Creation: yea or nay?

Jar, you are correct. But that method is only in lieu of not being able to prove your own argument in the first place. And I do agree with you, creationism is a little quaint for my taste. But it could be the case. Trying to disprove it is trying to disprove God, which we've been trying to do for quite awhile. That damn bastard just won't quite die.

Chuft, go jump run into a wall and tell me newtonian motion is obsolete. It might not be applicable to every single situation, but the last time I kicked open a door, the door opened. It's still there. Quantum mechanics deals with one thing, the behavior of quanta. Why electrons, light, and energy in general behaves the way it does.

Mathematics cannot be true or false, it's like saying a hammer is correct or incorrect. Mathematics is a tool, an invention of man. It does not exist in and of itself, it is a mechanism we use to accomplish other things. While nature does have a propensity for geometric shapes, even that is by a large degree a man-made idea. Physics is the real world. Math just explains physics. And taxes.

Based upon the fact that we can only infer that the graviton exists, and don't actually know it does like we do with an electron or a proton, finding proof of one would go a long way. We've been able to isolate quarks and determine their individual attributes, but not yet with gravitons. There are entire dimensional theories, the Brane theory, based upon trying to find out why the fuck they behave like they do. The fact is we don't know.

Saying we never will know, that's pessimistic. I'm saying we don't know yet. Some day, relatively soon hopefully, we will be able to figure them out. Of course, then there will be new things to tinker with. And that will continue until we know everything. At which time all the scientists will get laid off.

Dude, natural selection is not science, it's life. You can stop tring to prove something. It's fairly understood that the horse with five asses and no mouth is probably not going to survive for very long. By disproving everything else you can establish a theory. Nothing else works in the place of gravity. Ignoring the God effect, if there is one, nothing works in evolution's place either. That doesn't make either one a fact. In order to establish a law, a certifiable fact, you need to be able to prove that your way is right, not just that everyone else's way isn't.

Not being very religious, I think you're right on your last point chuft. But simply acknowledging that religion can't be disproved doesn't make that a moot point. And since, if that religion is correct, it DOES serve to explain the natural world, although it does it rather conveniently, that argument can't hold water.

All your arguments are hinging upon one hypothesis; religions are incorrect. Chuft said it himself, none of us can prove that statement.

After all that is said, I must say that I am beginning to sway, but not because of any discredit having been given to religion, these points have been argued by men far more intelligent than any of us, to much the same conclusions. Creationism has no scientific evidence besides religion, that's all it is based on. Our constitution says, there shall be a seperation of chruch and state. This doesn't fall in the vague realm of the ten commandments, which while religious, are also the foundations of our legal system. This is a purely religious, purely dogmatic idea, and it has nothign to do with the founding of our country, except perhaps the creation of the rocks under our country. So, after wasting several days on this topic, I am seeing the light. It shouldn't be taught in schools, not because it couldn't be a possibility, not because religion can be shunted off as unquestionably incorrect, but because it's only base is religion and that is the jurisdiction of a church, not a public school.

 

I did not say walls were obsolete, I said Newton's models of physics were. And they are. Ask any physicist. As models they have been superceded. That is the way of science. In any case it is possible I might run right through a wall. Because something happened one way in the past does not mean it will always work that way in the future. This inability to prove future events is why no system of describing the rules of the universe can ever be proved, it can only be disproved. You cannot prove that the next time I run into a wall, it will stop me. All you can do is look at the last time I ran into a wall.

It's irrelevant. We do know about electrons but that doesn't explain why they have a charge, or what a charge really is.

No, it is just a statement of what the axioms are. There is no "why" as to the charges of protons or the gravitational effects that masses have. They are inherent properties, fundamental forces. You can't explain them in terms of something else, because they just exist. You can learn to predict and manipulate them to some degree, but "why" is a meaningless question when it comes to fundamental forces. These things act at a distance across vacuum on other objects. They are the building blocks on which the universe as we know it today is made.

A lot of people do not agree that natural selection is a viable theory. I think they're wrong, but they do exist. That is what this thread is about, I thought.

You can build evidence that supports a theory, yes, at least until a better theory comes along.

As an aside, evolution and natural selection are two very different things.

In any case natural selection is not a fundamental force. It is not even always the dominant paradigm in evolution. There is evidence that animals that were perfectly suited for their environment were wiped out by bad luck, such as a meteor landing on their area of the world and not some other area. The Burgess Shale fossil deposit organisms are an example of this. Entire phyla exist there which have not survived, apparently due to bad luck, not natural selection.

Science makes models and keep the most useful ones. Since no theory can ever be proved, because the future cannot be predicted with 100% certainty, theories can only be supported by evidence. Science does this by disproving the competing explanations until only the best one is left.

