Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
The thing that amazes me, and this is just an observation - not an attack, is that the creationists seem to be very insecure about their position. So much so that they have, in essence, become apologists for their beliefs, drapping them in the trappings of science in a futile effort to make them palatable to acadamia while attempting to discredit the actual scientific process.
Anyway, that's *all* I'm going to post on the matter.
is it any surprise that they're/we're insecure about it? The universe getting created in 7 days, and a woman formed from a rib isn't exactly something that's easily verified as truth.
Apologetics trying to bridge the gap between what they 'know' and what they 'understand'...it's a healthy thing to do...no bad can come from it.
Scientific process itself is incredibly easy to discredit...but what science has discovered is not.
For most religious people there's no refuting the truth of their experience eventhough they don't understand it in terms that science recognizes.
It's really easy to be insecure about something that isn't explained.
Believers and non-believers alike are insecure with creation. Creationists just stick with it regardless of their insecurity....and I don't think that's silly at all....we aren't limited by our understanding.
There's more to truth and the universe than science has discovered...scientists will be the first to admit that(cuz if it weren't true, they'd be out of a job! haha)
Certainly. I still believe it with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I just think that there is insufficient evidence to prove the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution to be more likely to be right then my Creationism. Not interested in a debate here, sorry.Originally Posted by NoUseFrAName
Oh, 'twas 6 days, by the way.
EDIT: Oh, wow, that sounded insecure... heh. The reason I'm not interested in a debate is that I've already done this a ton in online debate, taking the null position each time. Just not interested enough in the issue anymore.
Originally Posted by SJ Bennighof
umm there is however more evidence for evolution for instance, then there is for a creationist view of how we were created, from a athiest or agnostic standpoint its far easier to accept that we evolved from single cellular organisms the evidence for it is quite clear. Also if you so amazing un interested why did you post?
If something is easier to accept, it is automatically true? There is no conclusive proof for evolution. I therefore consider my beliefs to be equally valid.Originally Posted by Red_Rook
And I posted so I could opine on the issue. Why else would I post?
Can you explain what you mean by this, please? I'm wondering what your reasoning is. Or perhaps I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.Originally Posted by NoUseFrAName
Why couldnt Eve be made by a rib, if Milla Jojovic was made from an alien glove?
Well, im not touching this one with a 12 foot pole.
I just wanna point out that there's more evidence explaining evoluton than there is gravity. Just let that sink in for a minute. How much evidence for creatonism? One book that people wrote. Kind of a difference there...
Concept Artist, Tencent Boston
I keep saying I won't get involved and then I can't resist...Originally Posted by theincredibleandy
I let it sink in, and I've come to the conclusion that it's bull. You are comparing:
Gravity as phenomenon
Evolution as phenomenon
And you statement on the status of these phenomena:
Gravity: Not explained
Evolution: Having more evidence to support it than Gravity
You are full of crap, my friend. The explanation of how Gravity works would be analagous to an explanation of what exactly drives a biological organism to conintue lving and adapting through Evolution. The problem is as follows:
Gravity: patently a real phenomenon, one that is defined by mathematical laws of physics and mere observation. You drop a book on the floor...bam, you just proved that Gravity exists.
Evolution: So gradual that it cannot be observed. You cannot test evolution in a laboratory setting. Like, throw a bunch of chemicals together and see if life comes out. Even if it does, it only proves that life can be made in controlled laboratory conditions. This is far from taking that life and watching it develop itself into, say, a moose. It would take billions of years. So you can't test it, and you can't prove that it works at all. There is evidence to suggest that it might work, but that's all.
So if your evolution-has-more-evidence-than-gravity theory is correct, Gravity is a vague an unobservable force. We are all floating around in a space station somewhere, closed off from the outside universe and affected by forces of gravity so slight that it would take the finest mathemeatical calculations to detect it. Since we cannot make these calculations, we must go by what appears to be the case. You hold still in an open room and you start to descend...*scribblescribblescribble*...but then you begin to move in another direction...the presence of motion at all suggests some possibility of gravity...I'll call it the Theory of Gravity. Not much going for it, but it's something to fend off those religious nuts who think that we're just being used as a rhetorical device by some kid with glasses named "Bennighof"...
