Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Simon_NZ]

the oldest living tree is 4797 Years old care to explain that biblically?

also explain your gene decay as it applies to flora.

Its so tall that it survived the great flood....

[Zarkov]

I'm a born again athiest.

I thought religion was hogwash as a child.

Now I'm convinced of it.

[Vonn Braun]

I'm a born again athiest.

I though ireligion was hogwash as a child.

Now I'm convinced of it.

How can you agrue about religion when a *supposed* Saint himself tells you he doesn't believe in it.

[BerG]

How can you agrue against anything?

[Arnifix]

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by agrue.

[BerG]

Sorry for all our spam Verrt. But someone has to hold the stage untill our main comedy act JayKay comes back.

[Verrt]

Buddhist monks make intricate artworks by arranging coloured grains of sand
this can take weeks, months, or even years to compleate
when they are done they sweep it all away and the artwork is lost forever
the beauty of these artworks is in the creation not in the keeping

Tibetan Sand Painting or Mandala of colored powders are constructed with millions of sand grains dyed in vegetable dyes.
The Mandala which is not considered art by the monks is destroyed soon after it is created.
This is done as a metaphor of the impermanence of life.

Thats is all

Now please continue to make fun of peoples spelling mistakes

[Arnifix]

Buddhist monks make intricate artworks by arranging coloured grains of sand
this can take weeks, months, or even years to compleate
when they are done they sweep it all away and the artwork is lost forever
the beauty of these artworks is in the creation not in the keeping
Thats is all

Now please continue to make fun of peoples spelling mistakes

Word to your buddhist monks. Eastern religions are just that little bit... better.

[BerG]

this can take weeks, months, or even years to compleate

Haha.

[Verrt]

this can take weeks, months, or even years to compleate

Haha.

Very Zen (this isn't sarcasm)

[Black Heart]

bhuddist monks aren't allowed to masturbate.. i suppose that in itself will manifest new doubtlessly lead to that kind of sand arrangement.

[laurasaur]

Its so tall that it survived the great flood....

The age of the tree (if correct) still fits within the timeline assummed by creationists. Now to tacke arnifxes post. Argh

[laurasaur]

First of all, must to everyone's joy I'm sure, I am leaving for a week long holiday in Melbourne early tommorrow morning, so this is going to have to be it from me. Mind you this discussion doens't seem to be getting anyone anywhere, so maybe its a good thing

Secondly, I may by completely mistaken, but it seems that "Arnifx" didn't actually write those posts. I have to congratulate him if he did (who whoever actually did) because they actually seem to be written by a person who bothers, unlike his previous posts.

Richard Dawkins deliberately mislead, then misrepresented by creationists.

I hope everyone who read this (I did) also read the response (I did). End the end it boils down to a dispute between the 2 sides as to what actually happened; and in his final reply Barry Williams justifies any wrong done on his part by equating his actions with Gillian Brown's. Incidently, I have seen the DVD, and completely agree that it is dissappointingly put together. I would never use it as material for my argument, and have even complained to the distributors myself over its quality. But it doesn't negate the problem it is endeavouring to expose.

And to add just one critique (alas I must limit myself) to one of Dawkin's comments: "A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time - that is precisely what natural selection means), A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time - that is precisely what natural selection means)". What a way to walk around the real issue. Natural Selection is not about increasing the information content of the genome, which the question was about.

This is completely missleading, and indicates that infact Ms Brown may be correct in her statement that Dawkins was answerless at the time of the interview. After all, since when has Dawkins been an infallable demi god, incapable of being stumped? Natural selection, as we witness it, is all about changes in the total information in the gene pool of a population, which incidently usually incorporates loss of total information, and never an increase or addition of new information. Evolutionary biologists do not find it an easy question to answer, other than using the assumption that it has happened in the past, and the additions in genome info have been kept by the process of natural selection. But as previously stated, natural selection by itself does not equal evolution. (Gould also makes the mistake of equating the two terms). Evolutionists (as stated previously) fall back on the excuse that we can't expect to see an increase in genome information because it occurs only very occasionly over thousands of years. It is assumed.

