Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

Status
Not open for further replies.
motomonkey said:
Sorry, but it has been proven, numerous times. I'll link one example that is (In)famous as making the point very well.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

If you continue to claim evolution is a theory in the face of Hard science of this nature, then it's obvious that your only interest is promoting your own version of reality, which I would guess, has no basis in science or fact, but only faith...
Click to expand...

LOL, you don't even get that I am more or less, Atheist, or rather I don't believe in some all powerful creator, but OK.
If the prank with the e.coli, that has not been repeated afaik, is proof to you, then fine. You can believe that happenstance is proof of your religion. I choose not to.
 
GORANKAR said:
If I do as you say, I might break my leg. I will not need to rely on faith.
If I stare at a butterfly I will simply watch it die. I will never see it evolve. I will need to rly on faith.



Is evolution proven, or a theory? If you say it is a theory, then what do we have to argue about? If you say it is proven, then you are taking it on faith, again, what do we have to argue about?

When it comes to both sides of the evolution debate, I think the politics and religion have become so caught up in the process, that the science is taking a back seat to the various agendas.
Click to expand...


The butterfly one is especially unique.

They are born as larvae. They grow into caterpillars. Then they go away behind a self made sheet for a while. Then viola, they are butterflies. Must be god. lol

Totally magic and all that stuff. Or I mean god.
 
GORANKAR said:
Is evolution proven, or a theory?
Click to expand...
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means in this context.

Scientific theories can be proven. Evolution has been and continues to be further confirmed every day.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
That's the whole problem.. they can't. Make them throw out a book that has over 3000 translations, because even they can't agree on the right one and suddenly there isn't a single logical argument coming from them. I'm all four spiritual belief, but religion is just a plague that needs to be eradicated.
Click to expand...

Guess you also want to throw out all the religious charities, orphanages, hospitals, schools, and other uncountable good done by religions all across this country.

You also seem to forget that the largest massacres in history where done by governments (see communism).

I don't get the hate so many people have for religion, I don't see armed men showing up at peoples homes forcing them to go to church, but tell someone you won't bake them a cake and armed men will shut down your business.
 
Kueller said:
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means in this context.

Scientific theories can be proven. Evolution has been and continues to be further confirmed every day.
Click to expand...

Micro evolution I would agree with like from a Wolf to a dog.

Macro evolution has NOT been proven, it's all just theories.
 
GORANKAR said:
If I do as you say, I might break my leg. I will not need to rely on faith.
If I stare at a butterfly I will simply watch it die. I will never see it evolve. I will need to rly on faith.



Is evolution proven, or a theory? If you say it is a theory, then what do we have to argue about? If you say it is proven, then you are taking it on faith, again, what do we have to argue about?

When it comes to both sides of the evolution debate, I think the politics and religion have become so caught up in the process, that the science is taking a back seat to the various agendas.
Click to expand...
You (and many others) seem to misunderstand how "theory" and "fact" are used in scientific context. Unlike in the context of public speaking, where theory often implies a significant amount of uncertainty, the scientific use of theory refers to an explanation for facts that is well supported by observations. From the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,
NAS said:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
Click to expand...
In other words, the scientific community is not uncertain about evolution just because it is a "theory".
 
nutzo said:
Yet they have no idea what caused the big bang...... i.e there was nothing, and then bang the universe was created......
Click to expand...

Lack of evidence for one theory is not supporting evidence for stories from a book riddled with contradictions and filled with statements that have been proven false.

When you have proof that god caused the big bang, then you have the science of god. Till then you've got nothing but your beliefs, which is fine for religion, but science it's not.
 
Serpent said:
Or, it could be that it's never known. So..... You seem to be putting faith into science, yet not in faith.
Click to expand...

Do scientists claim to know what caused the big bang? There are hypotheses, but that's it. There's nothing about the the BBT that states some divine force couldn't have created it, but there is no evidence that a divine force exists.

The difference between most science and religion is that they follow the evidence, not just some beliefs passed down for millenniums. Religion is about faith, not fact. You can believe in a god and not believe that religion is science.
 
