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
     Creation Theory?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello everyone, I'm fencer27, you can leave off the numbers if you want.

There is obviously a theory of evolution, but is there a theory of creationism, and if so what is it?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:32 PM on April 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer, welcome to the forum.

By 'theory' we assume you are using the word in the scientific since.  If so, then the answer to your question is - NO, there is no theory of Creationism if it is meant to imply a non naturalistic creation, as in the Biblical story of Genesis.

The main reason why Genesis is not a scientific theory is that it relies on a supernatural entity (God).  The supernatural does not lend itself to testing or falsification using the scientific method.  God is outside the ability of science to detect.  

That's why it doesn't make sense to teach a theory of Creationism in a science classroom.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:54 PM on April 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Welcome!

So you're not a creationist?

Too bad... I mean, i'm glad for you, but... There's a shortage of creationists in this forum.

Orion, Young Earth Creationism is indeed falsifiable. And it has been falsified.

Sounds like you're talking about ID.
Something as blurry as ID might be unfalsifiable, but we can still talk about probabilities without leaving the realm of science.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:53 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh... "Fencer"... I get it... Haha! Sorry, my English is kinda... Errr...


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:54 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello, Fencer!

Yes there is a "theory" of creationism. As Orion correctly pointed out, it is not a "scientific theory" in the classic sense because it is not based on naturalistic or materialistic principals.

Naturalism: a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.

Materialism: a belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter.

Whether or not a "theory" based on a supernatural occurrence is relevant is a matter of debate as this forum testifies to.

The theory of creationism is simply that God created the universe and everything in it to behave according the laws of nature that He put in place. This does not, in my opinion, preclude so called "supernatural" occurrences for how can we with our finite understanding of the universe declare what is natural and what is supernatural? Our understanding of nature is incomplete and as such ALL of our basic understandings are subject to redress as new discoveries are made.

The idea that believing in a Creator somehow limits a persons ability to discover and understand how things work is maliciously false. I personally believe that naturalism and materialism limit understanding to the detriment of mankind and that science would be better served if the supernatural were "allowed".
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:49 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 08:49 AM on April 28, 2009 :
The theory of creationism is simply that God created the universe and everything in it to behave according the laws of nature that He put in place.


This theory then would not preclude abiogenesis or evolution.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:01 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Apoapsis at Tue April 28, 2009 - 10:01 AM
Quote from timbrx at 08:49 AM on April 28, 2009 :
The theory of creationism is simply that God created the universe and everything in it to behave according the laws of nature that He put in place.


apoapsis
This theory then would not preclude abiogenesis or evolution.

This is true. In my opinion it enhances both. It widens the realm of possibility.

I personally don't believe God created life through abiogenisis. But I can't KNOW that he didn't any more than an evo can KNOW that life originated by purely naturalistic means.

Both camps have their unbending members much to the detriment of both camps. Both sides know that the issue at stake is the veracity of the Bible and not the integrity of the scientific method. Non believers think that belief in the bible is irrational and therefore should be called into question in the minds of students. Believers think that non believers are irrational and that any attempt to minimize the veracity of the bible should be challenged. Both sides often exhibit an irrational level of intolerance that is damaging to their respective causes.

If anyone says that their cause is truth than they are either self deluded or lying. Absolute truth is unknowable to the finite mind. What we are both fighting for is the liberty to pursue life unimpeded within the context of our personal world view. Sadly both sides think the other is too dangerous to be given free reign. Ironically both sides are right. As long as mankind is in the mix, the danger of abuse will always exist.

Apoapsis, you once asked (or maybe more than once) if evolution were proven to be true would I loose faith in the Bible. I don't know. People loose their faith for a lot less than that. And some retain it through a lot more. Put it this way. These last several months on this discussion site have not diminished my faith. I don't necessarily have a stronger understanding of creation but my faith in Creator God is solid. I've come to the conclusion that we need each other for "checks and balances". Unfortunately the scales are tipped in favor of evolution (ie. secularism) just as in the past they have been tipped too far in favor of religion. Therefore I will continue to fight for the right to believe without the interference an overly intrusive secular government because I fear that if "they" kill God in America than they'll start killing us (freedom loving Americans) next.

If you scoff at this fear, than you are blind to what is happening in DC right in front of our eyes.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:33 PM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:49 AM on April 28, 2009 :
Hello, Fencer!

Yes there is a "theory" of creationism. As Orion correctly pointed out, it is not a "scientific theory"...


From your post I take it you're a Creationist? Yet you say that the theory of creationism is not scientific, even if it is truth. Since it is not scientific should it then be taught in the science classroom in your opinion?

You gave an interesting model for the 'theory of creation'. And I would have to agree with that statement, yet I am not a creationist, or a strict naturalist.

I do not feel that this statement can really be proven false by any means. If everything was created to behave according to the laws of nature, than the universe would look exactly the same if there was a creator versus a naturalistic universe. However is a supernatural being revealed them self to us than it could be proven true, but never false.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 6:46 PM on April 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well said, Apoapsis.

timbrx
Yes there is a "theory" of creationism. As Orion correctly pointed out, it is not a "scientific theory" in the classic sense because it is not based on naturalistic or materialistic principals.
That's not the reason. Not for me at least.