Dawkins has since pointed out certain organisms which seem to aquire additional information from other organisms. (No doubt one of you will find a link to the research for a more indepth information). However this does not equate to new DNA: its merely an aquiring of new information which is already in existance. And regardless, how any more complex organism (eg fish, amphibian, reptile etc) is supposed to "exchange" genome info I don't know.

Stephen Jay Gould
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Gould here inturn generalises against all creation scientists. Gish does not state that Gould admits there are no transistional forms, but that his theory indicates that the fossil record does support the conventional theory of evolution, because of the lack of transistional forms between species (which Gould does admit to). Gish then goes on to show how contemporary evolutionists are extremely divided over whether or not punctuated equilibria is to be accepted, with each side producing fantastic evidence against each other. There is nothing wrong in using material produced by evolutionists to use as evidence against evolution.

Strange that you mention Kenneth Hsu...

No it isn't strange at all. I was making a point of using material from evolutionists to refute the lessor informed members on this forum who were making presumptions that more esteemed evolutionists don't make. I fully expect those same evolutionists to produce work conflicting with those of creation scientists! Its precisely why I used their statements

And finally Mendel. Mendel too believed in God. However your description of him as a creationist is entirely unfoundered, as he accepted both evolution and natural selection as fact. Mendel’s teacher and mentor, Franz Unger at the University of Vienna, had already aroused Mendel’s interest with his own theory of evolution, which was in some ways similar to that of Jean-Bapiste Lamarck.

Whoops, my bad; and my apologies.Perhaps I made the assumption (see, assumptions are not reliable) that he was a creationist because he showed some of Darwins theories regarding genetics to be false.

Regardless, overall you missed my point. The reason why I listed these esteemed scientists (and there are others I didn't remember off the top of my head) was to show that believe in creation does not hinder scientific ability. The accusation at the time was that to be a creationist was unscientific and stifled the furthering of science. My listing of esteemed scientists (and those listed by AIG) merely show that this claim is unfounded. In addition, the contemporary members on the AIG list are only there (or should only be there) if they are creationists. I still haven't made my list yet have I. I can, if you think the above point needs furthering.

Anyone who can use google can easily ascertain that creationists have a habit of listing scientists who are (or “were”) creationists. Ie. Answersingenesis.org (Hereafter referred to as AIG)

Evolutionists have a habit of stating that real scientists all believe in evolution, which is the point I was refuting.

To challenge yet another of your “sources”, John Woodmorappe/Jans Peczkis is known to deliberately misquote with the specific goal of misrepresenting the work of respected authorities. His own work on the other hand, has been widely debunked.

In actual fact, his work is only really "debunked" if one hangs onto ones naturalitic assumptions. Read a refutation of his work, and it becomes obvious that, no matter how qualified the critic is, he is using evidence as refutation which is also based on certain assumptions. Woodmorappe, if nothing else, makes the valid point that the dating methods are no where near reliable enough to stake ones faith in, for any side, because critical, unverifiable assumptions have to be made.

It is embarrassing he is actually as qualified as he is, with a BA in Biology and a MA in Geology, considering the sorry state of his professional life.

Embarrasing, because he refuses to conform to the evolutionary norm?

Dr Kevin R. Henke is the gentleman responsible for the exposure of Peczkis’ dubious references and quotations. In this article, he illustrates some of the techniques used by Peczkis to skew quotations and figures to reflect his New Earth theory creationist approach.

But again, if nothing else, the point remains that dating methods rely on unverifiable assumptions.

You criticize evolution for making assumptions, and yet you have obviously been under the belief that we/I subscribe to the philosophy of ontological “naturalism”. In my case, this is certainly incorrect, as I would place myself firmly in the methodological camp.