But last time I checked, gravity had been proven to be present. Explained, far from it, but evolution has yet to be proven to be present at all.
well, first there's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle....whereby the act of observing influences that which is being observed....so there's no experiment that can be perfectly replicated for any observer as the circumstances of any experiment are changed by the observer himself.Can you explain what you mean by this, please? I'm wondering what your reasoning is. Or perhaps I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.
Like in the second episode of the tv show Numb3rs, Charlie says that "to measure an electron one has to make contact with it in some way, and to do so is to influence the behavior of the electron'.
and then there's all the ridiculousness that we covered in the other thread how science cannot exist without assumption. There's no way of knowing that our senses aren't lying to us.
Science works nevertheless...eventhough there's flaw to it's process.
and evolution is proveable...it can be observed in bacteria and viruses and many such things.
That doesn't necessarily conflict with creation in any way though.
I was under impression that this principle has to do with being unable to detect electron's location in an atomic cloud when given it's energy, and vice versa.Originally Posted by NoUseFrAName
I Was Evolved From Poo Dumped By Space Monkeys!!! Ha Ha Yeah Baby!
I was just reading the article on intellectual design....I used to be a born again christian and a youth pastor now a devout athesit.....my question is this for those who believe in creationism: You belive that the universe and all of the organisms in it are too complex to have just evolved correct...that because we are so complex there had to have been a designer?.....If that is the case then why do you believe in something so complex as an omnipotent, omniscient being who is the beginning....where did he come from.....a magical being like that just always existed huh? no beginning from a more simple existence like how everything else in the universe does?
That baffles me......what i think we are all forgetting is that people who belive in creationism don't believe in it because there isn't enough proof for evolution it's because simply that they don't want to. The idea of a world where there is no higher power or better place after this one is too much for alot of people. That is why man has always created heavens and gods. Zeus -Ra-Jupiter-Yahweh-Buddha, Heaven- Olympia-Reincarnation-Afterlife they are all the same just man trying to explain the world we live in and give reason to do good deeds to get to the next one.
Thank you, SJ Bennighof, for setting the "incredible" andy straight, I was about to when I read your post.
Artist types. ... I can't count the number of times I've heard my old friends from art school go out of their way to rip on "religion" or "creationists", when in reality they only hate Christians. Big deal. Let people believe whatever they want to believe, no one is imposing anything on you. If you feel secure in your beliefs, why bother trying to tear down someone else for their beliefs. Shows insecurity if you ask me.
Besides, although I'm not a "religious" person per say, there really isn't anymore proof that the world evolved randomly, was created instantly, or was created over the course of trillions of years. None. Sorry. No one can prove their theory. And it's pointless to try. Even if one theory sounds far-fetched to you, and the other theory sounds plausible. Plausible doesn't make it true anymore than being far-fetched makes something untrue.
Me? I say the world was made by little purple gnomes that evolved from other monkeylike green gnomes. So that way you're both right.
Darn you, Shane! You should be ashamed, rolling in a stinker and scuttling off again.
I don't think the danger is in a person's belief's, but rather how much pride he (she) has in those beliefs, or how much his ego relies on these viewpoints for stability. It leads to silly statements decrying the ability to prove anything, that no position has any more validity than any other, or that since our senses are the link to the outer world, we can know nothing (since they can be fooled). Bunk.
One thing that I believe is that no Lounge thread on this subject has ever changed anyone's beliefs.
Man, I sound bitter (even though I'm not).
just in case that's directed at me, I just used those examples to show how easily scientific process can be discredited.I don't think the danger is in a person's belief's, but rather how much pride he (she) has in those beliefs, or how much his ego relies on these viewpoints for stability. It leads to silly statements decrying the ability to prove anything, that no position has any more validity than any other, or that since our senses are the link to the outer world, we can know nothing (since they can be fooled). Bunk.
I have much faith in reason and perception and science. It may not be 100% perfect, but there's a lot that it has to offer.
Same with religion....might not be 100% true, but it hasn't failed me thus far.
