Creationism vs. Evolution

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

That "rambling humbug" is also known as 'Paradise Lost' , a not entirely unimportant piece of English literature. quote>

Yes, it is. I do not deny that religion has played a major part in literature. However, importance in literature does not make rambling humbug a fact, just as Frankenstein's monster is not a fact.

It should not be accepted as a fact, since it has not been directly proven.

Also, people should know that the Theory of Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory that has facts supporting it. It is the most correct theory of life that has been proposed to date. However, since it has not been directly proven, it should not be accepted as fact. Just a theory.

However, since the Theory of Evolution has more evidence supporting it than creationism, I support evolution.

When a hypothesis is proposed, it must be tested somehow to prove it's validity. This was done with Evolution. We must do the same with Creationism.

Evolution has several major defects, the major of them being the Big Bang.

GOD started the big bang, and his six days were perhaps many eons for usquote>

You need to get the facts straight. Evolution is not an all-encompassing theory that scientists dogmatically accept.

Evolution is a theory of life that proposeds that life evolved from simple forms to more complex ones through a slow process of adaptation and natural selection. It does not propose that the Universe began with a bang, nor does it propose that life appeared randomly.

Abiogenesis is a theory that proposes that biological material (life) was created out of non-biological material. This theory has been supported by experiments. Such as the Urey Experiment, which proved that some materials when activated by lightning can produce amino acids, the building blocks of life.

The Big Bang Theory is a theory that proposes that our Universe started from an extremely dense mass that suddenly expanded to create our Universe. Specifics have been worked out since then, but you can read them yourself if you wish to do so.

The Big Bang Theory is supported by the observed expansion of space, the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the Cosmic Neutrino Background.

To those who believe that a bunch of molecules could not create an amino acid out of random chance, you are missing one crucial piece of information.

You people are thinking about only a few molecules. The chance is small for one of those groups. But consider how many molecules of prebiotic material that was on Earth's surface. If just a few of them combined, they would create the first RNA and DNA, and thus the first lifeform.

A lot of evidence is in favor of Big Bang and Evolution. Virtually no evidence is in favor of creationist myths. A rational person would know which one to support.

- Patricius Maximus

[Gridlock 9]

Aldous Huxley makes this statement. He says, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. Consequently, assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.

For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation--sexual and political."

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Gridlock: That is a lot of rambling humbug. That elaborate history was partly invented to scare medieval Europeans into accepting the pope's dictatorial grip on them. The Church invented a whole mythology of the "evil deity" Satan and his corrupt demons that are infecting the Earth.

In fact, Christians are violating their own commandment: "Do not have any other gods before me." Satan, the "rebel angels", and the domain of Hell constitute a polytheistic mythology, instead of a monotheistic one.

Also, what evidence exists for this supposed history? Show me one piece of verifiable evidence that Satan and his demons are rampant on the Earth, or even exist.

This is the biggest humbug I have ever heard of.

If people accept these myths as facts with no proof, no progress can be made in the search for greater knowledge and understanding of the Universe through verifiable findings. This is what is called Science.

- Patricius Maximusquote>

Haha maybe its in my Celtic pagan blood , you dont even know the stories dewd . Satan is the Other Son Of God  you could say the black sheep of the family  ,many believe in Satan and worship of Satan it is  quiet rampant world wide . All religous texts refer to Satan even the Babalonian Epic of creation . Scare them lmao , to scare them all they needed to do was translate truthfully what the ancient texts suggest .They actualy watered it down .

The modern American Church of Satanism was deeply hostile toward religion .

Many believe its the next step after Darwinism ;-).

You do know Darwin got most of his theories from a pond .

From Darwins book  Origin Of Species

"There is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms, or into one. And that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Doesnt seem like a statement of an athiest , more like thiest  , all thats missing at the end is an amen .

Darwin himself knows full well that evolution is no explanation of creation. Evolution is only an explanation of how things might have developed once it was created.

I dont think most of you could handle the truth of our origins according to our most ancient scripts and texts , some from well before 11000 BC , and these guys  knew of the planet Uranus and its pale blue colour  titled on its side they had working models of the solar system  .Uranus was only discovered in the 18th century. When Nasa put a camera up there in the 1980,s , what did they find on approach to the planet ?.

They also predicted there is a 12th planet in our Solar system .

So our purpose may be as simple as entertainment for the Gods or maybe slaves.

These dewds are mentioned in Genisis , unfortunatley during times like the spanish inquisition , texts had to be approved by the church before being added to the modern bible , the origins of the stories of creation are taken from ,much more bizarre accounts .

No sorry i dont find it unconcievable that somewhere out beyond our galaxy/universe is a superior force that one on earth may describe as God.

Science ?i didnt present science it was  theology .

