An unreasonable debate...

[Sir Doom]

They should make an entire section of the forum for this sort of discussion.

 

[outhouse]

As I said, I am not responding anymore,

That is a failure on your part to be able to refute the facts at hand.

My instructor for my Physical Anthropology class said it had not

We know some teachers have their own opinions.

and he is a scientist and is not a theist by any means

Then maybe you could ask him where he has a problem with this.


IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[outhouse]

They should make an entire section of the forum for this sort of discussion.

There should not even be a section called evolution VS creation.


It gives false hope that there is even a debate on the topic.

 

[Alceste]

A theory is a theory. A scientific theory is a theory. That's all I'm going to say on the subject. I agree it's a fruitless debate and kind of ridiculous. Whether various evolutionary theories are ever totally proven or not, it doesn't affect my belief in God, so I don't really worry too much about it. (The type of science I enjoy is all about the planets, I really enjoyed watching the Lunar Eclipse, I look at NASA photos, and things of that nature).

Actually the scientific equivalent of a layman's "theory" is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis only becomes a theory after extremely thorough verification using the scientific method.

A theory never graduates into being a law - it is the highest level to which any scientific hypothesis can aspire. Laws, in science, are specific formulas that one can use to calculate various aspects of observed phenomena. For example Newton's Law of Gravity is used to predict the rate of acceleration of falling objects, but does not delve into what gravity is or why things fall. For that we are still using Einstein's theory of relativity, but it is imperfect, so scientists are still searching for a satisfactory theory of gravity.

I hope you don't feel like I'm niggling over semantics - I just found this theory vs. law explanation yesterday while fact checking my own post, so I'm still excited about it and wanted an excuse to share!

Plus, given that it's new to me, I might be off on the details or interpretation, so take it with a big grain of salt.

 

[Skwim]

There should not even be a section called evolution VS creation.


It gives false hope that there is even a debate on the topic.

Not to be pedantic (although I will anyway ), but to quash the impression that "evolution VS creation" indicates evolutionists are challenging creationism, they do nothing of the sort. In main, evolutionists couldn't care less what creationists think. the debate only arises because creationists challenge evolution and try to bring their silliness into public venues and schools---trying to pass it off as an equally valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

 

[Skwim]

actually the scientific equivalent of a layman's "theory" is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis only becomes a theory after extremely thorough verification using the scientific method.

A theory never graduates into being a law - it is the highest level to which any scientific hypothesis can aspire. Laws, in science, are specific formulas that one can use to calculate various aspects of observed phenomena. For example newton's law of gravity is used to predict the rate of acceleration of falling objects, but does not delve into what gravity is or why things fall. For that we are still using einstein's theory of relativity, but it is imperfect, so scientists are still searching for a satisfactory theory of gravity.

 This ↑ and in spades.

Good post.

 

[outhouse]

Not to be pedantic (although I will anyway ), but to quash the impression that "evolution VS creation" indicates evolutionists are challenging creationism, they do nothing of the sort. In main, evolutionists couldn't care less what creationists think. the debate only arises because creationists challenge evolution and try to bring their silliness into public venues and schools---trying to pass it off as an equally valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Oh I agree.

My only point was why give them the impression of equal footing?


If we had a section called "creation mythology" would be an evolution forward :angel2:

 

[Parsimony]

A person can understand both sides if they have been on both sides before (such as myself).

 

[outhouse]

A person can understand both sides if they have been on both sides before (such as myself).

Agreed.

Probably why I'm passionate about the bible. I was a theist much longer then an atheist.

I broke the chain with education.

 

[Alceste]

Oh I agree.

My only point was why give them the impression of equal footing?


If we had a section called "creation mythology" would be an evolution forward :angel2:

Perhaps the evolution vs. creationism thread could be renamed "evolution". No doubt it would still draw in the same kinds of endless, repetitive debates with denialists, but perhaps open the field to more interesting debates relating to biology in general.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps the evolution vs. creationism thread could be renamed "evolution". No doubt it would still draw in the same kinds of endless, repetitive debates with denialists, but perhaps open the field to more interesting debates relating to biology.

Understood :

Only the title would change.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.
Let me elaborate.

Evolution is a theory on how modern man came to be today- today meaning long ago, of course. Evolutionists (yes it's a word) believe in changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can create new species. Creationists (also a damn word for you etymological geniuses) believe that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

An Evolutionist and Creationist step up to the pulpit to debate their ideals.
We now have a predicament. The problem being that one is supporting their theory by examining the world around us and carrying out experiments to support this theory by finding old fossils and carrying out dating techniques such as carbon dating (Side note: Dating techniques aren't exactly accurate anyway) and what-not. This is the Evolutionist.
The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

"Unreasonable" has a directional quality in this debate. When creationists try to defeat a scientific theory using religion or pseudo-science, then this is unreasonable. When evolutionists use science to support a theory using science, this is perfectly reasonable. (We don't use the religious argument to support theories.) I don't find that there is anything to debate. If I weigh in, it's just to present an engineering/science perspective, which will either be rejected (usually) or accepted (rarely).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.
Let me elaborate.