...at any rate, until someone explains how evolution and creation must be in conflict with eachother, I see no reason not to believe in both.
That being is intelligence....that being is the nature of nature....the complexities of the way the universe would function had to exist before it all started, otherwise there would be no possibilities!I was just reading the article on intellectual design....I used to be a born again christian and a youth pastor now a devout athesit.....my question is this for those who believe in creationism: You belive that the universe and all of the organisms in it are too complex to have just evolved correct...that because we are so complex there had to have been a designer?.....If that is the case then why do you believe in something so complex as an omnipotent, omniscient being who is the beginning....where did he come from.....a magical being like that just always existed huh? no beginning from a more simple existence like how everything else in the universe does?
The only question is whether that intelligence/nature of things has a will of it's own, and whether or not it posesses the ability to have relationships with those things that it rules over. Is it really God? or is it just the programming inherent with universal function?
yes, it is, you're...the reason you can't detect the electron's location is because to detect it you must observe it, and to observe it, you must influence it/bump it/move it.I was under impression that this principle has to do with being unable to detect electron's location in an atomic cloud when given it's energy, and vice versa.
In the quantum world, where things are known to have nonlocal reactions(ie: a quantum action at point A causes a quantum reaction at point B several meters away), it becomes apparent that even at a distance it's difficult to observe without influencing that which you observe.
Mostly this is because there's really no separation between subjective and objective. There can simply be no act of observation without a subject and object.
The scientist is always part of his own experiment. A different scientist = a different set of factors.
that's quite the broad sweeping statement. I know plenty of people that believe in both creationism and evolution.That baffles me......what i think we are all forgetting is that people who belive in creationism don't believe in it because there isn't enough proof for evolution it's because simply that they don't want to. The idea of a world where there is no higher power or better place after this one is too much for alot of people. That is why man has always created heavens and gods. Zeus -Ra-Jupiter-Yahweh-Buddha, Heaven- Olympia-Reincarnation-Afterlife they are all the same just man trying to explain the world we live in and give reason to do good deeds to get to the next one.
Man has created heavens and Gods in an effort to put some context to the whole process of enlightenment, which is why there are so many parallels between so many religions. As any single person becomes more enlightened, he increasingly fails to see the difference between most any religion/philposophy, even existentialism.
Religion doesn't give us a conscience either...it just tells us to listen to it.
We don't need religion for a reason to do good deeds...we're actually just happier when we do them.
Ah, thanks, Rob. I know you have a penchant for the deep and metaphysical, so that's what I assumed you meant, but I thought I'd ask just to make sure.
I'm going to say something that might make some people mad . . .
You can say "let people believe what they want to believe, it doesn't matter."
But it DOES matter, because it says something about your reasoning ability, your ability to study a subject and make an informed decision.
Before you think I'm saying that those who believe in evolution are smart and those who don't are dumb, let me explain.
I am a religious person. I believed in evolution, for the most part. From what I had read and studied, the evidence seemed VERY strong to me. I somewhat drew a line at "men evolved from monkeys," though.
A month or two ago, we had that big thread in the lounge about evolution. I read the links that people provided (especially talkorigins.org) and discovered that the evidence is MUCH, MUCH stronger than I had even imagined. I revised my opinion. Although I don't like the thought of men sharing an ancestor with monkeys, if that's the way it happened, I am ready to accept that.
I still allow that God can do anything; He could have created man in any way that he chose. But I admit that men evolving just like the rest of life on this planet is the most likely explanation.
This is what I think about making decisions regarding science verses religion: study the evidence. Decide what you think is the most likely explanation, regardless of your religious beliefs. You are then free to believe what you like, because you know what you are doing (and getting into) if you decide to reject the most likely explanation.
Let me give an example of what I am saying. I believe prayer is real. There is no evidence for this. Yes, there are news items that come out occasionally that say "Study says that prayer helps cancer patients live longer!" or something. But these studies are often flawed and there are just as many studies that don't show prayer helps anything (but these never make the news). I freely admit that there is no evidence for prayer, and that it is highly unlikely that it is real. But I still choose to believe in it. I admit that this is a religious belief and it is only based on my personal experience.