It doesn't explain things, and it makes no predictions.
Ultimately, it's useless and lazy. It makes assumptions without need.

Our assumptions make excellent predictions.

Naturalism: a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.
God is a naturalist.

Materialism: a belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter.
I don't believe the first part, but i do believe in the second part.
What am i?

I always thought i wasn't a materialist, but now you add the second part, and i don't know anymore.

The theory of creationism is simply that God created the universe and everything in it to behave according the laws of nature that He put in place.
My bread is in this universe. God didn't make it. My girl did.

I'm not trying to mock you. Really, you can't say "simply", in my opinion. And my example demonstrates why, i hope.

This does not, in my opinion, preclude so called "supernatural" occurrences for how can we with our finite understanding of the universe declare what is natural and what is supernatural?
I see the question mark, but i don't get the question...

Our understanding of nature is incomplete and as
Certainly. But science has steadily increased our understanding.

You shouldn't even mention our lack of complete understanding, in this context. Because it diminishes God.
It's the God of the gaps.
As the gaps shrink, so does God.

In past centuries God was bigger, since science explained less.

You see how ugly it is?

such ALL of our basic understandings are subject to redress as new discoveries are made.
Each and every single new discovery has turned out not to be magic, or anything supernatural. Ever.

The idea that believing in a Creator somehow limits a persons ability to discover and understand how things work is maliciously false.
Well, it's us, "evolutionists", who are always explaining things to you.
I don't think that's pure IQ. I sincerely believe that you would understand things better if you gave up your belief in a creator.

I personally believe that naturalism and materialism limit understanding to the detriment of mankind and that science would be better served if the supernatural were "allowed".
I agree when it comes to materialism.

Consciousness is expressed through matter. Matter has to be "in tune" with consciousness for it to be expressed. But consciousness is not material in nature.
It belongs to another realm, just as numbers belong to another realm.

But through neurobiology we can understand the way in which our brain processes consciousness.

This is true. In my opinion it enhances both. It widens the realm of possibility.
There are possibilities not worth considering.

Did you check orion's link to a collection of creation myths in different cultures?

Considering each one of them widens our attention to possibilities that are not worth considering.

Seriously, the matrix hypothesis has more worth in it. And i can bring numbers to support this point. Better than gluteus' numbers.

I personally don't believe God created life through abiogenisis. But I can't KNOW that he didn't any more than an evo can KNOW that life originated by purely naturalistic means.
True. But scientifically that hypothesis is not worth considering (so far). The statistic of natural vs supernatural discoveries doesn't say much in favor of your position.
And they have tried.
Even Newton has tried.

Besides the only real reason why you consider a creator is the Bible.
Unless your personal mystical (i don't mean it in the wrong way, i have respect towards many mystical experiences and mystical knowledge) experience told you that God is a creator.

To you, being a creator makes God bigger. To me it makes Him smaller.

One would believe that anyone who believes in God means it in a supernatural way. For what is God if not supernatural, right?
And yet i don't believe that. I don't believe He's more supernatural than numbers or consciousness. He belongs to another realm.

Both camps
Are you leaving the matrix hypothesis aside? Why?
have their unbending members much to the detriment of both camps.
I'm only unbending when there's nothing to bend me.
I'm not close minded. I accept things that make sense to me.

Both sides know that the issue at stake is the veracity of the Bible and not the integrity of the scientific method.
Very true!! That's a very honest thing to say. It's all about the Bible.

ID is, nominally, not about the Bible.
Behe is not a biblical literalist. He's not even a young earther. He even believes in Evolution.
But people who take his words are biblical literalists oftentimes.

Non believers think that belief in the bible is irrational and therefore should be called into question in the minds of students.
Non believers in the Bible you mean?
Well, yes, i'm sorry but i do believe it's irrational. I don't know how to humble my opinion.
There are beliefs upon whose irrationality you and i would agree. Right?

Like leprechauns. I'm not sure that there are no leprechauns, but i won't waste time in them before being presented serious evidence. In the meantime, a belief in leprechauns seems irrational to me.

Believers think that non believers are irrational and that any attempt to minimize the veracity of the bible should be challenged.
Do you believe that Lot's wife was turned into salt?

It's no different from what Greek gods used to do.

To me it has to be symbolic.

I find a lot of symbolic value in the story of Adam and Eve.

And you're telling me that the symbolic value is accidental? That the fact that serpents are ancient symbols of wisdom have nothing to do with it promoting the eating of the fruit of knowledge? That the rib is literal? That the red earth is literal?

It's almost unbearable.

But there are no real biblical literalists. When it comes to the Earth having edges, now they all agree that it was symbolic, or poetic, or whatever. Well, not all, but most.

In the many levels of literalism, each "literalists" looks down on those who are more literalists than they are...

Shouldn't that tell you something?

Both sides often exhibit an irrational level of intolerance that is damaging to their respective causes.
I have no tolerance regarding the promotion of religion in public schools.