Now talking Science , which can be sometimes just as big of a leap into faith ,  ok what is your point , all living things have very similar dna structure , as i would expect from a single creator . Scientists have tested and mapped very few things considering , my dna is similar to corn , and have similar dna to in my nervous system as that of coral , well thanks for telling me this ,i already knew .

Its all one big family why wouldnt it share a similar basic Dna structure ?

This is a good one -

The Lord God had set Gregori (A Gregori is a type of arch angel, specifically The watchers, in Latin), at the Gates of Heaven, to safe guard it from the taint of Satan’s evil.  Sometimes, Gregori were sent down to Earth, to protect man and guide them into the future.  Unforeseen in this future, were rogue angels, whom taught forbidden Technology to man.  Some Gregori even broke one of the Cardinal sins (2,000 of them) to be exact, and married themselves to Mortal women, and impregnated them with their seed.  They did this, despite the rule of God, and for Love of his creations he could not kill the Gregori, but instead banished them from Heaven, by cutting off their wings and never granting them passage to heaven.

"And Uriel said to me: 'Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray , (here shall they stand,) till 'the day of' the great judgment in which they shall be judged till they are made an end of. And the women also of the angels who went astray shall become sirens.

Now i know who you all are ,lol .

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: GridlockHaha maybe its in my Celtic pagan blood [...] Darwin himself knows full well that evolution is no explanation of creation. Evolution is only an explanation of how things might have developed once it was created. [...] Science ?i didnt present science it was theology [...] ancient scripts and texts , some from well before 11000 BC , and these guys knew of the planet Uranus

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Haha maybe its in my Celtic pagan blood , you dont even know the stories dewd . Satan is the Other Son Of God  you could say the black sheep of the family  ,many believe in Satan and worship of Satan it is  quiet rampant world wide . All religous texts refer to Satan even the Babalonian Epic of creation . Scare them lmao , to scare them all they needed to do was translate truthfully what the ancient texts suggest .They actualy watered it down .

The modern American Church of Satanism was deeply hostile toward religion .

Many believe its the next step after Darwinism ;-).quote>

Still sounds like a polytheistic myth in disguise.

You do know Darwin got most of his theories from a pond .

From Darwins book  Origin Of Species

"There is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms, or into one. And that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Doesnt seem like a statement of an athiest , more like thiest  , all thats missing at the end is an amen .

Darwin himself knows full well that evolution is no explanation of creation. Evolution is only an explanation of how things might have developed once it was created.quote>

He actually got most of them in the Galapagos Islands, which is a place swarming with strange creatures. And, as I said earlier, Evolution is not a theory of the creation of life. It is a theory of how the variety of life-forms came about. Creation of life is another theory altogether.

For evolution supporters, you can support Abiogenesis, which I defined earlier, or you can think that a God started the process.

Yes, Darwin was a theist. Contrary to some Intelligent Design proponent's ideas, Darwin was not an atheist.

The Lord God had set Gregori (A Gregori is a type of arch angel, specifically The watchers, in Latin), at the Gates of Heaven, to safe guard it from the taint of Satan’s evil.  Sometimes, Gregori were sent down to Earth, to protect man and guide them into the future.  Unforeseen in this future, were rogue angels, whom taught forbidden Technology to man.  Some Gregori even broke one of the Cardinal sins (2,000 of them) to be exact, and married themselves to Mortal women, and impregnated them with their seed.  They did this, despite the rule of God, and for Love of his creations he could not kill the Gregori, but instead banished them from Heaven, by cutting off their wings and never granting them passage to heaven.quote>

More myths...

[fukuda 351]

All religous texts refer to Satan even the Babalonian Epic of creation . Scare them lmao , to scare them all they needed to do was translate truthfully what the ancient texts suggest .They actualy watered it down .quote>

Yes, demonology comes from mesopotamia, but there's a thing you missed. Hebrew religion actually used it twisting it into its obsessive evil/good dualism, passing after into Christianism and Islam. Demons in both mesopotamia and India for instance are not the evil nor Gods are good ones, both gods and demons ally forming 2 mixed sides before the armageddon. Even demons come to help gods in usual battles.

The modern American Church of Satanism was deeply hostile toward religion .

Many believe its the next step after Darwinism ;-). quote>

Hope you don't get your sources from those kind of integrists

Doesnt seem like a statement of an athiest , more like thiest , all thats missing at the end is an amen .quote>

Darwin was christian, as anyone in the XIXth century, lol You can be christian and believe in evolution, like all christians over here.

I dont think most of you could handle the truth of our origins according to our most ancient scripts and texts , some from well before 11000 BC , and these guys knew of the planet Uranus and its pale blue colour titled on its side they had working models of the solar system .Uranus was only discovered in the 18th century. When Nasa put a camera up there in the 1980,s , what did they find on approach to the planet ?.