GORANKAR said:
If I do as you say, I might break my leg. I will not need to rely on faith.
If I stare at a butterfly I will simply watch it die. I will never see it evolve. I will need to rly on faith.



Is evolution proven, or a theory? If you say it is a theory, then what do we have to argue about? If you say it is proven, then you are taking it on faith, again, what do we have to argue about?

When it comes to both sides of the evolution debate, I think the politics and religion have become so caught up in the process, that the science is taking a back seat to the various agendas.
Click to expand...

It appears you don't know what the word theory means in a scientific context. It doesn't mean "some junk I made up". Faith is about believing things for no reasonable logical reason. The entire concept is silly and not related to the topic at hand. Science is based on observation and proof, not random thoughts and ideas. You can't just seek out to define something as something it isn't for the point of an argument.

Trying to argue that science is a religion only belies the fact that you DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SCIENCE IS ABOUT. There is no blind faith involved here, science is about logic.

P.S. butterfly generations are not quick enough to make it feasible but scientists actually have viewed evolution as it happens using generations of bacteria. Literally viewed it happening, so.... yeah.
 
nutzo said:
Micro evolution I would agree with like from a Wolf to a dog.

Macro evolution has NOT been proven, it's all just theories.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a very outdated idea. There is no macro or micro evolution. Evolution happens slowly, bit by bit over and over for ages. If your knowledge of science ends at 1900 I suggest you do some reading.

Also, wolfs and dogs are the same species. Why? they can interbreed. I can't believe you don't know that, that's grade-school science.
 
Whether or not you all accept the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he still loves you and blesses you with the touch of His noodly appendages. It's all true because it was written in a book, and the book even says that it is true, so therefore it is proven.
 
The difference between religion and theoretical science is that there is irrefutable proof to support theoretical science. DNA and empirical obssrvation for starters. For example, it is nearly mathematically impossoble for humans to share 90%+ of our DNA with anything in this universe, yet there are examples on this planet. Also, not a word of the New Testament was written by Jesus nor any of the people that personally new him. I do believe Jesus existed and I do believe he truly believed he was the Son of God. But the content of the New Testament has been determined by groups that lived long after Jesus and His desciples. Ever played telephone?

And Jesus stole the Old Testament from the Jews, so it's not like the Bible as we know it was in any way his intended creation.
 
GORANKAR said:
LOL, you don't even get that I am more or less, Atheist, or rather I don't believe in some all powerful creator, but OK.
If the prank with the e.coli, that has not been repeated afaik, is proof to you, then fine. You can believe that happenstance is proof of your religion. I choose not to.
Click to expand...

if you wish to call a published scientific paper a prank, that's your prerogative, and yes, I consider it A proof, not THE proof. why you insist on calling evolution a religion baffles me. it's a Theory on how life in it's present state came to be, and currently, there is no other theory that fits the facts any better, nor has it been disproven. Considering the E. coli experiment was 20 years long, I suspect it may take a while to repeat. there is however, numerous other studies that can be used that are just as valid.

As to me "not getting" that your an Atheist, My apologies, your arguments has many of the same traits used by certain religious groups.
 
GORANKAR said:
If I stare at a butterfly I will simply watch it die. I will never see it evolve. I will need to rly on faith.
Click to expand...

Get a microscope and look at bacteria or viruses. They change at such a rapid rate that scientists are afraid they may evolve to be immune to antibiotics.

For every child that is born is technically more evolved then it's parents. The changes are suttle and hard to notice. The changes happen through generations, not through existing creatures. This isn't Pokemon where animals can evolve while alive. It's happens when you're created.
 
ManofGod said:
Observation does not start with a conclusion. True observation looks at things as they are and garners information from that.
Click to expand...

guess god doesn't exist then since I can't observe him (her??)...
 
FLECOM said:
guess god doesn't exist then since I can't observe him (her??)...
Click to expand...

