Evolution vs Creationism Debate

Gidian said:

Anouck said:

Gidian said:

Oops, typed without thinking again. I meant Evolution as one animal changing to a whole new one is a theory. But I understand things do evolve and adapt in at least small ways.

Click to expand...

That's what I meant. That theory of evolution is considered a fact. Because natural adaption is evolution too. All these tiny changes can influence an entire species over a longer period of time.
And that 'long period of time' is key. One species doesn't change into another over night. It takes millions of years. But fossils of animals show us exactly how the transition went.
It also has to be functional. Like a dog won't turn into a whale just like that. That wouldn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

Nonsense! Who wouldn't want to be a whale?!

Click to expand...

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

Nonsense! Who wouldn't want to be a whale?!

Click to expand...

lol

Not around Japan you don't... want to be a whale or a dolphin or a shark.

Gidian said:

If someone did, I would accept it.

Click to expand...

This attitude right here should be adopted by all human beings. If someone can explain something thoroughly enough and so it is understood by all levels of our society, then it should be accepted as the way of which said subject is.

Nice to see such varied and interesting points crop up in this thread. Great input by all!

It is such an extensive tree with many branches, but maybe it is such a simple process - is it possible the human race has been over-thinking all this time? People have said that humans will never know where we actually came from, so is this a reason to stop looking or do you think we will never stop searching?

The search will go on until someone finds the answer, the world ends, or all the people searching get killed off somehow.

Anouck said:

Crooksin said:

I really liked this debate and love Bill Nye however there is something I would add to this.

Bill Nye was not the right person for this debate, you could tell during the whole thing. It just not his field, he's not biology guy. I feel like someone who specializes in this science could've communicated the ideas much, much better rather than someone who's name is a household one.

You could tell where the other guy was gonna go with his debate the second he started. Using testimonials from scientists not in the biology field means absolutely nothing. He's a respectable guy but I'll pick science every time.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Richard Dawkins? But he always gets a lot of backlash from religious people. They think he goes too far with his convictions, and after his book 'The God Delusion' people have gotten offended by pretty much everything the man said. They would probably be too biased about him in the first place to even listen to what he has to say. Bill Nye, however, is someone everyone likes.

Click to expand...

Any personable professor with a PHD in the related field will do, I'd give you names but atm I'm balls deep in writing an essay and can't go fishing through youtube to find a fit. I know it doesn't capture ratings but the argument would've been a little stronger coming from someone who's devoted their studies to the field. I love Bill Nye and he did extremely well considering but the dude is an engineer and it was evident when he was presenting his debate points.

Definitely not Richard Dawkins. I like his work and I like his ideas but the dude is straight up, for lack of a better term, an asshole. I've seen his debates and more often than not he belittles the person he's debating against. Not too mention his fans/followers etc are a rabid bunch, I've seen them on Twitter. Not a good fit for this type of debate setting. He's just as zealous as any bible thumper, just on the other side of the spectrum.

Aye, I think Richard might have eaten the dude alive - or at least not let him speak.

I think Bill was a good fit for this particular debate. He wasn't aggressive, he listened and responded well and did not push his ideas down peoples throats. He presented excellent questions and responded to questions he didn't have answers to sensibly, simply admitting he did not know.

DrunkenMage said:

The problem is often, those who are religious ignore. Those who are scientific attack.

Click to expand...

Sorry DRUNKEN, but this is misleading. Throughout history, the church has imprisoned, killed, humiliated, excommunicated and attacked intellectuals and scientists. Galileo was accused of heresy, forced to recant under the threat of execution, and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life simply because he believed the earth revolved around the sun. Now we know without a doubt that the solar system is heliocentric.

I don't seem to recall a time in history where a mad group of scientists bent on world domination were throwing Christians into dungeons. Religious people were persecuted by empires like Rome, not scientists or intellectuals. In fact, one of the first things evil empires do is eliminate intellectuals because they are the only ones smart enough to call them on all their bullplops propaganda. The Nazis killed all the scientists or forced them to work for them. Pol Pot executed every intellectual in the killing fields.