They also predicted there is a 12th planet in our Solar system .quote>

11000 before christ? Come on, Çatal Hüyük is from 7500 BC, give a reliable source for such an.. interesting fact

And you don't need to send a probe to see if uranus is blue, anyone with a telescope can see its blue colour

No sorry i dont find it unconcievable that somewhere out beyond our galaxy/universe is a superior force that one on earth may describe as God.quote>

So? You need evidence or way to prove it.

Now talking Science , which can be sometimes just as big of a leap into faith , ok what is your point , all living things have very similar dna structure , as i would expect from a single creator . Scientists have tested and mapped very few things considering , my dna is similar to corn , and have similar dna to in my nervous system as that of coral , well thanks for telling me this ,i already knew .

Its all one big family why wouldnt it share a similar basic Dna structure ?quote>

You should wonder why a dog and a fox have more ADN in common than a dog and an elephant, for instance. And morphological evidence is more than a bit compelling too.

"And Uriel said to me: 'Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray , (here shall they stand,) till 'the day of' the great judgment in which they shall be judged till they are made an end of. And the women also of the angels who went astray shall become sirens.

Now i know who you all are ,lol .quote>

Ohhh, we are fallen angels bringing destruction and death, ohhhh. Don't you have something more ridiculous to say?

Holy wars and massacres started with this kind of.. arguments, you know?

Still sounds like a polytheistic myth in disguise.quote>

Indeed it has several things "borrowed" from polytheism: the murdered God (see egyptians), the Mother Goddess Mary who is worshipped and idolized that way , like in Spain; the "Holy Trinity" and so on....

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Gridlock Aldous Huxley makes this statement. He says, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. Consequently, assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.

For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation--sexual and political."quote>

While there is that consequence, let's not put the cart before the horse here. Liberation comes because of meaninglessness. Meaninglessness isn't put forward because of liberation.

Although that is one reason among many for not having a religion. So I can do whatever the hell I want as opposed to not being allowed to do certain things "because god doesn't like it" or some other such bullcrap.

.....and isn't liberation supposed to be a good thing?

From Darwins book  Origin Of Species

"There is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms, or into one. And that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Doesnt seem like a statement of an athiest , more like thiest  , all thats missing at the end is an amen .quote>

Whoever said Darwin was an atheist? Of course he wasn't. Such was unheard of in those days. Although he did have a crisis of faith when he found that his research was supporting this new evolution idea he had rather than creationism. But he got over it and learned to incorporate evolution into his faith.

Darwin himself knows full well that evolution is no explanation of creation. Evolution is only an explanation of how things might have developed once it was created.quote>

Nevertheless, there are other theories about the creation itself out there. Abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. We don't really know what's the case but just because we don't know doesn't mean we can jump to the conclusion that "god did it". That's a baseless assumption and thus a foolish one.

I dont think most of you could handle the truth of our origins according to our most ancient scripts and texts , some from well before 11000 BC , and these guys  knew of the planet Uranus and its pale blue colour  titled on its side they had working models of the solar system  .Uranus was only discovered in the 18th century. When Nasa put a camera up there in the 1980,s , what did they find on approach to the planet ?.

They also predicted there is a 12th planet in our Solar system .quote>

Wait, what?

Care to provide a citation for this? Because it sounds like made up nonsense.

The idea that stone age people knew of planets not visible to the naked eye is preposterous. And how can one predict a 12th planet when there are only 8? They're skipping quite a few there.

No sorry i dont find it unconcievable that somewhere out beyond our galaxy/universe is a superior force that one on earth may describe as God.quote>

First of all, you mean "inconcievable".

Second of all, you may not, but I do. There is no evidence at all suggesting the presence of anything supernatural anywhere. So it would be ridiculous to think there is.

Science ?i didnt present science it was  theology .

Now talking Science , which can be sometimes just as big of a leap into faith ,  ok what is your point , all living things have very similar dna structure , as i would expect from a single creator . Scientists have tested and mapped very few things considering , my dna is similar to corn , and have similar dna to in my nervous system as that of coral , well thanks for telling me this ,i already knew .

Its all one big family why wouldnt it share a similar basic Dna structure ?quote>

Science is not a leap of faith because science is backed up by facts and experiments- data obtained empirically and/or predicted mathematecally.

Religion is backed up by what some book says. A book which was written by mere men. Not by god.

I'll remind you that that book thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. That is quite clearly not the case. Heliocentrism, unlike evolution, is not a theory. It's fact. Because we can look at things and what we observe fits a heliocentric model but not a geocentric one. And then you have Keplere's laws (yes, laws, not theories, conjectures, or postulates) of planetary motion, which describe the idea rather simply.