I tolerate people believing what they want to themselves. But when it comes to science, present evidence or stay aside. Everybody should agree on this basic point.

If anyone says that their cause is truth than they are either self deluded or lying. Absolute truth is unknowable to the finite mind.
But we can make working models.

Evolution works just fine. It makes accurate (like 1/25.000.000 worth of accuracy) predictions. That's it's scientific worth.

What we are both fighting for is the liberty to pursue life unimpeded within the context of our personal world view.
No. You're pursuing the teaching of your personal unscientific view on defenseless children in science classes. As if there was any science to it.
Sadly both sides think the other is too dangerous to be given free reign.
When it comes to children, yes.

No free reign. Zero tolerance.

We've been taught that faith should always be tolerated.
Well, sometimes someone's faith tells him to kill you. And you can't question it, because it's faith. He doesn't have to justify it.

Ironically both sides are right. As long as mankind is in the mix, the danger of abuse will always exist.
You're right... Everyone should be limited. No unlimited license to anyone.

Scientists have done terrible things in the name of science.

These last several months on this discussion site have not diminished my faith. I don't necessarily have a stronger understanding of creation but my faith in Creator God is solid.
Ok, but what about Young Earth Creationism? Is it solid too, even if we had a 1/25.000.000 (at MOST) chance of predicting where we would find the Tiktaalik (by the way, yes, it was predicted, they looked specifically for it in the devonian layer)?

Are we just consistently lucky?

Every single behavior in nature is evolutionarily stable.
Every single one of them!!!

I can predict behaviors based on Evolution.

Why can i?

I love solidarity.
Understanding evolution allows me to see that we're losing it. And it's NOT due to simplistic devolution. It's because just by thinking in Evolution i know that solidarity only comes from:
1) The other individual can pay me back.
2) The other individual shares a portion of my genes.

That's it.

Other cases of altruism are a misfiring of this mechanism (like homosexuality, which is not functional when it comes to reproduction).
And a lovely misfiring it is!

When i ask someone for directions in the street, and they stop and dedicate some of their time to me, i'm really touched.
And Evolution did that.
And it's undoing it.
And we need to think how to stop it. By understanding Evolution.

There are nice, ugly, and neutral misfirings. Suicidal is ugly. Adoption is nice. Celibacy is quite neutral.

Evolutionary psychology serves another great purpose: understanding women.

God, i love women! I love understanding (as well as doing many things to) them!

And religion doesn't help.

I've come to the conclusion that we need each other for "checks and balances".
I don't know. Perhaps that's true. But a science class doesn't need creationism.

Unfortunately the scales are tipped in favor of evolution (ie. secularism) just as in the past they have been tipped too far in favor of religion.
Not "just". Your use of the word "just" is misleading. It implies that it's a rhythm thing. And we have had advances.

Leaving supernaturalism out of science gave us a lot of progress. Too bad it made materialism stronger. :/

Therefore I will continue to fight for the right to believe without the interference an overly intrusive secular government because I fear that if "they" kill God in America than they'll start killing us (freedom loving Americans) next.
Wait, wait, wait... You can believe what you want. The government only prevents illegal actions

If you scoff at this fear, than you are blind to what is happening in DC right in front of our eyes.
I surely am...

Could you tell me more?
- - -
Fencer:
From your post I take it you're a Creationist?
You got it.
Yet you say that the theory of creationism is not scientific, even if it is truth. Since it is not scientific should it then be taught in the science classroom in your opinion?
Excellent question!

You gave an interesting model for the 'theory of creation'. And I would have to agree with that statement, yet I am not a creationist, or a strict naturalist.
The notion of naturalism, whether true or false, has been proven very useful.

I do not feel that this statement can really be proven false by any means.
The statement "there was a creator"? Indeed. It can't.

But in science we speak of evidence, not proof.

And if you say "There was a creator, he made life just as we see it today, 6k years ago, along with the Earth and the rest of the Universe", well, there's a LOT science can say about it.

If everything was created to behave according to the laws of nature, than the universe would look exactly the same if there was a creator versus a naturalistic universe.
What do you mean by "everything"?

If you mean "The Universe" you should say "The Universe".

No supernatural creator made my bread, unless you consider the "possibility" that the Universe was created yesterday (which i sincerely consider more worthy of attention than Young Earth Creationism).

However is a supernatural being revealed them self to us than it could be proven true, but never false.
Even if it's positive evidence, it's not a proof.

As i tell in another thread, i have "proved" ghosts to my poor unfortunate friends and family.

And some very powerful alien could try the experiment of saying that he's Yahweh.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:59 PM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I personally don't believe God created life through abiogenisis. But I can't KNOW that he didn't any more than an evo can KNOW that life originated by purely naturalistic means.

