Hi, here's a thread for evolution vs. intelligent design discussion

That should tell you something about how knowledge can make you better at figuring possibilities...

I hope you read about ring species too: /112/26/64761/1.html#post677592/112/26/64761/1.html#post677592

Having failed miserably on the philosophy-and-physics-and-cosmology front, creationists in this thread narrowed their focus again, and slipped back into the familiar jungle-patch of evolution. Then, in danger of losing even the debate which they themselves defined, creationists resorted to a rhetoric-in-place-of-reason strategy, and the simple of tactic of completely ignoring what they could not answer.

That about sums this thread up; that about sums the science (and religion) of creationism up.

Another "scientist" dismisses creationism out of hand, in exchange for a theory he is nowhere near able to prove. What makes you think you're so good you can insult anyone who wants to believe in creationism, eh? Not like you can prove your theory any more than I can prove mine.

Scientists seem to be in two camps. Those who are actual scientists and thinkers, who tend to have an open mind, and those who are scared of possibility. They grab anything vaguely factlike as if it were a security blanket, ridicule anything that's not safe and easy to understand, and also have no grasp of the ideas they are holding so closely to.

One thing you need to realise is that no one will ever prove evolution.

Science, unlike religious dogma, doesn't deal in certainties.

That can be said esily about believers (regardless the fact that they are rigth or wrong in being believers: it's about people, not religion. Or science).

Obviously, the two sets, scientists and believers, have a nonempty intersection, none of them is a subset of the other one, and their union isn't the whole mankind...

Cut both those two sets in two parts, according to what you said and i quoted here, and tell me what you can see...

Jsecure, it would really help you if (1) you knew what you were talking about, and (2) you actually read the posts of others who may have a different point of view.

First, I don't necessarily disagree with you, as I made clear in three earlier posts.

Second, it isn't a matter of proving or disproving, as so many on this thread have pointed out already. Neither science nor religion actually works that way. That you would make this statement at this late stage verifies what I've said - you're substituting rhetoric for reason and accuracy.

Third, scientists are not in two camps. There, you are simply wrong. There are no scientists who accept creationism as a science. They cannot, by definition, and remain scientists. They can, of course, accept the possibility of a creator, but that's another argument altogether. Again - you substitute distortion and bigotry for reasoning and accuracy.

And fourth, "proof" is not problem - again, as so many on this thread have stated. Nor is moral or personal superiority. The problem is a lack of understanding of the issues - mostly on the part of people who think like you. And the problem is attitude, mostly when creationists are faced with good arguments they can't effectively counter.

N'est pas?

Ok Ok. You can put a "self defined" before the word "scientists" and "believers" in my last post... (Pssst! Jsecure, i am helping you too )

How about this. I choose to believe in my own interpretation of creationism. I know Evolution can't be proven. I still think there's some gaping flaws in it. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I believe what I believe.

What I HATE is people who come here to treat me and those who also believe in creationism or something based on that, like morons who believe fairy stories, simply for what we believe.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about there.

Additional: And while we're on that point, by not managing to say Evolution is 100% certainly fact, that leaves the door open that something else may one day be found to be the truth of how we came to be. So that means maybe what I believe is right. So I'd like to be not treated like a moron please, cause I know I'm not one.

I am sick of intolerance of my beliefs. I'm gonna leave you all and get in a boat and sail from the UK to a land where people are free to believe what they... Oh damn, that's been done.

== Freedom Of Beliefs ==

Well, I wasn't treating you that way. I paid both you and Kevn the respect of debating with you on equal terms, without resorting to the "fairy tale" charge. I even stated that an intelligent design was within the realm of possibility, although not currently needed to explain phenomenon, physics, or biology.

My expression of frustration stems from the fact that after 20 pages, the debate hasn't progressed beyond the same, tired, logical and factual fallacies that always seem to dog creationism. It's not a debate, merely because the common grounds of contention cannot even be settled.

But you're right - those fallacies not only include a (sometimes deliberate) misunderstanding of science, but also the unnecessary provocation of holding that science disproves or discredits the existence of "artificial" design. (Of course, on such a scale, artifice becomes nature, and vice-versa - but that's worthy of another 20 pages of debate.)

So, by all means, your beliefs are yours to have, and mine to respect. And I will endeavor to be less frustrated in the future.

And it is telling I didn't find any comments from you which were insulting enough to stick at the end of my post

Yay! Thank you, I like feeling like I've contributed to a discussion.



