Finally: Apologies for any typos and grammatical errors made in writing the above three posts, but I – among things – wanted to demonstrated how fast I could counter “Evidence for Creationism.”
(Bows)
30 minutes.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
Alright, I read through much of this (not all, but enough) and have came to the conclusion that there is NO evidence of creationism. None, zip, zelch, nada, zero. I've always loved the religion vs science debate. It's pretty much one-sided (science comes out on top since they can back-up their claims w/something called evidence) It's impossible to deny that evolution isn't real. There's too much eveidence to back it up. In fact, the only reason why it isn't called a law b/c it might offend the deeply religious population, which is just crap.
This Georgia ban is completely redickulous (if it hasn't been repelled) Humans came from monkeys, apes really, so deal with it, though some ppls brains haven't fully evolved. I have more to say, but have to go now.
I did want to insult anybody. I welcome all opinions. Some i value more than other. Can we assume that no one here truely believes that the world is 6000 years old?
By the "some ppls brains have fully evolved" comment, I was talking about general society, not about anyone here.
mors> maybe we're not meant to know the truth about Creationism. the more we explore/study the better...but i doubt we will ever discover what we are searching. but ANYTHING in my opinion is possible.
the quote in my sig also has a deep meaning.
__________________
Life is short and the art long, the occasion instant, experiment perilous, decision difficult.
Finti> I’m a scientist, so the above claims were an insult against my education and science in general. Hence the reason I took it upon myself to refute all of them –
Mors> I understand your frustration! But there’s actually another reason why scientific theories are not called “laws”.
An idea which is supposed to explain something observed – such as, where did humans come from – is actually called a hypothesis. This hypothesis should have some consequences that we can test and do experiments with, and different scientists should be able to make the same tests/experiments and get the SAME results.
When a hypothesis has been tested, tested again, and the tested all over again, we call it a scientific theory.
We can never be 100 % sure that it’s a law, but we can be 999,999999…9999% sure that it is, because something may come up, that changes it or part of it or causes the theory to be expanded. Take Newton, and his laws of gravity from 1687. They work perfectly fine here on Earth. But Einstein, in 1916, expanded Newtons theory into the General Theory of Relativity, which contains Newtons gravity law, but also something more.
But when a scientific theory works and explains what it’s supposed to, we can generally use it AS a scientific law. So:
Evolution: A scientific theory.
Creationism: An unscientific hypothesis.
BTW: The Force believes the Earth is 6000 years old.
HockeyHorror> Anything is possible? Hm: I’d say that certain “thing” are far more probable than others. With the evidence we have for evolution I’d cal that the best and most probable explanation for how, say, humans came into existence. I sincerely doubt that more than 150 years of scientific studies in the field by thousands of biologists is wrong, and that all of them were wrong.
“maybe we're not meant to know the truth about Creationism.” I consider it far more likely that there WAS no Creation by a divine being. Why? Because there is NO proof. The ”proof” offered hasn’t even been supplied by real scientists. I can say that safely, since the socalled ”proof” in the paragraphs I refuted in my previous posts were made by Creationist Scientists. These people WANT to find something very specific and therefore discard evidence that counters their belief. REAL scientists look for facts, they may prove a theory or contradict it – but they’re looking for the FACTS.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
Omega, do you know of the experiemnt where a scientist combined organic compunds and used electricty to generate "life". I've heard this, but can't remember who did it.
I wish The Force would visted here more often, that way I could start to hound him for proof. I don't know why anyone would believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. Here's another thing: If there truely is ONE god, why then is it that nearly all ancient societies had many gods, while monotheisism orginated solely in the Mid East?
Gender: Female Location: lazing around and drinking lemonade
Oooh, fun... okay, I have replies/issues/random things for some people... from about page 18 and up ^_^ I'll try to put it all in one post... these will be grouped by poster, and I'll try to put them in something resembling chronological order...
WindDancer:
"New questions will arise, that will be more complicated and will involve many more philosophical inquiries! So you see no matter how many discoveries science makes, there will always be new inquiries. Until the "ultimate nature" is found."
So you're saying that everything will be questioned forever. Until, of course, the "ultimate nature" is found. Then the questioning will stop? What's to keep you from questioning the "ultimate nature?" Who will discover this "ultimate nature," and who's to keep you from questioning him/her? You claim that you have to question everything, but what if someone questions the "ultimate nature" of something? then, by definition (yours, of course) it can't be the "ultimate nature" if it can be questioned. And you can question everything, can't you? What's to stop you?
"Now people aren't "extremely arrogant" or "ignorant" (that is not fair to call people like that!) I rather used the word "uninform". These people are just not properly inform on evolution. People need to be inform that the two theories aren't the same."
I would hope you mean "uninformed." And the definition of ignorant is uninformed! You contradict yourself!
The Omega:
"The dinosaurs had around 200 million years to evolve in. We've had less than 65. So if they hadn't evolved keen intelligence by the time they went extinct, it probably wasn't needed or helpful for their survival."