Here's the thing, if God didn't create life through natural means we can never know it  because we can't test for it.  And because we can't test for it, we can never understand it on a practical level.  It's a dead end for us scientifically, we can never make use of it because we aren't magic like God is (or supernatural or all powerful, you know what I mean).  
On the other hand, if God did create life (and everything, for that matter) through natural means, we can't know it was God either.  I guess that's where faith comes in.  But what I always believed when I was a christian was if God really wanted us to be stewards of his creation, if he really wanted us to fully utilize the intellect He gave us, He would have at least given us the chance to understand everything, to be able to figure out how everything works, how it worked in the past.   Why else would he give us such an all consuming sense of curiosity, just to but our collective heads up against a brick wall, a dead end, to find out the greatest mysteries of His universe are off limits to us?  I never thought so.  and the more we know, the more we understand, the more we can effectively use that knowledge.  No one could really answer me when I pointed out the many, many advances we've made because of our understanding of evolution.  What advances could we discover if we understood how life arose, or how our universe formed?   You don't believe in "forbidden" knowledge, do you?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:55 PM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:33 PM on April 28, 2009 :
Apoapsis, you once asked (or maybe more than once) if evolution were proven to be true would I loose faith in the Bible. I don't know. People loose their faith for a lot less than that. And some retain it through a lot more.


If your faith is in the Bible, I feel sorry for you.  



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:46 PM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


- - -

The notion of naturalism, whether true or false, has been proven very useful.


I agree, but I'm not a naturalist in the sense that I don't agree that the everything happened naturally.


But in science we speak of evidence, not proof.


Indeed I used the two interchangeably, and an error on my part.

And if you say "There was a creator, he made life just as we see it today, 6k years ago, along with the Earth and the rest of the Universe", well, there's a LOT science can say about it.


Fortunately for me, and possibly unfortunately for you, I'm not saying that.

What do you mean by "everything"?

If you mean "The Universe" you should say "The Universe".

No supernatural creator made my bread, unless you consider the "possibility" that the Universe was created yesterday (which i sincerely consider more worthy of attention than Young Earth Creationism).


When I say everything I mean that God created all the energy in the universe along with all the laws by which mass/energy follows. God did not create your bread, but he created all the mass/energy that is in and went into making that bread.

Me: However is a supernatural being revealed them self to us than it could be proven true, but never false.
Even if it's positive evidence, it's not a proof.


Indeed, I should have said 'it would be strong evidence for such things...'


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:07 AM on April 29, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fencer
From your post I take it you're a Creationist? Yet you say that the theory of creationism is not scientific, even if it is truth. Since it is not scientific should it then be taught in the science classroom in your opinion?

The trouble I see with the classroom science is that origin by evolution through abiogenisis is taught as a fact. Any supernatural possibility is dismissed. OBETA is not a fact, it is a guess. It is not science any more than ID is. Children and young adults should be taught the facts... we don't really know how life originated. Some believe X while others believe Y (with a few Z's thrown in for good measure).

You gave an interesting model for the 'theory of creation'. And I would have to agree with that statement, yet I am not a creationist, or a strict naturalist.


I do not feel that this statement can really be proven false by any means. If everything was created to behave according to the laws of nature, than the universe would look exactly the same if there was a creator versus a naturalistic universe. However is a supernatural being revealed them self to us than it could be proven true, but never false.

Exactly. And the same could be said for OBETA since it represents merely a possible history.


apoapsis
If your faith is in the Bible, I feel sorry for you.

Why? I'm content. My life is well regulated and meaningful.

deamon
You don't believe in "forbidden" knowledge, do you?

I guess I do in the sense that much is unknowable in our present (physical) state. I imagine the universe would appear much differently were we not bound by time and matter.

Naturalism: a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.

wisp
God is a naturalist.

God IS natural and ultimately nothing is supernatural. What may seem supernatural to our finite minds is natural to Him.  

... how can we with our finite understanding of the universe declare what is natural and what is supernatural?

I see the question mark, but i don't get the question...

What seems supernatural to me is natural to, say, a spirit.

Each and every single new discovery has turned out not to be magic, or anything supernatural. Ever.

And many were considered supernatural before they were "discovered".

You see how ugly it is?

No, the more we learn the more we realize we don't know.The more we push towards the boundaries of knowledge the faster they retreat.

Are you leaving the matrix hypothesis aside? Why?

A matrix requires a creator. As do aliens and meteor seeding.


I have no tolerance regarding the promotion of religion in public schools.

And I have no tolerance for the minimizing and dismissal of religion by public schools.

What we are both fighting for is the liberty to pursue life unimpeded within the context of our personal world view.

No. You're pursuing the teaching of your personal unscientific view on defenseless children in science classes. As if there was any science to it.

No, I'm pursuing the right to believe without some school teacher dismissing your belief before peers as some archaic myth while promoting a purely secular world view.

Wait, wait, wait... You can believe what you want. The government only prevents illegal actions

The government DEFINES illegal actions. Individuals make up the government. Individual beliefs influence how the government defines illegal actions. What's legal today may be made illegal tomorrow and vice versa.

Wisp, I'll tell you more about what's happening to America off site.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:13 AM on April 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The trouble I see with the classroom science is that origin by evolution through abiogenisis is taught as a fact. Any supernatural possibility is dismissed. OBETA is not a fact, it is a guess.
Well, i 'guess' that going out by the front door is better for my health than going out by the window on a second floor.

I can't know for sure. I can't know anything for sure (except for God, in my humble view).