That's the basic idea, yes. Science is agnostic. If there was some repeatable and reviewable proof that some omniscient being could/does exist, it would carried through every media outlet within moments. There are religious scientists who devote their entire lives to proving a God must exist, but so far nothing has been shown to make the theory.
 
I really don't get why people have to argue so much about creation vs. evolution. It's all the same. I mean, really, it IS all the same.

I guess the big argument is people take the Bible as a literal timeline that does not work, because they are so narrow minded they fail to realize just how long '7' days would be to an all encompassing God before our (and I use that term 'our' lightly) own Sun, Earth, Universe and even the modernized concept of 'time-space' even existed.

So much for time scales: Just for fun, calculate 7 'God Days' using Biblical hints of time differences: If you count the blinks of en eye phrases in some versions, where a blink is thousands of years, it can come out in the billions of years when equated to how much time a blink takes a human, depending on which version of the Bible you take quotes from).

The root difference in belief of scientific view versus creationism view: scientist are hard cold literalist, even when they themselves are talking about theoretical abstracts. How ironic.
 
Jeremy C said:
That's the basic idea, yes. Science is agnostic.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's typically anti-theist. That's quite different from the meaning of the literal term agnostic.

In fact, most 'science' is driven by the self described 'scientists' who view their own interpretation as absolute truth, even when faced with the historical truth that any given 'science' that is accepted as 'correct' at any given time is typically revolutionized and in favor of new 'study' driven by shifting political views every few decades.


If there was some repeatable and reviewable proof that some omniscient being could/does exist, it would carried through every media outlet within moments.
Click to expand...

The bigger fact is that nothing in science is repeatable. Heck, if even science was repeatable, there would never be mistakes made. I'd like a scientifically repeatable drag racing car myself, one that I can predict how it will run every time I make a pass down the drag strip. (Since science cannot even predict the weather accurately, I guess that will never happen, no matter how much I analyze 'DA' correction factors).
 
Phoenix333 said:
Nice going MajorDomo. You knew this would turn into a soapbox thread. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It makes ad money from page views and it's kinda fun. *passes popcorn*

popcorn_cat_t.jpg


Just enjoy watching them scurry around arguing. :D
 
GORANKAR said:
Evolution is the predominately accepted theory, but it is still just a theory. Many claim it is proven, when it is not. I blame the school system for putting it forward as fact when it is still a theory. That lie is repeated often enough that people believe it on faith. Then I get to sit back and laugh at people going on and on about how science works, and religion is just about faith, while they ignore their own explanations and definitions of both. They have made evolution a religion. It may be backed up by a few more actual facts than creationism, but they still have to take it on faith in the end.
Click to expand...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. A fact, in that we have observed it and have such outstanding data that to refute it would cast into question the entirety of modern science. A theory, in that it describes those facts we see.

A scientific theory isn't "a guess". It's "a well substantiated explanation based on the evidence." When you say "just a theory" it indicates you can't tell the difference between a scientific theory and a casual theory (which is closer to "guess"). It is interesting to me, an ex-creationist, to look at the arguments put forth by those who have clearly not done the research try and argue for their position. You make claims, yet they're unsubstantiated and don't reflect the real world.
 
Oh, If I might add, just one thing that slightly biased me when watching this series: Tyson stated that everyone believed the Earth was flat. His word was only technically correct in a very specific time frame of the middle ages. It's pretty well known fact that before that period, many civilizations knew astronomical detail of the cosmos (Mayan's, Aztecs, even Europeans.) But, in his interpretation, which was presented as fact, he has indoctrinated his viewers with incorrect information.

I hate to say it, but this show is extreme indoctrination because it drives one view only. Contrary to it's implied mission, it does NOT provide and encompassing view of science when presented with such bias.
 
back to the original post/topic...