I don't feel like I am dumb because I choose to believe in prayer. I am completely upfront about the fact that prayer is not likely and it is just my personal belief. It is what I choose to believe. I think as long as you are upfront about your beliefs, then it is ok to believe what you like. You know what you are doing.
Does this make sense? Do you understand what I am trying to say?
I hope this doesn't make anybody mad, but if you have any additional insight (or want to correct me), please share.
edit for Rob: of course you know I believe that when you get down to it, there is no conflict between science and religion, but I'm talking on the face value level here where conflict seems apparent.
Last edited by emily g; February 4th, 2005 at 05:58 PM.
I have to agree with emily. We can't just say let people believe everything we want (Not exactly what emily meant) because we're affected by it too heavily. At many times we're affected by it in ways that aren't benificial to us. Why the heck aren't gays allowed to marry, why are they being ostrasized from society so much? Bunch of different topics that I don't want to get into lol. but we can argue this all the time. People will always believe in the imaginary just because we don't have all the answers yet. Probably never will.
"Do the best that you wanna do." -My personal quote.
Sketchbook Thread. Look at it, rate it, post and crit on it.
Right, it does matter. If people can't use their reasoning abilities to come to a decision (and know what they are doing when they make that decision) about their religious beliefs, what kind of other un-thought-out decisions are they making?
They are making decisions that affect other people around them and that affect you. To jump on Daunting's example, can a gay couple raise children just as well as a straight couple can? The answer to that question matters a lot, and I would want people to be willing to study the subject without their beliefs getting in the way. They have to be willing to accept/acknowledge the answer whether or not it goes against what they personally believe (this goes for people on both sides of the issue).
It is, after all, people who make our laws and make decisions regarding business, commerce, creation of media, etc. and all of those things affect us.
I agree and disagree.
People can believe whatever they want...it doesn't matter.
...but for it to not matter, there's a prerequisite that the people believe in something.
...the reason why it doesn't matter is because no amount of force of will or reasoning can change what another person believes. Only the person with the belief can change that. Ultimately a baseless belief, or rather a belief that something false is true, will eventually come around to bite you in the rear. The failings of a belief are what will eventually cause you to arrive at a better one.
As it stands, believing in creationism has yet to be proven harmful. The subsequent beliefs that non-creationists are evil/wrong/bad however, have proven themselves to be harmful though.
we're affected by it heavily because we're believing whatever we want too. It's an ego function to be threatened by the beliefs of others.We can't just say let people believe everything we want (Not exactly what emily meant) because we're affected by it too heavily.
Certainly the implications of others' beliefs may have huge consequences of great importance, but those consequences are essential in the evolution of belief.
Ultimately, a true belief will have more power and influence than a false belief anyways. The beliefs of others can only affect you with as much weight as you invest in their importance. I'm not saying that one should be ignorant of the lesser beliefs of others, but rather that the weight is better spent invested in one's own beliefs. We don't need to worry about the effects of negative things if we can smother them with the effects of positive things.They are making decisions that affect other people around them and that affect you.
Positivity and successful belief inspire...and in my nearly 23 years I've never witnessed a greater catalyst for growth and evolution than inspiration.
It really doesn't matter what others believe if our beliefs are on the right track. Our success will help them to improve too.
I understand what you're saying Rob--but I still think others' beliefs affect you. They affect you when others start acting on their beliefs.
Let's take the evolution vs. creationism debate:
Creationists get mad about evolution being taught in schools and sue.
They win and schools throw out all textbooks that teach evolution.
The companies that make the textbooks have to rewrite the books.
Later, someone who's mad about this counter-sues and wins.
Schools throw out all textbooks and textbook companies have to rewrite the books again.
So . . . it seems that a lot of time and money has been wasted here. Hopefully everyone learned something so maybe it was worth it, right?
What if you are a parent in this situation? You have had pratically no control in what has happened here and yet this has affected what has been taught to your child. What about all the money required to fight lawsuits and buy new text books? Will this now have to come out of your taxes?