But i don't need to consider the 1/1.000.000 chance that the other choice is better, or the 1/999 chance that there was a creator.

The only reason why you consider it is your faith.

And we're talking about science.

Yeah, nothing is a factual fact, but we make computers. Well, that's not a fact either, but we enjoy it. Well, that's not a fact either...

Your position only leaves us with nihilism. And the only way out of it would be faith, since knowledge is not possible.

The only way to give faith a high value is to diminish knowledge.

It is not science any more than ID is.
Yes it is. It makes predictions that lead to findings that have already been posted in this forum.

Can you say the same for ID?

Children and young adults should be taught the facts...
If there are facts at all, Evolution and Abiogenesis are facts.

If you deny those, nothing is factual. NOTHING!

we don't really know how life originated.
We don't really know if we're alive.

Some believe X while others believe Y (with a few Z's thrown in for good measure).
Not so.
People who know, those who develop vaccines and predict findings and animal behaviors believe X.
People from certain faiths believe Y, with no reasons for doing so.
And the only reason why Y gets more attention than the many Z's is that Y has grown for reasons not related to Y itself, and Y lobbies.

I do not feel that this statement can really be proven false by any means. If everything was created to behave according to the laws of nature, than the universe would look exactly the same if there was a creator versus a naturalistic universe. However is a supernatural being revealed them self to us than it could be proven true, but never false.
Exactly.
No, not exactly. In science we don't say "proven" or "disproven". We talk about evidence.
And the same could be said for OBETA since it represents merely a possible history.
Not "merely". This story is supported by the evidence. There are good evidential, statistical and logical reasons to believe it.

God IS natural and ultimately nothing is supernatural. What may seem supernatural to our finite minds is natural to Him.
Yeah. Magnetism might have been seen as supernatural by some.

Each and every single new discovery has turned out not to be magic, or anything supernatural. Ever.
And many were considered supernatural before they were "discovered".
Exactly my point.

You see how ugly it is?
No, the more we learn the more we realize we don't know.The more we push towards the boundaries of knowledge the faster they retreat.
Ok, so God, instead of dwindling, gets pushed further back, but growing in the process?

Are you leaving the matrix hypothesis aside? Why?
A matrix requires a creator. As do aliens and meteor seeding.
Aren't we talking about your attacks on OBETA?

Are you ready to accept that life on Earth evolved from basic forms of life planted by aliens created by a supernatural creator?

Because... If you are... We could just teach Evolution and move on...

As for abiogenesis, we could tell teachers to say "Evidence points to this" instead of "this is a fact".

If you want, they could add "But there's a possibility that a supernatural creator made it all, planted contradictory evidence, and his unicorn died".

And no, the matrix doesn't need any creator. It may have evolved, or be as eternal as God.
Why not?

]I have no tolerance regarding the promotion of religion in public schools.
And I have no tolerance for the minimizing and dismissal of religion by public schools.
Of any religion?

What about a religion that says that the will of a woman must conform that of his husband?

What about a religion that says that the penalty for leaving it is death?

What about a religion that says that when they take a picture of you it takes away a piece of your soul, and that they must prevent that from happening to anyone?

No, I'm pursuing the right to believe without some school teacher dismissing your belief before peers as some archaic myth while promoting a purely secular world view.
Too bad. You don't have that right. Anyone can dismiss your belief at any time, anywhere.
If you can't defend it, perhaps you shouldn't.
If your teacher says that your belief that 1+1=3 is wrong, it's still up to you to maintain your faith in that.

Wait, wait, wait... You can believe what you want. The government only prevents illegal actions
The government DEFINES illegal actions.
Very very very very VERY true.
But still it's about actions, and you were talking about your right to believe.

Individuals make up the government. Individual beliefs influence how the government defines illegal actions. What's legal today may be made illegal tomorrow and vice versa.
Exactly. The criminal law is a collection of human fears.
People fear the robber, not the megacorporation that throws toxic waste in a river.

Still, you were talking about your right to believe.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:28 PM on April 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -
personally don't believe God created life through abiogenisis. But I can't KNOW that he didn't any more than an evo can KNOW that life originated by purely naturalistic means.


Actually Timbrx, the evidence strongly indicates that life did indeed originate naturally.  Consider this:

1.  Look at the evidence that we find for life throughout the long history of the earth.  The evidence shows that life began as prokaryote cells (i.e. - the stromotolite fosssils).  From there life progressed to eukaryote cells.  Eukaryotic cells may have developed through a symbiotic relationship between prokaryotic cells.  If I remember right, the mitochondria that is found in eukaryotic cells is an example of this.  

From eukaryotic cells multicellular organisms developed.  And on it goes.  The fossil record shows a very nice progression.  A fact that so-called Flood theory cannot adequately explain.

2.  Besides the fossil record, there is the strong evidence provided by molecular biology indicating a common ancestry of living things going back, back, back in time.

3.  Research in abiogenesis is progressing at a steady pace.  Sure, we don't know exactly HOW it happened yet.  But some of the pieces are fitting together.  

Consider this article that just appeared today.

Did Comets Contain Key Ingredients for Life on Earth?

