Creationists claim that

[tradeunionsupporter]

Creationists claim that the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism DNA evidence/Fossil evidence and or how Life got here for example up to People's/Human/Human's interpretation of the evidence is this nonsense because it seems like nonsense and to me because Creationists are trying to support Creation Myths from years ago when Science did not know many times and Evolution is accepted as Science not as someone's interpretation of the facts it seems like nonsense on the Creationist's part ?

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...creation-proof (http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...creation-proof)

[Nox]

I've given up arguing with Creationists. Nobody can cure their delusions but themselves.

[OHumanista]

If creationists claim something you can automatically dismiss it as bullshit :laugh:

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think Evolution/Darwinism has been proven as a fact.

[Nox]

I think Evolution/Darwinism has been proven as a fact.

Thousands of times.

Hundreds of thousands of times.

Perhaps over a million times.

[The Jay]

If you're bored arguing with them is fun to do but that's only if you like to get mad.

[Seth]

We may have the same planet and the same strata, etc. but we don't have the same minds.

It's the same with libertarians/fascists. We have the same societies and history to look at, but they basically come at you with the same idealism: It's the smartest, strongest, etc. who make the world go round, and it's just and right that the strong come out on top. And we know they're the strong because they come out on top. John Galt meets the Übermensch.

[OHumanista]

What we do what evidence shows how clear our arguments are.
If we look at fossils study their age and origin we conclude that the religious texts are damn wrong about the origin of the world.
But if you look at the same fossils and without a single moment of study and conclude that the Devil implanted them on the Earth to make people doubt God(whichever god it may be) then you have serious problems.:D

[hatzel]

I think Evolution/Darwinism has been proven as a fact.

This would require a definition of Darwinism; a number of beliefs which may (rightly or wrongly) be termed 'Darwinism' have been shown to be either false or inadequate.

[Seth]

We can disprove Christianity/Judaism/Islam by another route: Explaining how it began.

Once upon a time when human civilization was getting on its feet in the middle east, people wanted an explanation for how the world began. Certain elites found it to their advantage to sponsor a caste of priests to hold their own power. Details + doctrine + politics + thousands of years, and we have modern Abrahamic religions. Repeat as necessary for other regions.

[Seth]

This would require a definition of Darwinism; a number of beliefs which may (rightly or wrongly) be termed 'Darwinism' have been shown to be either false or inadequate.

Social "Darwinism" is not Darwinism. Their relation is aesthetic. Darwin never addressed human society.

IIRC the Soviets actually made the mistake of thinking Darwin/Evolution = racism/nazism and thus suppressed it.

[Seth]

Whoa, why am I talking about social darwinism...just had the idea in my head I guess. :unsure:

[RedZezz]

http://www.fsteiger.com/cartoon.gif

[Zealot]

Evolution is actually considered a fact now and anyone who denies it looks extremely stupid.

[hatzel]

Social "Darwinism" is not Darwinism.

If I'd meant Social Darwinism I would have said Social Darwinism. But I didn't. So I didn't.

Instead I meant Darwinism as an approach to evolution which disregards the impact of behaviour on evolution, as suggested by Lamarck. Darwin didn't rule this out, acknowledging that his theory was incomplete, but 'Darwinism' can, in some instances, refer to this narrow-minded anti-Lamarckism, seeing natural selection as the sole, rather than merely primary, factor in evolution. Our hands, shaped by primitive tools, and our development based on the diet of our ancestors and our parents' stress levels challenge this theory. They don't challenge Darwin, but they challenge what is sometimes meant by the term 'Darwinism.'

[Zostrianos]

Evolution got refuted by creationism. Don't believe me? Here you go :p:

IBHEsEshhLs

[ComradeMan]

We can disprove Christianity/Judaism/Islam by another route: Explaining how it began.

Once upon a time when human civilization was getting on its feet in the middle east, people wanted an explanation for how the world began. Certain elites found it to their advantage to sponsor a caste of priests to hold their own power. Details + doctrine + politics + thousands of years, and we have modern Abrahamic religions. Repeat as necessary for other regions.

That doesn't disprove Christianity/Judaism/Islam. :rolleyes:

Do you have any "scientific" proof for your assertions?

[Revolution starts with U]

That video was hilarious

But yeah, Rabbi... Where is your evidence that Lamarkian evolution is in anyway possible? Is it more likely that anthropithicus early humans which had shorter fingers and a more opposable thumb proved evolutionarily succesful, and so that gene survived in our species. Or is it more likely that anthropithicus early humans used tools which changed the shape of their hands and their kids were born with that hand shape?