Your holy book was obviously wrong on that one. So much for it being the infallible and perfect word of god, eh?

Now i know who you all are ,lol .quote>

The bastard descendants of angel men and ordinary women? Is that what you're suggesting?

Because you're right about one thing: that is a laughable idea.

[Follarch 326]

I believe that all life came from somewhere, my view being more toward the idea that they were small organisms that evolved slowly over millions or billions of years. That makes sense to me, and I even know that Human kind now in the 21st century will keep evolving in the next thousand to millions years, be it Humans will get larger mind capacity or heightened eyesight, I'm not sure, time will tell.

But I ALSO, will say that I am a Lutheran, which is a subdivision in the Protestant sect of Christianity, I admitted God as my savior and Ive even said a prayer for my girlfriend outloud with an open heart. But my beliefs in my religion, don't go as far as worshiping an all powerful force that no one can see but know it has power over us, my beliefs are more like guidelines for how I should run my own life. As for the big bang ive read people arguing about, I believe that was an explosion of massive proportions that expanded stars outward from a the origin. Hence how our universe or galaxy is now. I believe all life starts out small and grows on its own from that point, but, with out limited knowledge, I have no idea how that, small life got there. But I know Humanity were not created by sheer will of a single power. Humanity had to go through major evolutionary development over a massive period of time. It's been said that the first Humans, or human like beings (bipedals) existed in mideast africa, and migrated outward from there covering the rest of the planet. (And if you want to argue about how humans got onto the north american continent, the Bering Strait was completely frozen over back then which acted as a foot bridge between russia and alaska)

This is the largest reply ive ever done, lol, well, i left my belief.

[Mebert 5]

What I never got about the creationism argument is that Genesis I and Genesis II have conflicting views of creation. In one, man is created first, and the animals created to serve him, and in the other, man is created last. Other things are different as well. I mean, frankly, if you're going to be utterly and literally dogmatic, you probably should get your story straight.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Mebert What I never got about the creationism argument is that Genesis I and Genesis II have conflicting views of creation. In one, man is created first, and the animals created to serve him, and in the other, man is created last. Other things are different as well. I mean, frankly, if you're going to be utterly and literally dogmatic, you probably should get your story straight.quote>

No arguing with the Good Book, please! Really, you shouldn't read that much.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Science is not a leap of faith because science is backed up by facts and experiments- data obtained empirically and/or predicted mathematecally.

Religion is backed up by what some book says. A book which was written by mere men. Not by god.

I'll remind you that that book thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. That is quite clearly not the case. Heliocentrism, unlike evolution, is not a theory. It's fact. Because we can look at things and what we observe fits a heliocentric model but not a geocentric one. And then you have Keplere's laws (yes, laws, not theories, conjectures, or postulates) of planetary motion, which describe the idea rather simply.

Your holy book was obviously wrong on that one. So much for it being the infallible and perfect word of god, eh?quote>

It should be noted that the Bible can be translated three different ways: completely literal, part literal and part metaphorical, and completely metaphorical.  If you translate the Bible completely literally, then one might have problems reconciling the fact that the earth moves with a Biblical passage saying it doesn't.  If you translate it as having both literal passages and metaphorical passages, then a Biblical passage saying the earth is immovable doesn't necessarily conflict with the fact that the earth does move.  If you translate it completely metaphorically, then there is no conflict at all, as the passage isn't meant to be taken literally.  It's jumping the gun to say that the Bible was wrong on whether the earth moves or does not because there are differing opinions on how the written text should be understood.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Indeed.  I've heard countless times the phrase "tongues of fire" in the bible, but do you think that meant fireballs shaped like those pink things with taste buds in our mouths or was it more of a metaphor?

[Patricius Maximus 236]

No arguing with the Good Book, please! Really, you shouldn't read that much.quote>

Just like a large work of fiction, there's going to be continuity errors. And the "word of God" isn't supposed to have any, is it? More evidence against creationism.

Indeed.  I've heard countless times the phrase "tongues of fire" in the bible, but do you think that meant fireballs shaped like those pink things with taste buds in our mouths or was it more of a metaphor?quote>

If a flamethrower was used c. 30 AD, the ancients would think it looked like "a tounge of fire". It can also be interpreted as a large meteor hitting the atmosphere. Or you can claim that the entire Bible is a work of fiction.

I do not believe in the Bible and it's supposed "divine origins", but I do think that it has some history in it, mostly the history of the Jews. A lot of this history has been proven to be real by archaeologists.

No sorry i dont find it unconcievable that somewhere out beyond our galaxy/universe is a superior force that one on earth may describe as God.quote>

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest any superior supernatural entities are lurking outside our Universe. Secondly, if a "God" is outside our Universe, would it matter if it existed or not?

