Wow. I've never heard these particular things before but I have heard some creationist pseudoscience...
But I'm genuinely interested in where, specifically, this information is learned. Like... are there books? Are there peer-reviewed (or at least allegedly peer-reviewed) journals on creationist science? Is that where this comes from? Or is sonicsfan1991 just making guesses?
I think it's mostly "whatever I can make up at the time that sounds good."
ETA: Or as Godless Geeks would say:
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Well, it's certainly nothing Mada made up on her own, as I've heard that little gem too. These "theories" (which, what do you know, actually DO apply the the "guess" definition) just get passed back and forth between ministers and evangelists until they find a theory that is completely devoid of scientific thought, but is complex enough to have an "answer" to every question you could ask them. It's kind of beautiful, really.
This is why I hate Evolution debate, it leaves both parties pissed off. After all attempting to change someone's opinions when they have drilled within them is near impossible. Anyway, I really don't want to argue back and forth I just want to remind everyone that there are Christians who believe in Evolution *points to himself* So not all of us are ignorant buffoons (not saying any of you said that I've just heard it before.) Just thought it'd be nice to note that.
That's true and there's certainly no reason why God and evolution can't go hand-in-hand, but really in the end I don't think it really matters. People debate the origin of the universe or where we came from... I mean, religious people don't need their stance explained, and people who support evolution are almost always supporting it in absence of a god, rather than in conjunction with. It's not so much a question of "did we evolve or not?", but rather a question of "were we created?"
And there is a question that can be debated. Personal belief against personal belief, as opposed to ignorance versus education.
I'm honestly shocked no-one has yet pointed out in this thread that the Bible itself gives two differing accounts of creation. That's usually one of the first points that's aimed at for shooting down the creationist argument. Just saying.
With that said, add me to the number of Christians who are perfectly happy to give evolution the benefit of the doubt. It's scientifically sound, there's a whole ginormous pile of evidence to support it, and it also explains an awful lot. Not to mention that the assorted aspects of it have been observed to be accurate.
However! Whilst I certainly believe that evolution is as good as scientific fact, I don't think it came about all on its own. The notion goes so far beyond the bounds of improbability that I can't see a way for there not to have been an external factor involved in bringing it about: in other words, God. Considering the sheer insane complexity of the world around us, not to mention the incredibly high numbers of possibilities involved in the evolutionary process, I think it'd be lunacy to look on all that and not suspect that there was some greater power or higher existence at work behind the scenes - i.e., I don't believe it to be a process that could have occurred entirely by chance; rather I believe that something had to have been a catalyst.
Yes, evolution is indeed a theory. But as stated before, so is gravity, and I don't see people arguing against that one particularly vehemently - and let's face it, there are a lot more problems with gravitational theory than there are with evolution!
At the end of the day though, I tend to lean toward the same sort of view as expressed by Rei and Trimanus - yes, we can debate for as long as we want about where we came from and how we developed and so forth, but even if we do establish an idea, a belief or a theory or whatever you want to call it about where we came from, is it going to make a difference to us on a personal level? I don't think that it is - I know it certainly has made little or no difference to me personally having any sort of stance on it, other than that it makes for interesting conversation every so often.
And I also agree with MattManic - there's little point in questioning the how of our being here, but there's definitely still grounds for questioning what is behind all that.
Yeah, I tend to agree with SilverShadow... we can argue evolution vs. creation, science vs. faith, belief vs. atheism, etc.; as long as we want to, but nothing will ever come out of it. We'll either go to heaven and be wrong or right (and who's going to waste time in heaven saying "I told you so?"), or we'll go to dust and not really be able to care there's no afterlife. Much more important to focus on things that we can change while we're here.
I've never heard of the second account of creation, what's the other one? (Besides Genesis)
Silvershadow0 wrote:
I'm honestly shocked no-one has yet pointed out in this thread that the Bible itself gives two differing accounts of creation. That's usually one of the first points that's aimed at for shooting down the creationist argument. Just saying.
Depends on the nature of the debate, I guess. If it's "evolution vs. biblical creationism" then the point is relevant, but if it's "evolution vs. creationism as a whole" then it isn't. Similarly, if it's "evolution vs. just denying evolution" (which isn't necessarily the same thing as creationism) then biblical creationism isn't implied by that either.