Inconclusive?  Yes, but this combined with other research offer clues to how abiogenesis did occur.  Compelling clues.

If you choose not to see it, that's your business.  But it doesn't make the evidence go away.

4.  Life on other worlds.  True, we haven't found it yet.  But technology is rapidly advancing to the point that offers us the opportunity to explore this possibility.  It is being discovered that the cosmos actually contain lots of organic compounds.  Meteors and comets in our own solar system contain them.  Areas of stellar formation also do.

The trouble I see with the classroom science is that origin by evolution through abiogenisis is taught as a fact. Any supernatural possibility is dismissed. OBETA is not a fact, it is a guess. It is not science any more than ID is.


Timbrx - evolution is a fact.  Abiogenesis is the only avenue open to science to pursue as far as the origin of life goes.  And, as I pointed out above, there is actually compelling evidence that shows that abiogenesis DID occur natrually.  The clues all point in that direction.

Leave God in church, where it belongs.  God  does not belong in the science classroom.  Does anyone in your church teach evolution during church services?  Bible studies?


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:31 PM on April 29, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

personally don't believe God created life through abiogenisis. But I can't KNOW that he didn't any more than an evo can KNOW that life originated by purely naturalistic means.


orion[/]
Actually Timbrx, the evidence strongly indicates that life did indeed originate naturally.  Consider this:

It may "strongly indicate" and scientists may synthesize life in a lab. But we'll never really KNOW what happened in the distant past, now will we.

Timbrx - evolution is a fact.

You know I've maintained that there is a difference between inter-species "change" (observable) and trans-phyla change (hypothetical) so I've coined the acronym OBETA to distinguish the specific area in which we disagree. That said, are you telling me that OBETA is a fact? (Origin By Evolution Through Abiogenisis)

Abiogenesis is the only avenue open to science to pursue as far as the origin of life goes.

Why? How can it be the "only avenue" when it can never be proven that that's what happened? Even if humans synthesize life in a lab, that only evidences a creator.

And, as I pointed out above, there is actually compelling evidence that shows that abiogenesis DID occur naturally.  The clues all point in that direction.

It is only "compelling evidence" if you're persuing a preconceived notion: naturalistic origin.

Leave God in church, where it belongs.  God  does not belong in the science classroom.  Does anyone in your church teach evolution during church services?  Bible studies?

So a student must check their beliefs at the door? The publicly funded classroom has a right to tell a student, whether directly or through implication, that God is irrelevant? And how do you compare a privately funded voluntary church service to a publicly funded mandatory classroom? How is your intolerance beneficial?

Some believe X while others believe Y (with a few Z's thrown in for good measure).

[b]wisp
Not so.
People who know, those who develop vaccines and predict findings and animal behaviors believe X.
People from certain faiths believe Y, with no reasons for doing so.
And the only reason why Y gets more attention than the many Z's is that Y has grown for reasons not related to Y itself, and Y lobbies.

What??? Pasture believed Y. (Along with innumerable contributors to science)
What makes you say Y's have no reason to believe? I have very compelling reason to believe. As do innumerable others.
Sorry, wisp. That box don't fit.

Of any religion?

It's not for me to judge another religion. But I'll fight if it infringes on my liberty.

No, I'm pursuing the right to believe without some school teacher dismissing your belief before peers as some archaic myth while promoting a purely secular world view.
Too bad. You don't have that right. Anyone can dismiss your belief at any time, anywhere.
If you can't defend it, perhaps you shouldn't.
If your teacher says that your belief that 1+1=3 is wrong, it's still up to you to maintain your faith in that.

This is why we are fighting. I'm helping to fund public schools. The majority of Americans believe in the God of the Bible. But the government claims the right to abolish God in the public forum in favor of godlessness. Why? A teacher can't take away a child's belief, but how can they have a right to minimize it in public? And you think religious indoctrination is harmful? If you mocked my child's beliefs either directly of indirectly in front of her peers I would loose my composure at the very least. Wouldn't you?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:58 PM on April 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx:
It may "strongly indicate" and scientists may synthesize life in a lab. But we'll never really KNOW what happened in the distant past, now will we.
As i've said before, no, we won't.
We won't even know what happened yesterday.
We won't even know what's happening now.

Is there where you want to go? Because it's a dead end.

You know I've maintained that there is a difference between inter-species "change" (observable) and trans-phyla change (hypothetical)
I think you said "trans species", and you admitted to speciation afterwards.
so I've coined the acronym OBETA to distinguish the specific area in which we disagree.
You have no reasons to admit to speciation, other than that you think it doesn't contradict the Bible.
It's a clear bias.

timbrx:
orion:
Abiogenesis is the only avenue open to science to pursue as far as the origin of life goes.
Why? How can it be the "only avenue" when it can never be proven that that's what happened?
Can we please avoid that word when talking about science?
Sounds like mathematics.

Even if humans synthesize life in a lab, that only evidences a creator.
Even if they toss some chemicals and look what happens?
Ok. But that would be evidence for a less than infinite creator. Like, i don't know... Time?

There are lots of things that time can do that we can't.
Why would abiogenesis be any different?
Random chance and thermodynamics have been debunked.