And how can one predict a 12th planet when there are only 8? They're skipping quite a few there.quote>

As a consequence of the 2006 IAU fiasco, the number of planets is in turmoil because everyone has their own planets that they count up. If one counted Pluto as a planet, Charon as a planet, and Eris as a planet, then that would yield a 12th planet as Planet X.

I call any body that is in hydrostatic equilibrium and orbits a star or stellar remnant a planet. If a body does not orbit a star or stellar remnant, and is not a star or stellar remnant, then I call it a rogue planet.

I cannot understand the IAU's attitude of planets belonging to some kind of exclusive club. This is anti-Copernican as it places an exclusivity on planets, and is also heliocentric in it's wording. The Universe does not revolve around the Sun.

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Falsehoods! The world is the back of the Great Turtle, and mankind was shaped and fertilized from His Leavings! His burdens upholding the World upon His Shell are beyond our comprehension. In recompense for posting blasphemy, Thou shalt perform the Holy Sacrifices and make Blessed Offerings to Our Tax-Exempt Organization, so as to appease the anger of the Great Turtle, lest He sneeze in awakened irritation and bring earthquakes and Ruin upon the heathen lands.

Thus, is it Written here; thus, is it True.

Turtles exist, the World exists, and the World is curved.

Mankind sins, turtles swim, and the World has floods. Open your Eyes!

These facts are undeniable and Our Truth revealed!

No one need intrepret Our Faith for us, for devotees best know its Truths and already know the Turtle's Loving Burden on Behalf of Us All.

The Ancient Faith of the Great Turtle and its devoted followers seek and are constitutionally entitled to Equal Protection under the Law as well as freedom from religious discrimination by the State, and so demand that our Turtle Creation Science be taught equally in our nation's science classrooms. Furthermore, all science textbooks and Christian Bibles should carry an advisory sticker warning that their contents are merely alternative unproven theories laden with flaws and that Creation by the Great Turtle's Fertilization is a viable and provable theory supported by the facts. No more educational prejudices...teach All the viewpoints and teach All the controversy, lest the Great Loving Turtle command the Jihad to Cleanse and Polish His Great Shell. Or worse, He takes another swim!

[Mebert 5]

Now slow down.

First of all, you may have a lot of faith in science, but don't be too secure. Everything we thought was true about science -

[coolotter88 2]

yes, but aristotle doesn't count as real science. He was basically like any other person in ancient times, he made up stuff to explain nature.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Mebert The only problem is, anybody who says something is wrong with it is automatically labeled a nutjob by the scientific community, and once again, blind dogma gets in the way of progress. It's not unique to religion. It happens to everybody, all the time.quote>

That's because nine times out of ten they are nutjobs working from their own bias, their lack of actual knowledge, or probably both.

It's very well to say not to get religious about your science, but at the same time you ignore the point that it is this very change that drives progress. The unchanging set-in-stone nature of the bible and every other piece of dogma is what make them so utterly inadequate in this "debate". Even calling it a debate is ludicrous.

  Evolution is the best current empirically proven explanation of the species. Unproven religious texts are simply not on the same playing field as that. They're not even the same sport. Trying to ram a literal interpretation of the bible into it is never going to accomplish anything except showing one's ignorance of both the science behind evolution and the religion behind the bible.

Frankly, it's stupid for a religious person to argue the existence of god, and an atheist to argue that he doesn't. It's even worse when they argue with each other.quote>

Amen to that. I don't consider it any of my business what someone chooses to believe in, unless it is invasive and harmful, and I expect that courtesy from everyone else.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 yes, but aristotle doesn't count as real science. He was basically like any other person in ancient times, he made up stuff to explain nature.quote>

That's the fun part of Greek natural philosophers, they really just were philosophizing. Experiments were below their dignity. If they thought that the world floated in a giant bathtub, then they had worked that out in their mind and that was pretty much all they felt they needed.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Mebert Now slow down.

...Scientists have never wanted to know that everything they thought was true is wrong (remember the ulcer scandel?) I'm not saying science is sheker, but try not to be too, well, religious about your science.

quote>

Actually they are usually pretty happy or at least excited about it. New ideas come from from changes in thought and science is all about new ideas and new ways of thinking about things, because it brings new answers. And scientists love new answers. I've tried to make the point more than once in this thread that science is about creating new knowledge and changing thinking. Its not a static thing and I really don't know where people get this rather strange idea that science is a static body of fact with scientist all paying homage to those facts and protecting them from and resisting change, with all who do not adhere unquestioningly to those facts excommunicated from the great church of fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps some people don't know any other way of looking at things and automatically assume that if they think of things in religious terms then so must everyone else,  therefore atheists and scientists must regard science religiously.

Originally posted by: Mebert Now slow down.

First of all, you may have a lot of faith in science, but don't be too secure.