That's why I agree with Anouck. We have to attack institutionalized religion when it is wrong AND telling our children that man walked with dinosaurs. That is not education. It's brainwashing.

Anouck said:

Our world is a fart of the universe

Click to expand...

So true! LOL

Medea said:

Anouck said:

Our world is a fart of the universe

Click to expand...

So true! LOL

Click to expand...

:S

I am going to agree with mr. Tyson here:

Anouck said:

I am going to agree with mr. Tyson here:

Click to expand...

One point the guy Bill debated with had is that they present a lot of theories in schools as fact, and rule out a lot of other things. I also agree about the terms being commandeered.

Gidian said:

Anouck said:

I am going to agree with mr. Tyson here:

Click to expand...

One point the guy Bill debated with had is that they present a lot of theories in schools as fact, and rule out a lot of other things. I also agree about the terms being commandeered.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that Ken Ham denies a lot of facts, and denigrates them to mere theories. That's his shortcoming, not science's.

Irishman said:

shadowkitty said:

In my household we are three people. Me the Evolutionist, my Husband the Creationist and our son, who we respect and love enough to let him make his own mind up about the matter and don't try to jam our views and opinions down his throat. It's something that is discussed if questions are asked and then let go.

Click to expand...

What 'side' is your son leaning toward, if you dont mind me asking? I think its great you guys give him both sides of the argument.

Click to expand...

It's not even an argument in our house. I think his logical little Aspergers mind is leaning more towards the Evolution side. His hero is David Attenborough (mine to).

Gidian said:

Anouck said:

I am going to agree with mr. Tyson here:

Click to expand...

One point the guy Bill debated with had is that they present a lot of theories in schools as fact, and rule out a lot of other things. I also agree about the terms being commandeered.

Click to expand...

To change the Terms of Public School science to change to not insult creationism, would require the same.

You think the Church would allow the word Theory to be placed anywhere upon it?

Evolution and Creationism are both theories let's remember that point.

Lansworthy said:

Gidian said:

Anouck said:

I am going to agree with mr. Tyson here:

Click to expand...

One point the guy Bill debated with had is that they present a lot of theories in schools as fact, and rule out a lot of other things. I also agree about the terms being commandeered.

Click to expand...

To change the Terms of Public School science to change to not insult creationism, would require the same.

You think the Church would allow the word Theory to be placed anywhere upon it?

Evolution and Creationism are both theories let's remember that point.

Click to expand...

I never forgot it. How could I? We wouldn't be in this thread of ot wasn't.

Medea said:

I don't seem to recall a time in history where a mad group of scientists bent on world domination were throwing Christians into dungeons.

Click to expand...

That is probably because mad scientists only discriminate by race. Then again the key word is mad here not scientists. Anyone will find a reason to do whatever mad thing they want and whatever they may use to justify it the simple truth is only idiots kill other people over ideas.

Ideas and Ideologies are usually scapegoats from why such things would happen. Whether the idea is religious or scientific or economic, it will be twisted to suit the needs of whoever has taken control of it. Similar to the idea that no communist state has ever actually followed Marx's proposal.

Yep Skies has it right.

Even if solid proof of the existence of God or proof that we were created by some other race was somehow to be conjured up, politicians, religious and/or scientific authorities would all bring the hammer down. Thor's Hammer actually.

The 'supposed evidence' would disappear and a giant crater would be left of the evidence and of the person foolish enough to challenge the establishment.

For example... I've heard an ugly rumor that... a certain MAJOR American Arch Institution was taking artifacts (that are authentic however don't fit in) from Native American finds in the Western US and dumping them into the nearest Ocean trench in these barges. Bones of Giants, Egyptian related stuff and Giant men buried in armor and advanced melee weaponry.

I've also heard... that artifacts were recovered from the moon and those vanished. Like an angel statue.

Medea said:

DrunkenMage said:

The problem is often, those who are religious ignore. Those who are scientific attack.

Click to expand...

Sorry DRUNKEN, but this is misleading. Throughout history, the church has imprisoned, killed, humiliated, excommunicated and attacked intellectuals and scientists. Galileo was accused of heresy, forced to recant under the threat of execution, and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life simply because he believed the earth revolved around the sun. Now we know without a doubt that the solar system is heliocentric.

