[Closed] evolution/creationism

dont bother. As is demonstrated on here more than occasionally, you cant bring a a fairy-tale believer to their senses with even the most definitive logical argument against their hogwash. You'll just get a brick shaped bump on your forehead.

Just smile knowingly, nod and then ignore them and enjoy that smug warmness inside from the appreciation that [i]you[/i] don't need imaginary friends now you're older than 6. And then never take a decision they ever make at face value.

Now let the battle commence!

Stoners pragmatism is pretty wise. I would be tempted to take it a step further, lose the freind, can you really have any respect for someone who is either:

a) clearly your intellectual inferior
b) mentally ill and danger to you and yours
c) probably both

Unless of course you want to keep the friend for the purpose of wheeling out at parties and doing a bit of baiting. But keep Stoners advice in mind, never trust anything they say or do again.

A mate recently split with his new girl after 5 or so years of romance and vigorous humping, she was always religious, he just avoided the issue. When they started talking about getting married, she turned off the goodies because she needed to make herself pure again in the eyes of the lord, and was intransigent about it too. He saw the light.

There is another way;
You could have respect for that person's view,as they should have for yours.But that would not be the Singletrack way.
Stoner goes straight into usual stw abuse mode,however Toys posts a couple of interesting points. Faith equals mental illness and low(relative) intellect.He then suggests said mentally ill person should be wheeled out at parties to amuse people,this is obviously him displaying his own high intellect.If you are going to suggest people are stupid,being able to spell friend would help.

That was a troll,right?

What duckman said.
You don't have to "win an argument". Why not just have a conversation and listen to each other, sharing thoughts and ideas?

Religion loses when it tries To take on sceince on it's terms. The bible is one of the greatest pieces of literature the western world has and should be treasured. Ceationism is none if these things, it's an American device to get a particular kind of right wing Christianity taught in US public schools.

Gannets.

If the clever fellow upstairs made everything perfect and just right on his first attempt, then why did he leave the airlines from the gannet's nostrils to it's lungs?

Most birds have circular breathing, whereas humans (and gannets) have tidal flow, in the gannets case because the nostrils have grown over allowing them to dive into the sea.

So you'd think him upstairs would remove the air lines because it's pretty cramped in a gannets head and keeping the air lines is a bit of a faff.

You'd also think that if he was keeping the airlines in the head as a "standard" feature of birds he'd then make the "blocked up nostrils" a standard feature of all birds going under the water/diving into the sea.

In that case why do penguins/pelicans (both of which dive into the water) have open nostrils?

You could also ask him why whales have vestigages of legs in the bone structure too I guess.

You could also ask him why whales have vestigages of legs in the bone structure too I guess.

easy: the Devil put them there (probably the same dark night he was out burying all those 'dinosaur' bones) in order to make us doubt the True Story Of Creation. There will always be an answer in my experience!

I knew a couple of waaaay christian geology/paleantology students at university who were and still are quite happy reconciling their studies with their faith.

there is a book:

[img] [/img]

(from amazon - other bookshops are available)

which will tell you everything you need to know - except how to convince someone who has based their world view on 'make stuff up and pretend it is true'.

creationism in the face of so much evidence is nothing less than intellectual vandalism.

Evolution is a fact. Religions contradict each other and themselves and don't have a leg to stand on. Who still believes in RA here? Or Thor or Zeus?
Problem is, they will not change their minds. However there is hope on the horizon- the internet. It's spreading the word. We won't see it, but provided the muslims don't take over the world (they won't) and we don't suffer a massive technological setback due to a natural disaster or similar, it should phase out over the next couple of hundred years.

From the late great Bill Hicks :

[url=

I don't believe in creationism and do think that evolution is the best current description of how life on Earth has developed. This doesn't however make it true. Alot of people on this forum always say that science doesn't allow for true or false answers, it is all hypothesis and evolution is the best hypoyhosis for what evedence we currently have. Also I feel I have to point out although evolution may best describe the mechanism for how life has come to be how it is on Earth now it doesn't really explain how on earth it started. What was the mechanism driving life starting up? What was the mechanism driving the big bang. These processes that are currently happening ie evolution a constantly expanding universe only go as far as expalining what is currently happening or has happened in the past it doesn't explain how any of it started. I also think its worth pointing out you can believe in both creationism and evolution for this very reason. Evolution rationalises the current understanding of the world around us. It doesn't rationalise nor can it how it all began. If you don't take the bible literally then it isn't so daft. Some people just like looking down from their high horse.

Evolution is still a theory. Despite being the mostly likely explanation with mountains of evidence it is still but a theory.

And I wouldn't respect someone if they told me they believed the Earth was tens of thousands of years old.