We'll have to just disagree here, since your reasoning applies to every fantasy, whether it comes from a crazed prophet, someone tripping on drugs, or a schizophrenic.

No, my arguments are based on the fact that religions are not systems for the advancement of knowledge. They do not change themselves to take account of new advances in human knowledge, such as finding out the sky is actually an atmosphere around the planet followed by outer space, not "heaven." By definition they ossify and become out of date, since they incorporate a worldview based on the state of human knowledge at the time they came into existence, and refuse to change.

 

Am I the only person that ejaculated after reading that?

 

I didn't read most of Blinky's post, mainly because I couldn't be bothered. I'm sure chuft's post contained some wonderful retorts, but again, couldn't be bothered.

However, Blinky, I would like to say this - ID is about some super intelligent being creating the universe. While unofficially it's supported by Christian foundations, it's a nondenominational theory. You don't even have to be religious to support it (although, you almost certainly are if you do).

 

Newtonian motion does not deal with the things that modern physicists are conjecturing about, it doesn't really apply to a quark or and atom moving through space. Relativity does affect it, but for everyday purposes, it's still correct. Given an object of considerable mass, like a pebble, it will follow newtons laws because the quantum forces are not enough to alter it considerably. When the mass is so infintesimal, like a single helium atom, or even further, a proton or an electron, latent nuclear forces and quantum forces are able to affect it to a degree that cannot be ignored, to such a degree that it's motion no longer resembles Newtonian. It isn't that Newton is wrong, or truly obsolete, it still is there. If two molecules collide they still exert Newtonian forces upon each other. But other forces that are not encompassed by Newton also play a role. To say they have been superceded is incorrect, they have instead been supplemented by modern knowledge.

You make a point of never being able to fully know what future experiments can hold. You are correct, but in that case why don't we all jump off a cliff since we might just float there. Science can only be used to show us what has happened with the assumption that, if perfectly replicated, the experiment will happen again, in the same fashion. You seem to be trying to equate that with my expressing disdain at completely discrediting religion, since we can't disprove it. They aren't really comparable; we can't prove that religion is wrong now, let alone in the future. Future uncertainty is an additional element that can be largely ignored from debate, since it occurs in everything, and even true fact is subject to such vagary.

How is assuming that these building blocks are just that way for no reason any different than creationism? Did God just decide to do it that way? If they cannot be broken down any further, than I will be wrong. If they can, then you will be. Only time will tell, but we need to endeavor to make sure we are at the actual limit, not just a daunting impasse. Only years ago we thought gravity was merely energy, but lo and behold, now we have debate over the graviton, which may or may not have a definable speed. Also, to state in a semblance of awe that these forces work across vacuums is first misleading, as it implies light, a only fundamental forces do that, which light clearly does, and it also does not take into account the fact that space is not actually a vacuum. There is in fact the sheerest veneer of gas in space, allowing sound waves etc to pass through.

I still don't understand how survival of the fittest is considered a theory, it is not. It does not encompass evolution, it merely says, if something is unfit to survive, it will not. Nature has no goodwill outposts, no hospitals. If it is fit to live, it lives, if it isn't it doesn't live. After awhile this allows for an effect on a population. Dothose people also disbelieve it when the son of a marathon runner finds running distances less difficult than most?

Yes, a theory can be made with supporting evidence and by discrediting other theories. But you cannot create a theory by proving it. That is oxymoronic. If a theory could be proved, it wouldn't be a theory. It would be a scientific law, a fact, an absolute.

You seem to be implying that evolution is a fundamental force. Evolution is the continual mutation of chromosomes until the difference is large enough where a new subspecies emerges, and eventually a new species and genus altogether. After that, assuming continued mutations, the difference will grow wider. Evolution is not by definition the simple changing of the species makeup on Earth, although the term has been coined for such general use. Mass extinctions, natural selection, and evolution, are all seperate compoents in that larger process. No evolutionary trait, or degree of fitness, has ever allowed a creature to survive getting hit by a mile wide fireball traveling a few tens of thousands of miles an hour. Allow me to elaborate.

Mass extinction is not a form of progress. It's a culling. It can't be acredited with any form of advancement, except to change the environment and allow different types of creatures to survive, like the meteor strike that ended the cretaceous era. The ensuing winter then allowed small mammals to survive and thrive over the behemoth dinosaurs. Natural selection states that the strongest conquer the weakest. The fastest will escape to breed, the smartest wll avoid danger, and the strongest will be able to to dominate. Natural selection is responsible for subspecies, why one type of dolphin is has more blubber, to cope with it's colder environment, while another has a wider mouth, to take advantage of the abundant fish in it's area.