Evolution is a theory on how modern man came to be today- today meaning long ago, of course. Evolutionists (yes it's a word) believe in changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can create new species. Creationists (also a damn word for you etymological geniuses) believe that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

An Evolutionist and Creationist step up to the pulpit to debate their ideals.
We now have a predicament. The problem being that one is supporting their theory by examining the world around us and carrying out experiments to support this theory by finding old fossils and carrying out dating techniques such as carbon dating (Side note: Dating techniques aren't exactly accurate anyway) and what-not. This is the Evolutionist.
The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

On the one had you have people trying to promote a scientific theory with scientific facts.

On the other you have a religious agenda that attempts to pass itself off as a scientific theory.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Perhaps the evolution vs. creationism thread could be renamed "evolution". No doubt it would still draw in the same kinds of endless, repetitive debates with denialists, but perhaps open the field to more interesting debates relating to biology.

I disagree. These forums educate people
Also, I don't know of a bigger alternative to Evolution as Creationism.

perhaps open the field to more interesting debates relating to biology.

You would have created a Ghost Town of a forum..

(in my opinion, of course)


EDIT: Just changed thread title

 

[Sir_Loin]

That's a mistaken understand of the terms. There is the bare fact that evolution has occurred/occurs. Then, there is the explanatory theory for the how and why it occurs. For instance, when I drop my cup it falls to the ground, there is the fact, its falling, the amount of acceleration I measure. Coming up with an explanatory model of gravity is the theory. The latter will *always* be a theory, no matter how well proven. This is why extremely well proven theories remain theories. The term 'theory' does not indicate whether or not it is extremely well supported empirically or not. Germ theory is still a theory, I think we all firmly believe germ theory. Special relativity is a theory, it is used to build nuclear weapons.

When a fact is a fact, we receive it as a fact. When a truth is a truth, we receive it as a truth. With the truth we have no quarrel. But this is also a fact: a theory is a theory and a hypothesis is a hypothesis and a guess is a guess. A so-called scientist in supporting his hypothesis can be as blind and as biased as the most superstitious, fanatical animist; and in many, many instances, in the name of so-called science, scientists have perpetrated on the public some of the most enormous and unbelievable hoaxes you could ever read in the story of humanity..

 

[Looncall]

When a fact is a fact, we receive it as a fact. When a truth is a truth, we receive it as a truth. With the truth we have no quarrel. But this is also a fact: a theory is a theory and a hypothesis is a hypothesis and a guess is a guess. A so-called scientist in supporting his hypothesis can be as blind and as biased as the most superstitious, fanatical animist; and in many, many instances, in the name of so-called science, scientists have perpetrated on the public some of the most enormous and unbelievable hoaxes you could ever read in the story of humanity..

And millions of preachers do so every Sunday.

Scientists are required to support their ideas with evidence, unlike preachers.

 

[Sir_Loin]

And millions of preachers do so every Sunday.

Scientists are required to support their ideas with evidence, unlike preachers.

And that is why, as has been implied in this thread many times, it makes for an incompatible debating stage.

 

[rusra02]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.
Let me elaborate.

Evolution is a theory on how modern man came to be today- today meaning long ago, of course. Evolutionists (yes it's a word) believe in changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can create new species. Creationists (also a damn word for you etymological geniuses) believe that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

An Evolutionist and Creationist step up to the pulpit to debate their ideals.
We now have a predicament. The problem being that one is supporting their theory by examining the world around us and carrying out experiments to support this theory by finding old fossils and carrying out dating techniques such as carbon dating (Side note: Dating techniques aren't exactly accurate anyway) and what-not. This is the Evolutionist.
The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

I appreciate your comments. I don't agree that all that believers in Creation have is the Bible. I believe the scientific evidence for Creation is abundant. I also believe the scientific and academic communities have actively opposed any theory (such as ID) that doesn't fit their preconceived worldview. Such shameful and unscientific conduct has been documented and is available on the Internet and elsewhere, for those interested in knowing the facts.

 

[Looncall]

And that is why, as has been implied in this thread many times, it makes for an incompatible debating stage.

Yet the debate is important as a way to hound creationist lies from the public arena.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Yet the debate is important as a way to hound creationist lies from the public arena.

And sometimes vice-versa..