I don't seem to recall a time in history where a mad group of scientists bent on world domination were throwing Christians into dungeons. Religious people were persecuted by empires like Rome, not scientists or intellectuals. In fact, one of the first things evil empires do is eliminate intellectuals because they are the only ones smart enough to call them on all their bullpl*** propaganda. The Nazis killed all the scientists or forced them to work for them. Pol Pot executed every intellectual in the killing fields.

That's why I agree with Anouck. We have to attack institutionalized religion when it is wrong AND telling our children that man walked with dinosaurs. That is not education. It's brainwashing.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about history, talking about more today. Though if we do look at history, we've killed each other over everything, not just religion. We're violent.

Of course bad things can happen in religion. There will always be a bad. All religion is flawed, I'm not saying do not question religion. There are bad people who used religion as an excuse.

But, science can be abused the same as religion. Whatever religion has done in the past, they don't even come close to what mankind created abusing science. WMD > Religious Extremist.

I of course believe religion should be questioned and attacked, and that it shouldn't be forced onto people.

NENALATA said: ↑

Knowledge is power and time is a man made invention. Many exotic formulas workout perfectly when you remove the concept of time.​

Time is not an invention. It is a conceptualization of a dimension through which events can be ordered. It is what keeps everything from happening at once. No intelligent, sentient life could get very far without realizing the concept of time. Without recognizing this concept, which is used in many equations itself, I doubt we would even know what the word "equation" meant.

Click to expand...

Our concept of time is an invention because we defined it to an repeating interval of values. Just like someone discovered how 'lift' works and built the airplane, that's another invention, like the clock. The principles are there, but someone discovered them and then we wield that knowledge.

Equations that use time, require time. But, time can be bent. Space time can be bent and warped to the point where... there is no longer any concept of time. Therefore, any equation which uses time will not be accurate in such a scenario if they could be solved at all. They'll all equal the same value because time hasn't changed, yet there is no concept of time. I mean if you want to get real about this time is based largely on Gravity.

Time is not necessary to order events because the order of events can be altered to occur at the same time. Time is not necessary for intelligence, because the laws of this universe can exist without it and do not require time in order to be what they are. Time is man's way of keeping track of how things change. But things can still change without time.

Time is like a flashlight we use to see in the dark, but you don't need it.

For example, we could measure the gravitational pull of the Earth over time. However, the Earth still has a Gravitational pull regardless of what time it is. You could measure the difference based on your concept of time or we could measure based on how time changes from within the gravity itself. If the gravity is enough, like... say a black hole, there may be no passage of time at all or time is moving extremely slowly.

And yes, I am a Christian.


http://www.edge.org/response-detail/10473

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/feb/17/gravitys-effect-on-time-confirmed

Lansworthy said:

Gidian said:

Anouck said:

I am going to agree with mr. Tyson here:

Click to expand...

One point the guy Bill debated with had is that they present a lot of theories in schools as fact, and rule out a lot of other things. I also agree about the terms being commandeered.

Click to expand...

To change the Terms of Public School science to change to not insult creationism, would require the same.

You think the Church would allow the word Theory to be placed anywhere upon it?

Evolution and Creationism are both theories let's remember that point.

Click to expand...

Evolution is a fact - Let me quote one of my previous posts:

"Evolution is a fact. Don't be confused by the term 'theory'. Let me explain it to you, because I didn't use to understand it myself not that long ago:

There are actually three different things that are applicable here. There are facts, there are scientific laws that describe the way facts act, and there are theories that explain why facts act as they do.
A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a narrow fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions and cannot be rigorously applied outside of those conditions.
For example, gravity is a fact that we experience every day. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

'Theory' here does not mean the same thing as theory does in a different context. A theory can mean an uncertainty, but in science that's not the case"

Also, I do think we should be taught about creationism in school. But that's because I care about culture. We should be taught about the Islam, Christianity and all those other religions. But in science class? No, sir. You have theology class for that. Religion is not science. It should have a place in education, but shouldn't be mixed up with science, physics and other subjects,