Now, there is a new hypothesis called "symbiotic biogenesis" that appears to me to have a lot of merit. And it is not generally considered Darwinism (tho I fail to see how it is not subject to Natural Selection as well). But thinking that the problems of Darwinist evolutionary thinking leaves room for Lamarkian evolution... let's just say I remain skeptical.

[ComradeMan]

Now, there is a new hypothesis called "symbiotic biogenesis" that appears to me to have a lot of merit. And it is not generally considered Darwinism (tho I fail to see how it is not subject to Natural Selection as well). But thinking that the problems of Darwinist evolutionary thinking leaves room for Lamarkian evolution... let's just say I remain skeptical.

What do you think of Gaia Theory?

[hatzel]

@RSWU

Perhaps Lamarckian would be the incorrect term...I do believe that I'm right in saying, however, that stone cutting tools of a certain shape, presumably used for butchery, which were previously thought to have been made to be ergonomic, have been found which actually predate the reshaping of the hand, which suggests that the tool was shaped for efficiency, and that the hand then adapted to fit it. And it's not necessarily Lamarckian in the proper sense, but it's definitely behavioural. The issue is that, by the time we had reached the adequate stage of our own development as a species to create these kinds of tools, it seems unlikely that those who didn't have the right shape of hand to make maximum use of the tool would suffer enough for natural selection to really take hold. Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Perhaps somebody who could make more efficient use of the tool would get to eat more (not sure if this would be true, though, if food was shared amongst the tribe at this point, or if, as might be the expected, the person best suited to actually making kills would get more), or perhaps the guy with the right hand for being an expert butcher was so well respected that he got to have all the wives and a hundred children and all that :lol: Of course we can't be certain about this.

Two things we can be certain about, however...one of them is based on experiments conducted with a number of mice, split into two groups. One group was put into a 'stressful' situation (if I remember rightly it largely involved lights turning on and off and random times, rather than in time with the day-night cycle, and perhaps noises and other disturbances), whilst the other was a control, in normal conditions. As could perhaps be expected, the 'stressed' mice did not perform as well as the others in...some kind of test they did, maybe going to the right box to get a treat or whatever (clearly I know all the details :thumbup:). The interesting thing, however, is that the offspring of these mice, even when they spent their lives living in 'normal' conditions, still performed worse than the offspring of the 'non-stressed' mice at...that test thing.

Another thing involves actual real people in Sweden, I believe Stockholm. It was found that those whose grandparents were from the far north were generally less healthy than those whose ancestors were from the south. It was suggested that this was because, given the largely frozen nature of the north, food was previously far less reliable. People would eat very simply throughout the long winters, and then feast heartily for the few months of summer, when food was more readily available. Of course it's possible that people from northern families may have had a different upbringing, if they were fed grandma's recipes or whatever, but...yeah, given the findings from the whole mice thing in a controlled environment, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the grandparents' lifestyle may have had a lingering impact on their children.

Of course it's not exactly conclusive evidence of any Lamarckian idea, nor am I suggesting that my diet is necessarily shaping the course of human evolution. However...it does ask some serious questions, I think...and the suggestion that lifestyle has (or could have) an impact on the course of evolution. The question, I suppose, is whether these lifestyle choices affect us through Darwinian means (that is to say natural selection, which could have been the case with the tools, for example), or whether some other factor is taking place. But I think we can probably agree that, if every pregnant woman got drunk every night throughout her pregnancy, the future course of evolution of the species would probably be drastically changed. And if that's true, why can't other behaviours have a similar effect? Perhaps not in an entirely Lamarckian fashion, but the possibility of some as yet unidentified process is definitely present...

[ВАЛТЕР]

Okay, first off it isn't worth arguing over religion.

If you are going to debate, ask the other person "Is there anything I can do or say that will change your mind?" they usually answer "no" don't even waste your breath.

Second, you cannot "disprove" that a god exists. That is impossible to do, as it is a logical fallacy. Since you cannot prove a negative.

The burden on proof is on the religious. If they believe in creation, let them. Who gives a shit. Unless they are being dickheads about it don't even waste your breathe.