Silvershadow0 wrote:
At the end of the day though, I tend to lean toward the same sort of view as expressed by Rei and Trimanus - yes, we can debate for as long as we want about where we came from and how we developed and so forth, but even if we do establish an idea, a belief or a theory or whatever you want to call it about where we came from, is it going to make a difference to us on a personal level? I don't think that it is
... what about how accepting evolution opens the door to a better understanding of human psychology and biology through consideration of what sorts of traits evolution would promote in our evolutionary ancestors?
The past is uncertain.
... yes, but as of yet, evolution is the best explanation. Really, if we refused to base decisions on anything that wasn't completely certain what could we get done? What's your point? o.o
You don't get my point.
You don't get my point.
Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood isn't cleverness, Shifty. o.o
He didn't communicate badly, though - his point was quite clear...*we*, that is the current human race, don't have anything solid to say for sure which was the real chain of events. Anything we DO have is either speculation based on loosely established facts that are only 'true' because they fit a category of man-made truths we ourselves have created, or a 2000+ year old manuscript collection that is or is not entirely verifiable as being or not being reliable gospel from God himself.
The only thing that's certain about the distant past is that we HAVE it - everything else is, to some degree, speculative at best.
He didn't communicate badly, though - his point was quite clear...*we*, that is the current human race, don't have anything solid to say for sure which was the real chain of events. Anything we DO have is either speculation based on loosely established facts that are only 'true' because they fit a category of man-made truths we ourselves have created, or a 2000+ year old manuscript collection that is or is not entirely verifiable as being or not being reliable gospel from God himself.
The only thing that's certain about the distant past is that we HAVE it - everything else is, to some degree, speculative at best.
... but even if it isn't completely solid, scientific evidence can be used to indicate which kind of "chain of events" (as you put it) would be more likely, and that can still be used to get a better idea of how human nature really is through better understanding of the evolutionary history (and prehistory) it originated from... and I'd like to think others would agree there's practical advantage to knowing human nature better. That's why I was critical of Silver's "it doesn't make a difference" perspective.
I meant that the past isn't real. There is only the present. 
There is no one real past!
I meant that the past isn't real. There is only the present.
... what?
There is not one past.
There is not one past.
... all you are doing is just repeating your earlier claim. What the hell is that supposed to mean, not one past? Where do you think the present came from?
The present is eternal. There is no one past. The past is nonexistant just like the future. You get what I am saying but you aren't sure yet. Have you ever tried asking everyone in the world for their accurate account of their own personal history and then compared them all for continuity? Think about it.
The present is eternal. There is no one past. The past is nonexistant just like the future. You get what I am saying but you are withstanding acceptance of it. Have you ever tried asking everyone in the world for their accurate account of their own personal history and then compared them all for continuity? Think about it.
Which probably suggests that "their accurate account" of it is not all that accurate, not that there is no such thing as past or future. o.o
What Shifty is saying is that the past is a construct... an illusion like how we label the future.
You missed my point as well Matt: sure, having some sort of theory/belief/whatever makes a difference on a larger scale (for example in the way that you outlined), but it doesn't make much difference to the indivdual - unless said individual happens to be a psychologist or a biologist, in this example. I think it's fair to say that most people, in their day-to-day lives, spend more time thinking about the present and the future than they do about the past - i.e., thinking about what things they need to accomplish today (present) in order to accomplish long-term goals (the future). Generally speaking, I'd think that most people have probably given thought to the issue at some point, but don't spend a lot of time dwelling on it - nor living their lives differently in any huge way because of it.
Or to put it extremely bluntly, whether or not you take evolution as fact isn't going to have that big of an impact on your life. Not unless it's something hugely important to you, and I can say with certainty that everyone treats it with a different level of importance.
Oh and MattManic, the other account of creation I was on about is the one that's either later on in the first chapter of Genesis or is the beginning of chapter 2. In the seven day account, God creates all the other animals and then makes man, whereas in the second one He makes man first and then makes the other animals and man names them.
You missed my point as well Matt: sure, having some sort of theory/belief/whatever makes a difference on a larger scale (for example in the way that you outlined), but it doesn't make much difference to the indivdual - unless said individual happens to be a psychologist or a biologist, in this example.
You don't have to be a scientist to think about the implications of evolution on an individual level. Even if your conclusions might not be as valid as those reached by a psychology expert, they can still make an impact on how you interpret things.
And that's thrice you've missed the point now. Re-read my last post, especially the blunt part of it.
