have evidence for Intelligent design? Couldn't the explanation be what I said? That they find it improbable that life just randomly happened? That the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing? Sounds kind of crazy to me. I'm not denying the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, I'm just saying, having some kind of creator makes things more plausible IMO.

Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, but why do you need to say that there are irreducibly complex biological systems just to have evidence for Intelligent design? Couldn't the explanation be what I said? That they find it improbable that life just randomly happened? That the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing? Sounds kind of crazy to me. I'm not denying the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, I'm just saying, having some kind of creator makes things more plausible IMO.

The point of Intelligent Design is to dress up Creationism in a cloak of sciencey respectability, so that it can be taught in school science classes.

There's no reason why a Creator could not have imbued the universe with the laws required to develop all the complexity within it by the mechanisms proposed by conventional science, such as evolution, which seem to have a factual basis.

The reason for Creationism is to support the literal truth of the Bible, much of which is contradicted by conventional science.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, but why do you need to say that there are irreducibly complex biological systems just to have evidence for Intelligent design? Couldn't the explanation be what I said? That they find it improbable that life just randomly happened? That the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing? Sounds kind of crazy to me. I'm not denying the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, I'm just saying, having some kind of creator makes things more plausible IMO.

The point of Intelligent Design is to dress up Creationism in a cloak of sciencey respectability, so that it can be taught in school science classes.

There's no reason why a Creator could not have imbued the universe with the laws required to develop all the complexity within it by the mechanisms proposed by conventional science, such as evolution, which seem to have a factual basis.

The reason for Creationism is to support the literal truth of the Bible, much of which is contradicted by conventional science.

Exactly. Creationism is an outdated absolutist medieval belief system that was used to explain natural occurances before there was any understanding of them, while Intelligent Design is a form of speculative creationism that manages to accomodate scientific advancements in evolutionary theory. Is it 100% correct? No. Does it prove the existance of God? No. But it does certainly involve using your brain, which is more than I can say for the former theory.