But natural selection doesn't make a dolphin a whale, or a pigeon an eagle. That's evolution. Or at least evolution has been the only thing besides creationism that can explain that, and based on the fact that creationism is solely based on a religious tome, evolution is the only scientific explanation.

Theories can be proved. They then cease to be theories. It matters not what we call them, if the physical laws change in the future, science will be void. We'll have to start back at square one. For the purposes of science, we can only work with the physics we have today, and apply it to the future. Based upon a fact that was proven at the time, a law, Newton's law, I can now pick up my calculator. And I can set it down. It does not float, or spin in seemingly random motion. If I throw it, it will continue until either air friction, or my bookcase, exerts a sufficient halting force. Those laws were proved at the time, they were facts. They will always be facts until the rules of physics change. When that happens, they will be crap. When that happens, all of our discussing will be useless. When that happens, call me.

Chuft, please tell me you can see the difference between religion's assumption that God is real, and the assumption that maybe we'll all just betterflies and we live in a picklejar? I have never seen some random flight of fancy explain to the degree religion can our natural world. Granted, most of religions explanations are, because He said so, now shut up and kneel, but since we don't know if He actually said that, and since we do know that there are no magical my little pony dolls prancing through the clouds making rain, I'll give religion slightly more credit.

Religion isn't a tool for the enhancement of knowledge. It's a mechanism of social order. I wouldn't expect the police department to design a rocket car, why would I expect the church to fund scientific endeavors, or serve to advance knowledge in any way? Religion is not science. Some of it's tenets contradict science. But neither of them seem to be giving, although science does seem to gain more of an edge daily. Eventually maybe this debate will be settled.

Oh and chuft, your last paragraph gives off the impression of someone who doesn't reject religion, someone who hasn't just compared it to the fantastical ravings of delusional prophets, druggies, and schizophrenics.

Jar, not really. The last few posts aren't much in the way of delightful humor. What is your point about ID? I don't have a clue what you're talking about, maybe I should but I can't remember.

Sleek, you're easily amused by large words aren't you?

 

Its all about what you choose to believe. There is just as much of a basis for the one as there is for the other. Religious beliefs may make the occasional scientific observation, but they do not offer useful guidlines for approaching the world from a scientific standpoint.

 

As I said. Religion is not science. You're taking an apple and blaming it for not being an orange. Despite seeming parallels between the two, they are altogether incomparable.

 

You're taking an orange and thanking it for explaining the apple.

 

First of all, Blinky, Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact! It has not been proven. That's my biggest gripe about teaching either one of these in grade schools. Way too many fanatical teachers have taught students that Evolution is a scientific fact over the last 50 years and now people now longer seem to be able to understand the difference between scientific theories and scientific facts. :-x :x

The FACT is that we do NOT know how the Earth and life on it was created. There is not absolute proof that any of the theories are correct. Therefore, in that respect the "Creationist" theory has just as valid a place being taught as the Evolution theory, if we are going to teach either one.

In reality, unless you totally disbelieve in any higher powers, you will find that if you study post-graduate level sciences -- as I did -- that it becomes very difficult to accept that everything developed merely by chance and without some kind of guiding force. However, that is my personal opinion and not a fact.

 

Even scientists need reassurance against their insecurities...

 

It is an observable fact that species mutate in response to external stimuli. How else would you explain the Chinese Crested Dog? How exactly the fact of evolution has worked throughout time is another matter.

There is a difference between gaps in knowledge and a complete lack of knowledge. Fantasy has no place being taught in science courses.

That seems more of a lack of imagination on your part than any flaw in the science. You don't like Richard Dawkins much, do you?

 

Sleek, I haven't thanked anything. Religion doesn't do much in the way of explaining jack shit. There's a difference between thanking something and saying that sicne we can't disprove it, or prove our way, we're stuck with it until that situation changes.

Ok Sinbad, why the fuck are you directing that at me? I'm the one who's been saying it for this entire thread. In my last post I stopped referring to it as that because I simply got tired of writing "if what we think is correct", or "as the theory says" every other sentence. I really don't know where all this anger is coming from, or why, considering your position, you're yelling at me.

I almost agree with you Sinbad. However, despite us not being able to prove it, it is viable, and should be taught. If you wanted to only limit education to facts, where would gravity, relativity, or the big bang be? I would agree with you if creationism had a footing anywhere outside of a religious reference. But since it is solely a religious idea, why should, in a country where church and state are seperated, a government run public school teach it?

