Americans Favour Creationism Over Evolution

[Powerman]

By the way, I believe I posed an unanswered question earlier. There's no evidence of a creator for the Easter Island statues except the existance of the statues. Does that mean they occured randomly due to some very coincidental rock location and some *incredibly* precise erosion? By your logic so far, it does. What about Stonehenge?

Maybe someone put them there genius. Just because you don't understand how something got there it doesn't mean that someone didn't posess the technology of the means to get them there. I don't think that many people could fathom an ancient civilization building the pyramids on the Giza plateau but you don't see them bringing it up in the middle of a discussion on evolution either.

 

[Gunny]

yes you did...read your posts....you said there was dust that formed planets that spontaneously created life then through evolution created man....that is what you teach in your classes no?

Genesis is simply just a different explanation of the creation of life

one mans genesis is another man's big bang....wrote a thesis on the big bang theory in the 60's

Why are you so closed minded to other possibilities..... seems odd for a science teacher to be so close minded

The entire argument in a nutshell.

 

[manu1959]

I'm no longer a science teacher. I'm an electrical engineering student. I'm not closed minded at all to the possibility that a supreme being could have created life. The problem is there is absolutely ZERO proof for it and is therefor not science. Secondly, Genesis is factually impossible for a number of reasons that are obvious to us now but were not very obvious to Moses and his primitive understanding of the world.

an engineering student....ffs why didn't you say so....that explains everything....what type of engineering?....1.read the bible as parables not as a science text 2. the is zero proof that evolution created life

 

[Powerman]

an engineering student....ffs why didn't you say so....that explains everything....what type of engineering?....1.read the bible as parables not as a science text 2. the is zero proof that evolution created life

Evolution doesn't deal with the actual creation of life. It deals with what happens after the simplest of organisms were already here. Electrical engineering by the way. And yes the bible should not be read as a science text and in no way should influence what we teach in a science class. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. The bible isn't a book of science yet it is keeping scientific theories from being taught in some schools. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

 

[Gunny]

I'm all ears. What facts am I ignoring?

You are ignoring the fact that the evolution of life does not explain the origin of life, and you keep confusing the two in your argument.

You are ingoring the fact that scientific theory on the subject of the origin of life is no more substantiated than religious theory.

You just keep arguing in circles. Not because your belief is wrong .... I don't know that anyone has said your belief is wrong. I have not. Because you refuse to acknowledge that religious theory is as valid as scientific theory on the theories of the origin of the life.

The FACT is, NOBODY knows for sure.

And what you call logic is skewed, IMO. A Creator is far more logical to me than the happenstance of scientific theory. Life in all its forms, is TOO perfect to be an accident.

And finally .... NO ONE is stupid just because they disagree with your hatred of religion. In all the threads you've started, you've posted no factual evidence to support your claim.

 

[Powerman]

You are ignoring the fact that the evolution of life does not explain the origin of life, and you keep confusing the two in your argument.

You're right. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. There are other competing theories that attempt to explain that and it has nothing to do with evolution. I have stated several times that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Because you refuse to acknowledge that religious theory is as valid as scientific theory on the theories of the origin of the life.

I refuse to acknowledge it because that is simply not the case. I'm not saying that religous theories are wrong but there is absolutely ZERO proof to back them up. Science attempts to explain the unkown using things that we know or at least have a fairly good understanding of. Religous theories are on par with literally making something up out of thin air. You can't conflate the 2 as being the same with any reasonable amount of logic.

The FACT is, NOBODY knows for sure.

I agree with you there. At this stage we can not possibly know for a fact exactly how things happened. We can however use our brains and try to explain things without just making up stories about invisible beings.

And what you call logic is skewed, IMO. A Creator is far more logical to me than the happenstance of scientific theory. Life in all its forms, is TOO perfect to be an accident.

Life is far from perfect. Maybe you can tell my friend's parents who lost their seemingly healthy son because of an undiagnosed heart condition that life is perfect. If life was perfect we wouldn't have diseases, extinctions, fundamentalist Christians(joke), or other such imperfections.

And finally .... NO ONE is stupid just because they disagree with your hatred of religion. In all the threads you've started, you've posted no factual evidence to support your claim.

That is simply not the truth. I claimed that ID wasn't science and I backed it up with facts. If you can't swallow those facts that is your problem and not my problem.

 

[Gunny]

You're right. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. There are other competing theories that attempt to explain that and it has nothing to do with evolution. I have stated several times that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.