I guess tax exempt status just isn't enough for the church anymore huh? There are endless "jesus" channels out there that broadcast 24/7/365, but they still demand something prime time? Use some of that free money you took in and buy the time like anyone and everyone else can. Your "faith" does not give you a free pass (in the world of the logical)

History repeats itself -- here we have a bunch of the religious up in arms over someone presenting "new" ideas. (I realize they aren't THAT new, but the hyper religious like to keep their heads buried in the sand, or up in the clouds)

Just for fun -- i'd love to take some super religious hyper jesus freak, stick them in a time machine and send them back to the 1600's, and watch as their hyper religious ancestors burn them at the stake for having a "talking devil box" known as a cell phone/mp3 player. Wouldn't feel so good would it? a group of ignorant people so hardened with their faith they can't take a moment and expand their mind outside of what they have been force fed their whole lives.
 
Tawnos said:
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. A fact, in that we have observed it and have such outstanding data that to refute it would cast into question the entirety of modern science. A theory, in that it describes those facts we see.
Click to expand...

SO is it a valid theory to say "Aliens from other planets are visiting the Earth" because UFO's have been observed repeatedly throughout history? That's not a serious question, I used it simply to illustrate the slippery slope of speaking in absolutes of observed evidence, of shich can still be flawed.

It is interesting to me, an ex-creationist, to look at the arguments put forth by those who have clearly not done the research try and argue for their position.
Click to expand...

That sentence shows one thing: You have not learned how to have an open mind yet you feel accomplished enough to belittle others without knowing the details of the experiences and accomplishments of those 'others'. Now, I realize I can be wrong, but on the surface, it sounds to me like you went from one extreme to another without finding any commonality in both theories.

If that is close to being accurate, don't feel bad: You are in good company, along with millions of the typical extremists, your peers.
 
BBA said:
No, just the gravitational constant, depending on where you stand.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'll revise that" Yes, the force of gravity is different for me, depending on where I stand. (The gravitational constant is what does not change.)
 
BBA said:
Actually, I'll revise that" Yes, the force of gravity is different for me, depending on where I stand. (The gravitational constant is what does not change.)
Click to expand...

You should add to that "in a way that is perfectly repeatable and can be predicted using science."

Nothing in science is accepted as fact until it has been repeated many times or has been observed in enough situations to where we can predict future outcomes of experiments with the data available to us. Newtonian physics, though changed by Einstein's relativity, still hold many repeatable and predictable data points that are in use today. This science, for example, allowed NASA to propel a satellite out of our solar system. There were no guesses or faith in planning the Voyager flight path, just pure, hard science.
 
nutzo said:
Guess you also want to throw out all the religious charities, orphanages, hospitals, schools, and other uncountable good done by religions all across this country.

You also seem to forget that the largest massacres in history where done by governments (see communism).

I don't get the hate so many people have for religion, I don't see armed men showing up at peoples homes forcing them to go to church, but tell someone you won't bake them a cake and armed men will shut down your business.
Click to expand...

Good people happen with or without religion. All the organizations you mention don't require religion to function.

Actually the largest massacres in history were perpetuated in the name of religion. For that matter the worst human tragedies modern day remain perpetuated in the name of religion. Learn your history.

You are wearing some amazingly effective rose colored glasses there. Even if you don't look at the rest of the world, the amount of violence, racism, bigotry and general discrimination and abuse of the political system to deny rights because of <insert a ton of reasons> in the US alone is frightening.

On to other topics for the more educated among us. I am surprised this particular little gem didn't manage to hit the front page. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974 Lots of confirming to be done still, but most likely this will be yet another step to shattering the dome of ignorance people have tried to hide in.
 
Matthew 15:14:
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Go on, evolutionists - lead!
 
Oh boy there sure is a lot of stupid in this thread. Good thing today is Sunday, right guys? God sure needed to rest after 6 long days of hard work creating all existence.
 
atp1916 said:
Matthew 15:14:
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Go on, evolutionists - lead!
Click to expand...

The catholic church accepts evolution as fact...
 
atp1916 said:
Matthew 15:14:
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Go on, evolutionists - lead!
Click to expand...

Says the one who has to stop and look into his book for a quotation to take completely out of context in a desperate attempt to come across as witty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top