|
It is intrinsically impossible they both speak to the perceived actions of the supernatural. Science
is the study of the natural world, and assumes a natural answer to any question. Normally religious
matters don’t overly disturb me but when ridiculous quasi science tries to tear down the work of
real scientists it gets my goat. We all have the right to believe what we want but don’t try to
turn religion into science. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It absolutely infuriates me to think that Creationism is taught anywhere in the U.S., and that I am
paying for it through my taxes. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?
The entire concept of God (whatever that is) creating the world in seven days is just ludicrous to
any person with half a brain. If you want to learn about that, there is a place to go: Sunday school
in the church of your choice.
As for intelligent design (and its creeping into legitimate academia), this is downright scary. The
universe was formed amid chaos, period.
The universe and its organisms were formed due to evolutionary and environmental pressures. There is
a reason mammals are symmetrical, some species have two versus four legs, why males are different
from females. Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is patently obvious. It has nothing to do
with a higher power’s machinations. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I am agreeing here but just as an FYI
Creationism is Intelligent Design
The church was getting sick of being bashed on that Idea so they decided to promote the idea of
intelligent design because it sound more Science...and yes I made that word up.....I think
A stronger case one could attempt is Evolution vs Creationism |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's hard to argue with how this debate was worded. Although it almost sounded so much like legalese
that I almost wanted to vote against it in protest. ALMOST. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As I said to Goldilocks in another debate (never imagined I'd type that sentence!) people either
need to believe or not. As long as I am not being forced to adhere to creationism/ID that's OK. I
believe other people can think what they like as long as they do not try to make me think the same
as them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Creationism is bunk and Intelligent Design is too. I'm not sure either claims to have any scientific
explanatory power, though, so I don't think your debate title is well chosen. I haven't paid much
attention to the details of either of these approaches. However, from the few glimpses I've had,
they seem to content themselves with attacking conventional evolutionary theory, rather than
advancing scientific explanations of their own.
In other words, they are asserting that the theory of evolution itself lacks scientific explanatory
power, rather than claiming that their own pet theories have it. They believe that no scientific
theory can explain the diversity of life on earth. Therefore it must have arisen from something
beyond science : A magical being, a creator. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I am no professor. The fact that I can't even spell it should indicate that (or did I get lucky?).
For this reason I put my trust in science and the overwhelming consensus that evolution is accepted
as by far the most solid version of how the world around us came to be. It has a couple of gaps
that need filling and don't doubt that they will be filled in the fullness of time. I have read a
fair bit about it and it seems to make perfect sense to me. It works.
As for creationism, well it strikes me as fairly clear that the people who have come up with it have
done so with ulterior motives. People have a lot invested in religion, both financially and
personally. With that in mind they need to come up with something "science based" ,and I use that
term lightly, to rescue their beliefs. Easier that than change their whole lifestyle or find
another way of earning vast amounts of money and power. It is a rather desperate attempt for the
salvation of God. Nothing that has been said has stood up to scientific analysis. They lost the
argument, in fact it was a veritable thrashing.
There will be a book, a website, or a theory to back up virtually any train of thought to a certain
level but when it doesn't stand up to virtually the whole science world then the idea should be
binned and not taught alongside the tried and tested model. This isn't about choice it is about
education. Maybe it could receive a passing mention and it's flaws explained, along with any other
theories.
But try me, what am I missing. Also I need an answer to something. How do the dinosaurs fit into
the whole creation thing, and all the other various lifeforms that have graced the planet but are
not around today? I am curious.
Hizashi I know you don't buy it, but do you know (as my elected voice of authority on this subject)
what the creationists have come up with to answer this? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What Cephus said. They try and disprove centuries of scientific research and FACT with a book with
no credentials. Way to go. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
They have no credibility whatsoever, they're made up of people who think "lying for the Lord" is a
positive thing. Creationism and it's red-headed bastard step-child ID have long since been soundly
disproved, that doesn't seem to bother the religious lunatics who'd rather have faith than facts. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Creation cannot be tested because creation is supernatural.
But you cannot disporve creation either |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Check out the book "The Evolution Handbook". There are a lot of things in there that I believe
would be an interesting argument for anyone who is interested.
But I'm going to say something different. For sake of this page, you are "right" (not totally, but
for argument's sake).
I take Creation through faith. My faith is in a God; evolutionists faith is in gas. A Heavenly
Father versus a cosmic fart. Where did the gas come from? I admit that, through faith, God has
always been. So how can gas "appear" from nothing? Nothing begets nothing.
And if Evolution is so right and factually proven, why do the words "scientists believe" appear so
many times in scientific journals and textbooks? Believe = faith. We both have faith: Mine in God,
evolutionists in man and a cosmic gastro-intestinal event. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight, your all trying to argue 2 or 3 pages out of the Bible against thousands
or even millions of pages of scientific articles. The Biblical explanation of creation is obviously
( to anyone with a brain) not a complete and definitive article on the subject of creation. As to
your thousands and millions of pages from scientist, Most all of them are quotes from other
scientist, even a scientist can't consider a quote evidence. Snipex..credentials and a dollar will
get you 2 small bags of peanuts, I can sit thru or sleep through college and get credentials with a
D- grade average. I'm not a scientist in
physical things so let me take a stab at Intelligent Design. I'm not going to use your scientist
Gods you guys like to quote, remember quotes are not evidence!! To any scientist.
So I'll use my own brain, when cells divide, one cell becomes
two, identical cells, like an amoeba (which was an efficient design, since they still exist today
like they did millions of years ago.) One celled organisms, a perfect design, asexual (they just
divide to made another) no looking for a mate or best of the species, and they're still here. But
scientist say, they decided (that's intelligence) that living in colonies, looking for a mate, they
may never find was better. If something is going to evolve over thousands of years, a bear into a
whale (Darwin...Origins) and grow a blow hole, it better be thinking of it in advance to move in
that direction. I'm sure if I cut open an iguana on the Galopacus Islands, they are not growing blow
holes! They've been living the way they are for along time with no problems. Back to human
development, 2 cells divide and are identical, something tells that other cell now to change to a
brain or lung or foot cell. Maybe you think it's just chemicals, what do you think thoughts are?
I'll take a bucket, throw in any chemicals you want and lets see what crawls out of it. There is
intelligence, in symbiotic relationship, a seed that can't exist without a certain bird to plant it,
bacteria that live in bones that only a hyena can break open to all them to live. Does that sound
like survival of the fittest? Spiritual things will eventually be a new science, with new
instruments created to record it. We certainly don't know it all yet! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Evolutionism vs. Intelligent Design
Evidence for ID:
1. The origins of the universe
2. The anthropic principle
3. The type of transmission of genetic information
4. Irreducible complexity of intracellular structures
5. Forensic science methodology applied to life
Try not to confuse ID with creationism. They are not the same. The point is the best explanation
for the origin of life and life's complexity and the fact we can debate the topic is best explained
by an intelligence behind it--the God question is another issue.
The weakness of Evolutionary theory as evidence accumulates further strengthens the ID theory. I.e.
The two great pillars that support Darwinism are very weak, the lack of a scientific model for
abiogenesis and the lack of true transitional species which necessarily must be present in the
fossil records and it is not. |
| |
|
| |
| | |
17 Mar 2008 21:57
