RE: Evolution/Creation debate

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Evolution/Creation debate

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 9:39:20 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you went and found one contrarian. Big fucking deal.

Now for an injection of reality.

If you could count you'd have noticed that I actually found two, both with much better credentials than you, and without even hardly looking.

How's that for an injection of reality?

K.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 10:05:06 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

If you really want to hear a reasonable competent scientists position on God...science... and the Universe... watch THIS!!!

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 10:32:09 AM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

As a person of faith...but my own type of faith...I was disappointed in Bill Nye...He did a terrible job of defending science as an alternative to the creation of the universe and consciousness by God.

All either one could do was say they could not explain the mysteries of the universe. When each was asked for proof they both could only say...It is an unknown mystery that cannot be explained thru science or religion.

I would much rather of watched Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson rather than Bill Nye... he at least would have made sense.

I watched the debate live and, aside from the rambling about bow ties in the beginning, I thought Bill Nye did a fantastic job. He was honest enough to admit when science has yet to come up with an explanation for something
where as Ken Ham kept using the old creationist fall back of citing the bible (when creationist call themselves humble and accuse scientists of being arrogant, they are lying; thinking you know everything is arrogant, admitting that
there are still unanswered questions is humble). Bill Nye won that debate hands down. Of course the creationists will deny this but bear in mind we are talking about people who don't even know what a theory is
and who dismiss every piece of evidence for evolution and against the existence of their god.

I understand why many scientists and other thinkers contend that we should debate creationists but I think they are wrong. Too many people think that both sides really are equal. I think all of the respected "public" scientists of the day (Tyson, Dawkins, etc.) should challenge
the top creationists (Ham, Hovind - presuming he's out of prison, etc.) to a no holds bared. I think they should show no mercy and eviscerate (metaphorically speaking of course, despite the temptation to do so literally) in front of the public.

Anyone who actually believes in all of the creationist nonsense is an idiot. That don't bother me. They are free to be idiots and are free to preach their idiocy. They have no right, however, to try and force the rest of us into believing their idiocy by trying to sneak
it into our science classes. Science deals with reality. Religion is fantasy.

No Religious Bullshit in our science classes!

No "in God we trust" on our money!

No "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (I'm not even sure we have a pledge of allegiance)!

Tax church owned property!

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 10:43:58 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

Of course we all have our opinions but I hope you take the time to watch my link and you will see how stupid Bill Nye was in his debate.

If there was anyone that could influence my beliefs this is the man... I don't agree with him in some areas but unlike the subject of this thread he is worth listening to.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 2/6/2014 11:01:03 AM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Marc2b)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 10:46:06 AM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

Uh, folks, I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, but some scientists believe that we could be a part of a very huge computer simulation, and there for we were created by a software publisher.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:10:15 AM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

I have watched Tyson, Dawkins, et al, many times.

I watched the debate. Sure, I could quibble about a few things but overall Bill Nye was far from stupid. He kicked Ken's ass (and Ken and his fellow creatards are just too stupid to realize it).

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:11:30 AM

Tkman117

Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline

That again is a belief, a hypothesis more than anything. It is akin to the hypothesis of Panspermia, where earth was essentially "fertilized" by extraterrestrials. There is largely no evidence supporting these hypotheses, but it is a possibility so scientists like to keep their minds open. They don't go into their sciences trying to prove these hypotheses, they recognize what NEEDS to be true in terms of observable evidence in order for the hypothesis to be remotely considered correct, but when there is a lack of evidence it will forever remain a hypothesis and not be elevated to any other level. Science is never provable 100%, science provides us with the most likely explanations for how the world works, and as a result are always subject to changes. In the debate the debaters were asked what would change their minds, the creationist said nothing would change his mind, whereas Bill openly said that ANY contrary evidence would change his mind and the minds of scientists world wide. Science doesn't claim to know everything, but it does work to provide explanations for what we see around us, and reasonable predictions for what will happen in the future.

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:11:59 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

Stupid is too strong I guess...I was just looking forward to the type of debate Tyson could bring.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Marc2b)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:16:17 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Even if 2 independent life forms emerged independently that both just happened to use DNA to RNA transcription to protein there is absolutely no reason that the same codon should represent the same amino acid.

Sure there is. The bond angles and bond energies would account for that.