[img] [/img]

why should the theory of evolution have to explain the big-bang? or the origins of life?

evolution explains VERY VERY accurately how life adapts to it's environment.

(more or less random mutations, removal of the least fit by death)

With a planet stuffed full of evidence all of which confirming it.

as for origins of life; abigenesis is one hypothesis being spat on by the religionist - so probably worth looking at.

a theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed by evidence - in this case lots and lots of evidence.

Indeed as alex says evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive, there is nothing wrong with the concept of a god as a creator, it's just the literal biblical view of creation that's completely barking. Likewise denying the existence of evolution is pretty retarded.

again?

already?

😥

That was a troll,right?

Don't you think the whole post is a troll? But by your definition it was a point of view and you should respect it. You also berate STW abuse mode but happily abuse me. You have the first identifiable trait in a god botherer, rank hypocrisy. Taking the p*ss out of religious types is like shooting fish in a barrel. If the best you can do is try and belittle me by having go at my typo's then you need a bit more fish in your diet.

Has this thread lost track of the fact that Creationism isn't what's spoken about in the Bible, but a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that most Christians think of as ludicrous?

Or have people become confused by the vocabulary, and got the creation story mixed up with Creationsim?

Just in case there's anyone here who doesn't realise: being Christian doesn't make you a Creationist.

(So if you're trying to refute Creationist beliefs, it doesn't mean you're refuting Christianity or religion as a whole. Effectively, you're just arguing with a bunch of idiots who no-one with a brain takes seriously. Why bother?)

If you don't take the bible literally then it isn't so daft. Some people just like looking down from their high horse.

This always puzzles me. If the Bible isn't to be taken literally and parts of it are not considered true by many Christians, then how reliable is it as a historical source? If the 'scripture' is unreliable, then what exactly IS the basis of Christianity? Then again, how important are the various man-made dogma and traditions of the various churches?

If there is no reliable worldy guide to christianity, there must be another way. I understand that some people have a (at least one-way) personal hotline to god and speak in tongues etc.

Maybe some double-blind testing should be carried out? Or would testing god immediately invalidate the test?

As an intelligent church-going person I know said,
[i]"It's all okay if you don't question it TOO much"
[/i]

Oh yeah it definitely makes sense until you look at it.

i worked with an american who was a creationist, and tbh i really struggled when he was made manager of the US dept... As i had no confidence in his decision making capacity. And after 9/11 this was proved right.

nutters one and all

If the Bible isn't to be taken literally and parts of it are not considered true by many Christians, then how reliable is it as a historical source?

Your life sounds like a barrel of laughs 🙂

Effectively, you're just arguing with a bunch of idiots who no-one with a brain takes seriously. Why bother?

Because the bunch of idiots have tremendous power in the US and slowly but surely over here. There are already schools teaching Creationism over here (using texts from the US). Bad but not as bad as Steiner Schools imo, schools should be state run, mixed gender and secular.

[i]Evolution is still a theory. Despite being the mostly likely explanation with mountains of evidence it is still but a theory[/i]

Sigh.
There's also a theory of gravity. Despite the fact that it's only a theory I still fall off my bike with alarm regularity 😉

Theories are there to explain and predict observations. Both gravity and evolution are observable facts.

evolution explains VERY VERY accurately how life adapts to it's environment. With a planet stuffed full of evidence all of which confirming it.

Mate I did actually write that in my post. You just cherry picked what you want to try and make me look silly but this is a forum and I think you will find that a forum is a public meeting or assembly for open discussion. Besides I also wrote that I d believe in evolution so what exactly do you prove by agreeing with me on that point?

Your life sounds like a barrel of laughs

Why? Because I ask questions and don't take everything I was told as a child at face value?

Would my life be better if I believed in an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent creator with a very ambiguous good book?

[i]'Science'[/i] is updated when new evidence is observed or discovered. It is in iterative process.

Off-topic slightly, but you know the big bang? A big explosion/implosion of gas and whatnot?

Where did the gas come from, and what caused it to contract/explode?

My scientific mind demands an answer and I can't be bothered to read any books!

No because you try and belittle peoples opinions on an internet forum. 😆

Your life would be better if you smoked crack though.

Off-topic slightly, but you know the big bang? A big explosion/implosion of gas and whatnot?

Where did the gas come from, what caused it to contract/explode?

nobody knows, but does that automatically prove the existence of the 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', Allah, The Hindu gods or any other deities?

Would my life be better if I believed in an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent creator with a very ambiguous good book?

Yep 🙂

God isn't invisible to Christians.

If you like life black and white, fine. Sounds boring to me.

No because you try and belittle peoples opinions on an internet forum

I [b]discuss[/b] issues like this in the real world too. Is smoking crack compatible with religious teaching?

nobody knows, but does that automatically prove the existence of the 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', Allah, The Hindu gods or any other deities?