...quote>

As I tried to point out above, beware of assuming that anyone has "faith" in science. Faith is a religious concept, and there are other ways of looking at things, that do not involve faith. Just because you may think one way is no reason to assume that everyone else must think the same way.

There are however different degrees of confidence, just as there are different degrees of being wrong. Just because two things may both be wrong, doesn't mean they are equally wrong. Likewise when we can see that our scientific predictions are accurate on a repeated basis, then we can have a high degree of confidence that the model that led us to our predictions has a high degree of accuracy. The more extensive, detailed or risky the prediction it makes which turn out to be correct, the more confidence we can have in our model. For this reason, many scientists have a low degree of confidence in creationism as a model or explanatory device. It does not do very well at making scientific predictions that are detailed enough to be useful and have a high rate of being correct. It has low predictive value. On the other hand, the theory of evolution makes predictions of startling detail and accuracy which time and time again turn out to be unerringly correct most of the time, even if we have to wait for a few decades in some cases before we can test a prediction that has been made previously. For this reason, scientists have a high degree of confidence in the theory of evolution, even if there are some elements of it still to be discovered (and there are).

Originally posted by: Mebert

...

 Atheism can be just as dogmatic and annoying as most religious groups, so frankly, I don't see a difference. ...quote>

I would agree with the statement that some atheists can be just as dogmatic as some religious people can be, but that doesn't mean they all are. As a viewpoint atheists are a lot more varied than any religion, because it is defined as something they are not, rather than something that they are.

Originally posted by: Mebert

... Finally, not all the Bible is fiction. A lot of it -  specifically, a lot of the the Jewish part - is historical text, so please, don't try to discount it entirely just because it happens to be the basis of three religions and the moral compass of much of this planet.

...quote>

"The best place to hide a lie is between two truths" - the X-Files

Just because some things in the Bible may have some truth to them (such as place names, historical characters etc) doesn't mean you can automatically assume everything else in it is true. It is most easy to overlook an error, falsehood or inaccuracy if the elements surrounding it are moderately accurate. Myth and story telling is often constructed that way, a few basic factual pieces with a lot of fictional elements woven around them. For example a Doctor Who episode may be set in ancient Pompeii which did exist and did erupt but that doesn't mean the TARDIS is real.

Originally posted by: Mebert

...

I've got some issues with Evolution, too. I've calculated it the best I can, and no matter how I work the math, I can't picture something like us evolving. I have a hard enough time with just life coming about. It's a good theory, but it definitely needs some work.

...quote>

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong. It just means you don't understand it. Argument from incredulity is neither a useful nor a valued method of testing something in science.

Originally posted by: Mebert Now slow down.

...

The only problem is, anybody who says something is wrong with it is automatically labeled a nutjob by the scientific community, and once again, blind dogma gets in the way of progress.

...quote>

Again we get back to the myth that scientists are blinded by dogma and are anti-progress. The reason creationist ideas are not accepted by science is that they cannot be formulated as testable scientific hypotheses that make useful and accurate scientific predictions.  If there was a reasonable proposal put forward it would need to be published in the scientific literature (usually a peer-reviewed journal is most common) and then it would be evaluated, debated and tested on its merits, and would need to gain a consensus. Only then would it become part of the body of scientific knowledge.

Getting a new idea into science is not a matter of just tearing down an old one to make way. The new idea needs to firstly have an adequate scientific description, a way of testing it (preferably several) and have evidence in its favour. If someone presents an idea and cannot produce any reasonable scientific evidence in its favour, or even explain and define the idea in testable terms, then the idea will not be taken seriously in science. But this is not the same as scientists being blinded by dogma. New ideas get accepted by science all the time. You only need to browse some of the popular science journals to see some examples of that.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I cannot understand the IAU's attitude of planets belonging to some kind of exclusive club. This is anti-Copernican as it places an exclusivity on planets, and is also heliocentric in it's wording. The Universe does not revolve around the Sun.quote>

I can, Pluto is just a bit too different to the rest of the other planets, in size, composition and orbit. And the biggest problem is that several other bodies bigger than Pluto are being discovered further away.

The question is: Pluto is a planet or a Kuiper Belt Object? In composition, size and orbit it's exactly like a KBO, and if we have to class all the KBO bigger than Pluto as planets, we'll never end.

It's just changing a name anyway, nothing more. In science, names are used to class and define things, it's normal changing them

Thus, is it Written here; thus, is it True.

Turtles exist, the World exists, and the World is curved.

Mankind sins, turtles swim, and the World has floods. Open your Eyes!

These facts are undeniable and Our Truth revealed!

