Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[john9blue]

I think we've reached an impasse here. When you say "Creationists" you are talking about Young Earth Creationists, and when I say Creationists I mean anyone who believes in God, including you. I will concede that Young Earth creationism is almost impossible to hold with current science.

[xelabale]

Can't ever prove God exists
Can't ever prove God doesn't exist
Science just tells us what is, not how it came to be
Believe in anything, it's all the same
unless one is right, then all you other bastards are screwed

at least believe in yourself

[PLAYER57832]

I think we've reached an impasse here. When you say "Creationists" you are talking about Young Earth Creationists, and when I say Creationists I mean anyone who believes in God, including you. I will concede that Young Earth creationism is almost impossible to hold with current science.

Saying Young Earth Creationists is more correct. It is just that when most people talk of Creationism now, they mean the young earth brand. Yes, I absolutely do believe God made everything.

I am afraid this is one issue about which I am losing patience. I have been trying to look for the evidence Young Earthers point to showing proof that the Earth is not millions of years old, for a few years. All I find is stuff that is plain untrue, misstated or, in a few cases, even outright fraudulant (that I find particularly disturbing in an organization purporting to be Christian.)

[PLAYER57832]

No god doesn't have reason for existing. "God did it" is just an adult way of saying "I don't know"
And you know what's worse-it stunts progress. It's not "Gee, I don't know but I'll try to find out what it is" it's "God did it! End of story, that's all you need to know"
Just because we don't fully understand right now something about this universe, that does not somehow prove the existence of a god. Saying there is a god is just shifting it onto god. Science has come really far in the past 2000 years, explaining what used to be explained by "God did it". One day we will understand more about the causes behind the beginning of the universe. Until then let's adopt a little humility and stop pretending we're the bloody centre of the universe.

Saying God did it does not mean we stop asking how he did it. God just gave us the outline, not the details.

[SultanOfSurreal]

The reason Young Earth Creationists actively seek evidence for their specific viewpoint is because they already HAVE theories regarding the origins of life/universe/everything. You could even go so far as to call them scientific theorists, since they have a theory and seek evidence. But you have sure met some intolerant Creationists if you think they are all closed to any other possibilities.

nope that is straight up retarded, the scientific method in no way involves starting with a conclusion and working backwards to find evidence for it. what creationists practice is a disgusting sort of nega-science that anyone with an iota of intelligence finds insulting in its deceitfulness.

please stop talking about "science" until you actually know what the hell you mean when you use that word.

tia

[john9blue]

nope that is straight up retarded, the scientific method in no way involves starting with a conclusion and working backwards to find evidence for it. what creationists practice is a disgusting sort of nega-science that anyone with an iota of intelligence finds insulting in its deceitfulness.

please stop talking about "science" until you actually know what the hell you mean when you use that word.

tia

Hint: a "conclusion" is what you gather from evidence. That means that you can't have a conclusion without evidence. Creationists/theists, no matter how sure they sound, never start with a conclusion because that is impossible. They start with a hypothesis like everyone else. The ones who think their beliefs are guaranteed truth are false, and the ones who think otherwise (the majority) are every bit as intelligent as any other scientist.

My guess is that you are parroting what you have been told by hardcore naturalists and trying to be as insulting as possible while doing so. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. At least take comfort in the fact that you are not alone.

[SultanOfSurreal]

nope that is straight up retarded, the scientific method in no way involves starting with a conclusion and working backwards to find evidence for it. what creationists practice is a disgusting sort of nega-science that anyone with an iota of intelligence finds insulting in its deceitfulness.

please stop talking about "science" until you actually know what the hell you mean when you use that word.

tia

Hint: a "conclusion" is what you gather from evidence. That means that you can't have a conclusion without evidence. Creationists/theists, no matter how sure they sound, never start with a conclusion because that is impossible. They start with a hypothesis like everyone else. The ones who think their beliefs are guaranteed truth are false, and the ones who think otherwise (the majority) are every bit as intelligent as any other scientist.

My guess is that you are parroting what you have been told by hardcore naturalists and trying to be as insulting as possible while doing so. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. At least take comfort in the fact that you are not alone.

your stupidity is cloying and all-encompassing. creationists by definition start with a single conclusion which they have reached through personal belief before applying a facade of scientific rigor: god exists. they then propose that there is evidence for this. they then work backwards to find that evidence, and fail, because they aren't real scientists and there isn't any evidence for their incorrect opinion in the first place.