And that's thrice you've missed the point now. Re-read my last post, especially the blunt part of it.
I didn't really miss the point in the first place. My argument applies just as well to the blunt part; you never know how consideration of what evolution would yirld can affect your interpretation of your life and how you act in it.
You clearly did miss the point as you still are doing now. I agree with you that you don't need to be a biologist or a psychologist for it to impact your life - but, as I said when I was speaking bluntly, unless it's something that matters a lot to you, it's unlikely to have that big of an impact. Again, I'm not excluding it from having importance to those outside of scientific circles, as I know it does matter a lot to some people. Can we move on now, seeing as having to re-state my opinion multiple times is getting old? Thanks.
... yes, you were arguing it would not have that big an impact, but again, my point is that you never know how big an impact it could have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATSqGeKA1OI
This topic now reminds me of this clip.
As such, I will cease to be polite, as being polite is clearly getting nowhere.
That it is not possible to determine a precise measurement of the impact evolution as fact has on specific people has no relevance to SilverShadow's point in which he is making a statement on general public opinion and general public impact at the individual level, which on average would be very very low. If people care more than average than naturally it will affect them more, but they're still an anomaly and in general it doesn't matter to general everyday life all that much.
To preempt the inevitable LOLpost after this from Matt not getting the analogy for the millionth time, people have tried to ask you this politely, and you've not noticed, so now I'm being blunt at the risk of breaking the board rules because you're being THAT annoying. Once again:
You are being pedantic. Even if you can't tell how, you are. Not every conversation on Earth has to be an incredibly precise scientific debate where every detail has to be perfectly ironed out. Learn this vital fact of conversational English for the sake of all our sanity, you pedantic jackass.
(Jeez.)
To preempt the inevitable LOLpost after this from Matt not getting the analogy for the millionth time
What, do you think you have me all figured out or something? SilverShadow was asking if it makes all that much difference to us on a personal level at the end of the day; I pointed out how understanding of evolution could lead to better understanding of human nature. Silver then said that it "doesn't make a difference to the individual" unless they happen to be a biologist or psychologist. Well, aside from the obvious point that better understanding of human nature could improve (or granted, worsen, if misused) human society which WOULD affect a lot of people, my point was that how much of a difference it makes depends on the individual in more ways than just one's profession. It wasn't relevant to my point what "people as a whole" think; obviously since Silver's INITIAL point was about those who debate evolution in the first place, then among those individuals, those who DO regard it as making a big difference are those to whom his point does not apply.
Ok, so maybe to you this is a LOLpost. Whatever, my reasoning speaks for itself. You can act dismissive and condescending all you like, but at the end of the day that doesn't prove crap.
Some further clarification of my earlier (initial) point about it making a
difference to us on a personal level. I meant that in terms of,
regardless of your personal beliefs on where you came from, it's not
going to affect what happens to you in the long term - i.e., you'll still have to deal with death and taxes and so on, just like everyone else. (In before people start talking about
cryogenics and gene therapy etc)
Now then.
Silver then said that it "doesn't make a difference to the individual" unless they happen to be a biologist or psychologist.
My earlier post says:
but it doesn't make much difference to the indivdual - unless said
individual happens to be a psychologist or a biologist, in this example.
Three words for a world of difference.
And before you inevitably ask "What example?", I refer of course to the example you raised of a better understanding of human biology and psychology, etcetera. That was the point I was making - that gaining a better understanding of those things makes more difference to you if that is your chosen profession than if you are not. Note, this is within the constraints of the cited example.
And in answer to your point that "you never know how big of an impact it could have", you never know how small of an impact it'll have either. Your statement's irrelevant in relation to my point - you'll note if you read my post carefully (like you should have in the first place) that I used the word "unlikely". Never at any stage did I discount the possibility of a big impact on a person's life outside of scientific cirlces at all.
I did, of course, express the opinion that if such a thing is not important to you then it's not likely to make as large an impact on your life than it might otherwise, and I stand by that opinion. Note if you will I am expressing this an opinion, not a fact. Also note, I am placing no emphasis on the individual's occupation as I am not dumb enough to believe that science has no importance to people outside of scientific circles.
Or, if this is all tl;dr, summarisation.
Example 1.
Person A is a biologist. Person B is my great-uncle Bob. Both have a keen interest in the topic of evolution. (Note: I don't know whether my great uncle Bob actually does; if he doesn't then my apologies, Bob.)