Well, no, who said it did?

But if science can't account for this simple-seeming hole in one of its central theories, how can the rest of science be taken seriously?

But if science can't account for this simple-seeming hole in one of its central theories, how can the rest of science be taken seriously?

Are you serious?

Scientific understanding increases with time. It is not 'true', but is correct to the best of our understanding until it is refined further.

[i]There is no evidence for god(s) or religion. If religion can't account for the simple-seeming hole in one of its central theories, how can the rest of religion be taken seriously?[/i]

As long as you don't mix faith and logic you're fine.

If somebody wants to defend creationism with faith alone, that's OK by me. If they try to have a scientific discussion around it, or to attack evolution using broken logic then just walk away because they will just keep playing the god card.

'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', Allah, The Hindu gods or any other deities

Most religious adherents say these are all different manifestations of the same god anyway.

Are you serious?

Not as serious as you, by the sounds of things!

(I like the way you cleverly used my own stylistc technique against me by the way, using one small example to draw a preposterous conclusion. Smart!)

Dorset_Knob - Member
Off-topic slightly, but you know the big bang? A big explosion/implosion of gas and whatnot?

Where did the gas come from, and what caused it to contract/explode?

My scientific mind demands an answer and I can't be bothered to read any books!

For me, this is the big question. The religions of the world don't explain it though. We still have a lot to learn but we have to go forwards through science rather than backwards through religion

Yiu are very belittling. People are entighteled to their own opinions whether you agree or not. I never said that I do believe in the holy trinity at any point. Nor that I believe in God. I just pointed out that science doesn't no can't offer all the answers and in my opinion looking down you nose at peoples alternative views on God/origins of every thing science has yet to explain makes you as bad as a fundamental christian who does believe in creationism. Every answer will only lead to more questions so 'God' if you will, will always be elusive. No matter how many questions you answer. Nor how many people you have distain for because they don't just accept what you say as gospel. Also smoking crack is very condusive to Catholosism because you can do it and then repent. Just like child buggary.

Logic and science are both great for explaining [i]things[/i].

But they seem to fall short when it comes explaining [i]people[/i]. I don't mean the blood and guts, I mean the soul. Allowing for religion seems to me like allowing room for the soul; denying religion seems to be like denying the soul.

It might not make any sense, or be provable scientifically, but why should it be? For proof of the existence of God (who is manifest on this Earth by love, some would say), I look to the work of religious organisations who provide all sorts of help to people who need it.

(And please don't make yourself look stupid by saying 'What about all the wars over religion?'!)

Yiu are very belittling. People are entighteled to their own opinions whether you agree or not. I never said that I do believe in the holy trinity at any point. Nor that I believe in God. I just pointed out that science doesn't no can't offer all the answers and in my opinion looking down you nose at peoples alternative views on God/origins of every thing science has yet to explain makes you as bad as a fundamental christian who does believe in creationism. Every answer will only lead to more questions so 'God' if you will, will always be elusive. No matter how many questions you answer. Nor how many people you have distain for because they don't just accept what you say as gospel. Also smoking crack is very condusive to Catholosism because you can do it and then repent. Just like child buggary.

I'd like this on a t-shirt 🙂

(And please don't make yourself look stupid by saying 'What about all the wars over religion?'!)

What about all the wars over religion?

Your comment is logical fallacy known as poisoning the well; no-one can mention wars over religion now, for fear of walking into the stupid label applied by you. Well it doesn't make anyone look stupid except you. You are essentially casting aside an area of discussion that has important relevance to the topic. Are you saying no wars have been caused by religion? How terribly ignorant.

I have lost relatives on both sides of the border in Ireland, I had the crap beaten out of me by proddies in Co Donegal for being "Papist scum" when I was 14 years old!

Australian Aboriginals have many creation stories which describe how the archetypal beings, including a giant snake from space, wandered the barren lands during the Dreaming, forming the features and eventually giving the spirits a physical form.

That story is at least ten thousand years old. And there are hundreds, probably thousands of other creation stories.

So I tend to wonder how creationists reconcile themselves to the fact that only their creation story can be "true" and all the others are false.

'What about all the wars over religion?

...is it alright if someone else asks it? 😉

seems to me that a big part of having a faith is being under no illusion that you might be at the most rational and least self-serving end of it. Even in the average moderately happy clappy church in the UK there is usually a spectrum of 'why do you come to church' reasons. Extrapolate that out to the whole world and its no wonder you get fundamentalists in every religion.

If we lived in a secular society then I would say 'believe what you want' but we don't.

perhaps a more interesting question is, what would you do differently if one case or the other were true ? However it came about, the world we have now is the one in which we act, and I think what people do is more important than what they believe.