(The other problem with creationism as science, of course, is that the concept of an extra-natural creator is necessarily not falsifiable, but explaining this to you is sort of like attempting to explain higgs bosons to a toddler when they ask why things don't fall up)

you do not know what a hypothesis is.

you do not know what a conclusion is.

you do not know what science is, nor do you know how it works.

basically you're an ignorant man-child who is publicly embarrassing himself and yet is too dumb to realize it. like player before you, watching you attempt to speak with authority on science is almost literally painful. it is clear you didn't get much past remedial high school chem, huffing glue in the back of class, and now suddenly you've got a PhD in philosophy of science from Internet Lackwit University. just shut up already, you gigantic troglodyte

[jonesthecurl]

Y'know, sultan, I often think your conclusions are correct, but name-calling really does you no good.
Yes, point out why people don't know what they're talking about, if they don't. But don't just shout at 'em/\.

[john9blue]

Either you are a troll or you don't want to listen to me no matter what. Either way, I'm wasting my time here.

[jonesthecurl]

No, stick with it. If you two can talk civilly it will be an interesting conversation. You both have something to say.

[joecoolfrog]

I think we've reached an impasse here. When you say "Creationists" you are talking about Young Earth Creationists, and when I say Creationists I mean anyone who believes in God, including you. I will concede that Young Earth creationism is almost impossible to hold with current science.

Thats the crux of it exactly !
Creationist belief is not the problem, indeed I imagine it would be nigh on impossible to be a Christian without such belief. What is unerving is when an absolutely literal interpretation of Genesis is held to be the only true Christian path, the position held by Young Earthers, such a view allows for no compromise and consequently no Scientific advancement.

[xelabale]

There's an interesting wording of the title - comparing each view. I don't believe it's possible for us to know God exists, therefore you are just debating 2 belief systems. It's no different to debating Buddhism versus Hinduism, or Christianity vs Islam.

[Neoteny]

What the hell are you guys doing to my thread?

[john9blue]

Guiscard?!

Wait a second... dammit.

[Neoteny]

::more cackling::

[Skittles!]

You sadden my Neoteny. To actually be Guiscard, you must have adept knowledge of history.

Anyway - I'm surprised this thread is still going. Good going people.

[Frigidus]

What the hell are you guys doing to my thread?

Aw, I was all excited. You're not Guiscard...

[PLAYER57832]

There's an interesting wording of the title - comparing each view. I don't believe it's possible for us to know God exists, therefore you are just debating 2 belief systems. It's no different to debating Buddhism versus Hinduism, or Christianity vs Islam.

The debate is not really about God, it is about Evolution versus the Literal/young Earth interpretation of Christian Creationism.

However, you are correct that it likely won't be resolved. Sometimes simply understanding is enough of a "resolution".

[PLAYER57832]

nope that is straight up retarded, the scientific method in no way involves starting with a conclusion and working backwards to find evidence for it. what creationists practice is a disgusting sort of nega-science that anyone with an iota of intelligence finds insulting in its deceitfulness.

please stop talking about "science" until you actually know what the hell you mean when you use that word.

tia

Hint: a "conclusion" is what you gather from evidence. That means that you can't have a conclusion without evidence. Creationists/theists, no matter how sure they sound, never start with a conclusion because that is impossible. They start with a hypothesis like everyone else. The ones who think their beliefs are guaranteed truth are false, and the ones who think otherwise (the majority) are every bit as intelligent as any other scientist.

My guess is that you are parroting what you have been told by hardcore naturalists and trying to be as insulting as possible while doing so. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. At least take comfort in the fact that you are not alone.

your stupidity is cloying and all-encompassing. creationists by definition start with a single conclusion which they have reached through personal belief before applying a facade of scientific rigor: god exists. they then propose that there is evidence for this. they then work backwards to find that evidence, and fail, because they aren't real scientists and there isn't any evidence for their incorrect opinion in the first place.

(The other problem with creationism as science, of course, is that the concept of an extra-natural creator is necessarily not falsifiable, but explaining this to you is sort of like attempting to explain higgs bosons to a toddler when they ask why things don't fall up)

you do not know what a hypothesis is.

you do not know what a conclusion is.

you do not know what science is, nor do you know how it works.

basically you're an ignorant man-child who is publicly embarrassing himself and yet is too dumb to realize it. like player before you, watching you attempt to speak with authority on science is almost literally painful. it is clear you didn't get much past remedial high school chem, huffing glue in the back of class, and now suddenly you've got a PhD in philosophy of science from Internet Lackwit University. just shut up already, you gigantic troglodyte

You can generally tell when someone is out of their league .. they stop debating and start dropping insults.