Unfortunately, I have no written account of these discussions. They are based on talks I've had in college with professed atheists. They used evolution as proof of their belief that the divine does not exist. My contention is that you cannot use science to disprove faith...indeed, faith cannot be disproven by its very nature.



Well, Evolution is observed fact, and science is based in observed facts. The American Heritage Dicionary defines faith as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". This is why I say faith cannot be disproven by evolution.

I agree with you that it makes no sense to try and disprove faith with evolution, Ulrika. That's kinda my point.

Very true. And the opposite is true, as well - science, whether evolution or cosmology, cannot be disproven by faith. No methodological intersections, only similar philosophical interests.

Why bother to disprove Faith? Faith is irrelevant.

Looking for a "proof" of the existance of God, or the opposite, is pointless.

We only need to find 2 statements with opposite truth values in a given holy book (the first example i can think of, about the bible, is: God wants us to apply "eye for an eye" law and God wants us to offer the other cheek... but i am sure a lawyer could do a better work...) to obtain both the proofs at the same time, just using Logic (that's not common sense: i was referring to formal logic).

This is basically why we can't take any holy book, read it literally and use it as a system of axioms to decide what's true and what's false.

What a holy book is for is to show a way, give enlightment to the ones who believe in that religion. That's why it can't be used to obtain scientific theories. Trying to do that is wrong even by a theological point of view, IMO.

And this is why i think that theories obtained by holy books shouldn't be taught in scientific classes, as opposite to scientifically obtained theories. It can be done in other classes, obviously. This is basically the real problem, and what made me become a pastafarian.

Pleased to meet ya, I'm an animistic shaman.

It's blanket statements like these on both sides that tend to cause so much trouble. I'm sure faith has had a definite impact on your life in one way or another.

I'll make some blanket statements of my own.

The thing I have so much trouble with is stuff like "because of this word, or this particular passage in a book, evolution can't be real". Or, "because of finding out this or that about a chemical, the whole idea of God is absurd". Personally I still find there's room for a lot of the possibilities because there's still so much we really don't know. The one that I really can't fathom is how people could continue to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

I admit, I've only been here for about 3,500 years. But really folks, Earth has been known about for millions of years before that. Specifically, it's been known as a loony bin to avoid contact with at all costs.

My advice is: send a letter to KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD, like the Fliying Spaghetti Monsterism founder did... You might obtain your animistic creation theory to be taught in science classes...

(This isn't "making fun of believers", "making fun of religion" or even "making fun of creationists". It's making fun of those who decided to teach ID in the wrong class...)

Irrelevant to what?

I'm standing in a subway next to you. I have faith in you and believe that you will behave yourself - even though you've given me no real cause.

Otherwise, I'd have to preemptively kill you to survive. Faith joins ethics and morality as a kind of personal order. One of the three, and possibly two, is necessary to function in a collective. Your choice, which.

The mistake creationists make is in trying to give faith the kind of material credibility that science has.

Oh, and before anyone says: "It's not the same kind of faith," think about it.

Well, Jsecure - it evolution certainly has more hard evidence going for it than Creationism, now doesn't it?

Throughout this entire thread, those who believe in evolution have provided plenty of examples of proof - are there holes? Yes. What I've noticed is a lack of any sort of proof for creationism.

Oh wait - you can't prove it. To be fair, you can't disprove it either - just like Santa.

It's already been done, but you've decided not to read because you got all you need to know from what can fit on a one page leaflet.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being such a shining, public example of self-inflicted ignorance. I couldn't have done a better job of that if I had tried. (And if someone wants to accuse Jsecure of being my alt, I demand proof but also reserve the right to reject it out of hand).

Can't we all agree that each of us will simply let the others stew in their own ignorance as we all continue to go will ye nill ye about our various endeavors?

Jsecure? Evolution hasn't sufficient proof? kk

Kendra? Faith is irrelevant? kk

Daz? You make so much excellent sense in your posts, but you keep misspelling "sence"? kk

Malachi? Kate Hanks is the most wonderful woman in the entire universe? kk

YES! I will testify. Peace and harmony restored!

Maybe evolution is intelligent design.

I doubt it - cuz then it really wouldn't be all that intelligent of a design, would it?

Or, maybe it would. I'm placing my bets on evolution - something that we actually have evidence for.

Exactly. Faith and science, two different "tools" for two different purposes. Expecting faith to perform the same function as science is like expecting to be able to drive nails with a fish as effectively as a hammer. And conversely fried hammer certainly isn't very tasty either.