[Revolution starts with U]

What do you think of Gaia Theory?
I will look it up and get back to you :lol:


@RSWU

Perhaps Lamarckian would be the incorrect term...I do believe that I'm right in saying, however, that stone cutting tools of a certain shape, presumably used for butchery, which were previously thought to have been made to be ergonomic, have been found which actually predate the reshaping of the hand, which suggests that the tool was shaped for efficiency, and that the hand then adapted to fit it. And it's not necessarily Lamarckian in the proper sense, but it's definitely behavioural. The issue is that, by the time we had reached the adequate stage of our own development as a species to create these kinds of tools, it seems unlikely that those who didn't have the right shape of hand to make maximum use of the tool would suffer enough for natural selection to really take hold. Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Perhaps somebody who could make more efficient use of the tool would get to eat more (not sure if this would be true, though, if food was shared amongst the tribe at this point, or if, as might be the expected, the person best suited to actually making kills would get more), or perhaps the guy with the right hand for being an expert butcher was so well respected that he got to have all the wives and a hundred children and all that :lol: Of course we can't be certain about this.

Two things we can be certain about, however...one of them is based on experiments conducted with a number of mice, split into two groups. One group was put into a 'stressful' situation (if I remember rightly it largely involved lights turning on and off and random times, rather than in time with the day-night cycle, and perhaps noises and other disturbances), whilst the other was a control, in normal conditions. As could perhaps be expected, the 'stressed' mice did not perform as well as the others in...some kind of test they did, maybe going to the right box to get a treat or whatever (clearly I know all the details :thumbup:). The interesting thing, however, is that the offspring of these mice, even when they spent their lives living in 'normal' conditions, still performed worse than the offspring of the 'non-stressed' mice at...that test thing.

Another thing involves actual real people in Sweden, I believe Stockholm. It was found that those whose grandparents were from the far north were generally less healthy than those whose ancestors were from the south. It was suggested that this was because, given the largely frozen nature of the north, food was previously far less reliable. People would eat very simply throughout the long winters, and then feast heartily for the few months of summer, when food was more readily available. Of course it's possible that people from northern families may have had a different upbringing, if they were fed grandma's recipes or whatever, but...yeah, given the findings from the whole mice thing in a controlled environment, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the grandparents' lifestyle may have had a lingering impact on their children.

Of course it's not exactly conclusive evidence of any Lamarckian idea, nor am I suggesting that my diet is necessarily shaping the course of human evolution. However...it does ask some serious questions, I think...and the suggestion that lifestyle has (or could have) an impact on the course of evolution. The question, I suppose, is whether these lifestyle choices affect us through Darwinian means (that is to say natural selection, which could have been the case with the tools, for example), or whether some other factor is taking place. But I think we can probably agree that, if every pregnant woman got drunk every night throughout her pregnancy, the future course of evolution of the species would probably be drastically changed. And if that's true, why can't other behaviours have a similar effect? Perhaps not in an entirely Lamarckian fashion, but the possibility of some as yet unidentified process is definitely present...

Fair enough. Do you have any links? I would be very interested in reading more about this :D

[Azraella]

Interesting topic. I believe in evolution and I have done extensive study on evo psychology and I am also religious. What bothers me with creationists is that they'll never ever admit that Genesis or a similar story was meant to be seen as metaphor . I mean take my religion's creation myth: Odin and his brothers slay the father of the frost giants, Ymir, who was the first thing to exist. Whilst Ymir gorged himself on the milk of a giant clay cow, which was the second thing to exist, the cow licked a block of ice until the gods were freed. The children of these two powers warred until Ymir was killed, when the Gods decided to make the world out of his corpse.

The ground is his clay flesh, the trees his hair, the sea his blood (I think), the clouds his shredded brain and the sky the inside of his skull cap.

The skull cap is held up by the four strong dwarves, who are called Norðri, Suðri, Austri and Vestri ("Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western").

I often interpret as this:
No matter how important, how big you think you are, you will die. Someone else will come along and kill you, or maybe eventually you just pass on. Whatever. The best death you can hope for is to have something that sticks around for a long time- some good deed or work that you leave behind. Ymir left behind his body to create the earth. You could leave behind a line of people that you've helped out or you could leave behind a huge fuck-off statue. As long as you leave behind something, you'll be remembered.

The cow was just there because people asked, "Okay, so there was a giant. How did the giant eat if he was the only thing around?"
"I dunno, there was a giant cow, to."
"So how did the gods come?"
"Um.. Maybe they came out of the guys armpit?"
"All of them?"
"Well, some also came out of his groin. And this big block of ice that the cow kept licking."
"Okay, so who's holding up the sky?"
"Some fucking dwarves, I don't know, go away, kid."

The point of this ramble: There are lessons to be learned in creation stories of yester year, don't treat them as literal stories.