See, people make decisions based on their beliefs. This is where it really matters whether or not your beliefs are good ones. You start passing laws based on your beliefs, and suddenly a lot of people are affected.
yep!So . . . it seems that a lot of time and money has been wasted here. Hopefully everyone learned something so maybe it was worth it, right?
a consequence of having beliefs. How do your personal beliefs propel you to deal with such a situation? Hopefully they provide you with an effective solution, otherwise they'll have to be reformed, right?What if you are a parent in this situation? You have had pratically no control in what has happened here and yet this has affected what has been taught to your child. What about all the money required to fight lawsuits and buy new text books? Will this now have to come out of your taxes?
Personally, I'm not much of a slave to money...I would make sacrifices to either a)spend the time necessary with my child to explain the workings of the situation, or b)homeschool them if I felt they were being taught blatantly false things.
Taxes? if the government chooses to spend that money on things that I object to, there are many options there as well....I can voice my opinion, I can say that it's in the hands of the spenders and not take responsibility for a poor choice that wasn't mine to begin with....there are lots of options.
The right one is the one that will directly influence the development of my conscience the most, and subsequently that will be the one I end up making...it will either be positive and foster my personal development, or negative and guide me in a new solution-finding direction.
there's nothing wrong with being affected. Your freedom of choice remains completely intact.See, people make decisions based on their beliefs. This is where it really matters whether or not your beliefs are good ones. You start passing laws based on your beliefs, and suddenly a lot of people are affected.
Life, in a linear sense, is full of things that affect us...they're necessary in helping us to sculpt our beliefs and perceptions of the world.
Hey, Rob, I wasn't aiming at anyone in particular, but rather the idea that one belief has the same merit as any other. As Emily so eloquently stated, beliefs, backed by effort, do have consequences. All through history there have been certain groups who believed that their problems were caused by other groups. They backed this belief with effort and, very logically after the belief was established, decided everyone would be better off if these folks died, or were moved so far away as to be of no further harm.
The scientific method, when properly applied, is far better than any other method of developing knowledge. It is not perfect, but only because it was developed and is administered by humans. If anyone is looking for perfection, they're going to need to check with another address.
I think that many folks who are discomforted with the idea that humans and apes share common ancesters should also look a tad deeper (though they may not like it): all living things on Earth share the same ancestor. When life emerged here, it started in one form and evolved from there. All of this, of course, is the theory based on the available evidence.
Rob, that's a very interesting way of looking at things--very accepting, I suppose.
Though there are ways in which I'd rather NOT be affected by someone acting on their beliefs.
And if people are being harmed by other people acting on beliefs, it seems it would be good to try and prevent that if possible, no?
Not really. All you have observed are the effects of gravity. You cannot see gravity itself.Gravity: patently a real phenomenon, one that is defined by mathematical laws of physics and mere observation. You drop a book on the floor...bam, you just proved that Gravity exists.
That's not true. It depends on which type you are talking about. Microevolution has been observed in a lab setting. Also by saying this you are basically saying that, for example, since the continent drift is a gradual process and cannot be observed or tested in a lab you can't prove that it works at all (since that too takes billions of years). Or how about erosion of mountains? Oops there goes geology!Evolution: So gradual that it cannot be observed. You cannot test evolution in a laboratory setting. Like, throw a bunch of chemicals together and see if life comes out. Even if it does, it only proves that life can be made in controlled laboratory conditions. This is far from taking that life and watching it develop itself into, say, a moose. It would take billions of years. So you can't test it, and you can't prove that it works at all. There is evidence to suggest that it might work, but that's all.