It is only "compelling evidence" if you're persuing a preconceived notion: naturalistic origin.
There are compelling evidence pointing a naturalistic origin.

Like the fact that nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated under reasonable conditions.

What makes it worthy of consideration?

timbrx
orion
Leave God in church, where it belongs.  God  does not belong in the science classroom.  Does anyone in your church teach evolution during church services?  Bible studies?
So a student must check their beliefs at the door?
The ones without basis?

Well, not even those.
I can maintain my beliefs if what i hear does not move them.
So could your kids. Right?

I don't like it that my kid is being taught patriotic songs (if my "patria" was any good i wouldn't be sending my kid to a private kinder). But when he's old enough to understand better, i'll explain some things to him. And if he disagrees, so be it.

But your case is different, i guess.
If i believed that my kid's eternal soul was at stake, i would go to whatever ends necessary to ensure it.

That's why it's quite important for me to teach people against religions.

Actually, if i really believed in the christian tenets, i would kill my son before he could sin. That would ensure his eternal soul in Heaven. The Hell (literally) with mine! I could never know for sure if my actions were good enough. Killing my kid right now would be the best bet.

The publicly funded classroom has a right to tell a student, whether directly or through implication, that God is irrelevant?
I pay directly! No public funding!

You're more pissed because of your faith.

Do you admit it?

Do you fear that they could convince your kid and damn them to Hell?

Some believe X while others believe Y (with a few Z's thrown in for good measure).
Not so.
People who know, those who develop vaccines and predict findings and animal behaviors believe X.
People from certain faiths believe Y, with no reasons for doing so.
And the only reason why Y gets more attention than the many Z's is that Y has grown for reasons not related to Y itself, and Y lobbies.
What??? Pasture believed Y. (Along with innumerable contributors to science)
I said "people who know". Not "people who knew".

What makes you say Y's have no reason to believe? I have very compelling reason to believe. As do innumerable others.
Evidential reasons?

Fear of Hell doesn't count.

I'm not trying to mock your fear of Hell (if you do have any). It's a serious issue.

Of any religion?
It's not for me to judge another religion. But I'll fight if it infringes on my liberty.
I wrote specific examples. I'd like to know your answer on them.

Perhaps you don't care if Islamic people tell their children that if they leave their faith they will kill them. But i thought you people were against abortion out of care for the fetuses.

Well, i care when they talk to children about Hell as a real place.

No, I'm pursuing the right to believe without some school teacher dismissing your belief before peers as some archaic myth while promoting a purely secular world view.
Too bad. You don't have that right. Anyone can dismiss your belief at any time, anywhere.
If you can't defend it, perhaps you shouldn't.
If your teacher says that your belief that 1+1=3 is wrong, it's still up to you to maintain your faith in that.
This is why we are fighting. I'm helping to fund public schools.
I kinda see your point there.

It almost sounds like the only solution would be segregation. To establish religious states where they teach that Jesus invented math.

Would you really like that?

Where's the limit?

Don't you see that the only scientific facts that bug you are exactly those that go against your specific interpretation of the Bible?

If flat earthers outnumbered you, should public schools stop teaching heliocentrism?
(by the way, flat earthers believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe)

The majority of Americans believe in the God of the Bible.
Are you sure?

Do they believe in Adam and Eve?

Because if they don't, in what sense they believe in Yahweh?

-Yeah, i believe in the Biblical Yahweh. I don't believe he did anything the Bible says though...

What does that mean?

-I believe in Jesus Christ. He's my savior. He's pink, but invisible. He's round, has a proboscis, and lurks above my house.

Perhaps it's just like you say, and the majority believes in Adam and Eve. To me that's a scary thought...

To me all christians should be Young Earth Creationists, or give up the name.

They should believe in Adam and Eve, or quit saying that they believe in Yahweh.

Don't you agree?

But the government claims the right to abolish God in the public forum in favor of godlessness.
God_is_not_necessary_in_a_science_class.

He's just not!

In school i've been taught different versions of the same historical event. At least one of my professors must have been wrong, and yet my parents didn't care.

The only reason why you care so much is your faith.

You CAN admit this, right?

I mean, i can understand that. I would act pretty much like you if i had your faith (i'm sure you found some way to believe that killing your kids is not the best thing to do, and i'm glad you did, but still, your religion can be very dangerous in my opinion).

Why? A teacher can't take away a child's belief, but how can they have a right to minimize it in public? And you think religious indoctrination is harmful? If you mocked my child's beliefs either directly of indirectly in front of her peers I would loose my composure at the very least. Wouldn't you?
I understand.

Are you saying that some teachers mock their student's beliefs?

Don't you think there are better ways to fight that than pushing creationist hypothesis in a science classroom?

Would it be ok with you if they just said "Ok, we have evidence pointing to this. There's no basis to believe any other particular hypothesis so far."?

Because that's strictly true.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:44 PM on April 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:13 AM on April 29, 2009 :
The trouble I see with the classroom science is that origin by evolution through abiogenisis is taught as a fact.