I refuse to acknowledge it because that is simply not the case. I'm not saying that religous theories are wrong but there is absolutely ZERO proof to back them up. Science attempts to explain the unkown using things that we know or at least have a fairly good understanding of. Religous theories are on par with literally making something up out of thin air. You can't conflate the 2 as being the same with any reasonable amount of logic.

The fact is, scientific theory is no more supportable, supported nor valid than religious theory. Sceintific theory is NO LESS making something up out of thin air.

I agree with you there. At this stage we can not possibly know for a fact exactly how things happened. We can however use our brains and try to explain things without just making up stories about invisible beings.

What's the difference between an invisible being and an invisible happening? Nothing.

Life is far from perfect. Maybe you can tell my friend's parents who lost their seemingly healthy son because of an undiagnosed heart condition that life is perfect. If life was perfect we wouldn't have diseases, extinctions, fundamentalist Christians(joke), or other such imperfections.

Dishonest argument, and your example only supports my statement. Life is so perfect that it takes very little to upset the balance and destroy it.

My statement however, was concerning life in general, not what events make it imperfect in individual instances.



That is simply not the truth. I claimed that ID wasn't science and I backed it up with facts. If you can't swallow those facts that is your problem and not my problem.

I have never claimed ID was science, and it is not to that which I responded. It's your general attitude that your unsupported theory is any more valid than anyone else's unsupported theory I responded to, and the fact that you see fit to insult those who choose to believe differently than you based on nothing more than your personal bias.

However, if ID is a theory of origin, and any of several scientific theories of origin are theories of origin, where do you draw the line between the two? WHAT is it that makes scientific theory more valid if there is no more evidence to support scientific theory than religious theory?

And "I don't know" is unacceptable as an answer for someone who is so sure the rest of us are wrong. If we are wrong, you need to PROVE it.

 

[Powerman]

"WHAT is it that makes scientific theory more valid if there is no more evidence to support scientific theory than religious theory?"

Because there is NO evidence whatsover for religious theory. If you have the smallest shred of evidence of another theory then you have more than you have for religious theory. No matter how small a number is, provided that the number is positive it is greater than 0. That should make sense.

 

[Gunny]

"WHAT is it that makes scientific theory more valid if there is no more evidence to support scientific theory than religious theory?"

Because there is NO evidence whatsover for religious theory. If you have the smallest shred of evidence of another theory then you have more than you have for religious theory. No matter how small a number is, provided that the number is positive it is greater than 0. That should make sense.

There is NO evidence to support ANY scientifc theory of origin.

 

[Powerman]

There is NO evidence to support ANY scientifc theory of origin.

How can you say that when scientific theories are based on reasoning and facts? It's not like someone just shit out an idea and now all of a sudden it's a respected scientific theory. Plenty of thought and reasoning went into these theories. There is no way we will no if they are correct or not but they hold more scientific value than "some being created us."

 

[Annie]

How can you say that when scientific theories are based on reasoning and facts? It's not like someone just shit out an idea and now all of a sudden it's a respected scientific theory. Plenty of thought and reasoning went into these theories. There is no way we will no if they are correct or not but they hold more scientific value than "some being created us."

Sorry, whiney post. No sense made of this.

Do you really believe that no thought went into ID or creationism? If you do, you are lower than retarded. I'm not saying they are equal, just your argument is fu.

 

[Gunny]

How can you say that when scientific theories are based on reasoning and facts? It's not like someone just shit out an idea and now all of a sudden it's a respected scientific theory. Plenty of thought and reasoning went into these theories. There is no way we will no if they are correct or not but they hold more scientific value than "some being created us."

Reasoning and fact? WHAT fact? And WHOSE reasoning?

It's guesswork called logical conclusion which is NOT supported by fact/evidence. And guesswork by some egghead does NOT hold more value than "some being creating us."

 

[Powerman]

Sorry, whiney post. No sense made of this.

Do you really believe that no thought went into ID or creationism? If you do, you are lower than retarded. I'm not saying they are equal, just your argument is fu.

Agh. This is frustrating. The point is that ID and creationism are both not science. Sure some thought went into them although I can't say much went into creationism. Any decent poet could come up with such a story. ID makes some valid points that expose some of the uncertainties with evolution but it fails because it can't stand on it's own as a theory.

When you don't know something the next logical scientific step isn't to say that there must be some invisible being or alien that caused this to happen. That's just silly.

 

[Annie]

Agh. This is frustrating. The point is that ID and creationism are both not science. Sure some thought went into them although I can't say much went into creationism. Any decent poet could come up with such a story. ID makes some valid points that expose some of the uncertainties with evolution but it fails because it can't stand on it's own as a theory.

