Creationism.

[LordVipper]

anyone making coments about my spelling will be executed.

[Japher]

anyone making coments about my spelling will be executed.

Spelling was fine, but try using the spacebar and shift key now and again.

Theexistenceofgodisyettobeprove,thereforehowcanthe yprovethatthisnonexistencethingcreatedauniverse?

[Rogan Josh]

Well, 'LordVipper', I am a Christian, and I am sure that I am a hell of a lot more rational than you are. So I think your oxymoron collapses, and as usual you are just a simple moron.....

[LordVipper]

more rational? you can be rational or not so.how can you be MORE rational than someone? and how did my oximoron colapse? because you said so? please prove me wrong.Oh you can just keep calling me a moron i am sure your god wont mind.

[Japher]

Lord Viper: That is the logic of religious folk.

I believe and you don't therefore your an ignorant fool who will be damned to hell for all eternity!!!

[LordVipper]

Spelling was fine, but try using the spacebar and shift key now and again.

Theexistenceofgodisyettobeprove,thereforehowcanthe
yprovethatthisnonexistencethingcreatedauniverse?

i didnt post that!

[LordVipper]

religion is fine as long as it's kept in a personal level which never happens.there are exceptions to that but they are very very few.And its not like all religius persons are stupid or anything like that just the more vocal among them usualy are.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
The problem with both approaches to the origins of existence is that they both attempt to prove or explain something which we do not understand and were not around to witness. Thus, they are both arbitrary standards. What makes the idea of evolution "better" is that it is more useful since this omniscient omnipotent being doesn't answer my calls.

The above problem isn't such a problem for evolution. One does not have to be around to witness something to be able to scientifically show it to be valid. Regardless, we have witnessed evolution in action, so that's not even true. The "origins of existence" isn't part of evolution, anyway. That's abiogenesis.

Evolution is better because, unlike Creationism, it holds up to everything we observe in the biological world. To this date, there has not been any successful alternative explanation to how life got here that has stood up to science. Evolution is abundantly supported by evidence, as much as gravity and heliocentricity are. Do those have problems, too?

[Japher]

Do those have problems, too?

Maybe, maybe not. Science is explination of observations. In that sense they are, and always will be, arbitrary, or should I say subjective to human interpretation...

As more factors are unveiled science is able to mutate to accomidate the new interpretation, this why science is so great... It can amend itself. While the idea of evolution is great, and gives a logical explination for how we interpret it, this may or may not be true... It is, after all, a theory. Yet, it is a functional theory, and one that will continue to work, IMO, for some time.

Yet, what if science learns to de-evolve organsims, and what if we take say an Elephant and begins to de-evolve it, and in the end we end up with a man, or a monkey, or a tree?

We believe in science more than we realize. Why? Because it is logical. Who is to say that absolute truth, or the truth of origins, is held within logic?

IMO, everything is arbitrary, open for debate, a theory (functional or not), relative... Of course I am only interested in what I can use, but that doesn't mean it will always be able to be used if I were to move out of my current system.

I once thought fire was made of magic, and I learned better. I once thought the moon was made of cheese, I learned better. So why is that we think that we now have truth?

Logic?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
Maybe, maybe not. Science is explination of observations. In that sense they are, and always will be, arbitrary, or should I say subjective to human interpretation...

That science is falsifiable is true, but that doesn't mean there is room for a wholesale rejection of something that is universally observed and supported by evidence. If you're willing to say that evolution is prone to this, then you must say all scientific observations are prone to this, to the limit of absurdity. You're engaging in solipsism.

It can amend itself. While the idea of evolution is great, and gives a logical explination for how we interpret it, this may or may not be true... It is, after all, a theory. Yet, it is a functional theory, and one that will continue to work, IMO, for some time.

*Sigh* fundamental flaw of understanfing evolution: It is not merely a theory. It is both a fact and a theory. That evolution occurs is a scientific fact--it has been observed, all the natural evidence supports it, as does microbiology. The theory of evolution involves explaining the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. It doesn't denote any uncertainty as to whether or not it does occur.

Science does not use the word "theory" as synonymous with "guess." What you're describing is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Yet, what if science learns to de-evolve organsims, and what if we take say an Elephant and begins to de-evolve it, and in the end we end up with a man, or a monkey, or a tree?

What does this have to do with whether or not evolution is true? What if purple monkeys come flying out of your left nostril? This is completely irrelevant.

Evolution doesn't remotely postulate that a man will evolve into an elephant, or a tree into an elephant, or anything of the kinds. Organisms do NOT evolve. Populations do.

We believe in science more than we realize. Why? Because it is logical. Who is to say that absolute truth, or the truth of origins, is held within logic?

IMO, everything is arbitrary, open for debate, a theory (functional or not), relative... Of course I am only interested in what I can use, but that doesn't mean it will always be able to be used if I were to move out of my current system.

Yes, solipsism. It is possible that we're brains in a jar and this is all a fanatasy world. But even if that is the absolute truth, we have no use for such a truth--how would that help us in this existence? Our existence here is predicated on accepting that our senses are reasonably accurate, and that logical, rigorous method will (eventually) lead to the correct results. We must exist as if the laws of physics are absolutely true, even if there is a remote possibility it's all a fantasy. It's utterly pointless to postulate such contrivances.

I once thought fire was made of magic, and I learned better. I once thought the moon was made of cheese, I learned better. So why is that we think that we now have truth?

How about...scientific method? The theory that fire is based on magic was put to science, and science proved that it isn't magic, simply chemistry. Science knew the moon not to be cheese long before we ever set foot on it.

This does, however, help highlight that the certainty some people feel towards the supernatural, in contradiction of science (magic fire, moon cheese, Creationsim) is childish and ignorant.

[LordVipper]

i dont think we will ever get to know the "thruth".the universe is just too big.but science as you said evolves anc accomodates new findings.to de-evolve something would be impossible for we would have to know the exact external influences that took place during the animal's evolution.still we can never tell,new theories come out all the time and old theories are validated (i 've been waiting to hear about gravitons a long time now ) so each day we know a little more about how everything works.with enough time,everything is possible for humanity.

[Japher]

Good Post Boris

[Vesayen]

We dont have the truth, but we admit it.

We search for truth, but realize that we very rarley find anything that is "absolute" truth.

[Boris Godunov]

To paraphrase Dawkins, scientists refuse to claim absolute certainty even with abundant proof. Creationists jump to claim absolute certainty without any proof.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There's another thing I wonder : why do the creationists reject the idea of evolution at all ? What is opposite to their faith to think that God created everything, and let it evolve since ? I don't see anything heretic in that belief...

I don't reject evolution. I do believe we are direct descendants of Adam, but I see nothing wrong with the idea of animals evolving.