I'm not arguing here. ^_^ If the meteor or whatever killed them hadn't made them extinct, it's *slightly* possible that, given a billion or so years, the dinosaurs may have evolved to be intelligent-- or at least sentient. But they weren't doing too well for themselves by the time of the extinction, so it's doubtful. Plus, if you're big and can kill things, you don't have to be intelligent to survive. ^_^
"I prefer the utter freedom of atheism, morals based on observations of life and experience, and using the time I have to enjoy life without fear of something, which no one can prove exists."
Hear, hear! *cheers*
The One Part 2:
"Where do we go from here? What's are next stage of our evolution? Will the other creatures ever reach our level of intelligence?"
I hope you mean "our" next stage of evolution.... and no, they probably won't-- at the rate humans are going, we'll probably kill everything off but ourselves... that is, if we don't destroy ourselves with a nuclear holocaust first. ^_^ Okay, maybe I'm being a little overboard there... but the conditions aren't really right for any other animal to evolve intelligence like ours-- humans control too much. As for humans' evolution... I agree with whoever said "we'll probably evolve into the typical grey-alien thing" (okay, so it's badly misquoted, but that's the gist)
The Force:
"but how did we get such a big brain? what made us different? we didn't have claws or sharp teeth or poison barbs for a defense, but if life is based on random chance, then how did OUR brain get so big?"
It was through tiny mutations in proto-humans' DNA... one of them was a little smarter, and could avoid enemies. Therefore, that proto-human lived to make little proto-human babies. They had the parent's gene for slightly higher IQ (or however you measure a proto-human's intelligence), and they lived, too. Therefore, they also lived to make little proto-human babies... this is the theory of natural selection. And yes, it is random chance that one proto-human will have higher intelligence with which to avoid enemies, or gather more food, or make better tools. Over time, these little random chances make the proto-humans better suited to live (while those who don't have the higher intelligence eventually die). We eventually evolved to be smarter.
Cornponious:
"Don't get me wrong, you can't deny changes in nature. And you can't deny that evolution takes place to some extent. However, never in the past and never in the future will one species "evolve" into another species. It just doesn't happen."
Um, yes, it DOES happen. There is scientific proof. The species that evolves into another species originally evolved FROM one species until the one that wasn't as well suited to live in its environment died. Therefore, at one time, both species (which were at the time the same species) co-existed. The ones that were better at avoiding enemies, or hunting, or whatever, lived. The ones that weren't as good died. Again, that's the theory of natural selection, and plenty of scientists can explain it better than a little freshman studying evolution in Biology class.
Corlindel:
"'if we have the idea of a perfect being, the absolute perfection exists, soon the perfect being exists'"
Sure... in the perfect being exists in our minds. This is, in a nutshell, my belief that humans thought up religion on their own to explain things that they didn't understand. They then forgot that they made it all up, and accepted it as ultimate truth. ^_^ Just a note: this is a quote within a quote... so I'm arguing with the person you're quoting, not necessarily you. ^_^
DjmissPinkie:
"Flah? (a cross between blah and WTF!!) i feel it is an appropriate approxamation of this thread"
^_^ Hear hear! *cheers again*
Mors823:
"Omega, do you know of the experiemnt where a scientist combined organic compunds and used electricty to generate "life". I've heard this, but can't remember who did it."
I know you asked Omega, but It's in my Biology book... let me dig it out of my backpack... ah! In the 1920s, the Russian scientist A. I. Oparin ... suggested that Earth's oceans were once a vast primordial soup containing large amounts of organic molecules. Oparin envisioned these molecules forming spontaneously in chemical reactions activated by energy from solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and lightning. Oparin thought that over millions of years, these molecules had gradually come together to form living matter.
Oparin himself only came up with the hypothesis; Stanley Miller was the first to test it in 1953. However: The primordial soup model is being reevaluated for two reasons: (1) life might have originated more quickly than previously assumed, and (2) methane and ammonia might not have been present in Earth's early atmosphere, as was assumed in Miller's experiment.
--Quoth my Biology book, "Biology: Principles and Explorations," by George B. Johnson and Peter H. Raven, published by Harcourt Brace & Company. Just for documentation purposes... ^_^
Okay... that's it ^_^ I know you're probably bored with me *ducks barrage of tomatoes* so I'll shut up now... heheh....
__________________
( current obsession : otakon )
Last edited by jekyll†hyde on Apr 17th, 2004 at 11:16 PM
about those dinosaurs... if they didn't got killed, they wouldn't have survived the ice age of 10 000 years ago, so I doubt it would have given them a lot to evolve
Gender: Male Location: United States, anywhere I see fit,
I have read almost every one of these, cutting out a section of arguing... and I would just like to say that I find everything you are talking about here to have a side, it's not that I'm pointing a finger at anyone, but everyone has beliefs. To say that one doesn't, is a belief... Back to the point! The Omega, you seem to have great knowledge of physics and things of this accord, I was wondering if you would send me some info about what you know. As for WindDancer, do the same with what you know of... well, what you know of. I haven't found any reason to believe anything I've ever heard, and that's why I've begun trying to take both sides because it seems that there isn't a middle ground to this situation. Any info would be appreciated, but DO NOT BE BIASED, or I will just throw away your comments.
__________________ Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even though it can be wrong.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 16th, 2004 05:28 PM
