PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Why do you belive???

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The web-site of the link above on The Big Bang Theory is terrible.  It is actually a Creationist web-site that poses as a science web-site.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:32 AM on January 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you , Orion , for illuminating to us your prejudice based on presupposition. Since you have decided that creationism is not science, than any presentation of scientific evidence that doesn't fit your worldview is flawed.

"The web-site of the link above on The Big Bang Theory is terrible.  It is actually a Creationist web-site that poses as a science web-site."

If it is a "Creationist" web site than all evidence presented is inherantly flawed.
Can you not see the failure in your logic here? The science is exactly the same. Only the conclusion differs.

However I will admit to my prejudices. One look at Ecoli's web site at the bottom of his posts and I was absolutely stunned at the coldly calculated defense of legalized murder on behalf of women who don't want to be inconvenienced by a pregnancy even though they knew the possible outcome of their actions. Those people are truely sick.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:03 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx - this isn't a forum for debating abortion.  

As for the site that I mentioned, it's true purpose is to push creationism.  I didn't realize that until I took a closer look at it later.  

As far as prejudices go - I'm not prejudice against Creationism simply because I understand it is NOT science.  You can believe in Creationism if you want, but don't call it science - it's not.  

Tell me Timbrx - why should someone believe that there is only ONE God involved in the Creation, and a Christian God at that?  What about Creation stories from other cultures?  It seems to me that Creationists are very highly prejudiced when it comes to selecting their Creator.  

You believe in Creationism for no other reason than to support your religious beliefs.  Anything that threatens that belief is automatically ignored and dismissed.

Yes, I know, it appears that I do the same thing.  But there is an important difference.  Facts back up evolution.  There is no proof or facts that back up Creationism.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:11 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,

This isn't a debate about religion, either. It is a debate about two opposing hypotheses. Both have the same evidence. Yours is as real to you as mine is to me. If evolution were a proven fact, than why is it increasingly being debated by people who are a lot smarter than you or I? The evidence sited in that website is the same evidence sited in evolution web sites. Does that mean that the evidence is "fact" on one and "speculation" on the other? No. It is the same evidence. One view "pushes" creation, the other "pushes" evolution. The only differance between the two views is the conclusions drawn by the evidence. To say that creationisnm is "NOT" science IS prejudice.

Pronunciation: \ˈsî-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
Date: 14th century
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws


Tell me how creationism is NOT a "system of knowledge concerning the physical world"?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:30 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This isn't a debate about religion, either. It is a debate about two opposing hypotheses. Both have the same evidence.

Evidence in the creationist mind is very different from what scientists refer to as evidence. Scientists make calculations and predictions and test these predictions. Creationists look at a brid and say "Ooo isn't that pretty".
FYI - this seems to be pretty much an argument against religion as you have brought forward a religius myth as a theory.

"To say that creationisnm is "NOT" science IS prejudice."
Wow! I have seen people use the race card in arguments but not for something like this. Creationisnm is NOT science, it is a mythical story that is as real as father christmas. The only difference is that religius people have not grown out of theirchildhood fantasies.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 5:21 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -

The scientific community does not have a problem with evolution.  It's only the Creationists that have a problem with it because evolution contradicts their religious beliefs.  That's all it is.

There are Creationists who happen to have advanced degrees in science and mathematics - such as Behe, Humphreys, Gentry, Dembski, Wells, etc.  They have tried to present alternate views that they say either disproves evolution or proves a creator.  But so far when these ideas are presented to the scientific community they are shown to be riddled with flaws and are not supported by the facts.  

Then these guys present their case to the lay public and cry "The scientific community is prejudiced against us because they are ruled by a bunch of atheists who do not believe in a God."  Then they go and present their flawed ideas to the lay public and find sympathy there, and also people who think their ideas have merit.  Afterall, they sound plausible, and by God they support God to boot.  And isn't America a God-fearing nation?  You betcha!

But what these people don't take the time to consider why the Creationists views aren't accepted by the scientific community.  So that is where the debate comes from.  It is an emotional appeal by people who believe the truth of the Bible over the truth of reality.  They absolutely cannot believe that humans evolved from a lesser form.  It says right there in the Bible that God created Man in his own image - evolution directly contradicts that belief.  

Creationists try to find evidence that supports their hypothesis - that a creator was responsible for life on earth.  That process is actually backwards from the way science works.  Science makes observations about the natural world, then consider ideas of what best explains natural phenonmenon.  

God is not a natural phenonmenon.  That doesn't mean millions of scientists don't believe in God, they just don't bring him to work.  They leave it as a matter of faith.

But some scientists (not many, but some - like Behe, Dembski, Humphreys, Gentry) try to incorporate the two, and so far their ideas relating to Creationism or trying to find flaws in evolution just have not passed peer reviews - their mistakes have been pointed out and their ideas have been falsified.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:24 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And that is the whole controversy.. It is not an actual valid science against science issue.

The point is, creationism hasn't passed any peer review, intelligent design hasn't passed any peer review.

And thus the only defence becomes "well they are prejudiced against creationism", which is just a silly thing to say, the majority of scientists in the world believe in something.. 40% alone believe in god, and you can bet that in total, more then half believes in something.
I personally believe in something, though its not so much a god, but a spiritual path.

So to say "science is prejudiced" is just a decoy,

A very stupid one for real scientists, but people like to believe in something, and although its their right to do so, keep it out of the science class if its not peer reviewed.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 05:41 AM on February 1, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another point most creationists totally ignore is how usefull the theory of evolution is.  As stated before, it is the unifying concept of modern biology.  An understanding of the TOE is crucial to moddern medicine.  Without the TOE we could not feed the world population.
Industry will utilize it more and more over the coming decades.  Evolution is important NOW and will become even more so in the future.
Now the question creationists have to answer is, If evolution is false, how can we use it so successfully?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:04 AM on February 1, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.