But, by my understanding, the philosophical doctrine of the methodological camp holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot involve the supernatural (which creationists agree with for the most part), including any theories relating to the origin of life(the point on which creationists differ; and upon which all theories are based on unfalsefiable assumptions). So I fail to see how it really affects any of my arguments.

[Simon_NZ]

Wheres this attack of yours?

[laurasaur]

Again, you manage to insult the intelligence of the members of this forum.

In my opinion, based on the majority of posts posted so far on this forum (your initial posts included) the majority seem to believe in evolution because of a,b,c, or d or all four. The fact that most people don't even seem to be aware of the various evolutionary thought points to that fact. But I accept perhaps its unfair to make an assumption, so my apologies for any offence in this regard. I know the feeling all to well; my intelligence is insulted whenever people assume I believe in a young earth because I'd prefer to believe in a supernatural.

As translations occur, the story changes, dramatically.

Incorrect. The King James is still a very good translation and I stand by it, and contains exactly what the NIV does; one is merely a literal translation using 400 year old vocabulary, one with modern vocabulary. The problem with the older version is the same problem I have with trying to read a German version: its much harder to understand!  

I have a strange suspicion that if I say five scholars down, two with evolutionary biases and two with creationist biases and one control subject and set them to it, the evolutionary and creationist copies would come out vastly different.

I would agree - if their were significant assumptions involved. If the control subject was something testable and repeatable in the present, both sides would operate using the scientific method, and the results would be very similar. This does not apply to origins theory though, for obvious (and repeatedly stated) reasons.

No, it shouldn’t. ... The appeal previously quoted by Simon states, and I quote, “The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.” This, in and of itself, points directly towards what I see as one of the core problems with creation science, and indeed some Christian attitudes.

Yes it should. Let me extend the sentence:  "...because it does not conform to the humanistic rules of Naturalism, thereby promoting the belief that a supernatural being created humankind". I'm not debating that they threw it out because the theory indicates that there is a supernatural; I am debating that the theory is any less scientific than evolution. Again, a naturalistic theory of origins is not inherently more scientific than a non-naturalistic theory of origins; none falls under the catergory of a scientific theory, as was clearly pointed out earlier on. And I did not misquote those evolutionists, although I'm sure they would hate to think their quotes are used by creationists.

The acceptance of “naturalism” or creation “science” would stymie the advancement of science.

First of all, whatever humans have done in the name of Christianity in the past cannot be automatically applied to the present! I am not one of those religious leaders of the past (and whether or not they were true Christians in the Biblical sense is not for me to judge). You just cannot equate anyone who calls themselves a Christian with anyone else who also calls himself Christian. Neither can you blame Christianity as the single reason behind the opposition to abortions, stem cell research etc. In any community, with or without a religion, there is going to be some form of accepted norm when it comes to a standard of behaviour, and these issues have merely brought up the question: "what is the norm"? Obviously you look forward to the day when Christian ideals have no influence on the norm. at which stage you will be legally allowed to have sex with your consenting dog, or sister, or grandmother if you so desire. Based on humanistic ideals, there is no real reason as to why these should be wrong.

If creation “science” had been allowed into American schools, it would have spread, and with it a new dark age of scientific repression would almost certainly have begun.

An amazing assumption; again you assume that believing in evolution gives you an edge when working with operational science. But the two are not dependant! But again, the amount of creation scientists (albeit a minority) who are improving our quality of life through their scientific genius proves this to be completely wrong. And it can only be your disbelief that there are such people that can lead you to make such a statement.

You have already said multiple times that multiple people believing something doesn’t increase it’s likelihood of being truth so what is the point in showing our fine ancestor a list of  “antievolutionist scientists”?

As stated above, it merely points out that your previous statement (that belief in creationism would bring about a dark age) is nonsense. Sure, if creationists were a majority, it wouldn't go anywhere to prove that it were true.