The funniest thing about chance is that if the odds are one in a million, then all you need is a million opprotunities and one will culminate. In an infinie universe, which could very well be only one of an infinite number of infinities, things will happen against all odds, because opportunity affords them a chance to. I don't need to have studied post graduate to understand how remarkable our world is, and how infintesimal it is compared to the larger macrocosm, but that only proves that we're lucky as hell, either to have such a force on our side, or to be that one in however high chance that worked out.

Canis, one would think, but other irregularities exist that have not been sorted out yet. We have seen proof that subspecies can arise from both mutations, and have strong inferences that natural selection can slowly, but surely, yield a similar result. But we have no evidence that these mutations can be extreme enough to explain the incredible diversity in nature.

Canis, you're effectively stating that God is a fantasy. That may very well be the case. It could just as easily not be the case. That discussion doesn't belong in a science classroom, it belongs in religion 101, but since God can't be disproved, I fail to see how an idea arising from such a belief can't find room for possible discussion, if your talking about the creation of our planet and its animals. It's not a very in depth explaination, but just like evolution is a possibility, creation is one. Evolution is a much better possibility, but that doesn't automatically exclude creationism from being feasible.

I too am awed by our universe. However, regardless of whether we have some guiding force or not, it can either be figured out, or we're wasting our time. I can only say that I have time to burn.

 

Yes but you WERE saying that Religion can explain things about the natural world.

Edit: Oh poop, I think I misread something.

 

No he fucking didn't. Forget it Blinky. I think you're speaking over Sleek's head.

 

Sorry, Blinky. I guess I got blinded by your constant references to religion. I strongly differentiate between religion and belief in a higher power, such as God, Allah, Buddah, etc. Many religions distort the truth so far beyond recognition that it is frightening and twist facts so frequently and readily that I tend to be very cautious about accepting what they have to say about things. This does not mean that I am agnostic or atheistic because I do believe in a higher power, call Him or Her what you will - I personally use God because that's what I'm most comfortable with.

My point was that I think we should either teach ALL the theories in school or none of them. The creastionist theory is just as valid as the evolution theory in many respects. If you take a good hard look at it, it does not really say how long that it took for that creation to take place. In effect, since the Bible, which the Creation theory is based on, says that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to God, then we don't really know how long those "days" really were. We also have no idea what mechanism was used in the creation. It is entirely possible that God did indeed use evolution or some form of it, but it is also possible that he created each individual genus and only allowed species within those to evolve naturally.

BTW, Canis, the Chinese Crested Dog is still a DOG, so does does NOT prove the theory of Evolution. It did not evolve into a horse or some other totally different animal form and it was bred into that form by men. So it is completely contrary to your Evolution theory - especially when you take a good look at all the health problems the species seems to have and the fact that it was bred as a domestic food animal. Please keep evolution as a species distinct from the Evolution Theory, which is quite different.

The point I'm trying to make about all of this is that both of them are theories and we don't know what happened.

 

The chinese dog thing is a type of evolution, but on a much smaller scale. The reason it's a theory is one, there are a few lingering bits and pieces on it's occurence in natural history, and two, we haven't seen an animal evolve into a completely seperate species. The line between subspecies and species is that two subspecies can mate and produce a hybrid offspring that can in turn reproduce. Two seperate species cannot do that, although some in the same genus are still close enough to reproduce with each other. Mules are an example, but mules cannot breed with other mules, and so their parents, the donkey and the horse, are still seperate species.

Sinbad, by saying that you ARE bowing to every nutcase who scored some good acid. I think that while they are theories, there is a stratification in credibility between certain ones. Evolution is a credible theory. Creation, much to everyone here's dismay, except Retard, is a credible theory. You need to include a clause that says that some cokehead with a good imagination isn't going to be having his ideas taught to students.

Like I said, I see no reason why creationism should not be taught, save one. Seperation of church and state. Creationism is solely a religious idea, it has no support outside of the Bible. Let religious and private organizations teach it, it's not a public school's job to start arbitrating clauses of the Constitution.

Dark Elf, I thought it was only 98%? Of course, I could have just confused the number, the point is still valid regardless.

BTW, just because I don't feel like wasting an entire thread so I can brag and be happy: I just hit 1570 on my SATS... :-D

 

Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring, as can bottlenose dolphins with both false killer whales and Risso's dolphins. Nature doesn't care about our arbitrary categories.

Teaching creationism in science courses would be unacceptable even in countries with no specific seperation clause, because creationism is not backed up by any credible evidence. It's not so much that people are afraid of Religion, but rather that they don't want crackpot theories sending us further back to the Dark Ages. Nobody whines about not teaching the Flat Earth theory, or the one about Martian canals and monuments. Creationism is no different.

 

No, we're hominids. Great Apes are in the Family Pongidae.