[GabonX]

For someone with such a good vocabulary, Sultan seems to have a real problem conveying ideas other than how stupid the other party is...

[PLAYER57832]

Hint: a "conclusion" is what you gather from evidence. That means that you can't have a conclusion without evidence. Creationists/theists, no matter how sure they sound, never start with a conclusion because that is impossible. They start with a hypothesis like everyone else. The ones who think their beliefs are guaranteed truth are false, and the ones who think otherwise (the majority) are every bit as intelligent as any other scientist.

My guess is that you are parroting what you have been told by hardcore naturalists and trying to be as insulting as possible while doing so. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. At least take comfort in the fact that you are not alone.

Semantically, you are correct. However, as I believe you know we are talking about an unquestioning level of faith here. I firmly believe that the Creation Institute founders are convinced they speak truth and that many (NOT all!!!!) of their supporters and followers believe so as well. However, they tell untruths. How? And how can that be reconciled with Christian commandments?

I actually heard one answer this question in an interview a long time ago. At the time, I did not know who these people were and found the statements curious and disturbing, but not terribly worrisom. The question regarded falsifying information. One man put forward that it was fine to believe, but that one had to draw the line at creating data, falsifying information. The response? That it was not lying because the Bible backed the information. Science would come along later. I cannot reiterate the entire conversation, but what he was saying was that it was OK for him to outright lie, because in the long run, he did not believe he was lying. He believed they would eventually discover the truth and it would match his beliefs.

THAT is what I mean when I say that Creationists do not operate scientifically. I have speant a great deal of time looking into these issues. Again, I have not found ANY evidence that the Earth could possible by 6000 or 12000 years old. Almost all of what is put forward as "possible" or even "true" is simply not.

Yet, these same ideas ... as put forward by the Creation Science Institutes, the Creation Science Museum are what are being disseminated to kids across our country. They are ideas that a generation of younger adults firmly believes. Those people are voting, representing us in government, making decisions.

Why does it matter? Look at oil. If oil is produced from decomposing plant matter from millions of years ago, then it is limited. If it is something else, then why worry? (note.. there are experiments to produce oil and oil-like substances using algae, but those are new processes, not the way the oil in the Earth now got there).

[SultanOfSurreal]

For someone with such a good vocabulary, Sultan seems to have a real problem conveying ideas other than how stupid the other party is...

uh i am sorry you guys are incapable of understanding but i said it pretty clearly the first dozen or so times. creationists start with a conclusion and work backwards to find evidence for their beliefs, which is not how science works. john did nothing to reconcile this fact in the half-baked mess he calls a counterpoint, so i insinuated he was a tard. now i am just straight up calling him a tard, because seriously. guy's a tard.

no i am not "out of my league." the one out of his league is the guy who thinks a rigidly defined piece of dogma is a legitimate hypothesis because the imbeciles at the creation institute call it that. that is the kind of base stupidity that only hard drinking during pregnancy or prolonged beatings about the head and neck can cause.

this is not to mention the open-mouthed credulity required of him to take every charlatan with a hate-on for darwin at face value, as if some guy arguing how the earth is only 6,000 years old MIGHT be the one real scientist, ever, with a legitimate and unified criticism of the whole of modern scientific understanding, not just another crackpot from the bible belt armed with a degree from Jerry Falwell's diploma mill

[john9blue]

uh i am sorry you guys are incapable of understanding but i said it pretty clearly the first dozen or so times.

Uh-oh. Now we ALL can't understand! Guys, I don't think we should even try to argue with this genius.

[SultanOfSurreal]

uh i am sorry you guys are incapable of understanding but i said it pretty clearly the first dozen or so times.

Uh-oh. Now we ALL can't understand! Guys, I don't think we should even try to argue with this genius.

it's not any innate genius on my part that's preventing you from seeing, in fact i don't honestly believe it's stupidity on yours. you decided to play a game with semantics, this "oh but you can't start with a CONCLUSION because CONCLUSIONS come at the end" and absolutely no one was fooled by that bullshit, so you sort of skittered away with your tail between your legs

(of course, you're still an idiot for giving any credence whatsoever to creationists but that is not the current subject, as much)

[HapSmo19]

(of course, you're still an idiot for giving any credence whatsoever to creationists but that is not the current subject, as much)

Why? Because biological engineering is an impossibility?