No it is not, for the most part they don't talk about abiogenesis in high school or introductory college classes, only in upper level college courses where people understand the evidence much better than any of us would.

Any supernatural possibility is dismissed.


Probably because it is a science class and science doesn't deal with the supernatural.

OBETA is not a fact, it is a guess. It is not science any more than ID is. Children and young adults should be taught the facts... we don't really know how life originated. Some believe X while others believe Y (with a few Z's thrown in for good measure).


First, what is OBETA? And no one says how life originated except for fundamentalists much like yourself. Abiogenesis has several hypotheses, but none have the majority vote, or claim this is how it happened.  


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:27 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No it is not, for the most part they don't talk about abiogenesis in high school or introductory college classes, only in upper level college courses where people understand the evidence much better than any of us would.
I prepared a 14yo kid who had failed biology.

Hypothesis for the origin of life were in the curriculum.
And it didn't include a supernatural creator.

Any supernatural possibility is dismissed.
Probably because it is a science class and science doesn't deal with the supernatural.
The Hell with definitions and limitations!
If there is any good reason (by this i mean evidential) why science should deal with the supernatural, then science must deal with it.

Science dismisses it because there's no evidence for it.

First, what is OBETA?
Ctrl+f "OBETA".
It's his acronym for "origin by Evolution through abiogenesis".

And no one says how life originated except for fundamentalists much like yourself.
Well, not exactly, but...
It's like a sculpture. We're chiseling it.
By saying how it DIDN'T happen, we're indirectly saying how it did.
Wouldn't you agree?

Abiogenesis has several hypotheses, but none have the majority vote, or claim this is how it happened.
Meaning that we say life originated by abiogenesis.

Every negative can be turned into a positive.

We're saying "Life originated abiogenetically, in one of these ways, or some other".

Timbrx's accusation is valid.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:58 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 06:58 AM on April 30, 2009 :
I prepared a 14yo kid who had failed biology.

Hypothesis for the origin of life were in the curriculum.
And it didn't include a supernatural creator.


Weird, did the kid have to know any of the specific theories involved? But the supernatural isn't observed as you said, so why teach kids the "God of the gaps" argument as an okay avenue of study in a science class?

The Hell with definitions and limitations!
If there is any good reason (by this i mean evidential) why science should deal with the supernatural, then science must deal with it.


I myself think science itself is too pure to be tainted with options from the supernatural. Therefore if we ever come to that place where the supernatural must enter, I would propose a new method that combines science with the supernatural, maybe call it superscience.

It's his acronym for "origin by Evolution through abiogenesis".


Thanks!

Well, not exactly, but...
It's like a sculpture. We're chiseling it.
By saying how it DIDN'T happen, we're indirectly saying how it did.
Wouldn't you agree?


Not really, there is no need to implement a creator for life, and there is no evidence for it, but it is not the same as saying it could have never been done by a creator. It could have been done by hyena demons from the future who know how to time travel, but without evidence or a reason, there is no reason to say it could have happened.

Meaning that we say life originated by abiogenesis.

Every negative can be turned into a positive.

We're saying "Life originated abiogenetically, in one of these ways, or some other".

Timbrx's accusation is valid.



In a broad sense the scientific consensus is that life arose through abiogenesis, not as stated in the bible. But know scientist says this is the exact model within the field of abiogenesis that is 100% accurate of how life originated. So in the natural vs. supernatural, the science community and many schools do say that it is natural. So on that point Timbrx's point is valid.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:08 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I prepared a 14yo kid who had failed biology.

Hypothesis for the origin of life were in the curriculum.
And it didn't include a supernatural creator.
Weird,
I thought so too. Specially since i live in a 3rd world country.
did the kid have to know any of the specific theories involved?
Not theories, but hypothesis. And yes, he had to know them. Including panspermia.

He didn't need to know the details though.

But the supernatural isn't observed as you said, so why teach kids the "God of the gaps" argument as an okay avenue of study in a science class?
No reason. I believe it's simply wrong.

I myself think science itself is too pure to be tainted with options from the supernatural. Therefore if we ever come to that place where the supernatural must enter, I would propose a new method that combines science with the supernatural, maybe call it superscience.
It would just tagging it.

I'd like to live in a magical world with clear rules. I'd approach them with the same scientific method.

Well, not exactly, but...
It's like a sculpture. We're chiseling it.
By saying how it DIDN'T happen, we're indirectly saying how it did.
Wouldn't you agree?
Not really, there is no need to implement a creator for life, and there is no evidence for it, but it is not the same as saying it could have never been done by a creator.
Don't we say that it could never have been done in the way the Bible tells?

It could have been done by hyena demons from the future who know how to time travel, but without evidence or a reason, there is no reason to say it could have happened.
True, but we have good reasons to make some estimates of how when.
Every possibility within our estimations say that it did not happen according to the biblical account.


(Edited by wisp 4/30/2009 at 2:04 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:02 PM on April 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Oh, marvelous devolution!!

Do all snakes belong to the same kind? I wonder... I mean, only two snakes in the ark, a bunch of years ago... Makes you wonder.


(Edited by wisp 6/22/2009 at 8:35 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:35 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.