When you don't know something the next logical scientific step isn't to say that there must be some invisible being or alien that caused this to happen. That's just silly.

Once again, pointing out their shortfalls, in no way boosts the data from your pet theory-while 'common sense' tells one that something else is at work here. So the scientific problem is to 'prove' or 'disprove' the hypothesis that is brought in.

Now that is your problem. See, ID IS a theory. In it's 'infancy' yet much older than evolution.

 

[Gunny]

Agh. This is frustrating. The point is that ID and creationism are both not science. Sure some thought went into them although I can't say much went into creationism. Any decent poet could come up with such a story. ID makes some valid points that expose some of the uncertainties with evolution but it fails because it can't stand on it's own as a theory.

When you don't know something the next logical scientific step isn't to say that there must be some invisible being or alien that caused this to happen. That's just silly.

Except that you have it backward. Judeo/Christianity predates modern science, and any scientifically-accepted theories on the origin of life. So religion was NOT the "next logical step" to any of your scientific theories.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, the ONLY difference between the competing theories of spontaneous creation and intelligent design is the allowance for intelligence outside of our understanding.

Spontaneous creation assumes that there is no higher intelligence in the universe. Therefore, the only explanation left is that life originated in some cosmic accident.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, allows for the existance of higher intelligence. Given the possibility of higher intelligence, the inherant complexity in organic life is too great to assume a cosmic accident. The more likely explanation is that a higher intelligence, if it exists, crafted life very carefully.

Neither one has any empirical evidence to support it, only a religion (atheism is the religion backing spontaneous creation). It's easy to see why people are now finding spontaneous creation (let's not lie about it anymore, evolution and ID aren't diametrically opposed, just ID and spontaneous creations, or SC) very far-fetched. A single organelle in a cell is vastly more complex than the computer I'm typing on.

Here's a quick excercise that seems to have been ignored in the past, but let's try it one more time, the Easter Island statues under the opposing theories.

Spontaneous Creation: Well, sure, these things are very specifically placed and carved, but there's no evidence to support that there was anyone on this island capable of making them. Without somebody to carve them, the only option left is that the rocks were always there and that erosion caused their shape in a freakish, statistic defying, coincidence.

Intelligent Design: Well, we can't really find evidence of anybody who created these statues, but c'mon, they look like human heads and are arranged in a meaningful fashion. It's just too unlikely that they just 'happened,' therefore, we must reach the logical conclusion that 'somebody' created these statues, even though we can't figure out who.

 

[Nuc]

Here's a quick excercise that seems to have been ignored in the past, but let's try it one more time, the Easter Island statues under the opposing theories.

Spontaneous Creation: Well, sure, these things are very specifically placed and carved, but there's no evidence to support that there was anyone on this island capable of making them. Without somebody to carve them, the only option left is that the rocks were always there and that erosion caused their shape in a freakish, statistic defying, coincidence.

Intelligent Design: Well, we can't really find evidence of anybody who created these statues, but c'mon, they look like human heads and are arranged in a meaningful fashion. It's just too unlikely that they just 'happened,' therefore, we must reach the logical conclusion that 'somebody' created these statues, even though we can't figure out who.

I hope you are not serious here because this is a poor analogy. The universe is not a rock carving.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I know which side I'm on but I'm going to speak from the middle here.
It's easier to say ....
"I don't know"
If you think you know 100%, You're fooling yourself.

 

[Hobbit]

I hope you are not serious here because this is a poor analogy. The universe is not a rock carving.

I know. It's infinitely more complex, making the idea of spontaneous creation far more unlikely in the cosmic sense than in the Easter Island sense.

And I'd like to know why you think it's a poor analogy. The complexity of the Easter Island statues is evidence that they were created. Therefore, why shouldn't the complexity of life be evidence that it, too, was created.

 

[no1tovote4]

I know. It's infinitely more complex, making the idea of spontaneous creation far more unlikely in the cosmic sense than in the Easter Island sense.

And I'd like to know why you think it's a poor analogy. The complexity of the Easter Island statues is evidence that they were created. Therefore, why shouldn't the complexity of life be evidence that it, too, was created.

With the Easter Island statues, they know what quarry they were taken from, that they were brought down to the beach from that quarry and that they were carved. The empty eyes were filled with lighter colored coral shaped like eyes. One of the more fascinating things about them is the statues were fashioned to look into the island and not out to sea. This leads anthropologists to believe that they were ancestor totems set to look upon their progeny.

They also know who they were created by. The Rapa Nui Society created the statues.

Here is a site that will tell you about the creation of the statues and the Rapa Nuis:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ioa/eisp/rapanui/rapanui.htm