But I don't think I clearly stated my point earlier. Let me try again. Thinking out loud here so feel free to poke holes. Ignore for the moment there was probably only one great continent when life took hold on this planet. Now suppose there was a serendipitous meeting of materials, energy conditions, etc. in a mud hole that is located on what is now Africa and at the same time more or less a similar set of beneficial circumstances took place at a location that is now Chicago. It is possible that self-replicating DNA developed in both pools but with variations. Assuming, like the liquid fueled rocket has gotta be what it is to be a rocket, DNA has gotta be DNA in order to meet the first condition for survival ~ self-replication. Under those circumstances it is possible that two different ancestor cells developed but not so very different if their environments were hospitable. I am proposing a binary scenario for the sake of simplicity but I see no reason that DNA formation and first cell formation could not have occurred in hundreds or thousands of places on Pangaea. Hell, life could have broken out like the measles. It need not have been a one off event. In fact, postulating many events supports the greater chances of success. Put it the other way, the obvious success postulates there were many separate but similar origin events. Therefore, numerous first ancestor cells.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:18:48 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

If people are really interested in a mental debate on the existence of God....THIS is something they should watch.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:19:09 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Stupid is too strong I guess...I was just looking forward to the type of debate Tyson could bring.

Butch

Tyson is bright, straight forward, amusingly sly, and entertaining.

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:21:00 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

More than that vince he makes sense and really tries to explain the mysteries instead of just calling them mysteries.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:21:06 AM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

Panspermia is not the belief that the planet was fertilized by aliens, it is the theory that primitive life was carried here on comets and impacting asteroids.

Only the fruit cakes like Erich von Däniken and those idiots H2 gets to star on their series Ancient Astronauts.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:26:06 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

More than that vince he makes sense and really tries to explain the mysteries instead of just calling them mysteries.

Butch

I love me some Tyson

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 11:56:42 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you went and found one contrarian. Big fucking deal.

Now for an injection of reality.

If you could count you'd have noticed that I actually found two, both with much better credentials than you, and without even hardly looking.

How's that for an injection of reality?

K.

So what?

Do you actually understand the biochemistry enough to actually discuss the matter? Do you know what a codon is?

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 12:03:10 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
I understand why many scientists and other thinkers contend that we should debate creationists but I think they are wrong. Too many people think that both sides really are equal. I think all of the respected "public" scientists of the day (Tyson, Dawkins, etc.) should challenge
the top creationists (Ham, Hovind - presuming he's out of prison, etc.) to a no holds bared. I think they should show no mercy and eviscerate (metaphorically speaking of course, despite the temptation to do so literally) in front of the public.

The problem is the Gish Gallop.
The creationist will throw out lies at a ferocious pace on a wide variety of scientific topics that no single scientist could possibly be prepared to refute.
An example by the "creator"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx6UKslLPso
which is why most people involved in the science education side of this think these "debates" are a waste of time.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 2:00:08 PM

EdBowie

Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline

That's an appeal to authority logical fallacy piled on top of your earlier strawman fallacy.

Some reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you went and found one contrarian. Big fucking deal.

Now for an injection of reality.

If you could count you'd have noticed that I actually found two, both with much better credentials than you, and without even hardly looking.

How's that for an injection of reality?

K.

_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 3:31:15 PM

joether

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

Really surprises me the depth of ignorance this country has become.

Theory of Evolution: (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

Theory of AbioGenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

Which of those two sound like it talks about how life ACTUALLY got started?

The first one talks about what happened....AFTER....life started. The second one seeks to explain how life....STARTED....in the first place.

This 'debate' like others in the past has all been about religious nutcakes pushing their agenda and religious down the throats of other people for decades. They spend countless hours trying to redefine science and its terms so that creationism is not only acceptable form of scientific thought but is the *ONLY* thought. Problem is, the evidence to creationism is very limited and in many cases of questionable credibility and/or reliably. Its not to say its false, but that the chance it could be true is exceedingly hard to justify or prove. You simply remove the one linchpin from creationism and the whole thing falls apart: The Holy Bible. When one tries to show evidence that creationism is correct, simply look for the evidence NOT used but removed from the 'gathering data' process. Most often its material and evidence that disproves the Holy Bible as correct. An that's what creationist 'scientist' do: remove anything that discredits the Holy Bible (since its 100% true) and what remains has to be true.....right?

But I agree with Mr. Nye, that we as an informed people should not censor creationism. It has its place, but its not within science. Mr. Nye did a very good job in that debate.

(in reply to EdBowie)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 4:06:48 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

some scientists believe that we could be a part of a very huge computer simulation, and there for we were created by a software publisher.

That would explain an awful lot, particularly if we're in a Microsoft product.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/6/2014 4:06:53 PM

Paladinagain

Posts: 23
Joined: 11/14/2011
Status: offline

actually the FACTS lean toward creationism.

The "facts" of evolution are totally erroneous.

Those promoting evolution rely on the fact that most people do not have the technical background to realize what bullshit it is.

There are twice as many scientists that would support creationism than evolution, but the established political machinery of today’s "scientific community" attempts to crush all who would oppose the lie.

(in reply to joether)

Profile

Post #: 40