We explain to them both evolution is essentially scientific fact.
Person A benefits from being able to further their work, carry out experiments, do all sorts of research and perhaps revolutionise the way things are done.
Person B, not being a biologist, can't make an awful lot of practical use of this knowledge - but he's happy to hear of it, and it gives him food for thought.
Example 2.
Person C is a fairly ordinary man on the street. Person D is also a fairly ordinary man on the street.
Person C, like my great-uncle Bob above, holds a keen interest in biology, and evolution especially. Person D is also a biology enthusiast, though not to the same extent as Person C.
Person C is notified that it is now widely agreed that evolution is essentially fact. He finds this to be a wonderful thing - even if it's not big news to him, he's still quite happy to hear about it, and he resolves to think more deeply about it, as his scientific beliefs affect the way he lives his life in many areas.
Person D is given the same news. He reacts with a comparable level of elation to Person C, perhaps more as it's a bigger revelation to him. With that said though, he has other things on his mind as well, so as much as he'd like to spend time considering the implications, there're other matters of equal or greater importance he has to take care of - so it becomes an interesting bit of information to him, but not something of great practical use.
See the difference? Good. Do you also finally see what I was driving at for the past several points? I hope so.
Last thing to say here before this debate goes any further.
*Mod hat on*
Matt Hayter and Boss Velotix, please tone down the hostility. This should be considered an official warning to Boss Velotix, however it will be extended to you both if you can't play nicely together.
*Mod hat off*
Continue.
Yeah, I see what you're driving at. I suppose the phrase "in this example" was more relevant than I thought. That said, my earlier posts were based on interpreting your stance on the debate as being that it does not make much difference, and I felt compelled to respond to that because it is a major part of my stance on the issue that denial of evolution just strikes me as something that would hold better understanding of human behaviour back; though granted, it's not the only thing holding it back.
On a sidenote, my hostility to BV was in response to his. Perhaps that wasn't necessarily the best approach, but I just wanted to make sure I emphasized that's what it was about.
Yeah, I see what you're driving at. I suppose the phrase "in this example" was more relevant than I thought. That said, my earlier posts were based on interpreting your stance on the debate as being that it does not make much difference...
And that's why we've been going back and forth like this, as you misinterpreted my stance. I'm not so much of an imbecile that I think it doesn't make much difference at all on any level. That'd be akin to writing off the importance of, for example, Newton's Laws.
On a sidenote, my hostility to BV was in response to his. Perhaps that
wasn't necessarily the best approach, but I just wanted to make sure I
emphasized that's what it was about.
Responding to hostility with hostility is somewhat of a throwback to our primitive cave-dwelling ancestors and akin to how the rest of the animal kingdom does things, but I guess it can't be helped :3
Seriously though, no need to let it get heated. Civility's a hallmark of human society, and remaining so when someone loses it is a hallmark of wisdom and self-control.
... but it's not just about instinct either. If we were as polite to rude people as we were to polite people, wouldn't that be a little unfair to polite people, who probably deserve to be met with politeness more so?
Dude, you're missing the point again. That was my subtle (and light-hearted) way of saying that just because someone is hostile / rude to you, doesn't excuse you treating them in a similar fashion. We're all adults here after all, and all capable of acting in a mature and level-headed fashion, as per rules of conduct.
Put plainly, I was basically telling you not to use BV being hostile as an excuse to be hostile back, as "he started it" is a lame excuse for poor conduct, capisch? And yeah, that would indeed be better given over to another thread rather than derailing this one ;p
I disagree. Any faith should be expected to stand up to the scientific method.
I disagree. Any faith should be expected to stand up to the scientific method.
"Expected" in what sense? o.o
Idea that wants conviction must have lots of evidence. How is that hard to understand?
I'm honestly shocked no-one has yet pointed out in this thread that the Bible itself gives two differing accounts of creation.
That's because the claim of 2 accounts is extremely interpretive and any contradictions can be attributed to translation and point of view.
Idea that wants conviction must have lots of evidence. How is that hard to understand?
Not hard to understand in and of itself, I just wasn't sure if you meant "has to on have lots of evidence" in and of itself, or if you meant "has to have lots of evidence if you want this to influence those in society who do not share your faith beliefs" etc... as in, the latter giving people room for willfully-ignorant faith-beliefs as long as they don't try to impose those on others.