Operational science? Just say methodological “naturalism”.

Correct, creationists believe that the our world was set in motion by supernatural means, and made to run by itself. So creation scientists, in whatever their field, are on the same level as any other scientist (including Satan worshippers)- except on the theory as to our origins. Its good to see the penny has dropped.

So you see, the origins theory we hold to does nothing to affect our everyday working with science. How does evolution affect operational science? Eg, how does it help with designing a micro chip? How does it help with designing a car? It doesn't! The only way belief in evolution affects us today is in our philosophy towards life.

I seriously doubt anyone could mistake the fact that whenever I mention the term "Creationist" I refer to "young earth creationist". Everything I have argued so far has also been against the various streams of thought that have tried (and failed) to incorporate evolution with Genesis. But my apologies to anyone who may have been confused.

Your statement that “We evolved via the rules of naturalism” being the framework within which evolutionary scientists study is also flawed in the extreme. If I had to sum up the framework of modern science it would be “To make hypothesis, test these hypothesis’ and make assumptions about the nature of existence based on empirical evidence yielded by observing these test.” But that is merely my own interpretation.

Yes, but to repeat myself, we cannot create tests to falsify either creation or evolution. Read my above posts. )If all you can come up with is "yes but creationists are known for misquoting evolutionists" not only will I regard that as an extremely feeble excuse, but it will also show your inability to see why both theories are unfalsefiable). And if a hypothesis is unfalsefiable, it will forever remain a framework around which we endeavour to fit the evidence. Again, this is why neither can be considered scientific.

The advantage of this framework for scientific endeavour is that when using the framework it ignores the possibility of the supernatural, and only takes into account what can be observed and measured.

But we cannot observe or measure the theory of evolution, or the theory of young earch creationism!

This methodological approach ensures that the most logical, and reasonable theory that can be made, given the accuracy of the experiment, is made. Surprisingly, “creation science” (for the most part) can be tested and evaluated under this framework, though whether the results can stand up to outside inspection is another matter altogether.

I love you now arnifix, this is exactly the point I have been trying to stress, in all my posts! Yay yay! We agree on something! Both theories use emperical science to try and evaluate whether or not their theory is possible. And it comes down to which theory is more probable, based on the evidence.

Eg, we use empirical science for isotope measurements in rock samples. We can also measure the current rate of decay. That is where empirical science stops, and assumption based on your framework begins.

And I hope I’ve been constructive enough for you. Or should I say destructive. Well, it doesn’t really matter, because you’ll still be snide and arrogant, won’t you.

Actually, I do appreciate your effort this time around.

I think I have provided more than enough evidence of the credentials of the others who you have mentioned, or misquoted/misrepresented, in the cases of the prominent supporters of evolution.

I have misquoted no one, neither misrepresented: I clearly stated they were evolutionists, and presume that most did not intend for their statements to be used by anti evolutionists. But it does not negate the facts that they stated.

I have a suspicion that I am not the only one who is offended by your outstanding capacity for arrogance.

Yes I admit I can get rather stuck up when people put no effort into their argument and at the same time write off mine without working through the logic.[

In response to your post about the light speed issue (I’m out of order and it’s unprofessional, I know), I would make a few points.

Incidently I'm also out of order, and admitted it previously. I can assure you Humphreys credentials are not made up. The fact that Scandia distance themselves from his creationist veiws is an example of treatment commonly recieved by scientists who denounce evolution. But it in no way affected his work. He does hold awards from Scandia for contibutions made.

His theory is continually critiqued by both evolutionists and creation scientists alike, but holds up as well as any other evolutionary theories on cosmology, which are themselves constantly critiqued and changed. Obviously the theory is written off by evolutionists in general, as it doesn't entail the "accepted " assumptions.

[laurasaur]

Wheres this attack of yours?