No one need intrepret Our Faith for us, for devotees best know its Truths and already know the Turtle's Loving Burden on Behalf of Us All.quote>

lmao

[Patricius Maximus 236]

First of all, you may have a lot of faith in science, but don't be too secure. Everything we thought was true about science -  science gained through empiricism and the like -  has been overturned on more than one occasion. So never accept it as pure fact, because that is one of the major reasons that Galileo had his little issue. After all, anti-heliocentrism isn't Judeo-Christianism; it's Aristotelean philosophy. However, the accepted scientific order only believed one thing (it's actually more coincidental that the church was involved, it's simply because they were the major scientific body at the time). Scientists have never wanted to know that everything they thought was true is wrong (remember the ulcer scandel?) I'm not saying science is sheker, but try not to be too, well, religious about your science.quote>

I do not accept theories as fact until they have been proven beyond a doubt. We know for a fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. It has been proven on countless occasions.

90% of mainstream Science is theory. I have a problem myself with people, even scientists, acting on a theory as if it was a fact. A theory is a hypothesis that is backed up by facts. A theory can be correct, depending on how many facts support it.

And remember what Science actually is:

Science is the persuit of greater knowledge by verifiable experiments.

The question is: Pluto is a planet or a Kuiper Belt Object? In composition, size and orbit it's exactly like a KBO, and if we have to class all the KBO bigger than Pluto as planets, we'll never end.quote>

Pluto is a planet. I don't care what the IAU states. Any Kuiper Belt Object or Asteroid Belt Object that is in hydrostatic equilibrium is a planet under my definition.

Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object. It is spherical as well. Therefore it is a planet. Just like Eris, Sedna, Orcus, Makemake, and others.

Also, having no end to new planets is better than having an exclusive body giving a dogmatic and illogical definition. After all, "clearing the neighbourhood" is a subjective description. Who decides what that means? The IAU does. So, it is not an objective and scientific definiton.

Why should Earth be part of a dogmatic and special club? We should have a definition of planet that can be used objectively and that proves scientifically whether or not an object is a planet without appealing to a subjective body. The IAU, in that instance, would be no different than the Medieval Church and as such would hinder Science -- the persuit of greater knowledge via verifiable experiments.

- Patricius Maximus

[TimeMaster 4]

Religion is myth, a theory people use when they dont what to say.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximusquote>

So, how many planets do we have then?

[Patricius Maximus 236]

So, how many planets do we have then?quote>

Currently about 57 total.

One of the arguments for the IAU definition is "we can't teach our children the names of hundreds of planets". Well, there could be a threshhold for the curriculum, such as only teaching the ones larger than Pluto first. But the definition of planet is supposed to be a scientific one, not an educational one.

How many planets do you think we have?

[fukuda 351]

Pluto is a planet. I don't care what the IAU states. Any Kuiper Belt Object or Asteroid Belt Object that is in hydrostatic equilibrium is a planet under my definition.quote>

Ok, the IAU neither cares about your definition, you can call them planets or flying sausages. No one is going to break your door and arrest you

Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object. It is spherical as well. Therefore it is a planet. Just like Eris, Sedna, Orcus, Makemake, and others.quote>

The Moon is spherical, orbits the Sun (yes it does, if you orbit around a thing that orbits around the sun you're orbiting it too), and is bigger than any of the aforementioned "planets". It's a planet too?

And yes, Pluto is a part of a 2-planet (or planetoid) system, both Charon and Pluto seem to orbit around a common point, instead of Charon orbiting around Pluto.

Also, having no end to new planets is better than having an exclusive body giving a dogmatic and illogical definition. After all, "clearing the neighbourhood" is a subjective description. Who decides what that means? The IAU does. So, it is not an objective and scientific definiton.quote>

Fun.

Often, when new discoveries are made, the classes and names are changed, like in this case. Not changing it is dogmatic.

There seem to be 3 types of big bodies revolving around the Sun, the inner rocky planets, the gaseous giant planets and the dwarf icy/rocky outer bodies. Pluto was believed to be unique, so his rank of planet was conserved. But when new discoveries were made, there was enough evidence that shown that there was a third group, so different to other 2 groups that its bodies more than probably have a different past and were formed in a different way. This new group of bodies was so big (tons of planetoid) and so different that they were classed apart to keep things simpler and more tidy, that's all.

It's the same story as the IUPAC (International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry) changing the element and compound names, it's done objectively and keepig in mind that better and simpler organization was the final goal.

Why should Earth be part of a dogmatic and special club? We should have a definition of planet that can be used objectively and that proves scientifically whether or not an object is a planet without appealing to a subjective body. The IAU, in that instance, would be no different than the Medieval Church and as such would hinder Science -- the persuit of greater knowledge via verifiable experiments.quote>

Comparing the IAU to the Inquisition is ridiculous and ludicrous, no one is going to purge the heretics, and I repeat myself, there's a clear and objective difference between Pluto and Earth, sorry. There's hardly something more objective than giving names with particular reasons and in consensus.