linkHeisenberg's uncertainty principle
In layman's terms one cannot measure accurately the position and speed of a particle simultaneously without affecting it in some way and making the measurement inaccurate in some way. The more accurately one tries to measure the speed the more inaccurate will be the position of a particle and vice versa. Because the physicists are working with such small objects? anything you do will affect it. We need light to observe, to see. Light is made of particles called photons. Therfore for us to be able to see anything we need photons to hit what we are trying to observe. A house is made out of alot of particles and getting hit by sunlight will not move it or disturb it, now however a single particle getting hit by another particle is a different story. So if we try to observe an electron we have to use gamma rays because an electron is so small only this short wavelength wave can be used in order to see it at all. However gamma rays are also the most energetic and any hit on an electron will drastically change it's position and velocity. If the electron is in an atom just this act will knock it out of the orbit. Now you can see the impossibility of measuring the precise location and velocity of a particle. However this is not all. According to the fundamental equation of Quantum Mechanics THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ELECTRON WITH BOTH A PRECISE MOMENTUM AND PRECISE POSITION. This is where quantum physics leaves the classical physics behind. To Newton for example it was possible to predict the entire course of the future if we know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, however in reality we cannot know the precise position and velocity of even ONE particle, not because it's not possible using current methods but because it's not possible at all because of the fundamental underlying reality of the universe. This is where Einstein said that "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe" (Einstein was a determinist) and in reply Bohr responded, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."
I know this is well off base but NoUse I think this page will give you some ammo against determinism and no-free-will proponents.
Last edited by LaPalida; February 5th, 2005 at 11:51 AM.
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
But you see the book before gravity acts on it, and you see the book after gravity acts on it. Whether you know about gravity or not, you know that things did in fact transpire a certain way: The book physically translated from a height to the ground. With evolution all we see is the book on the floor. We don't know whether our genotype was at some point being held above the floor. For all we know it could have been on the floor the whole time, just in an different place, or maybe it just appeared there.Originally Posted by LaPalida
So to clarify, I'm not talking about a lab setting, I'm talking about real life and how things actually went.That's not true. It depends on which type you are talking about. Microevolution has been observed in a lab setting.
There are no holes in universally accepted geological phenomenon the way there are in evolution. Scientists can look back and see how the tectonic plates looked way back when. We know that the plates are where they are right now (the book on the floor) and scientists can explain the physics behind it. All that being said, has it actually been proven to happen? Is it universally accepted? Does Science say that it is?Also by saying this you are basically saying that, for example, since the continent drift is a gradual process and cannot be observed or tested in a lab you can't prove that it works at all (since that too takes billions of years). Or how about erosion of mountains? Oops there goes geology!
As for geology in general, of course erosion has been proven. Small-time erosion is obvious, and then you see the way that the Persian Gulf has been steadily shrinking, and so forth.
Apart from the fact that Bohr was begging the question there, I was hoping someone would quote that. It is my personal belief that both men were correct. We could not fathom the existence of cells not too long ago, historically speaking. I think that there are deeper places to go in the realm of subatomic physics, and I think that soon we will be able to mathematically explain the mechanics of subatomic particles. Just a thought.This is where Einstein said that "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe" (Einstein was a determinist) and in reply Bohr responded, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."
Whoa, whoa, whoa wait a second. Geology and evolution are so tied together as to be nearly inseperable. Study and advancement in one discipline often results in study and advancement in the other. How can you say that there are no holes in geology, but holes in evolution?Originally Posted by SJ Bennighof
I have a feeling that I may be sorry I asked, but I can't let this go by.
What about the famed "Missing Link"? The fossil record for anything having to do with prehumans is scattered, paltry, and ambiguous. There is much fossil evidence to support the Continental Drift theory, with instances of the same species being found near the coastlines of separate coninents and so forth.Originally Posted by emily g
But the wording of my statement was misleading, and that was my fault. I didn't mean that geology has no holes whatsoever, I meant that Evolution has far, far more holes in it as a theory than Continental Drift does. So something like "geology doesn't have holes in it in on the same level that Evolution does" was more of what my statement should have been.
The craziest thing about evolution is....for a totally illogical reason, it stopped in mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects and birds. Sure, creatures adapt, but nothing ever evolves anymore. Dogs and cats, after having been around humans for ages, never evolve, just when it would absolutely be imperative for them to. Who says Creationism is only for Christians (and the six day creation cycle) or that deities couldn't have taken their time and experimented with life? If we evolved, why are we bipeds? Why wouldn't we have a stature closer to apes? Forcing the heart to pump blood/oxygen up to the brain of a biped is progress?
Sans la colère. Sans la haine. Et sans la pitié.
I always find myself instinctively arrayed on the side of the barbarian, against the powers of organized civilization. -- Robert E. Howard
Writer, illustrator and artist.