Yeah I know I said I would, but i can't let posts go unanswered. I lose either way - if I don't reply to posts or don't post my attacks. As it is I've got 4 hours left to sleep before I head off to the airport :-s
Maybe i'll start a new thread when I get back  :bounce:

[laurasaur]

Ug. I find your posts so hard to comprehend. So full of lies and trickery. It takes me hundreds of man-seconds to refute them.

However, luckily for you, I am a forgiving Arnifix. Say sorry, go away and I promise I’ll never bother you again. Actually, I’ll just settle for the going away part.

I'm sorry that you think its full of lies and trickery. I have no intention to trick. If you read each paragraph carefully, you will see that it actually makes sense, regardless how foreign to your way of thought.

My main points overall are:

1) Neither theory of origins is technically scientific; one is naturalistic, one is not.

2) In addition creationists believe that although instigated by supernatural means, the world has since run by natural processes.

3) Therefore, belief in any particular origins theory holds no sway over the effectiveness of a scientist in his scientific field ( eg electronics, study of genetics, designing cars, computers, rockets, medicines etc).

4) Because we cannot observe either theory, and neither is falsefiable, it comes down to the most likely of the two theories.

5) Assumptions have to be made when examining the evidence, as we cannot observe events that have happened in the past. Different assumptions applied will result in different interpretations of the evidence. Therefore one must be careful that one isn't using "assumed" evidence as evidence against the other theory.

6) There is no way a supernatural can be ruled out, although it can be brought into doubt if one accepts evolution as a given.

Before anyone new looks at these points and states a disgreement, make sure you have read my (including those under JayKays name) posts.

I'm sure there were other "main" points, but look at the time dangnamit.

I'm not making the holiday up either. Its not a cop out. The lengths of my posts should indicate that I'm not really one to ever just "give up". If this post is still going strong in a weeks time, you'll hear from me again  :bounce: Quite possibly that may be an incentive to keep quiet for some. O well, till next time.

[Holy crap I just realised I've done all todays posts under Laurs name.]

[Lolo]

Is this thread worth reading? Just a YES or NO answer from a respectable member of the community will suffice. Thanks.

[Simon_NZ]

YES

[private_hell]

yes - its a great a laugh

[Lolo]

I better not regret this. 14 pages, that a lot of time I could spend sitting in a dark room wondering why I cry everytime I have sex.

[dirtyape]

I don't like the term "Evolutionist" - i prefer "Anti-creationist".

and when making assumptions you should make "reasonable assumptions".

[Arnifix]

I don't like the term "Evolutionist" - i prefer "Anti-creationist".

and when making assumptions you should make "reasonable assumptions".

I actually read a very interesting piece on this while I was reading up for my post. The term is used, primarily by creationists to imply that evolution is only one of many possible theories, which is blatently untrue.

And reasonable assumptions, yes. But to a creationist, the assumption that god created the world, the universe and the butter on their scones is perfectly reasonable. You have to remember, that no matter how much JayKay tries to confuse the issue this is science vs religion, fact vs fiction, the natural vs the supernatural.

There is no "argument" for creationism, there is no possible way to argue its legitimacy without lies and deception.

PS. Lolo, and any others wishing to read this thread, if you believe the scientific evidence that evolution occurs, then don't bother. It's only really worthwhile if you have an inkling of doubt about the truth of evolution and want to be shown exactly what creationism is.

[KiLL3r]

I better not regret this. 14 pages, that a lot of time I could spend sitting in a dark room wondering why I cry everytime I have sex.

pepper spray?

[Lolo]

PS. Lolo, and any others wishing to read this thread, if you believe the scientific evidence that evolution occurs, then don't bother. It's only really worthwhile if you have an inkling of doubt about the truth of evolution and want to be shown exactly what creationism is.

Ah ok, well I know where I stand regarding evolution/creationism, still might have a scim read though, as after Simon said "yes" it would be rude not to...Hehe.

Killer, pepper spray you say, sounds kinky......I put on a wizard hat and robe....