We need better ways to tidy knowledge to not get all the definitions the messy way, who decides when a Gaseous planet becomes a Brown Dwarf? A union of astronomers.

Imagine what would happen if there were no official definitions in science, papers would be impossible to read and experiments impossible to reproduce, So yes, a central authority to take decisions is important.

Currently about 57 total.quote>

that number is too large for a group with such bigger differences between their parts, what's the argument against simplification? Conservativism? Nationalism?

Because keeping them in the same package is not very objective, really. They are as similar as sheep and cows.

Changing a name doesn't change the reciever of the name, nor planets can feel marginated, lol.

[sedimenjerry 1]

I thought politcal and religous debates weren't allowed.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

sedimenjerry: Read the Current Events Rules.

Also, I have started a new thread for the Pluto/IAU debate. Please move any discussion about that issue over there. This thread is Creationism vs. Evolution, not IAU supporters vs. Pluto Rebels.

- Patricius Maximus

[Mebert 5]

Faith is a religious conceptquote>

Um, no, it's not, actually. Faith is a noun, meaning (according to Oxford English Dictionary) "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Scientists have faith in their discoveries. At least, I hope they do. And, for the most part, I have faith in scientists.

Now, I don't care how much you revere scientists, they are, before their lab coats, beakers, and equations, human beings. Human beings are greedy, jealous, and stubborn. Nobody wants to admit they are wrong, and when you base your entire career on being right - like scientists- that is even more true. I've known a few scientists in my time, and while they were great people, they all had one thing in common: entire self-confidence in their work and their discoveries. That's a great trait, but, as history has shown us, it has it's issues.

Consider theories, like, oh, the theory that stress causes ulcers. The man had to literally infect himself before people would listen to him. Scientists are great people, sacrificing their lives for their work. But they are still just that - people. And the three most arrogant kinds of people in the world are preachers, doctors, and scientists.

What I can't abide are people who have such a narrow-minded view of life as to discount all other views. Yes, there is an absolute truth in the world. Yes, there is one correct answer. But I've got news for you - nobody knows it. And we all try to find it out in our own way, but none of us are ever going to get there. And it's improper for one person to try to force their ideas on another, unless they have a really good reason. And so far, I haven't seen either side of the religious debate give a good reason for causing this whole mess.

What needs to happen is we all just have to sit back, and chill out. And we really have to stop hating each other, because that's getting old.

[Hahayoudied 3]

I think it is okay for people to believe in a types of religions and etc, but if they try to force it on other people (I already met some idiots who tried to convince me to be religious, which failed miserably), that is plain wrong.

Here is one thing, NONE of the planets that we have discovered does NOT have enough gravity pull to make the universe evolve around it. So, the theory of the universe evolving around Earth or the Sun, is, false.

Lets just cool down and let this tread die, before ST rips apart, over Religion, Creationism vs. Evolution, and other topics...

[fukuda 351]

Scientists have faith in their discoveries. At least, I hope they do. And, for the most part, I have faith in scientists. quote>

Hum, no, lol, scientists usually don't have faith of what other scientists find, lol, so that's how it evolves, always questioning what we find and how it could affect or even destroy previous theories

Now, I don't care how much you revere scientists, they are, before their lab coats, beakers, and equations, human beings. Human beings are greedy, jealous, and stubborn. Nobody wants to admit they are wrong, and when you base your entire career on being right - like scientists- that is even more true. I've known a few scientists in my time, and while they were great people, they all had one thing in common: entire self-confidence in their work and their discoveries. That's a great trait, but, as history has shown us, it has it's issues. quote>

Oh, lol, of course they are and behave like humans, that would be a problem if there was only one scientist, but they usually spend their time in disagreeing with other ones, to see if they can objectively prove that their point is the right one, but you can neither say that all scientists are like that, and anyway, questioning things is the best way to improve our collective knowledge.

Consider theories, like, oh, the theory that stress causes ulcers. The man had to literally infect himself before people would listen to him. Scientists are great people, sacrificing their lives for their work. But they are still just that - people. And the three most arrogant kinds of people in the world are preachers, doctors, and scientists. quote>

You actually forgot politicians, lol, and the major part of doctors are scientists. But hey, judging all scientists(or preachers, or doctors, or whoever) with a prejudice is not very accurate.

What I can't abide are people who have such a narrow-minded view of life as to discount all other views. Yes, there is an absolute truth in the world. Yes, there is one correct answer. But I've got news for you - nobody knows it.quote>

Absolutely true, but it's fun that some still pretend so.

Lets just cool down and let this tread die, before ST rips apart, over Religion, Creationism vs. Evolution, and other topics...quote>

This is an old thread, and ST never ripped apart, members are usually educated